The impact of organizational work-family culture on the family supportive supervisor behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Supervisory activities and interactions with employees affect employee performance. Moreover, every organization tries to enhance the supervisor's supportive behavior in the work environment. Consequently, the main aim of this study is “to determine the impact of organizational work-family culture on the family-supportive supervisor behavior of employees in Sri Lanka's footwear industry”. Based on a thorough review of existing literature and industry challenges, the study identifies organizational work-family culture as the independent variable and family-supportive supervisory behavior as the dependent variable.METHODS: The study sampled 377 employees from a population of 20,000 footwear workers in Sri Lanka. Adopting a positivist research philosophy, the study grounded in existing knowledge, is set to achieve its aims and framework. A quantitative research approach was employed for both data collection and analysis, utilizing deductive methods to systematically investigate the research objectives. A survey research study was conducted and the data were gathered from respondents within a defined cross-sectional period, ensuring a broad representation of the target population.FINDINGS: The study found that the supportive supervisory behavior of employees in Sri Lanka's footwear sector was influenced by organizational family culture as 52% of the Organizational Work-Family Culture of employees working in the Sri Lankan footwear industry.CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that if the organization has a better working environment, the supervisors in the working environment help their employees manage their family responsibilities over work responsibilities. Thus, companies should create an employee recognition program, accept, and use employee feedback, and be flexible to improve supervisors' family-supportive behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".