Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40852199›Full record

ArticleJournal of management & governance2025

Perceptions of fairness, inclusion and safety: the differential impact of contrasting experiences on academics and professional services staff.

Mariana Pinho, Belinda Colston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of management & governance, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mariana PinhoCentre for Environmental & Marine Studies, Department of Biology, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário De Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-0173-444X
Belinda ColstonEleanor Glanville Institute, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4457-0323

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current study explores how organizational dimensions relate to and impact organizational commitment, comparing staff in academic positions with staff in professional services roles. Data was collected from 281 academic and 294 professional services staff within university environments who completed extensive questionnaires. Overall academics manifested lower levels of emotional attachment to, and perceived obligation to remain in their university, felt less safe to take interpersonal risks, to speak up and lower support for their work-life balance than their professional services colleagues. The perception of procedural fairness and discrimination impacted academics loyalty and felt obligation to remain and reciprocate organizational investments to a higher extent. Psychological safety positively influenced staff's commitment. Emotional and obligation-based types of commitment were more strongly affected by psychological safety among academics than professional services staff. Finally, work-life balance support positively influenced staff's commitment, appearing to be an equally important dimension to drive emotional and obligation-based types of commitment from both academics and professional services staff. This study brings important contributions to research on the working environment of academics and professional services staff and indicates that development of clear policies to promote and maintain fairness, psychological safety and work-life balance, together with active monitoring and evaluation of their impact, should be a key focus for higher education institutions.

Indexed as

Academic staffOrganizational commitmentOrganizational inclusionProfessional services staffPsychological safety

Identifiers

PMID40852199
PMCPMC12369396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.