Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate how government employees perceive and react to limits on their right to express public dissent about their employer. Within the context of Canada's federal workplaces, this two‐part project sought first to analyse and clarify the nature of complex government rules on dissent, and then to explore federal employees' understanding of those rules, and the balance between the duty of loyalty owed to their employer, and their protected rights as citizens to criticize their government. The goal was to contribute to further research and improve professional practice within the federal public service in addressing employee dissent. Design/methodology/approach This research is qualitative and exploratory. Documentary and literature analysis was conducted to review Canada's laws, policies and guidelines. These were critically analysed for consistency with each other, and with their stated objectives. Employee views and perceptions were collected through a focus group of communications employees, and three in‐depth interviews. Interviews and focus group results were analysed by inference to explore employee perceptions of their duties and rights, and the authority on which their perceptions are based. Findings Results indicate that respondents base decisions about employee dissent on unconsciously internalized organizational values. Formal policy, training, or legal consequences had less influence on dissent than organizational culture, employee experience, and perceived career and relationship risks. Respondents valued their right to dissent, but were willing to yield it to honour a voluntary moral contract to support a higher cause (public service). The implications are that traditional theories that view employee dissent as largely self‐interested may be less relevant when employees perceive the organization's goals to be value‐driven, and that employee dissent can be minimized by promoting a value‐based organizational culture. Practical implications This paper's findings suggest that organizations might better manage reputation and minimize external employee dissent by focussing on communications that foster a value‐driven organizational culture, rather than by implementing formal limits or policies to control dissent. Originality/value This paper offers policy analysis that fulfills an identified gap in knowledge in terms of general day‐to‐day practise when it comes to advising Canada's federal employees regarding their rights and responsibilities, and offers some challenges to traditional theories that suggest employee choices regarding dissent are primarily based on individual self‐interest or self‐actualization.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».