The IBM ‘Open Door’ Program at the Service of Human Resource Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper deals with alternative dispute resolution in labour relations within the French context. By contrast with the United States and Canada, mediation and arbitration are rarely used in France for resolving individual or collective labour relations disputes. It is therefore interesting to study such a voice procedure in labour relations in France. This is illustrated by an empirical study of the French subsidiary of the IBM corporation. We focus our attention on the IBM “open door” policy that allows an employee who considers that he or she has been treated unfairly to formally request an executive manager to look at his or her grievance and potentially provide redress. A quantitative statistical analysis of 203 respondents shows that the “open door” favours procedural justice and equity within the company. However, the open door policy raises worries and anxiety among employees. Some of them might be afraid that the executive manager would decide the issue in favour of management. Some employees might also feel that using the open door policy could slow down the pace of their career. Opinion is also mixed as to the weight of custom and practice.The study also shows the importance of information and communication with employees in fostering positive attitudes to the program and reducing their fears. Indeed, the better informed people are about the “open door” policy, the more confidence they show in the procedure, and the greater the perceived impact on procedural justice. Consequently, according to our study, using an internal mediation or arbitration process is all the more interesting in that it can help to build a sense of equity among employees who increasingly demand recognition and respect, as well as “voice” (according to Hirschman, 1970).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.012 |
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".