Owner-employee relations in small firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the type of exchange relationship that small business owners establish with their employees. In particular, this study examines how the personality trait of “conscientiousness” among small business owners relates to relational “psychological contracts,” breach and violation that develop between owners and employees. Design/methodology/approach – This was a quantitative survey design conducted in Canada. Participants were 253 employees and the 50 small firm owners for whom they worked. Findings – Results indicate that owner conscientiousness was positively associated with a relational psychological contract with employees and perceived breach mediated a negative relationship between owner-rated relational contract obligations and feelings of contract violation among employees. Owner-rated relational contract obligations also mediated a negative relationship between owner conscientiousness and employee perceptions of breach and violation. Practical implications – Given the link between conscientiousness and relational contracts, small business owners who get involved in selection and training ought to present to the newly hired employees an accurate picture of their role and job requirements in order to create successful organizations. In addition, less conscientious business owners, through training, should try to develop further skills, such as goal setting and performance appraisal, in order to increase their ability to establish effective relationships (i.e. relational contracts). Originality/value – The current study is an initial attempt toward a better understanding of exchange relationships in small firms, thus strengthening the links between organizational behavior and small business research. It also contributes a quantitative perspective on issues that have typically been explored qualitatively.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".