Integrating Barnard's and contemporary views of industrial relations and HRM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to juxtapose the contemporary views of industrial relations (IR) and human resource management (HRM) with the ideas expressed by Chester Barnard. Design/methodology/approach The paper analyzes Chester Barnard's views along the four premises that underlie contemporary perspectives on the fields of IR and HRM. Findings Barnard's main points: that sincerity and honesty of management is crucial to developing an individual employee's will to collaborate, and that collective cooperation is superior to collective bargaining are found to resonate well with the contemporary views and provide a clear indication for Barnard's preference of human resource perspective to the IR perspective. Practical implications This paper provides Barnard's practical insights into why managing IR and HR by policies leads to poor management. Originality/value This paper is the first to recognize Barnard's unique contribution to contemporary perspectives on IR and HRM disciplines.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".