MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135507679 · doi:10.7903/cmr.2600

Power Sharing in Progressive Discipline: New Rules of Engagement Arising from an Australian Perspective

2010· article· en· W2135507679 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Chelliah, Tyrone S. Pitsis

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Management Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndustrial relationsDismissalStatutory lawPublic relationsPower (physics)Context (archaeology)ChampionSociologyMarketingBusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceManagementLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this exploratory study is to apply the lens of power to the understanding of progressive discipline in Australian workplace contexts. Using data from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, we analysed the outcomes of 78 unfair dismissal cases across 17 industries over a four-year period (1997-2000). We found that the application of progressive discipline on employees is concentrated around industry and occupational class. Specifically, it shows that occupational classes such as unskilled, skilled, and sales staff are more susceptible to disciplining by employers. It raises the awareness of the immense power the employer derives from the use of progressive discipline over employees and implications in the new environment of on-going labour deregulation and the lack of statutory intervention to ameliorate the growing power imbalance. Given that the research focuses on progressive discipline, the data provides strong grounding for theory building and telling a story on the industrial relations environment where power is becoming increasingly oriented towards employers, especially as union density declines. As such, we hope the simplicity of our research inspires further research that uses more advanced statistical analysis and modelling. The paper has implications for managers/supervisors involved in formulation of progressive discipline policies and for employee advocates who champion employee welfare. It demonstrates that power determines employee performance outcomes, which may not necessarily be in the interest of the employer and to a greater degree the employee. When applying current theory in power, one can challenge the relevance of archaic progressive discipline practices in the context of today’s economic realities. We offer some insights into improving progressive discipline as a tool of managerial control. Our recommendations in this paper will also be relevant to countries with labour legislation and human resource practices similar to Australia such as U.S.A., United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand. Keywords: Progressive Discipline, Power, Australian Arbitration, Governmentality

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Management ResearchSame topicLabor Movements and UnionsFrench-language works237,207