Supporting caregiver employees: managers’ perspective in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose There is a growing recognition that when employees who are caregivers lack the organizational support/resources to manage their paid work with care responsibilities, it could result in poor job performance, increase absenteeism, and have an impact on their well-being. Very little is known about managers’ perceptions in supporting their employees through workplace initiatives such as caregiver-friendly workplace policies (CFWPs). The purpose of this paper is: to examine managers’ experience(s) with employees that are engaged in formal paid care and informal care; to explore availability of CFWPs; and to explore managers’ standpoints on offering CFWPs to support their employees. Design/methodology/approach The authors draw on the findings from semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 ( n =20) managers working in the health care sector in an urban-rural region in Ontario, Canada. Findings Intersectionality analysis of participant interviews revealed three key themes: managers’ experiences with employees who are caregivers; knowledge and availability of CFWPs; and balancing business care with staff care. Practical implications Data were drawn from health care sectors in one community in Ontario, Canada and may not generalize to other settings. The small sample size and purposive sampling further limits the generalizability of the findings. Social implications Study findings can be applied to develop workplace policies and procedures that are responsive to workers who are providing unpaid care. Originality/value This study contributes to limited literature on manager’s perspectives in supporting employees through CFWPs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".