Organizational culture, perceived societal and organizational discrimination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to fill the gap in the literature by exploring the perceived societal discrimination as an antecedent of perceived organizational discrimination, and investigating the impact of organizational culture (i.e. constructive, passive-defensive and aggressive-defensive culture norms) on perceptions of discrimination in the workplace. Design/methodology/approach A total of 176 American employees completed three surveys assessing perceived societal discrimination, perceived organizational discrimination and organizational culture online through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Data were analyzed using hierarchical multiple regression method. Findings Results suggest individuals’ perceptions of discrimination in the workplace are influenced by both perceived discrimination in society and perceptions of behavioral norms related to organizational culture. Findings in the current study indicated individuals’ attitudes and beliefs manifested in the societal context were carried into, and reflected in, the workplace. Additionally, beliefs related to organizational discrimination were found to be amplified or minimized depending on organizational culture; specifically, organizations dominated by culture norms reflecting behaviors related to individual security needs predicted higher levels, and culture norms reflecting behaviors related to meeting employee satisfaction needs predicted lower levels of perceived organizational discrimination. Originality/value This paper tested theoretical frameworks debated in the literature by exploring beyond institutional boundaries in the study of perceived discrimination by exploring perceived societal discrimination as an antecedent to perceived organizational discrimination. This project also is the first study (to authors’ knowledge) to investigate the impact of organizational culture on perceived organizational discrimination.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".