The Psychology of Employee Financial Vulnerability and Its Effects on Organizational Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This symposium examines the psychology of financial vulnerability and how it can affect the way employees think, act, and behave in organizations. Financial vulnerability is the extent to which employees have the material resources to buffer various shocks in life, which is shaped by their immediate socio-cultural environment (e.g., social class), as well as by larger macro-economic forces. We showcase five papers that investigate the psychological processes related to financial vulnerability and highlight how these processes affect performance, skill acquisition, well-being, commitment, and cultural intelligence in organizations. Together, these papers unveil novel explanations of how financial vulnerability can breed undesirable organizational and individual level outcomes. Furthermore, the papers suggest ideas for how organizations might be able to intervene and attenuate these deleterious effects. Following each presentation, Stéphane Côté, a leading expert on the topic of social class and long-term consequences of financial vulnerability in organizational studies, will facilitate a discussion and offer promising future directions in this important area of research. Financial Vulnerability Impairs Voluntary Work Skill Acquisition Presenter: Tianyu He; INSEAD Presenter: Stefan Thau; INSEAD Presenter: Marko Pitesa; Singapore Management U. Psychological Resources Buffer against the Performance Costs of Financial Precarity Presenter: Joe Gladstone; U. College London Presenter: Jirs Meuris; U. of Wisconsin, Madison Role of Family-Work Interface in Explaining the Class Ceiling Presenter: Pooja Mishra; Singapore Management U. Presenter: Marko Pitesa; Singapore Management U. Interdependent Organizations Promote Fit and Retention in Employees from Working-Class Contexts Presenter: Andrea Dittmann; Northwestern Kellogg School of Management Presenter: Nicole Stephens; Northwestern U. Presenter: Sarah S M Townsend; U. of Southern California Trading Places: How Socioeconomic Mobility Relates to Cultural Intelligence and Employee Outcomes Presenter: Sean Martin; U. of Virginia
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".