Promoting perceived insider status of indigenous employees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose While companies in developed countries are increasingly turning to indigenous employees, integration measures have met with mixed results. Low integration can lead to breach of the psychological contract, i.e. perceived mutual obligations between employee and employer. The purpose of this paper is to identify how leadership and organizational integration measures can be implemented to promote the perceived insider status (PIS) of indigenous employees, thereby fostering fulfillment of the psychological contract. Design/methodology/approach A search for relevant literature yielded 128 texts used to identify integration measures at the level of employee–supervisor relationships (leader-member exchanges, inclusive leadership) and at the level of employee–organization relationships (perceived organizational support, pro-diversity practices). Findings Measures related to leadership included recruiting qualified leaders, understanding cultural particularities, integrating diverse contributions and welcoming questions and challenges. Organizational measures included reaching a critical mass of indigenous employees, promoting equity and participation, developing skills, assigning meaningful tasks, maintaining good work relationships, facilitating work-life balance, providing employment security, fostering support from communities and monitoring practices. Originality/value While PIS has been studied in western and culturally diverse contexts, it has received less attention in indigenous contexts. Yet, some indigenous cultural values are incompatible with the basic assumptions of mainstream theories. Furthermore, colonial policies and capitalist development have severely impacted traditional indigenous economic systems. Consequently, indigenous people are facing many barriers to employment in ways that often differ from the experiences of other minority groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".