MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081159756 · doi:10.1177/1523422320949145

Self-Compassion and Resilience at Work: A Practice-Oriented Review

2020· review· en· W3081159756 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Developing Human Resources · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMindfulness and Compassion Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCompassionPsychological resilienceResilience (materials science)Human resourcesPsychological interventionCompassion fatigueHuman resource managementKnowledge managementApplied psychologyPublic relationsBurnoutSocial psychologyManagementPolitical scienceComputer scienceClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Problem A key challenge for human resource development (HRD) scholars and practitioners is to understand the individual competences that can be trained and developed to enhance employee resilience at work. Empirical evidence has been accumulated on the benefits of self-compassion—that is, a set of malleable states that can be developed through HRD interventions—for individual resilience, as well as on the factors that can strengthen self-compassion in organizations. Nonetheless, limited efforts have been devoted to translate this critical scientific knowledge into evidence-based, practical insights that could guide the implementation of effective human resource development practices to develop self-compassion and, thereby, increase resilience in organizations. The Solution This article presents a practice-oriented literature review of the benefits of self-compassion for resilience at work. The relationship between self-compassion and resilience at work, as well as the specific workplace factors that foster growth are outlined for practical implications in the workplace. Facilitators are identified as (1) personal factors (i.e., experience of stress and level of self-awareness), (2) contemplative trainings, and (3) leadership styles and listening styles. This article provides evidence-based practical recommendations for the implementation of these factors and of self-compassion in organizations for increased resilience. The Stakeholders Stakeholders of this practice-oriented review are employees (especially those exposed to highly stressful job conditions) and their leaders, human resource developers in charge of setting the development of training and developmental processes to enhance self-compassion and resilience, and HRD research scholars interested in advancing current literature on self-compassion and resilience at work.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.369 · 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