Understanding awe elicitors in the workplace: a qualitative inquiry
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Despite its practical importance, the emotion of awe has received scant research attention in the organizational literature. To facilitate future scholarship on this important topic, the authors explore and compare the elicitors of awe at work in three countries representing two culture clusters, including the USA and Canada (the Anglo cluster) and China (the Confucian Asia cluster). Design/methodology/approach The authors gathered responses from 163 working adults from the USA and Canada and 126 working adults from China using open-response survey, and analyzed each response following the guidance of grounded theory. Findings Across cultures, there are 10 common elicitors of awe, including virtue of organization, ability and achievement of organization, beauty of workplace, virtue of colleagues, ability and achievement of colleagues, dedication of colleagues, charisma of colleagues, status and power of colleagues, personal growth and achievement and perceived meaningfulness. Looking within cultures, the authors found two awe elicitors that are specific to China: status and power of organization, and work content. Practical implications Organizations and supervisors wishing to induce the emotion of awe would be well-advised to pay attention to the design of their workplace, as well as their attitudes and behaviors toward employees, customers and the general public. Originality/value This study contributes to the emotion literature, organizational literature and cross-cultural literature by demonstrating elicitors of awe in the workplace across the Anglo cluster and the Confucian Asia cluster.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it