Promoting workplace inclusion and self-efficacy among skilled migrant workers in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Although skilled migrants have a high capacity for integration, many report experiences of exclusion which impacts their ability to contribute fully to the host country. This experience of exclusion, which can diminish their self-efficacy at work, is especially acute for skilled migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds when functioning in a new or exclusionary environment. In this paper, we explore the relationship between workplace inclusion and self-efficacy and identify factors that contribute to perceived inclusion for skilled migrant workers. Design/methodology/approach Participants were recruited through social network groups representing migrant workers via LinkedIn. Through snowball sampling, participants were asked to recommend recent (3–5 years) skilled migrants to participate. A total of 210 skilled migrant workers to Australia completed the survey. Structural equation modelling (SEM) is used to test our model on the relationship between inclusion and self-efficacy. Findings Migrants' perceptions of inclusion at work are related to their self-efficacy at work. We also find that some dimensions of inclusion are more important than others in enhancing self-efficacy for skilled migrants. Meaningful exchanges with supervisors, a sense of belonging at work and workgroup cohesion (being accepted by co-workers) are more important than senior management support or getting involved in organizational social activities as determinants of perceived inclusion. Social implications Although skilled migrants are often assumed to be a self-select group of highly motivated, high achieving workers, many experience poor adjustment and feel excluded after arriving in the host country. Public policies have limited effects in promoting inclusion of skilled migrant workers in organizations. These policies may be supplemented with an inclusive organizational climate to improve migrant worker success. Organizations and employers are thus critical partners in fostering migrant workers' sense of inclusion and supporting the career outcomes of skilled migrant workers in the host country. Originality/value This study supports the link between perceived inclusion and self-efficacy among skilled migrant workers. It also sharpens the evidence of organizational-level factors that contribute to perceived inclusion for migrant workers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".