MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303197754 · doi:10.1108/jmd-11-2021-0298

Gatekeepers influencing careers of Canadian public sector employees: views from managers and union employees

2022· article· en· W4303197754 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sean Darling, John Cunningham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Development · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic relationsPromotion (chess)Public sectorCareer developmentHuman resource managementIncentiveGovernment (linguistics)Human capitalTraining and developmentHierarchyBusinessMarketingPolitical sciencePoliticsPsychologyManagementEconomicsSocial psychologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a better understanding of the types of career models that different managerial and union employees view influencing their career development. Design/methodology/approach In this study, the authors gathered interview data from 74 public sector employees in management and union positions illustrating examples of the career models they experienced. Findings The study explains how unique career models are often defined by gatekeepers who act in setting out the procedures, incentives, and norms for the careers of others. The results, based on interviews in a Canadian government organization, suggest that employees perceive that different gate keepers are central in shaping careers of management and union employees in a more traditional career hierarchy, even though other perspectives or orientations of career progression exist in encouraging people to take more responsibility for career development. Management participants were more likely to be guided by upper level managers who acted as gatekeepers within a ‘perception of organizational politics’ model where “the system has a procedural merit rather than real merit….and systemic biases are not even realized by the people doing the hiring.” Key gatekeepers for union employees were those in human resource departments and the union who defined the fairness of the procedures within a human capital model which generally managed career development as a reward for higher levels of experience, education, and training. The findings illustrate unique ways that each set of gatekeepers shape the way that selection and promotion processes are carried out. Research limitations/implications The authors are mindful that our results are, at best, exploratory. The qualitative interviews were from a sample of 74 government workers in the Canadian public service and should be verified with further research. Although the authors felt that interviews illustrated saturation and might only be a reliable reflection of a specific sample, other research should examine these findings in other contexts. Further examination of these findings might help us understand the challenges of developing systems and procedures which illustrate a distributive rather than merely a procedural fairness. Practical implications The process of socialization for a career in management and union positions is demonstrated by the boundaries through which a person moves from being an outsider to an insider to the organization. Unique career models are often defined by gatekeepers who act in setting out the procedures, incentives, and norms for the careers of others. The research and practical implications point to: (i) designing supplemental behavioral interview questions and tools in selection and promotion as a way to respond to systemic biases, (ii) building awareness of how to respond to biases of the powerful role of referrals and networks in shaping careers of managerial employees, and (iii) taking steps to develop a climate which might be supportive of merit processes. Social implications The process of socialization for a career in management and union positions is demonstrated by the boundaries through which a person moves from being an outsider to an insider to the organization. Unique career models are often defined by gatekeepers who act in setting out the procedures, incentives, and norms for the careers of others. Originality/value The study suggests that unique career models are often defined by gatekeepers who act in setting out the procedures, incentives, and norms for the careers of others.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.150 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management DevelopmentSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207