Gatekeepers influencing careers of Canadian public sector employees: views from managers and union employees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".