Managing non-family employees’ emotional connection with the family firms via shifting, compensating, and leveraging approaches
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
Many family firms deploy strategies and practices to satisfy the needs of family employees. When non-family employees perceive a relational disadvantage compared to family employees, they may lower their evaluation of organizational identity (OI) and, in turn, identify less strongly with the family firm. Because family firms can ill afford to have non-family employees who lack a strong emotional connection with and commitment to the family firm, we explore approaches to foster non-family employees' evaluations of OI. Drawing on organizational identity theory, we find support for three approaches: (1) shifting non-family employees' evaluation of OI by enacting a proactive Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategy, (2) compensating non-family employees for a perceived relational disadvantage by involving them in CSR decision-making, and (3) leveraging non-family employees' context, by drawing on those who share the values of the controlling family. Our theory and results suggest that family firms can deploy different approaches to manage the emotional connection with their non-family employees, which can help explain the observed variation in non-family employees’ organizational identification across family firms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it