Caring organizational cultures and the future of work
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
Abstract There is substantial evidence that workplaces of the future will be dominated by an increase in advanced technology. This trend might lead to the objectification and dehumanization of employees and other stakeholders who interact with organizations as impersonal operations and procedures become normative and employees are subordinated to technology. This also means that the needs of employees and other stakeholders will be changing and organizations must respond if they are to be effective and successful in the future. In this paper, we argue that in order to counteract the dehumanizing effects of technology, organizations of the future need to be more caring and this requires building a culture of care in which the organization places a high priority on the needs and well‐being of employees, managers, customers, and the community in which it operates. We provide a multiple‐stakeholder perspective of organizational care and explain how care and concern can move up, down, around, and outside organizations and the positive consequences of care for organizations and all stakeholders. The paper also offers suggestions for future research and practice on organizational care and caring organizational cultures.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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