A case study of hassle at work: a psychosociological perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of his article is to analyze a case of hassle at work using an original conceptual framework which combines systemic analysis of interpersonal relationship (“Palo Alto School”) with Bourdieu’s concepts of Habitus. Design/methodology/approach Case study; qualitative methodology (interviews); Interpretativist approach. Findings Hassle in a unit of a Canadian University leads to a kind of organizational change in management of hassle cases and employees–managers conflicts at the global level of the University. The case of hassle is actually a result of runaway in interpersonal relationship and communication. The change in conflicts management in this university is the result of a cooperative (symmetrical) relationship between union’s delegates and the University management. Research limitations/implications A single case study but with analytical validation. Usefulness of the theoretical framework, in terms of conceptual orignality as well as for managerial and organizational methods to manage conflits. Practical implications This study provides clues for interpersonal conflicts to be successfully managed by following cooperative framing to avoid the conflictual runaways, through the example of this University. Social implications The classical approaches of conflicts based either on psychology (approach by personality) or sociology (cultural approach) are challenged by this psychosociological approach. Originality/value The conceptual framework used to analyze this case is completely original and transdisciplinary.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".