Voiceless at Work: Decision-Making Participation, Subjective Power, and Mental Health in a Pandemic
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
Voice--the opportunity to express one's views in the decision-making process--is a central feature of organizational procedures. This study investigates the mental health consequences of the lack of voice at work, or voicelessness , during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a period marked by heightened organizational change and uncertainty. Prior research on procedural justice and mental health has paid limited attention to the specific effect of voice, and few studies have used longitudinal designs that control for unobserved time-stable confounders. Moreover, the mechanisms that link procedural justice to mental health remain underexplored. We address these gaps by assessing the effect of voicelessness on psychological distress and anger using five waves of national longitudinal data of Canadian workers (March 2020 to April 2021) and fixed effects models. We further test whether the sense of mastery and subjective social status (SSS) mediate these relationships. Results show that voicelessness is associated with greater psychological distress and anger, net of time-stable confounders. Mastery functions as a mediator for both outcomes, whereas SSS does not. These findings underscore the importance of organizational efforts to enhance employee voice and identify perceived control as a key mechanism linking voicelessness to mental health.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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