A Person-Centered Perspective on Decent Work in Advanced Economies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores profiles of decent work, ethical leadership, meaningful work, and thriving at work drawing on the Psychology of Working Theory (PWT) and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. Data was collected on a sample of 869 French workers. Results from hybrid mixture regression analyses identified five distinct profiles highlighting different combinations of decent work characteristics, including ethical leadership. Interestingly, some profiles indicated high levels of meaningful work despite limited access to decent work and ethical leadership, suggesting that decent work is about job conditions and tells poor information about decent experience of work. We observe that while decent work generally supports meaningful and thriving experiences, ethical leadership plays a unique role, particularly in contexts where decent work is lacking. Our results highlight the multiplicity of perceptions of decency in one's work and the impact of leadership on this, as workers react differently to high or low levels of decent work and leadership support. This study offers theoretical insights by extending the application of PWT and Herzberg’s theory to complex work environments and provides practical implications for managers and HR professionals aiming to enhance employee decency through ethical leadership practices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".