MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Balancing Acts: Navigating Power, Care, and Complexity in Workplace Relationships

2025· article· en· W4416007020 on OpenAlexaffabout
Solomiya Draga, Laura Lam, Kevin W. Rockmann, Siyin Chen, Winnie Jiang, Amelia Hawbaker, Julie Yen

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEmotional Labor in Professions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiminalityEthnographyContext (archaeology)Work (physics)Participant observationQualitative researchDynamics (music)Space (punctuation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workplace relationships are central to organizational life, encompassing connections such as mentoring, leader-follower dynamics, and interactions with colleagues or clients. These relationships provide vital resources and emotional support, foster growth, and enhance employee well-being, job satisfaction, and performance. While extensive research highlights the benefits of high-quality workplace relationships, much of it focuses on fully formed connections, often overlooking the micro-level processes that underpin their formation and maintenance. This symposium explores these underexamined dynamics by addressing how workers navigate everyday interactions, adapt relational strategies across contexts, and manage the complex interplay between work and personal lives. The presentations draw on qualitative research, offering nuanced insights into relational processes through interviews, participant observation, and ethnographic methods. By focusing on contexts with flexible relational norms and examining a range of workplace connections—including worker- client, manager-worker, and peer relationships—this symposium seeks to illuminate how and why workplace interactions unfold and the consequences they produce. Through these diverse studies, we aim to stimulate discussion and broaden the understanding of how people form, sustain, and adapt workplace relationships, contributing to a richer understanding of relational dynamics within organizations. Navigating relational liminal space with clients in the context of caregiving Author: Solomiya Draga; Harvard Business School Navigating institutional norms and practical concerns in high-stakes settings Author: Amelia Hawbaker; University of Oxford Recognition and relational work as a managerial response to economic constraints in low-wage work Author: Julie Yen; Boston University How managers repair worker and client disruptions arising from the distribution of authority in gig Author: Laura Lam; University of Toronto How parents reconstruct work life to manage challenges from children’s mental health issues Author: Siyin Chen; Author: Qiusi Yan; The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Author: Winnie Jiang; INSEAD

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicEmotional Labor in ProfessionsFrench-language works237,207