Make the Effort, Take the Time: A Qualitative Study of Inclusive Managerial Interactions at a Canadian Energy Company
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workplace inclusion both maximizes the benefits of a diverse workforce and simultaneously reduces its negative consequences. However, a majority of the inclusion research takes an explicit or implicit management-focused perspective. This is problematic because management has more power than employees and executives are usually exemplars of the dominant organizational culture. In order to be more holistic, inclusion research should be much more deeply informed by a subordinate-centered understanding of workplace inclusiveness. Those with less power, those who are minoritized, and those who are marginalized have critical perspectives that must be brought to bear on the construct of workplace inclusivity. This study adopted a subordinate-centered approach and used an interpretive phenomenological analysis to explore the nature of inclusive managerial interactions between leaders and employees at a single organization. The results demonstrated that five aspects of inclusive interactions generated a sense of meaningful inclusion for employees: psychological safety, uniqueness, belonging, authenticity, and discretionary effort/time. The first three aspects affirmed existing theories of inclusive leadership. The last two aspects indicated ways to expand our theoretical understanding of inclusive leadership. Practical implications for leaders are discussed, specifically when, how, and to what effect they should engage subordinates using inclusive managerial interactions.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".