On Target: The psychological contract at the heart of managerial communication practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This paper reports the results of research on the psychological contract (PC) of employees and the managerial communication practices of immediate supervisors in the context of mergers of healthcare institutions.Methodology: To gather information on these practices, data collection using a mixed methods approach was conducted in two stages: (1) 17 semi-structured interviews with managers were conducted in 2013, when the merger of three Quebec healthcare facilities was announced; (2) 12 semi-structured interviews with managers were conducted in 2018, after the merger, and 25 employees under their supervision completed a questionnaire to measure their psychological contract (PC).Results: The results provide a portrait of the gaps in management communication practices between two key phases of organizational transformation. Likewise, it presents the results obtained and highlights the management communication practices that protect the PC.Originality: Offering transferable knowledge, this study lays the groundwork for other studies on change management practices by offering a categorization of the communication practices encountered. A handful of writings address human resources management under leadership and managerial styles. None offers a structured variation of management practices. The research here takes a step in this direction while setting the stage for a better understanding of the impacts of practices on PC. Keywords: Management practices, Merger, Psychological contract, Organizational changesDOI: https://doi.org/10.58869/EJABM10(2)/1
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 | 0.021 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".