Leading with Social Wealth: How Relational Investment Shapes the Social Well-being of Remote and Hybrid People Leaders in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explored how remote and hybrid people leaders in Canada experience social well-being, and how their efforts to activate, maintain, or neglect personal and professional relationships might influence their social wealth. This mixed-methods case study included a survey of 1,218 remote and hybrid leaders and 13 interviews with Sun Life leaders in Canada. Survey findings reveal that loneliness levels align with global averages and are significantly lower than those reported in the United States; trusted social networks are typically local (within 30 minutes); and “best friends at work” remain important, even in virtual contexts. Sun Life leaders report high levels of trust and reciprocity. Communication channels and caregiving responsibilities variably influence connection, while social media is deemed largely ineffective for building and sustaining relationships, despite frequent passive use. Qualitative findings reveal four emergent themes: (1) social needs evolve, with a post-pandemic shift toward reciprocal and intentional connection; (2) loneliness manifests subtly for leaders, as a quiet longing for pre-pandemic workplace dynamics; (3) leaders sustain tight circles and remain emotionally reserved in groups; and (4) rhythm and ritual are associated with building and sustaining social wealth. These findings offer practical insights for remote leadership and organizational design in shaping a more sustainable and socially healthy future of work.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".