Creating a vision boosts the impact of top management support on the employment of managers with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine the effect of top management vision on top management support, practice, and the employment of managers with disabilities within the sport industry. Design/methodology/approach A questionnaire was developed to collect data on perception of top management vision, top management support, supportive practices, and representation of managers with disabilities in sport organizations and sent to 500 collegiate and professional sport organizations in the USA. In total, 196 respondents (39 percent) returned their completed survey forms, of which 190 forms were useable. Data were analyzed using path analysis. Findings The results indicated a significant path between supportive practices and the representation of managers with disabilities (β = 0.15, p < 0.05). Top management vision was also shown as a significant positive moderator of the relationship between top management support and supportive practices. Practical implications Results suggest that top management vision is an important addition to top management support for facilitating the implementation of supportive practices, which, in turn, increase the representation of persons with disabilities in managerial positions. Originality/value This is the first known empirical investigation examining the role of top management vision and top management support in creating managerial opportunities for persons with disabilities.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".