MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503745102 · doi:10.5555/359640.359781

CIO lateral influence behaviors: gaining peers' commitment to strategic information systems

2000· article· en· W1503745102 on OpenAlex
Harvey G. Enns, Sid L. Huff, Christopher A. Higgins

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInformation Technology Governance and Strategy
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersuasionAppealOrder (exchange)Knowledge managementPeer pressureTest (biology)Information systemPsychologyPublic relationsBusinessComputer scienceSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to develop and bring to fruition strategic IT initiatives, Chief Information Officers (CIOs) must be able to effectively influence their peers. However, little is known about how this is accomplished. Accordingly, this research examines the relationship between CIO influence behaviors and successful influence outcomes. Focused interviews were first conducted with CIOs and their peers so as to gain insights into the phenomenon and to refine a research model. Then a survey instrument was developed and distributed to CIOs and their peers to gather data with which to test the research model. The findings showed that rational persuasion and personal appeal led to peer commitment whereas exchange and pressure did not. These results provide guidance to CIOs who propose strategic information systems to peers.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.013
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.212 · 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