An investigation of the performance consequences of alignment and adaptability: contingency effects of decision autonomy and shared responsibility
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research investigates the moderating role of organizations’ structural context on the performance outcomes of the firm's alignment and adaptability pursuits. It focuses in particular on the role of decision autonomy and shared responsibility, and posits that these structural features exert opposing influences on the effect of alignment and adaptability on performance. Using a sample of more than 200 C anadian‐based firms, this study finds that at higher levels of decision autonomy, the positive relationship between alignment and performance becomes weaker, and the positive relationship between adaptability and performance becomes stronger. Furthermore, at higher levels of shared responsibility, the positive relationship between adaptability and performance strengthens. Thus, the study offers structure‐based explanations for the challenge that organizations face when they attempt to reap the benefits of alignment and adaptability simultaneously.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it