Middle managers' career success and business strategy in the Canadian aerospace industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The main aim of this paper is to investigate the way middle managers picture their career success and the business strategy of their firm with the following key question in mind: “Is there a relationship between the two?”. Design/methodology/approach This research is based on a “polar sample” of two companies of the Canadian aerospace industry that use generic business strategies which differ considerably along the continuum of strategic approaches from one another. A list of 50 people was made in collaboration with the executives of the companies investigated. A total of 74 percent (37) of the middle managers invited to be interviewed accepted the invitation. The interviews lasted on average 90 minutes. They were analyzed using NVivo software. Findings The analysis yielded a set of four empirical configurations of career success. The idea of central orchestrating theme has been at the core of configuration theory since its inception but few researchers have set the task to investigate them let alone in studying career success. Four core unifying themes were found: “just watch me”, “one for all and all for one”, “eureka”, and “thanks but no thanks”. Each of the company strategies provides a receptive context for no more than two coexisting configurations of career success, one leading to a rapid ascent and the other to a slower one. Originality/value Few studies have looked into how middle managers portray career success for themselves. Furthermore, the literature is wanting in another crucial respect: the researchers do not take into consideration the particular strategic context of the firm. This paper argues that the paths toward career success must be understood in the context of the business strategy of the firms that give them form, meaning, and substance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".