MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973190398 · doi:10.1177/1470595808101157

The Transfer of Ubuntu and Indaba Business Models Abroad

2009· article· en· W1973190398 on OpenAlexaff
Aloysius Newenham‐Kahindi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cross Cultural Management · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal and Cross-Cultural Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationOptimal distinctiveness theoryHuman resource managementBusinessTanzaniaInternational businessEconomic growthManagementSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article studies the transfer of South African management business models abroad. It examines the case of four South African multinational companies and the ways that they implement distinctive business models of human resource management strategies on service sector in Tanzania. The article begins by looking at MNCs from emerging economies and at the distinctiveness of their national institutional systems, as well as the ways they attempt to strike a balance between global integration and local differentiation in managing HRM practices abroad. Based on a case study conducted in ABSA, Standard Bank (Stanbic), South Africa-Tanzania Vodacom, and Sanlam African Life Assurance services in Tanzania, this article demonstrates how South African MNCs in this particular sector internationalize their HRM strategies by incorporating the cross cultural interface management practices of Ubuntu and Indaba and those of the host nation's characteristics into their subsidiary operations. The article concludes by illustrating how diverse forms of hybrid HRM strategies have enabled emerging South African organizational service industries to develop high-performance work practices in the midst of global competitiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations81
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cross Cultural ManagementSame topicGlobal and Cross-Cultural ManagementFrench-language works237,207