The Non-Sharing of Organizational Culture: A Case Study Examining the Management Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degree to which cultural elements are shared by members of an organization is a commonly discussed topic in organizational culture. This research contributes to that discussion by analyzing elements that shape the concrete situations of cultural non-sharing or even conflict, diachronically examining a social and educational organization. A case study of a shelter organization for unprotected children and young female boarders was conducted by examining the organization’s archival documents to discern the perspective of its boards of directors over time. The results demonstrate that the sharing of culture in this organization is not absolute: situations include formal rather than real sharing as well as disagreement, which is understandable considering the functional autonomy of employees and the relationships of the organization with the exterior (both with the State and with the surrounding community). Although the boards of directors sought to control these countercultural elements by establishing a dominant culture, their actions were conditioned by internal and external factors, both intentional and contingent. Thus, one implication of this qualitative research is that successful organizational leaders must be aware that they operate in complex and somewhat unpredictable contexts that influence the management of organizational culture.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".