MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975284338 · doi:10.1080/16184740500089557

Leader Intentions and Employee Perceptions of Organizational Culture in a Private Fitness Corporation

2005· article· en· W1975284338 on OpenAlexaff
Eric MacIntosh, Alison Doherty

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Sport Management Quarterly · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporationOrganizational culturePerceptionBusinessMarketingPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding “how things are done around here” is an integral part of managing any organization. Organizational culture may impact the attitudes and behaviour of members, and the performance of the organization as a whole. Thus, the indoctrination of positive values, that become widely understood, is the likely intention of the organization's leaders. This study examined leader intentions and employee perceptions of organizational culture, as well as the existence of distinct subcultures, and the further influence of subculture on staff behaviour (intent to leave) and organizational performance (profit margin, client retention). Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to describe the specific culture of the focal organization. The study revealed a significant culture gap between the leaders’ intentions and employee perceptions, and the existence of subcultures by organizational level (head office versus club). The strength of the respective subcultures was inversely associated with employee intentions to leave the organization, however club subculture had little association with performance in terms of profit margin or client retention rates. The findings suggest that culture has a more direct influence on employees and a less direct influence, if any, on organizational performance. The results extend our understanding of the nature and influence of organizational culture and subcultures, and have implications for their management within the focal organization.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations49
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Sport Management QuarterlySame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207