Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the role of the Board of Directors in encouraging entrepreneurship as a strategy for goal achievement among newly formed social purpose organizations. Design/methodology/approach In the absence of empirical work on board behaviour, a qualitative case study approach is adopted whereby multiple data collection methods – including in‐depth interviews and non‐participant observation – are drawn upon in the investigation. Findings Organizations found to be most effective in achieving their goal(s) had a higher level of entrepreneurial intensity than less effective organizations. Three opposing themes emerged when comparing the social processes adopted by the Boards. In embracing social processes that fostered entrepreneurial behaviour. Boards assumed the role of change agent, with the leveraging of social capital being instrumental. Other social processes encouraged behaviour that was reactive and risk adverse in nature, serving to reinforce the fiduciary role those Board had assumed. Originality/value A review of the extant literature indicates that this is the first reported empirical investigation of board behaviour. In having access to Board meetings, unique insights into social processes were garnered that might otherwise have gone undetected if interview data were relied upon as the sole source of evidence. As such, this paper makes a key contribution in beginning to address the void in our understanding of social enterprise governance. In particular, it highlights the influence of governance on entrepreneurship and goal achievement among newly formed social purpose organizations. When viewed through a social constructionist lens, the results indicate that while organizations strive to achieve both legitimacy and identity, effectiveness was greater among organizations that emphasized the latter.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".