MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999909936 · doi:10.1108/02621711211208844

Expanded strategy simulations: developing better managers

2012· article· en· W1999909936 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptualizationSoft skillsComputer scienceProcess (computing)Construct (python library)Knowledge managementOriginalityPerspective (graphical)Conceptual frameworkManagement sciencePsychologyEngineeringSociologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the use of simulations in strategy teaching. The authors’ conceptualization is built upon the benefits and limitations of simulations by establishing a link between the skills required to be a competent manager and the capacity of simulations to develop them. Design/methodology/approach Using deductive theory building, the authors pinpoint the shortcomings of simulations, and offer a framework categorizing managerial skill development using simulations to teach strategic management. Findings The authors propose a new perspective on the use of simulations to teach strategic management by elaborating on their effectiveness in developing soft skills related to social issues often overlooked in simulations’ learning outcomes. The framework provides propositions concerning the ability of simulations to develop both soft (societal and human) and hard skills (technical and conceptual) needed by managers. Research limitations/implications Literature shows that computer‐based platforms significantly increase the learning process. While such tools are widely used in teaching hard skills for decision making, they are relatively absent from teaching soft skills for decision making. Future studies should empirically explore the extent to which computer‐based platforms help cultivate soft skills. Practical implications Simulations are one of the most praised learning tools by management students. MBA administrators and strategy instructors would benefit from improved simulations that take into account the social environment surrounding managers. Expanded simulations, then, might lead to better preparation of management candidates for their tasks. In addition, simulation developers may find guidance in the authors’ conceptualizations to construct more effective teaching aids. Originality/value Contrary to the mainstream literature that focuses on hard‐skill development through simulations, this study calls attention to simulations’ capacity to foster the soft‐skills required to be a competent manager.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.227 · 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