Effectiveness of Relational and Transactional cultures in commercial banking: putting client‐value into the competing values model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper has four purposes. First, it points out and explains why the Market‐type culture, is not the culture type most conducive to business performance. This Market‐type culture reflects mainly a Transactional approach to the market rather than a longer term Relational approach to clients. Second, a modification of the CVM is presented which forces the respondents to weigh the value their firm places on the client or customer compared with the other competing values in the model. This modified version can be used to describe organizational cultures which are more Relational or Transactional in nature. Third, an empirical study of commercial banking relationships in France indicated that business effectiveness was greater when both parties in the exchange (account manager and business client) perceived their respective organizations to be Relational‐type cultures. Conversely, the worst business performance was found when both organizations had Transactional‐type cultures. Fourth, the managerial implications of the paper are discussed in the context of commercial banking.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".