In today's global environment organizational culture dominates national culture!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The specific problem this research addresses is whether cultural differences, national or organizational, impact how effectively the continuous improvement process is received within the supply chain in order to improve supplier performance. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – The research design used a mixed methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative research. Findings – The research found that Canada was most receptive to continuous improvement, with China being the least receptive. The study found that organizational culture was more influential than national culture. Isomorphism and benchmarking is driving continuous-improvement language and methods to be more universally known within business. Business and management practices appear to take precedence in driving change within organizations. Research limitations/implications – The sample size and countries involved was very small and limited to key medium sized distributed power company (MSDPC) suppliers. This limited diversity and may have introduced supplier selection bias, as well as survey response bias. Practical implications – This research concludes that organizational culture is more dominant over national culture and the influence of leadership within the organization drives the impact of continuous improvement. Originality/value – With isomorphism and the fact that businesses want to be successful, continuous improvement language and methods are becoming more universally known. Business and management practices are now taking precedence in driving change within organizations. Organizational culture is now more influential than national 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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".