From grobal management to glocal management: Latin American perspectives as a counter-dominant management epistemology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management is known as a global phenomenon. However, its “global” façade tends to mean that management knowledge and practices are usually created and developed in Western countries—mainly the United States—to be transferred supposedly problem-free to other locations. This paper discusses how management has spread globally via Americanization, and is therefore a grobal phenomenon. From a Latin American perspective, this transfer can be problematic, especially as it tends to suppress locally developed knowledge and experiences. In denaturalizing grobal management, we propose glocal management as an alternative to the current Anglo-centric view of the field, and believe this new view can take into account hybridism and local realities. Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. La gestion est, cela va sans dire, un phénomène mondial. Cependant, par «mondial» on sous-entend que le savoir et les pratiques en gestion sont généralement créés et mis au point dans les pays occidentaux, notamment les États-Unis, avant d'être transposés, prétendument sans heurts, dans d'autres pays. Cet article analyse comment la gestion s'est répandue dans le monde via l'américanisation, d'où son caractère mandial (grobal). D'un point de vue latino-américain, un tel transfert peut être d'autant plus problématique qu'il tend à nier les savoirs et les expériences construits localement. Aussi procédons-nous à la dénaturalisation de la gestion mandiale. Nous proposons que la perspective anglocentrique qui domine dans le domaine actuellement soit remplacée par la gestion glocale. Cette dernière prend en compte l'hybridisme et les réalités locales. Copyright © 2010 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".