MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067033905 · doi:10.1108/jbs-11-2012-0070

Leveraging board expertise: strategy mapping as teaching tool

2013· article· en· W2067033905 on OpenAlex
Vince Bruni‐Bossio, Norman T. Sheehan

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 Business Strategy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceBusinessAccountingOrder (exchange)Public relationsQuality (philosophy)LegislationBusiness modelMarketingPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose As a result of the many governance failures in the past decade, new legislation, increased regulation, and best practices have been adopted by boards in an effort to improve corporate governance. Unfortunately, not all of the changes, such as increasing the number of external directors, have favorably impacted the quality of board governance. While having the majority of external directors on a board increases the board's independence from the CEO, these external directors lack inside directors' understanding of the firm's operations, customers and business model. The board members' lack of understanding presents a key challenge to CEOs, as their tenures depend on keeping their boards informed about the firm's business model. If CEOs are to succeed in this new governance climate, they need to find a way to effectively explain the business model to external directors in order to educate them, access their competencies, and ensure their long term support. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of the strategy map to communicate the firm's business model to the board. Design/methodology/approach The paper used the authors' experiences, a review of the literature, and a case study as a basis for making recommendations presented in the article. Findings Outside directors may struggle to understand the firm's business model. While some may argue this is not the CEO's problem as it is the board's role to govern and management's job to manage, the authors argue it is an important issue for CEOs for two reasons: First, if the board does not understand the impact of changes to a firm's business model then CEOs are not fully leveraging their boards' expertise. Second, if CEOs do not keep the board adequately informed about the business model it hinders, rather than helps CEOs from building open and transparent relationships with their boards. By ensuring that directors receive the right information about the organization's business model and then have the opportunity to have a constructive dialog regarding the quality of the business model, CEOs can build trusting relationships with their boards and thus ensure they succeed over the longer term. Originality/value Recent governance failures have demonstrated a need for better communication between boards and CEOs. This is one of the first papers to examine the role of the strategy map to communicate the firm's business model to the board.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.198 · 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