Getting Proactive: Cultural And Procedural Drivers Of Managerial Motivation To Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0in; margin: 0in 19.35pt 0pt 0.5in;"><span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The importance of managers&rsquo; proactive behaviors in the workplace is well documented. While previous studies have focused on dispositional drivers of proactive behaviors, this paper investigates situational - cultural and procedural - factors that affect managers&rsquo; motivation to proactively engage in behaviors aimed at improving performance of their firms. Results of a survey of brand managers suggest that consumer orientation and adhocracy culture tend to increase proactive behaviors, while technology strategic orientation decreases managers&rsquo; motivation to act.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Interestingly, the cultural characteristics of a firm are significantly more effective in motivating managers than evaluation and compensation procedures.</span></span></span></p>
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 | 0.000 | 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".