A Research on the Relationship between Top Managers’ Intelligence and Their Ideas about Business Process Reengineering: Consideration of Emotionality and Spirituality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With its dramatic boosts to effectiveness and efficiency, Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is a crucial tool for business success, thus countless businesses in various industries are inspired to get its benefits. Though these benefits are heavily related to technical matters such as cost, speed and quality; there is also a human side associated with BPR. This study is interested in an odd dimension of this human side: top managers’ emotional and spiritual intelligence. More precisely, top managers’ emotional and spiritual intelligences are believed to be related with their ideas about the targets and critical success factors of BPR. This study not only scrutinizes this belief, but also fills in a great gap as the literature does not offer a similar research. The operationalization stage of the study includes data from top managers of businesses in İkitelli Organized Industrial Zone (OIZ) and the findings clearly point out that top managers’ spiritual intelligence is strongly and positively related with their ideas about BPR whereas there is no connection between their emotional capabilities and their mentioned ideas.
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 | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".