MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110153909 · doi:10.1108/jmp-06-2013-0191

Communicating virtually in a global organization

2015· article· en· W2110153909 on OpenAlexaff
Céleste M. Brotheridge, Derrick J. Neufeld, Bruno Dyck

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Managerial Psychology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaWestern UniversityUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganizational communicationCommunications managementSet (abstract data type)OriginalitySample (material)AffordanceMultilevel modelPsychologyPublic relationsKnowledge managementSocial psychologyComputer scienceBusinessMarketingCognitive psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider the extent to which changes in communication media are associated with changes in the nature of manager-expatriate employee communications. Using an affordance lens, the authors explore how hierarchical level and communication medium interact to influence status dynamics manifested in communication attributes. Design/methodology/approach – The hypothesis was tested with a 2 (hierarchical level)×3 (communication media) multivariate analysis of covariance (experience level) in a sample of 1,193 messages that were transmitted between managers and field employees in a global organization over a ten year period. Findings – The authors found significant interaction effects between communication media and hierarchical level on communication attributes such that changes in communication media intensified status differences between managers and their employees. Research limitations/implications – Communications media may be appropriated differently depending on one’s hierarchical level. Practical implications – Managers should adopt new communication media more consciously given their potential influence of how people communicate. Originality/value – Unlike many computer-mediated communications (CMC) effects studies that compare face-to-face communications with CMC or employ self-report questionnaires or laboratory designs with student samples, this study examines a complete set of manager-employee communications over an extended period of time.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Managerial PsychologySame topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207