Measuring the relative importance of strategic thinking dimensions in relation to counterproductive behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to explore the relative importance of strategic thinking dimensions in prediction of counter-productive behavior. The research method is based on a descriptive-Survey research. After collecting the questionnaires from 73 top managers and 110 staffs, the correlations between strategic thinking dimensions and counterproductive behavior were calculated. The relative importance method was used to calculate the relative weight of each dimension of strategic thinking in prediction of counterproductive behaviors. The results show that the strategic thinking of top managers is associated with their counterproductive behavior (correlation coefficient -0.38). Furthermore, The results of the Relative Importance Method indicate that the relative importance of each dimension of strategic thinking in prediction of counterproductive behavior is not the same. System perspective with 31.1% has the highest importance and hypothesis driven with 11.7% has the lowest weight. Intent focus, thinking in time and intelligent opportunism predict 14.1%, 13.3%, and 29.8% of counter-productive changes, respectively.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".