The Influence Capability of Human Resource Executives on Top Management Committee Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past few years, an increasing number of authors in the human resource management field have developed an interest in the roles played by HR departments and HR executives in the formulation of the business strategy. However, it is relevant to examine in which context the use of these roles becomes legitimate. According to a number of authors, this is particularly the case when businesses are facing demanding human resource challenges. Therefore, taking into account the current context characterized by an economy under pressure, HR executives should be in a good position to benefit from such a context to become influential partners within their respective top management committee. However, very little is known about the extent to which members of the top management committee perceive HR executives as having a high capability to influence them. Also, so far, no one has addressed the gap that may exist between the perception of the top management committee members and the perception HR executives hold for themselves with regards to their capability to influence the latter.In this study, we chose to investigate HR executives who come mainly from the greater Montreal area. In total, we met 41 HR executives for whom we investigated their influence capability. Following the interview, we invited each HR executive to hand out a short questionnaire to each member of the top management committee that they had tried to influence over the last three years. Results show that, overall, HR executives tend to overestimate their influence capability when compared to the perception of their executive colleagues and chief officer. Finally, this study also confirmed that a good reputation, a solid credibility and high referent power can facilitate the capability of HR executives to influence others.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".