MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W229162905

How Managers Execute Their Strategic Objectives? An Empirical Survey of Drivers and Practices

2011· article· en· W229162905 on OpenAlexaff
Alpha Ayandé, Vincent Sabourin

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Learning and Leadership
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementBusinessEmpirical researchSurvey data collectionProcess managementPrincipal (computer security)Order (exchange)Survey instrumentMarketingComputer scienceMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is based on a survey of 322 managers and has identified four critical dimensions in terms of management practices related to the strategy execution of managers. Therefore, our empirical findings support four out of our five hypotheses and show that there exist four distinct dimensions used by management when executing their objectives. A survey questionnaire was administered to 322 managers in order to study the dimensions regarding the practices in strategy execution. The data were analyzed using principal component analysis. The study supported four of the five dimensions of our conceptual framework.

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)0.002
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicOrganizational Learning and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207