Performance Effects of Global Account Coordination Mechanisms: An Integrative Study of Boundary Conditions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many multinational companies have instituted global account management (GAM) programs to coordinate selling activities to better serve and retain their key global customers, evidence of the effectiveness of their GAM coordination efforts is elusive. Viewing GAM coordination as an organizational design issue in managing vertical procurement relationships, the authors draw on global marketing strategy, organizational design, and relationship marketing theories to study how the performances of GAM coordination mechanisms vary with a host of strategic, relational, and environmental conditions. The conceptual model is tested using data collected from a cross-national sample of more than 200 global account managers. The results show that although GAM relational coordination and GAM operational coordination both have positive effects on GAM performance, they do not perform uniformly well under various boundary conditions. In other words, the performance of a GAM coordination mechanism depends on its fit with the operating context.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it