A Test of Strategic Orientation Formation versus Strategic Orientation Implementation: The Influence of Tmt Functional Diversity and Inter-Functional Coordination
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
The authors argue that strategic orientation formation and strategic orientation implementation are different. The authors also assert that they require different levels of the same antecedents. More specifically, the proposed model posits that strategic orientation formation and implementation are a function of top management team’s (TMT) functional diversity and interfunctional coordination. This two-stage model of strategic orientation suggests that on the one hand strategic orientation formation is about consensus making based on diverse views. Strategic orientation implementation underscores the significance of efficient and seamless operationalization of the strategic orientation formed in the first stage of the model. Data obtained from TMTs support our empirical results in that moderate to high TMT functional diversity and high inter-functional coordination are important in the strategic orientation formation stage while low to moderate TMT functional diversity and inter-functional coordination are critical in the implementation stage.
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 | 0.021 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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