MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Strategic Ethnography: Harnessing Subsidiary Resources for Organizational Renewal

2016· article· en· W2611991133 on OpenAlexaff
Mary-Yoko Brannen, Terry Mughan, Sarah Easter

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationSubsidiaryBoundary spanningBusinessEthnographyInsiderCompetition (biology)Knowledge managementMarketingPublic relationsSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We document the process of organizational renewal at Tesco Plc, the world’s third largest food retailer, in the wake of a historically unprecedented downturn in performance in its home market. The findings are based on an action research project in which an academic team trained Asian subsidiary managers to become in- house ethnographers of Tesco UK. The objective of the study was twofold: 1) to surface and evaluate the core values and strategic practices that comprised the essence of Tesco, 2) to identify sources of learning from Tesco’s foreign subsidiaries to promote organizational renewal in light of increasing competition in its home market. The study contributes to theory on boundary spanning in MNCs utilizing an innovative method we term ‘strategic ethnography’-a dynamic, holistic method of inquiry that leverages knowledge from the periphery by the effective use of ethnographic techniques for the purpose of sustainable organizational renewal in MNCs. We develop a process model of this method delineating the key role subsidiary managers can play drawing upon their insider- outsider knowledge-bases functioning as conduits in boundary spanning across complex organizational and geographic boundaries.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicManagement and Organizational StudiesFrench-language works237,207