Dysfunctional Behavior in Organizations: Insights from the Management Control Literature
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
SUMMARY As the scope of the audit continues to broaden (Cohen, Krishnamoorthy, and Wright 2017), research questions in management control and internal control are beginning to overlap. Even so, there is little overlap between these fields in terms of published research to date. The purpose of this paper is to take a step in bridging the gap between the management control and the internal control literatures. We survey relevant findings from the extant management control literature published between 2003 and 2016 on dysfunctional behavior and the ways in which it might be mitigated. We then use the fraud triangle as an organizing framework to consider how the management control literature might help to address audit risk factors identified in SAS 99/AU SEC 316 (AICPA 2002). The outcome of our analysis is meant to identify and classify the extant management control literature of relevance to research on internal control in a manner that researchers new to the management control literature will find accessible. We conclude with a set of future research opportunities that can help to broaden the scope of current research in internal control.
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 | 0.042 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 it