Holacracy and Obliquity: contingency management approaches in organizing companies
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 paper aims to examine the development of modern innovative management methods and practices such as Holacracy, Obliquity, Adhocracy and Sociocracy, which are novelty in the Management science and practice. The study illustrates contingency approaches in designing, managing and developing agile companies from wide varieties of industries. The paper sheds light on contemporary methods in organizing, planning and setting goals of companies in a post-knowledge era. It is like an operating system for business that requires the installation of different applications as applications for hiring employees, for setting salaries, for planning or logistics. In the paper, literature review on management innovations is conducted and subsequently statistical operationalization through STATA software has been employed to examine how particular organizations design and set up their organizational structures such as lean, agile or scrum. Paper results show that smaller companies are more agile and they tend to acquire Holacratic Management models thanks to the fact that self-managing teams exist internally and their organizational structures are flatter and more adaptive in comparison to the multinational corporations. Consequently, the paper concludes with suggestions on innovative management implementations for future development of companies and emphasizes the need for further research on what is the impact of Holacracy and Obliquity on shaping the organizational culture of companies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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