The effects of HRM approach on quality management techniques and performance
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
Using data from 250 companies from Brazil and Denmark, this study aims to investigate the effects of commitment- and control-oriented human resource management (HRM) on the relationship between four QM technique groups, namely goal setting (GS), continuous improvement (CI), measurement (MS) and failure prevention and control (FPC) techniques, and performance. Both HRM approaches affect the QM techniques and performance positively. However, the association with control-oriented HRM has a stronger performance effect for three QM techniques groups (CI, MS and FPC) than the association with commitment-oriented HRM. Only for the GS techniques, the effects of control- and commitment-oriented HRM on performance are not statistically significantly different. These results show that HRM practices may contribute to enable QM techniques to have a positive effect on performance. Additionally, the results demonstrate that control-oriented HRM supports the QM techniques better in improving performance than commitment-oriented HRM for most groups of QM techniques studied. These findings suggest an important duality: while previous studies suggest that QM practices thrive in a commitment-oriented HRM environment, this research shows that QM techniques are best supported through control-oriented HRM. Further research, going beyond the two country samples, is needed to explore the implications of this duality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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