MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253153584 · doi:10.1108/hrmid-03-2019-0089

Study shows strong union presence specifically encourages use of person-centered human resource management (HRM) practices, but discourages performance-centered ones

2019· article· en· W4253153584 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Resource Management International Digest · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLabor Movements and Unions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultinational corporationHuman resource managementContext (archaeology)BusinessVariety (cybernetics)European unionMarketingManagementEconomicsGeographyInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The researchers wanted to find out a number of things. First, they wanted to assess the influence of strong unions on approaches to HRM. Second, they wanted to know if the strategic HR function had a positive effect on both person-centered and performance-centered HRM. Third, they tested the theory that the economic context had a significant influence on HRM practices. Companies in liberal market economies (LMEs), for example, were expected to adopt more performance-centered HRM, but for companies in coordinated market economies the reverse was likely to be true (CMEs). Design/methodology/approach Cristiani et al collected their data from the Cranet 2009 survey, the world’s largest comparative analysis of HRM practices. They sent out a questionnaire to senior managers responsible for HRM at private multinational companies. The authors sampled 3,406 firms across 14 countries. They placed six OECD nations in the LME group (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA) and ten in the CME group (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands). Findings The data revealed that the strategic HR function had a positive effect on the adoption of both person-centered and performance-centered HRM. The study also demonstrated that a more powerful union presence encouraged the use of person-centered approaches, whereas it discouraged performance-centered ones. The data suggested that the variety of capitalism (VoC) moderated the relationships between the strategic HR function role and performance-centered HMR, but the same impact on person-centered approaches was not found. Originality/value Proof of the moderating effect of the VoC shows that HR professionals – especially at multinationals - need to align their practices with the larger context in which their company is operating. The most valuable finding for businesses was the impact of a strong union presence on which HRM practices were likely to be accepted, or rejected.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.228 · 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