Micro-agency of human resource professionals in a large family firm: shaping the implementation of human resource development practices
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 implementation of Human Resource Development (HRD) practices in family firms presents several challenges. In attempting to protect the socioemotional wealth of the firm, family managers might design HRD practices that ignore the well-being of nonfamily employees. Moreover, Human Resource professionals (HRPs) may lack the power to influence HRD practices. We adopt an interpretive single case study of a large Mexican family firm to explore HRPs’ role in influencing mutual gains for the firm and its employees through HRD. The findings illustrate HRPs’ use of power over meaning to persuade family managers by creating a legitimate rhetoric that tailors HRD practices to foreign subsidiaries, and satisfies both family and nonfamily stakeholders. The paper has implications for the literature on HRD in family firms by drawing on the mutual gains’ perspective and the micro-agency of nonfamily executives.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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