MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388494805 · doi:10.1108/shr-10-2023-0055

Decision-making is an important, yet overlooked, factor in executive hiring

2023· article· en· W4388494805 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

VenueStrategic HR Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHuman Resource and Talent Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrivingDecision-makingPublic relationsQuarter (Canadian coin)Job satisfactionFocus groupBusinessPrivate sectorMarketingPsychologyManagementPolitical scienceSocial psychologyEconomicsPurchasing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Decision-making plays a vital role in business. Yet as a trait, it is often overlooked when identifying, assessing, onboarding and empowering leadership talent. This study, therefore, aims to focus on the dimensions of organisational decision-making and investigate whether it should be an integral factor in the hiring process. The survey also looks at the relationships between decision-making and executive leadership, talent strategy and employee satisfaction. Could good decision-making as a trait be a factor when it comes to retention, improving organisational thinking and thriving leadership? Design/methodology/approach A quantitative and qualitative survey was commissioned and conducted by FT Longitude, part of the Financial Times Group. This included a questionnaire sent out to 400 senior executives at C-suite, C-1 and C-2 levels. The respondents were from companies with more than 1,000 employees in 13 industries and from five countries across the Americas, Europe and Asia-Pacific. This was also accompanied by in-depth interviews with three experts from both the public and private sector. Findings Almost two-thirds (63%) of senior executives have resigned or considered resigning due to frustration with organisational decision-making, while 29% have considered quitting because they were frustrated with the way a company makes decisions. More than a third (34%) resigned for this reason. Yet, a quarter of senior executives say that their decision-making experience was not explicitly discussed before starting their job. Senior executives who were asked about decision-making in interviews were 1.4 times more likely to be satisfied with their jobs. The ability to make decisions should therefore play a central role in hiring senior executives. Originality/value Decision-making as a trait has been neglected when hiring executives. For the first time, this research shows how significant it is for leadership teams. If senior executives are to improve organisational decision-making, this trait needs codifying in HR processes. This has led Kingsley Gate to embed it in recruitment profiling.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.249 · 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