Revisiting the impact of strategic board involvement on organizational 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
An important stream of research has suggested that there is a significant relationship between the board of directors, through its strategic role, and organizational performance. However, this presumed relationship appears to be more complex, given the conceptual distance between the cause and the effect. This distance is discernible in the omission of intermediate variables explaining the operation of this relationship, that is, (i) a variable reflecting an intermediate-level output, here board effectiveness and (ii) a variable reflecting the mechanisms that enable production of the output, particularly the board’s strategic use of management accounting information (MAI) deriving from the budget or financial and non-financial performance indicators. This study aims to revisit the link conceptually and empirically between strategic board involvement and organizational performance by simultaneously integrating strategic use of MAI and board effectiveness in an integrative model. Using survey data taken from a sample of 185 board of directors, the results suggest that the strategic use of MAI plays a crucial role, particularly in terms of performance indicators, to cement strategic board involvement and improve board effectiveness and organizational performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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