Discretion in the Governance Work of Internal Auditors: Interplay Between Institutional Complexity and Organizational Embeddedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examines which factors facilitate (obstruct) the discretion exercised by ground‐level governance actors, such as internal auditors, in justifying their governance work. To achieve this objective, we rely on two complementary theoretical perspectives. One perspective proposes that the organizational embeddedness of ground‐level governance actors, ordained by high‐level governance actors (such as the board of directors), obstructs their discretion. In contrast, the other perspective, building on institutional complexity, propounds that multiple institutional demands facilitate the situated agency and discretion of ground‐level governance actors. Consistent with the emerging multilevel research on institutional complexity, we combine these two perspectives by including both the structural and static meso‐level factors (i.e. organizational embeddedness) as well as actors' situated agency. Utilizing three comparative cases, we demonstrate that internal auditors' ability to exercise discretion is facilitated (obstructed) when organizational embeddedness enables (constrains) the cohabitation of multiple institutional logics at the organizational level. In doing so, we identify organizationally situated agency as an underlying factor driving internal auditors’ justification approaches in their governance work.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".