MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409213329 · doi:10.1111/1911-3838.12399

Teaching Management Control Dysfunction Using Observations of <scp>CEO</scp> Leadership at Wells Fargo <sup>*</sup>

2025· article· en· W4409213329 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joel Amernic, Russell Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting Perspectives · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicValue Engineering and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessOperating systemEnvironmental sciencePhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The focus of this teaching case is an actual instance of management control (MC) dysfunction that was prompted by ongoing crises at Wells Fargo Bank. MC is an interdisciplinary field of learning that integrates a variety of management disciplines, such as leadership, accounting, performance measurement, governance, and ethics. The case uses the official transcript of questioning of the then‐CEO of Wells Fargo, John Stumpf, by Senator Elizabeth Warren during a US Senate hearing entitled “An Examination of Wells Fargo's Unauthorized Accounts and the Regulatory Response.” Exposure of the “unauthorized accounts” was a forerunner to the highlighting of several Wells Fargo scandals in following years. At times, the questioning of Stumpf was adversarial, and it provides an opportunity to examine leadership‐in‐action from an MC (and related) perspective. By employing real company events, we demonstrate how to develop an understanding by students that MC is a multifaceted, interdisciplinary area of learning. The case enhances students' opportunities to critically evaluate MC‐in‐action.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting PerspectivesSame topicValue Engineering and ManagementFrench-language works237,207