MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411389900 · doi:10.1108/ijoes-11-2024-0356

Mapping the foundations of organizational values: a hybrid review

2025· review· en· W4411389900 on OpenAlexaff
Manisha Paliwal, Ramkrishna Dikkatwar, Nishita Chatradhi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Ethics and Systems · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Strategy and Culture
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManagement scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Organizational values (OVs) are essential in determining a company’s culture, identity and level of success. Therefore, a thorough review of the field is crucial for evidence-based practice, to decide on the best course of action, determine the most pressing research questions and improve knowledge. The purpose of this study is to conduct a hybrid review of the field of OVs to provide a panoramic view of the field. Design/methodology/approach The authors used a hybrid review that combined bibliometric analysis with a systematic literature review. The authors retrieved bibliometric information of 1,421 articles from the Scopus database and processed it through VOSViwer and Biblioshiny (using the bibliometrics R package) to conduct network and thematic analysis, respectively. Furthermore, 52 articles were selected for systematic literature review, and content analysis was conducted using Voyant tools. Findings Through bibliometric analysis, this study identified the clusters of intellectual structure and four categories (established, emerging, basic and niche) of key themes. OV research has been largely focused its effects and alignment or congruence. This review showed researcher has studied consequences of OVs at an organizational level, individual level effects and society level. Review has underscored the significance of value alignment within organizations. But there is a limited understanding of the procedures and tactics for successfully integrating values through all levels of the organization. Research limitations/implications Future research in OVs formation or development would be insightful. In near future studies explaining role of strategic managers and leaders in terms of developing, internalizing OVs would be insightful. The role is to guide its employees and offer an ethical framework to them, but future studies focusing on top management are the need of the hour. Longitudinal studies focusing on evolution of OVs across the organizational life cycle would offer new dimension.For practitioners, there is a need to create formal procedures and tactics pertaining to OV integration. There is imminent need for HR professionals and strategists to adopt or develop contextually relevant, evidence-based instruments to evaluate OVs congruence and integration within the organization. Originality/value This is the first attempt to the best of the authors’ knowledge to review OV literature critically and comprehensively. The hybrid approach uses staged approaches to uncover current knowledge and provide directions for future research.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Ethics and SystemsSame topicOrganizational Strategy and CultureFrench-language works237,207