Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The concept and phenomenon of emotion is approached from a variety of perspectives within various fields of inquiry. Psychologists, physiologists, and neuroscientists emphasize that emotions are reactions to stimuli and events in the environment that serve the adaptive functions of individuals. Sociologists, anthropologists, and other related disciplines generally approach emotion as part of the construction of social reality, for example as part of social and political influence tactics. This diversity in conceptualization has provided a rich source of inspiration for research on emotions in the field of strategic management since the end of 1990s, with a significant increase in the number of studies during the 2010s and 2020s. A group of studies has adopted a “process perspective,” examining the sequences of activities in organizations to unravel the role of emotions in strategy formulation and strategic change. In such contexts, emotions exert a positive or negative influence on strategic choices, and shape over time the interactional dynamics between stakeholders (e.g., senior and middle managers, lower-level teams, board members, competitors, partners). The ability of organizations to identify and regulate collective emotions helps to increase their capability to address external challenges. Other studies adopt a “practice perspective” (in accordance with the Strategy-As-Practice tradition of research) to examine micro-interactions, focusing on how emotions are leveraged as a means for mutual influence by strategists and their stakeholders. As emotions are embedded in text, talk, gesture, and other bodily, verbal, or non-verbal media, they shape the communication between actors when they perform activities such as strategy workshops and narratives. Finally, another group of studies uses the “behavioral perspective” to show that affective traits and states, and other emotional patterns exhibited by strategic actors (e.g., chief executive officers, senior managers, research and development [R&D] teams) are correlated with various aspects of the organizations’ strategic behaviors and outcomes such as R&D and innovation, financial performance, and corporate social responsibility. In sum, these diverse perspectives provide the basis for a range of thematic and methodological approaches for future strategy research on emotions, as well as for advancing the practice of strategic management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".