Name:

HAMMAD KHALID

ID:
Bc200418008

Date Of Submission:
May 26.2022

TOPIC.
A comparative study of the
organizations
Employees’ perception about organizational structure and its impact
on employee’s productivity
 Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1..........................................................................................................................................................3
1.1-INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................3
 Preliminary Study:........................................................................................................................................3
 1.2-Project Description:................................................................................................................................3
 Rationale:.....................................................................................................................................................4
 Why Comparative study research be needed?.............................................................................................4
1.2-Background Study:........................................................................................................................................5
1.3-Significance of the Project:...........................................................................................................................6
 Outcomes of study:......................................................................................................................................6
 Contribution in development:......................................................................................................................6
 Innovations from the project:.......................................................................................................................7
CHAPTER 2..........................................................................................................................................................8
METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................................................8
2.1-Type of research...........................................................................................................................................8
2.2-Sources of data collection.............................................................................................................................9
 Primary source:............................................................................................................................................9
 Secondary source:........................................................................................................................................9
2.3-Tools for data collection...............................................................................................................................9
 Internet:.......................................................................................................................................................9
 Case Studies:................................................................................................................................................9
 Surveys:........................................................................................................................................................9
2.4-Data Collection...........................................................................................................................................10
 How it will be Collected:.............................................................................................................................10
 Quality control:...........................................................................................................................................10
 How survey will be conducted:...................................................................................................................10
2.5-Data Processing & Analysis.........................................................................................................................10
 How analysis will be conducted:.................................................................................................................10
 Microsoft Word:.........................................................................................................................................11
 statistical techniques for the analysis:........................................................................................................11
References........................................................................................................................................................11
 CHAPTER 1

1.1-INTRODUCTION

 Preliminary Study:

Comparative organizational research

means different things to different
people and encompasses a variety of
research programs, some focused on
specific methodologies and others
exploring more substantive issues.
‘‘Comparative’’ is often used to describe
research that is cross-national or
cross-cultural, but more generally,
comparative research explains contextual
variation in social phenomena (Azumi &
Hull, 1981; Ragin, 1987) including
variation in organizational contexts.
Comparative organizational analyses
share an interest in revealing and
explaining sources of enduring organiza-
tional heterogeneity (e.g., Clemens, 1997;
Schneiberg, 2002). Variation in
organizational forms, life-stages, and
organizational cultures are examples
of this kind of heterogeneity.
Comparative analysis uncovers sources
of
persistent heterogeneity by focusing on
contextual differences at varying
levels of analysis, including across
temporal and spatial dimensions
(Aldrich, this volume). The need to
explain difference is central to the
comparative analysis of organizational
bureaucracies prevalent in the 1950s
and 1960s (Blau, 1955), the comparative
approaches focusing on cross-
cultural differences (Hofstede, 1980;
Hamilton & Biggart, 1988), and the
comparative analysis of organizational
forms (Williamson, 1991).
This volume is an attempt to reinvigorate
interest in comparative
organizational analysis. The tendency of
contemporary organizationa
Comparative organizational research means different things to different people and encompasses
a variety of research programs, some focused on specific methodologies and others exploring
more substantive issues. ‘‘Comparative’’ is often used to describe research that is cross-
national or cross-cultural, but more generally, comparative research explains contextual
variation in social phenomena including variation in organizational contexts. Comparative
organizational analyses share an interest in revealing and explaining sources of enduring
organizational heterogeneity. Variation in organizational forms, life-stages, and
organizational cultures are examples of this kind of heterogeneity. Comparative analysis
uncovers sources of persistent heterogeneity by focusing on contextual differences at varying
levels of analysis, including across temporal and spatial dimensions.

Comparative analysis is
a mode of study that sits somewhere in
the middle of these extremes,
developing theoretical explanations for
variation in organizational behavior.
Comparative analysis is situated between
inductive and deductive reasoning,
theoretical abstraction and empirical
description, and the organization and
its context. Comparative work inherently
focuses on the concurrent needs
to theorize and understand differences in
organizations and to identify the
contextual limits of generalizability, thus
allowing for the unexpected to
move theory in new directions.
While comparative approaches have
always been a part of organizational
sociology, and in fact we will argue that
they were foundational to the
subfield, they have nonetheless been far
less prominent in the past three
decades. The increasing sophistication of
quantitative methods and the rise
of more environmentally focused theories
of organizations in the late 1970s
have shifted the focus away from
comparative analysis and the study of
organizational heterogeneity. The
tendency instead has been for scholars
to advance theories that prioritize
explanations of homogeneity (e.g.,
DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) or at least
that are generalizable across cultural,
industrial, geographical, and temporal
contexts. Indeed, the tendency has
been to wipe away difference altogether
and to prioritize abstraction over
contextual specificity. While we certainly
agree with the idea that general-
izable theories are valuable and
contribute to the creation of dominant
paradigms (Pfeffer, 1993), we are
concerned that the radical swing away
from comparative analysis has caused
organizational scholarship to lose
some of its richness and even its
organizational focus. Lacking the
methods
and theories to describe and explain
enduring organizational differences
has distanced our research from the vast
diversity of organizational life
that characterizes the empirical world in
which we live (refer Schneiberg &
Clemens, 2006) AU :1. More importantly,
the lack of a comparative program of
organizational research has weakened our
ability to explain how organiza-
tions differ from other collective entities
in society. Although grand patterns
and AU :2pressures for homogeneity
certainly exist in organizational life
(Drori,
Meyer, & Hwang, 2006), organizations
are also ‘‘purposefully constructed,’’
and collective action is realized in an
ever-growing variety of social forms
(Coleman, 1991, p. 8).
AU :3Understanding this variety of
organizing and
organizations is central for organization
theory
Comparative analysis is a mode of study that sits somewhere in the middle of the extremes,
developing theoretical explanations for variation in organizational behavior. Comparative
analysis is situated between inductive and deductive reasoning, theoretical abstraction and
empirical description, and the organization and its context. Comparative work inherently focuses
on the concurrent needs to theorize and understand differences in organizations and to identify
the contextual limits of generalizability, thus allowing for the unexpected to move theory in new
directions. While comparative approaches have always been a part of organizational sociology,
and in fact we will argue that they were foundational to the subfield, they have nonetheless been
far less prominent in the past three decades.

 1.2-Project Description:

According to the results from the study, it shows that organization structure has an impact on the
employee performance; a poor organized organization structure means that there will be low
productivity, less delegation of work, no incentives provided and centralized decisions. In the
end this affects how employees are satisfied with their work hence affect their performance.

In addition, the study also found out that a good organization structure helps in improving the
performance of employees and motivates them to work hard which in the end increase
productivity. Therefore, management must develop skills on how to develop their structures,
they need to focus on what there can include in their structure or coming up with a new
organization structure because this plays a great role for workers to experience job satisfaction
·If organization develop a good structures they have satisfied employees who works had not
only to achieve organization goals but also individual goals and hence achieving both individual
and organization goals.

Prior research has identified the outcomes of

influence tactics as short-term task
commitment, compliance and resistance. This
paper argues that leaders’ downward influence
behaviors should also have an impact on
followers’ organizational commitment. The
purpose of this
paper is to examine the effects of three influence
strategies (11 downward influence tactics) on
organizational commitment, and the moderating
effect of national culture
Prior research has identified the outcomes of
influence tactics as short-term task
commitment, compliance and resistance. This
paper argues that leaders’ downward influence
behaviors should also have an impact on
followers’ organizational commitment. The
purpose of this
paper is to examine the effects of three influence
strategies (11 downward influence tactics) on
organizational commitment, and the moderating
effect of national culture
 Rationale:

Prior research has identified the outcomes of influence tactics as short-term task commitment,
compliance and resistance. This paper argues that leaders’ downward influence behaviors should
also have an impact on followers’ organizational commitment. The purpose of this paper is to
examine the effects of the influence strategies on organizational commitment, and the
moderating effect of national culture.
The quantitative results show that all rational tactics, the inspirational appeal and pressure tactics
had effects on organizational commitment. Drawing on the survey and follow-up interview data,
three specific factors in the use of influence tactics on organizational commitment are identified.
Results suggest that some tactics are more universal and able to provide “long-lasting” effects
compared with other tactics in enhancing or reducing employees’ organizational commitment.
The results of the entire study also show that most rational influence tactics seem to be
convergent; yet, there is also evidence that other tactics are more culturally specific in
generating employee commitment.

 Why Comparative study research be needed?

The relevance of this research is based on the approach to theories of skills development, and
the main purpose is to identify the skills developed by the students from management courses
and compare it to the skills needed by the organizations to be competitive in the market. In this
stage of the research, the skills needed by the organizations were identified through a document
analysis of prospective studies conducted in industrial sectors developed in the last 15 years.

The research problem considered the analytical

dimension of skills development in organizations
anchored to the following research questions: What
were the skills identified in the prospective studies?
What has been the level of skills developed in courses
on management in e-learning mode in higher
education? What were the relationships between the
perceived skills development and various factors such
as gender, employed/unemployed, type of
organization and job variables? What are the lessons
learnt in order to propose a theoretical model
developing skills in higher education management courses? This study is centered on the
research of more relevant work skills which can contribute to organizations’ performance and
competitiveness in the market.

Comparative organizational research

means different things to different
people and encompasses a variety of
research programs, some focused on
specific methodologies and others
exploring more substantive issues.
‘‘Comparative’’ is often used to describe
research that is cross-national or
cross-cultural, but more generally,
comparative research explains contextual
variation in social phenomena (Azumi &
Hull, 1981; Ragin, 1987) including
variation in organizational contexts.
Comparative organizational analyses
share an interest in revealing and
explaining sources of enduring organiza-
tional heterogeneity (e.g., Clemens, 1997;
Schneiberg, 2002). Variation in
organizational forms, life-stages, and
organizational cultures are examples
of this kind of heterogeneity.
Comparative analysis uncovers sources
of
persistent heterogeneity by focusing on
contextual differences at varying
levels of analysis, including across
temporal and spatial dimensions
(Aldrich, this volume). The need to
explain difference is central to the
comparative analysis of organizational
bureaucracies prevalent in the 1950s
and 1960s (Blau, 1955), the comparative
approaches focusing on cross-
cultural differences (Hofstede, 1980;
Hamilton & Biggart, 1988), and the
comparative analysis of organizational
forms (Williamson, 1991).
This volume is an attempt to reinvigorate
interest in comparative
organizational analysis. The tendency of
contemporary organizationa
Comparative organizational research
means different things to different
people and encompasses a variety of
research programs, some focused on
specific methodologies and others
exploring more substantive issues.
‘‘Comparative’’ is often used to describe
research that is cross-national or
cross-cultural, but more generally,
comparative research explains contextual
variation in social phenomena (Azumi &
Hull, 1981; Ragin, 1987) including
variation in organizational contexts.
Comparative organizational analyses
share an interest in revealing and
explaining sources of enduring organiza-
tional heterogeneity (e.g., Clemens, 1997;
Schneiberg, 2002). Variation in
organizational forms, life-stages, and
organizational cultures are examples
of this kind of heterogeneity.
Comparative analysis uncovers sources
of
persistent heterogeneity by focusing on
contextual differences at varying
levels of analysis, including across
temporal and spatial dimensions
(Aldrich, this volume). The need to
explain difference is central to the
comparative analysis of organizational
bureaucracies prevalent in the 1950s
and 1960s (Blau, 1955), the comparative
approaches focusing on cross-
cultural differences (Hofstede, 1980;
Hamilton & Biggart, 1988), and the
comparative analysis of organizational
forms (Williamson, 1991).
This volume is an attempt to reinvigorate
interest in comparative
organizational analysis. The tendency of
contemporary organizationa
Comparative organizational research
means different things to different
people and encompasses a variety of
research programs, some focused on
specific methodologies and others
exploring more substantive issues.
‘‘Comparative’’ is often used to describe
research that is cross-national or
cross-cultural, but more generally,
comparative research explains contextual
variation in social phenomena (Azumi &
Hull, 1981; Ragin, 1987) including
variation in organizational contexts.
Comparative organizational analyses
share an interest in revealing and
explaining sources of enduring organiza-
tional heterogeneity (e.g., Clemens, 1997;
Schneiberg, 2002). Variation in
organizational forms, life-stages, and
organizational cultures are examples
of this kind of heterogeneity.
Comparative analysis uncovers sources
of
persistent heterogeneity by focusing on
contextual differences at varying
levels of analysis, including across
temporal and spatial dimensions
(Aldrich, this volume). The need to
explain difference is central to the
comparative analysis of organizational
bureaucracies prevalent in the 1950s
and 1960s (Blau, 1955), the comparative
approaches focusing on cross-
cultural differences (Hofstede, 1980;
Hamilton & Biggart, 1988), and the
comparative analysis of organizational
forms (Williamson, 1991).
This volume is an attempt to reinvigorate
interest in comparative
organizational analysis. The tendency of
contemporary organizationa
Comparative organizational research
means different things to different
people and encompasses a variety of
research programs, some focused on
specific methodologies and others
exploring more substantive issues.
‘‘Comparative’’ is often used to describe
research that is cross-national or
cross-cultural, but more generally,
comparative research explains contextual
variation in social phenomena (Azumi &
Hull, 1981; Ragin, 1987) including
variation in organizational contexts.
Comparative organizational analyses
share an interest in revealing and
explaining sources of enduring organiza-
tional heterogeneity (e.g., Clemens, 1997;
Schneiberg, 2002). Variation in
organizational forms, life-stages, and
organizational cultures are examples
of this kind of heterogeneity.
Comparative analysis uncovers sources
of
persistent heterogeneity by focusing on
contextual differences at varying
levels of analysis, including across
temporal and spatial dimensions
(Aldrich, this volume). The need to
explain difference is central to the
comparative analysis of organizational
bureaucracies prevalent in the 1950s
and 1960s (Blau, 1955), the comparative
approaches focusing on cross-
cultural differences (Hofstede, 1980;
Hamilton & Biggart, 1988), and the
comparative analysis of organizational
forms (Williamson, 1991).
This volume is an attempt to reinvigorate
interest in comparative
organizational analysis. The tendency of
contemporary organizationa
Comparative organizational research
means different things to different
people and encompasses a variety of
research programs, some focused on
specific methodologies and others
exploring more substantive issues.
‘‘Comparative’’ is often used to describe
research that is cross-national or
cross-cultural, but more generally,
comparative research explains contextual
variation in social phenomena (Azumi &
Hull, 1981; Ragin, 1987) including
variation in organizational contexts.
Comparative organizational analyses
share an interest in revealing and
explaining sources of enduring organiza-
tional heterogeneity (e.g., Clemens, 1997;
Schneiberg, 2002). Variation in
organizational forms, life-stages, and
organizational cultures are examples
of this kind of heterogeneity.
Comparative analysis uncovers sources
of
persistent heterogeneity by focusing on
contextual differences at varying
levels of analysis, including across
temporal and spatial dimensions
(Aldrich, this volume). The need to
explain difference is central to the
comparative analysis of organizational
bureaucracies prevalent in the 1950s
and 1960s (Blau, 1955), the comparative
approaches focusing on cross-
cultural differences (Hofstede, 1980;
Hamilton & Biggart, 1988), and the
comparative analysis of organizational
forms (Williamson, 1991).
This volume is an attempt to reinvigorate
interest in comparative
organizational analysis. The tendency of
contemporary organizationa
1.2-Background Study:

The purpose of this study was to examine internal stakeholder perception of their company’s
policies and engagement in three segments of external initiatives and how they affect the
employee’s commitment to the organization. The segmented areas are broken into initiatives
that are related to customers, the environment, and the community.

The customer area relates to the

responsibilities that the corporation pledges
to its consumers. This includes practicing
ethical advertising, prioritizing customer
health and safety, complying with product
standards and providing products at fair
prices. The environmental area involves
how environmentally responsible the
company is in its operational methods (e.g.,
pollution prevention, waste reduction and
other initiatives that are geared to protect or lessen the company’s impact on the environment).
The community area relates to how socially responsible the organization is throughout its
operations in all the communities that they operate, to include sponsoring and participating in
community development projects and initiatives that better the community as a whole. Studies
have found that employees who have positive perceptions of their organization are more likely
to commit affectively to the organization The study also investigated the relationship of
individual attitudes and beliefs toward business ethics and sustainability and how those attitudes
impacted their employee organizational commitment.

Studies have shown that initiatives can lead to employee organizational commitment when
employees have a personal belief regarding these activities. These studies show that there is a
link between individual beliefs and their behavior. Studies investigating the relationship have
typically focused on affective commitment. Affective commitment is defined as “an emotional
attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization”. Empirical evidence
showed that employees in organizations that are socially responsible have a higher level of
affective commitment. This study will look at affective commitment. Four existing surveys were
modified to fit this study. Two of the studies measured various areas of commitment, one that
measured the importance of CSR initiatives to the employee and one that measured employee’s
personal values regarding ethics and social responsibility. Using questions from these four
surveys, a combined survey was created to measure employee’s perception of their company’s
external CSR initiatives, the importance of these initiatives to the employee and the relationship
it had to employee organizational commitment. This study also looked at employee’s personal
values regarding ethics and social responsibility and the affect their values had on their
organizational commitment. The study controlled for age and gender.

1.3-Significance of the Project:

There is a growing recognition of the importance of organizational structure in aligning the

success employee performance of any organization. The main purpose of this study was to
investigate the effect of organizational structure on employee performance. It was a case study
of New Era Secondary School one of the education institutions in Malawi. Specifically, it
focused on the effect of hierarchy on employee performance; identified factors that motivates
employees and to evaluate the effect of job satisfaction on employee performance. The study
found out organization structure has an effect on employee performance. From the results, it also
shows that building a good organization structure is important for employee to perform well in
their work. This is true as 44% of the respondents from the study indicate that it is necessary for
organization to have good organization structure since it helps in motivating employee
performance. Furthermore, the results of the study also provide evidence that group decision
making help employees to experience achieve job satisfaction. Organization structure affect
employees both negatively and positively the findings of this study provide the necessary
information to the institution and enhance its endeavor to meet both current and its long-term
demands.

 Outcomes of study:
Organization structure as a component of a business is concerned with an issue of vital
importance to the management of operations for example, managing people which facilitates co-
ordination and communication both within the operations function and between the
organizations other business function. The structuring of organization has been studied
extensively by researchers for many years, with the overwhelming conclusion that there is no
best way to restructure any organization.

 Contribution in development:
The research followed organization modem theories. Modem theories tend to be based on the
concept that the organization is a system which has to adapt to changes in its environment. In
modem theory, an organization is defined as a designed and structured process in which
individuals interact for objectives (Hicks and Gullet, 1975). The contemporary approach to the
organization is multidisciplinary, as many scientists from different fields have contributed to its
development, emphasizing the dynamic nature of communication and importance of integration
of individual and organizational interests.
Some of the notable characteristics of the modem approaches to the organization are:
- a systems viewpoint,
- a dynamic process of interaction,
- multi-leveled and multidimensional,
- multi-motivated
- Probabilistic
- multidisciplinary, descriptive,
- Multivariable, and adaptive.

 Innovations from the project:

Various studies support the concept that movement into management automatically pushes one
into the ranks of they. This is partly because, despite efforts to involve employees in decision
making, these initiatives have been shown to focus on production-level decisions that have little
impact on increasing employee influence within the organization. In their paper, “Employee
Perceptions of Job Influence and Organizational Participation,” Rick Delbridge and Keith
Whitfield (2001) reference the work of George Strauss, who said that “only relatively
unimportant decisions are made at the workplace level”.
Strauss goes on to note that (regardless of empowerment initiatives) the really important
decisions, such as those that affect things critical to workers such as job security, are still made
further up the organizational structure (Delbridge & Whitfield, 2001, p. 473). They go on to
present research that argues that those employee empowerment efforts that do not expand
employee influence on decision-making to more critical decisions do not really have much
positive effect on the workplace environment (Delbridge & Whitfield, 2001, p. 475).

The role of innovation within an organization is undeniably important. An organizational culture

that embraces innovation is one that will encourage employees to behave innovatively. This
investigation is set out to explore the determinants of innovation within an organization that will
prompt employees to behave innovatively. The investigation suggests that when employees
perceive a positive innovative culture, they are likely to show innovative behavior in specific
stages of innovative work behavior. These stages are: opportunity exploration, idea generation,
idea championing and idea realization.
The investigation identified ten
determinants, namely: autonomy,
external contacts, communication,
collaboration, risk taking,
decentralized structure, reward,
resource, participative leadership and
strategy. We proposed ten hypotheses
to test the impact of these ten
determinants on employee innovative
behavior. Based on the findings, some
of the determinants are found to have a
high support to innovative behavior
and these vary according to the
specific innovation behavior stage.

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY

2.1-Type of research.

Qualitative research methods usually work based on non-quantifiable elements such

as the feeling or emotions of the researcher. In addition, it doesn’t require any
mathematical calculation to collect any numerical data. For instance, an example of
this method can be an open-ended questionnaire.
Every person is unique and might expect a different outcome from the job; however, there are
some job satisfaction factors that psychologists usually agree will improve employee satisfaction
of research on job satisfaction relating to ergonomics, design and productivity. Frame work of
Research This theory relates intrinsic factors to job satisfaction and extrinsic factors with
dissatisfaction. It has been proven in research that job satisfaction reduces the level of turnover
for good employees. According to Klassen, Usher, and Bong (2010) job satisfaction was a
significant construct in emotional and psychological wellbeing of teachers.
It is a kind of study which can be relate both as qualitative and quantitative. As discussed earlier
it depends on the nature of the employee. If he/she takes it as a career path it is a qualitative
approach but if it is taken as a figure of salary the things may reflect towards the quantitative
direction.

2.2-Sources of data collection.

The data discussed in this research has been collected from different books available online.
Another source of this are the articles on different web pages.
 Primary source:
The primary source as discussed earlier are the books available online free to read.
 Secondary source:
This is linked with articles written by successful managers which influences the world.

2.3-Tools for data collection.

The most widely used tool now a days for data reading, data collection, data gathering and
converting them into a useful information is the internet.
 Internet:
The best and most widely used tool available in the world. By a single click we can reach up to
Thousands and if I am not wrong some researches lead to millions of pages.
  Case Studies:
Another important tool and we can also say a source for data collection. As we know the best
way to learn is b y studying others experiences. Those people whom had already been through
The situations and there experiences helps a lot in it.
 Surveys:
Conducting a survey creates expectations for change in those asked to answer it. Do not
administer a survey if action will not, or cannot, be taken as a result. Satisfaction surveys should
be compared to objective indicators of satisfaction, such as buying patterns for customers or
attendance for employees, and to objective measures of performance, such as warranty data in
manufacturing or re-admission rates in hospitals. If survey results do not correlate with the other
measures, work to understand whether the survey is unreliable or whether perceptions are being
modified by the organization’s actions. Surveys of customer and employee satisfaction should
be ongoing processes rather than onetime events. Get help from a research organization in
preparing, administering, and analyzing major surveys especially large ones or those whose
results will determine significant decisions or expenditures.

2.4-Data Collection.

 How it will be Collected:

The data for this research will be collected from different source using different tools. The main
source or the primary source will be the information of different books available on the internet.
It will be more accurate to say that the data will be collected from the internet and converted into
a useful information for this project will helps to answers many questions of reader while
reading the project.

 Quality control:
This is the most difficult part of the project. To maintain the quality of the work delivered in the
project. It should be more accurate, more detailed, and to cover most of the things possible in the
research.
 How survey will be conducted:
As an old student of management, the links will help a lot in performing surveys at different
organizations. In today’s world conducting survey is easier than in previous years. As everyone
wants their organization to be promoted. And through us they will get promotion of there
organization and we will get our results. So, this is a win-win situation for both ends.
 2.5-Data Processing & Analysis.

 How analysis will be conducted:

It involves taking one entity or piece of data, such as a statement, an interview, or a theme, and
comparing it with others to identify similarities or differences. By isolating these aspects, it is
then possible to develop a conceptual model of the possible relations between various entities.

 Microsoft Word:
This software will be used for the whole summarization of data into useful information. As this
is the most user friendly and Graphical user interface helps in organizing the work more easily.

 statistical techniques for the analysis:

There are many methods used to collect or obtain data for statistical analysis. Three of the most
popular methods are:
• Direct Observation
• Experiments, and
• Surveys.

References.

Many sources have been used and will be used in the project planning and then for its
composition. Some of the list is given below.

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
312402444_The_perception_of_innovative_organisational_culture_and_its_influence_on_emp
loyee_innovative_work_behaviour
 https://reliabletankline.com/ax9zq6/research-methodology-of-job-satisfaction
 https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/employee-perception-organizational-decision-making-
6682
 https://www.freepik.com/vectors/compare
 https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S0733-558X(2009)0000026002/full/
html?skipTracking=true
 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2091811