INTRA-DYNAMICS AND ARCHETYPE TRANSITION: A CASE STUDY OF LARGE SCALE ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a qualitative case analysis of an organizational change process, this study examines the influence of intra-organizational dynamics upon archetype transition. Results indicate enabling factors influenced the emergence of embryonic archetype forms, while precipitating factors influenced oscillations and reorientation along the organizational track. Organizational change has been explained according to a variety of perspectives. One approach, the holistic view of organizational development, suggests organizations gravitate towards coherent configurations or “archetypes”. While archetype theory provides a conceptually astute frame in which to examine revolutionary change, it is criticized for emphasizing deterministic, or institutional as opposed to voluntaristic, or agency forces of change. However, recent work has begun to address this issue. For example, Amis, Slack and Hinings (2002) note that archetypical change depends upon the degree to which the values held by individuals within the organization coincide with the external values being imposed. Kirkpatrick and Ackroyd (2003) criticize archetype theory for assuming an over-functional approach that neglects the role of human agency. Consequently, this purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of intra-dynamics upon
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".