Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to test the validity of a set of best practice principles for managing transformational organizational change by applying them to a specific change initiative in the media. It also aims to examine whether prescriptions for effective change leadership (traditionally confined to single leaders) apply to a situation and organization where there are three distinct leader roles. Design/methodology/approach The paper takes the form of a case study of a major change initiative undertaken at a leading Canadian newspaper. Findings The paper shows that multiple, relatively autonomous leaders can lead a successful and unified change given specific organizational and environmental conditions. It also concludes that the generally accepted best practice of change leadership does not necessarily apply to a newspaper environment and posits that, in certain circumstances, a major change initiative can succeed despite running counter to the prevalent prescriptions in the literature. Research limitations/implications The conclusions drawn may be limited to organizations in the news media or those with similar organizational structures. Practical implications The paper suggests shortcoming of existing normative leadership theories, seeks to explain why this is the case, and makes numerous suggestions for further study. Originality/value The paper challenges orthodox assumptions and theories about leader roles and necessary qualities in leaders in successful organizational change. It extends understanding of change processes in the news media, which is under‐studied. It also suggests the applicability, but also relative insufficiency, of existing change theory as pertains to the media industry.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.168 | 0.050 |
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".