The effect of perceived person–job fit on employee attitudes toward change in trauma centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Employee attitudes toward change are critical for health care organizations implementing new procedures and practices. When employees are more positive about the change, they are likely to behave in ways that support the change, whereas when employees are negative about the change, they will resist the changes. PURPOSE: This study examined how perceived person-job (demands-abilities) fit influences attitudes toward change after an externally mandated change. Specifically, we propose that perceived person-job fit moderates the negative relationship between individual job impact and attitudes toward change. METHODOLOGY: We examined this issue in a sample of Level 1 trauma centers facing a regulatory mandate to develop an alcohol screening and brief intervention program. A survey of 200 providers within 20 trauma centers assessed perceived person-job fit, individual job impact, and attitudes toward change approximately 1 year after the mandate was enacted. RESULTS: Providers who perceived a better fit between their abilities and the new job demands were more positive about the change. Further, the impact of the alcohol screening and brief intervention program on attitudes toward change was mitigated by perceived fit, where the relationship between job impact and change attitudes was more negative for providers who perceived a worse fit as compared with those who perceived a better fit. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Successful implementation of changes to work processes and procedures requires provider support of the change. Management can enhance this support by improving perceived person-job fit through ongoing training sessions that enhance providers' abilities to implement the new procedures.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".