Implementing organizational change in health and social services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose – To explore the shared experience of organizational change from centralized allocation and control of services and resources to an empowering partnership approach to service delivery in one Canadian home care program. Design/methodology/approach – Applying an interpretive phenomenological design, data from in‐depth interviews with a purposeful sample (n=28) of providers, clients and informal caregivers were analysed using hermeneutic techniques, and validated by member checking and peer review. Findings – The overall experience of change was comprised of two dynamic change patterns: extrinsically introduced organizational development, facilitated by contextual factors; and intrinsically developed transformational change, impeded by the same contextual factors. The patterns together comprised participants' enactment of an answer to the existential question, "To have or to be?" Research limitations/implications – While interpretive research does not elicit generalizable results, the findings of this study illuminate the importance of choosing change strategies appropriate for the intended change, addressing what the change may mean to all involved, and confronting the contextual factors that undermine the change. Practical implications – New strategies are needed if engrained attitudes, values and beliefs about professional service delivery are to be changed. Originality/value – The interpretation exposes the nature of professional practice in health and social services, the impact of this work context on practice, and concrete strategies for managing organizational change.
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 | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".