Postscript to change: survivors' retrospective views of organizational changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To analyze lower level employees' retrospective views of their experience with organizational changes introduced by management; to provide a typology of change responses based on employees' interpretations. Design/methodology/approach Canadian bank employees' accounts of their experience with change were obtained in interviews and analyzed using established guidelines for qualitative data analysis. A typology of change responses (acceptance, resigned compliance, avoidance/opposition, and ambivalence) was derived from the data. Links are made to the literature on readiness for, compliance with and resistance to, change, and to the literatures on framing and on identity as they inform responses to change. Findings Among others, the findings indicate: that changes that are compatible with employees' role identity or that are viewed as enhancing organizational identity tend to be easily embraced; the extensive prevalence of the “resigned compliance” response; that lack of participation in change decisions may be a common expectation among employees of large bureaucratic organizations that seek uniformity across widely dispersed geographic units; and opposition to change may be functional from an organizational standpoint. Research limitations/implications Several research implications are outlined including the need for theories to consider that change has been ubiquitous and that its pervasiveness can place its legitimacy beyond questioning. Research limitation includes the fact that the study focused on change survivors and did not have access to employees who had willingly left, or were asked to leave the organization as changes were being implemented. Practical implications The study provides an understanding of the dynamics that underlie different responses to change. Understanding such dynamics is essential for the performance of the change agent role. Originality/value Unlike much of the extant literature that tends to focus on the managerial view of change and on managerial framing, this study contributes the lower level employee perspective on, and framing of, change. In contrast with other studies of change that attend to a specific change situation, this article focuses on experiences with multiple changes and on the general view of change held by participants. The study also addresses a gap in the literature, as empirical studies have failed to tie responses to change to identity dynamics.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".