Organizational Change Within Morally Ambiguous Contexts: A Case Study of Conflicting Postmerger Discourses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on a case study of a merger between organizations working with youth in trouble, this article analyzes the parallel success and failure discourses representing management and staff’s conflicting views about the organizational change. The symbolic core of these conflicting discourses was the transformation of a group home’s kitchen to food services for the merged organizations. For management, this transformation signified one of the best and most visible outcomes of the merger in terms of efficiency; for staff, it provided the clearest evidence of the harm caused by the merger in terms of providing a caring environment for youth. These discourses are analyzed in relation to two conflicting organizational identities championed by management and staff. It is argued that such contested organizational changes provide opportunities for open discussions of the dilemmas faced by human service organizations within their morally ambiguous contexts. Ethical organizational leadership entails the facilitation of such dialogue rather than ignoring the connectivity between internal and external ambiguities and enforcing the managerial rationale for 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 | 0.027 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".