Change Management in China - An application of Meta-Strategies Practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Change processes and projects have traditionally used a variety of strategies to ensure initiation, engagement of participants, and successful implementation. General strategies (meta-strategies) of change identified by the literature include use of information, values, power and, more recently, trust as "meta-strategies" associated with change management efforts. This article outlines the underlying philosophy and rationale of the four meta-strategies and outlines the perceived importance and frequency of use of each set of strategies in China. Findings indicate that, in China, values-driven strategies are perceived as most important in relation to change success and are also the most frequently used in practice. Trust based strategies, while declared to be the least important of the four meta-strategies, are the second most frequently used in actual change management practice. Power, an underlying theme in Chinese culture where position and hierarchy are perceived in general to be critical, is third in declared importance and fourth (last) in frequency of use while information is second in declared importance but third in actual frequency of use. Results of the study suggest an increased balanced use of all four of the strategies for effective change management
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it