MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174604302 · doi:10.1002/9781119176626.ch31

The Dialogic Organization Development Approach to Transformation and Change

2015· other· en· W2174604302 on OpenAlexaff
Gervase R. Bushe, Robert J. Marshak

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAppreciative Inquiry and Organizational Change
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformational leadershipDialogicMindsetGenerativityProcess (computing)Meaning (existential)NarrativeKey (lock)SociologyPolitical sciencePsychologyPublic relationsEpistemologyPedagogyComputer scienceSocial psychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simply having “good dialogues” is not enough to create change. Hence, dialogic organization development (OD) approaches can help leaders and organizations meet adaptive challenges and create transformational change. This chapter identifies eight key premises of a dialogic OD mindset and contrasts these with a diagnostic OD mindset. The key premises include: reality and relationships are socially constructed; organizations are meaning-making systems; and language, broadly defined, matters. The chapter also identifies the three core change processes that, whether practitioners are aware of it or not, are the source of change in dialogic OD efforts. These change processes are: transformational process 1-emergence; transformational process 2-narrative; and transformational process 3-generativity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.041
Scholarly communication0.0150.010
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAppreciative Inquiry and Organizational ChangeFrench-language works237,207