Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dimensional structure of adaptation to organizational change was identified. The dimensions were related to personality, work attitude, and job stress variables. The research extends previous research on adaptation to change at work (e.g. Chan, 2000; Pulakos et al., 2000) by examining adaptation in the context of large-scale organizational change and by empirically deriving its dimensional structure. Characteristics of adaptation to organizational change were identified by obtaining critical incidents of adaptation from 47 managers from four organizations following a merger and restructuring. A questionnaire was developed from these characteristics to measure adaptation to organizational change. Data on the questionnaire from 553 managers yielded five dimensions, which were interpreted and labelled: Supporting Change, Resisting Change, Career Development, Initiating Effort, and Building Social Capital. Openness, emotional stability, agreeableness, and positive self-concept were positively related to four of the five adaptation dimensions. Linear combinations of the personality traits predicted the adaptation dimensions moderately well (Rs ranged .29 to .42). Work attitude variables were associated with Resisting Change. Job stress was positively related to Resisting Change and Initiating Effort. Two second-order factors were obtained, distinguishing between problem-focused and emotion-focused adaptation dimensions. A taxonomy of adaptation strategies was identified to reveal how individuals differ in their relative use of the five adaptation dimensions. These strategies were interpreted and labelled: strategy 1, strategy 2, highly responsive, moderately responsive, and unresponsive. Adaptation to organizational change is a multidimensional construct representing meaningful differences in how employees adapt. The five dimensions appear to differ on the basis of whether they reflect problem-focused or emotion-focused efforts to adapt. The implications for management practice include both personnel selection and training. Personnel selection on the basis of personality traits would increase adaptability among employees. Measurement of adaptation to organizational change among employees would then identify developmental needs, and training could be designed to meet those needs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".