Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synopsis Ian Henson was about to take the biggest financial risk of his life. He had just agreed to purchase three Booster Juice franchise stores in Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada. Henson knew that transitioning leadership at companies was a difficult task, and he was aware that he was replacing a popular leader: Natalie Peace. Compounding the challenge ahead of Henson were two major hurdles, the first was demographic in nature: Booster Juice’s employee group was young (on average below 20 years old) and many adored Peace, he was certain that whoever replaced her would have a difficult transition. The second challenge was managing change: Henson needed to cut costs. Peace had several generous policies that Henson needed to consider altering or removing, a potentially unpopular task. Initially, this case puts students in Henson’s shoes: How should he handle the specific aspects of this leadership transition? It allows professors to examine the broader issue of managing a change process. Research methodology Data for the case were collected from various sources. Public records, historical documents, and media reports were the main source for general background information and context. Primary data were collected through a series of interviews with the present and past owners of the Booster Juice franchises discussed. Relevant courses and levels This case was developed for use in an undergraduate management course or where change management and leadership are specific modules, an organization behavior class is a good example of where the case should fit. The objective of the case is to illustrate the challenges that resulted from a change in leadership and examine how to manage the change process. The thought-provoking element in this case is the leaders involved have very different leadership styles. The authors anticipate this case would be one used early in the course, as it is concise and straightforward to read, and clearly illustrates the issues to be examined. It provides an effective tool through which to introduce students to change management and styles of leadership. The added value is that the case is based on a company built by an undergraduate student and thus students tend to be very interested in the business itself. Theoretical bases The main theoretical base for the case is based on change management and exemplary leadership. To facilitate this the authors use Kurt Lewin’s models of change, Kotter’s eight step process, specifically referring to Kotter (1995). The authors then use Kouzes & Psoner five practices of exemplary leadership, referring to Kouzes, and Posner (2003). The authors specifically reference Northouse (2010).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.199 | 0.052 |
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".