Factors that impact the success of an organizational change: a case study analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the factors that impact the success of an organizational change within an organization under study. Design/methodology/approach Five hypotheses were developed to investigate independent variables as possible factors affecting employees’ commitment to change. The research is based on a three-step process consisting of a literature review and field research through survey and interviews. The literature review served to establish an important foundation for understanding the problem. The field research involved employees taking part in the change completing a survey. Individual interviews were also conducted with management level employees actively involved in the change process. The paper is an empirical-based case analysis. Findings The results demonstrate that employees’ commitment to change, in this organization, can be improved through increasing formal and informal communication, creating adaptive organizational systems and enhancing the role of transformational leaders during the change. Research limitations/implications Sample size was affected due to the limited availability of employees during a specific organizational cycle. Increased sample size would allow further investigation about employees’ commitment to change. Additional research could be done on how the company’s systems and practices can be adapted to change. Practical implications The success of a change project is critical for its future strategy and major project implementation. It is crucial that a systematic process be followed to implement this change. It is suggested that the John Kotter’s “eight” step change management model be adopted as a framework to the implementation plan. Social implications New behaviors are subject to degradation if they are not ingrained in social norms and shared values, i.e. if they do not become part of the culture. Managers emphasized that, even though they are creating a new team, they recognize the importance not to create a “Monster” or a new alien culture. Leaders must make sure that all new behaviors required for the integration become part of the existing culture. Originality/value The paper provides insight in some of the factors that lead to a successful organizational change and team integration. The paper recommends four steps to address communication, organizational systems and culture to improve employees’ commitment to 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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".