Impact of business model change on organizational success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of organizational change, more specifically business model change, on corporate employees’ motivation and, consequently, performance. Design/methodology/approach The main approaches and managerial frameworks on organization change implementation, as well as the assessment methods on whether the company is ready to implement the change, were identified by reviewing the current literature on the subject between 1940 and 2016. Findings Reviewed individual behavioral reactions and provided steps to encourage favorable individual employee perceptions. Research limitations/implications Existing gaps in supporting empirical data on the subject and a limited number of direct case studies and real-life scenarios. The research was primarily focused on employee motivation during the initial planning phase of organizational change, with lesser focus on motivation throughout and especially after the change process. Practical implications To benefit from the change, organizations must avoid improvising and should follow specific and formal change management procedures which take employee motivation and individual response towards change under consideration. Social implications By providing real-life illustrations of successful business model change implementations, current and future companies facing this type of change in the future can learn from these specific scenarios. Originality/value The distinction of business model change as a sub-type of organizational change and the study of employee motivation under a business model change specifically is the novel contribution of the paper.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".