Individual Cognitive Effort and Cognitive Transition During Organization Development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do personal mind-sets change during an organization development intervention and how are these transitions associated with the intervention characteristics? In a qualitative theory-driven case study based in South Africa, the transitions of six individuals during an appreciative inquiry were scrutinized longitudinally for first-order and second-order changes. Five individuals showed first-order changes and two showed second-order changes. The engaging and emergent characteristic of the intervention explained the majority of these cognitive transitions. A third type of change in mind-set emerged in four of the cases: the development of an appreciative stance, which we classify as a form of cognitive effort rather than a cognitive transition. We conclude that interventions focusing on positivity may lead to participants developing an appreciative stance, but successful organization development might not occur without sufficient engagement in an emergent process. We provide some guidelines for practitioners for conducting an engaging emergent change process.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it