Critical analysis of organizational change process: evidences from a steel company
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the main factors that influence the organizational change in a steel company. Design/methodology/approach The methodological procedures used were literature review and survey. The literature review allowed the listing of 24 factors and these factors were grouped into three constructs (Behavioral Aspects, Cultural Aspects and Management Aspects). The survey allowed the quantification of each factor based on information provided by employees who work in the mentioned company. The data collected were analyzed using the Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modeling technique. Findings For the Behavioral Aspects, the following factors were validated: fear of the unknown; insecurity and anxiety; stress and feeling of suffering. For the Cultural Aspects the following factors were validated: multiculturalism in the company; low degree of risk acceptance and low performance acceptance; excessive concerns about consensus. Finally, for the Management Aspects, the following factors were validated: lack of clarity in communications; lack of alignment of goals; lack of leadership engagement. Originality/value The results are valuable for the company studied and for other managers interested in subject. The findings presented here can broaden the debate about this topic and contribute with professionals that wish to evaluate the mentioned factors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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