Leadership credibility and change success: mediating role of commitment to change
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 study is to investigate the effects of leadership credibility on employees' behaviours and attitudes towards organisational change through the lens of employee commitment to change. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a quantitative study in which 239 participants from diverse organisations participated. Findings Using structural equation modelling techniques, the results reveal that leadership credibility has a positive effect on both affective and normative commitment to change but a negative effect on continuance commitment to change. The authors also report that change success is positively impacted by affective commitment to change and negatively impacted by continuance commitment to change but is not significantly affected by normative commitment to change. Research limitations/implications Thus, the authors contribute to closing a knowledge gap in change management theory while making practical recommendations for leading people during times of organisational transition. Originality/value This study sheds light on the role of leadership credibility and employee commitment during organisational 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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