MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212120618 · doi:10.7202/1079221ar

An International Comparison of Enablers of Individual Readiness for Change: The Case of Executives Working in France, GCC and India

2021· article· en· W3212120618 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karim Saïd, Abhilash S. Nair

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement international · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionHierarchyChange management (ITSM)Context (archaeology)Position (finance)Organizational changeNationalityPublic relationsBusinessKnowledge managementPsychologyPolitical scienceMarketingGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to examine the components that foster individual readiness for organizational change. To address this question, we conducted an international comparison of the perception of managers at different levels of organizational hierarchy. This research employed a quantitative survey research design administrated to two hundred and fifty-six employees, in different hierarchical levels in organizations, from France, GCC (Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council) and India enrolled in several executive training programs. Our research supports the idea the perception of the change process unlike the context of change is a significant determinant of employees’ readiness for change. The study controls for key individual antecedents of change readiness. Accordingly, we have shown that readiness for change may vary according to nationality and hierarchical position of an individual. We conclude that successful implementation of change cannot be reached without a need for change being established, which can be triggered and nurtured through the appropriate change management processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement internationalSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207