Team Readiness to Change: Reflexivity, Tenure, and Vision in Play
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 can teams make sense of a complex organizational transformation and be ready to change? These questions must be addressed as organizations turn towards team-based structures to become more reactive. During organizational transformations, we argue team reflexivity enables team members to share interpretations of changes, leading to the development of team change vision—the overarching sense of direction for simultaneous change initiatives. We further argue that team reflexivity is more effective for teams with greater team tenure dispersion and additive team tenure. We tested and found support for our theory using time-lagged, survey-based data from 70 teams at a Canadian governmental organization. Overall, our study contributes to team readiness to change literature by identifying team reflexivity as a central information-processing activity enabling teams to develop a team change vision during an organizational transformation and by clarifying the effect of team tenure on such activity.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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