MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409184952 · doi:10.1080/23311975.2025.2478447

Change management and organizational performance: current key trends

2025· article· en· W4409184952 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCogent Business & Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Leadership and Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess managementBusinessKey (lock)Current (fluid)Knowledge managementOrganizational changeChange management (ITSM)Operations managementComputer scienceMarketingEngineeringPolitical sciencePublic relationsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a comprehensive review of the literature on the relationship between change management and organizational performance through bibliometric and thematic analysis. Using the Web of Science database, 304 publications were analyzed with VOS viewer and biblioshiny in R-studio. The study examines author engagement, keyword trends, co-authorship networks, and conceptual structures. Findings reveal a growing research interest in this field across various geographical regions. The United States and China are the most influential countries, while Appelbaum from Concordia University in Canada is the most productive researcher. The research’s conceptual structure focuses on four key aspects: human, organizational, technological, and leadership. Co-word analysis categorizes topics based on their intensity, specialization, and level of development, distinguishing well-researched areas from emerging and underexplored themes. This approach provides a clearer understanding of thematic and temporal developments in the field. By mapping the conceptual landscape, this study highlights key research areas and identifies future directions for exploration. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of how change management impacts organizational performance and offer insights for scholars and practitioners interested in advancing the field.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.208 · 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