Turning Belief into Action: The Role of Relationships, Trust and Leadership in Building Shared Belief and Motivating Organizational Support: A Case Study of an Anonymous Post-Secondary Institution in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This case study tests a new model for corporate communications called Building Belief, which urges a firm to constantly live up to its stated character and values so as to motivate its stakeholders to identify with it, support it, and promote it. The model was applied to a postsecondary institution in Ontario. Building on published theories and best practices related to culture, reputation, trust, relationship management, communications, employee engagement, strategy, leadership, storytelling, and social media, this study asked employees (faculty and staff), advisory committee members and leaders to define their organization’s culture and rate the extent to which the organization shares their values. This study finds that the organization’s stakeholders do have the potential to act as ambassadors, but just as in the private sector, a sense of shared belief is needed first. The study recommends the use of storytelling to build shared identity. It further suggests the involvement of the institution’s stakeholders in the cocreation of a culture code and the use of ongoing, two-way communications to deepen levels of engagement and strengthen people’s relationships with the institution. The Building Belief model was found to have relevance in the post-secondary sector. Finally, this study delivers a new tool to help any organization, public or private, quickly assess its level of shared values and connection with its stakeholders and gain insight into the dimensions that might need further attention to help build shared belief and turn it into action.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".