The DOI matches its Crossref record.
First-Order, Second-Order, and Third-Order Change and Organization Development Interventions: A Cognitive Approach
Abstract
This article discusses how recent developments in the cognitive sciences, especialy the concept of schemata (organizing frameworks for understanding events), can illumine the practice of organization development. On the basis of a cognitive perspective, the authors discuss the relationship between organizational change and schemata, describing the following orders of change that might result from OD: first-order change, or incremental changes occurring within particular schemata already shared by members of a client system, second-order change, or modifications in the shared schemata themselves; and third-order change, or the development of the capacity of the client system to change the schemata as events require. To show how understanding the differences among orders of change can help clarify problems and solutions from an intervention, the authors discuss how a paternalism schema affected a particular quality of working life intervention. They conclude by suggesting implications of the cognitive perspective for OD practice and research
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations
Orlikowski, W. J., & Gash, D. C. (1994) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/196734.196745 · Cited by 1,736
Orlikowski, W. J. (1993) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249774 · Cited by 1,512
Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression
Dotson, K. (2014) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2013.782585 · Cited by 1,232
If...Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics
Bucher, T. (2018) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190493028.001.0001 · Cited by 1,223
A Cautionary Tale: On Limiting Epistemic Oppression
Dotson, K. (2012) · Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies · doi:10.1353/fro.2012.a472779 · Cited by 874
The management of change in public organizations: A literature review
KUIPERS, B. S., HIGGS, M., KICKERT, W., TUMMERS, L., GRANDIA, J., & VAN DER VOET, J. (2014) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12040 · Cited by 508
Rai, A., Maruping, L. M., & Venkatesh, V. (2009) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/20650313 · Cited by 311
Reconsidering the Trade-off Between Expertise and Flexibility: a Cognitive Entrenchment Perspective
Dane, E. (2010) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.35.4.zok579 · Cited by 603
Youth Participatory Approaches and Health Equity: Conceptualization and Integrative Review
Ozer, E. J., Abraczinskas, M., Duarte, C., Mathur, R., Ballard, P. J., Gibbs, L., Olivas, E. T., Bewa, M. J., & Afifi, R. (2020) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1002/ajcp.12451 · Cited by 154
Hermeneutical Injustice and Liberatory Education
Elzinga, B. (2018) · The Southern Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.1111/sjp.12268 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K.
- Venue
- The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1987-12
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 483-500
- ISSN
- 0021-8863 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6879
- OpenAlex
- W2093535229
- Cited by
- 668
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.