The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Grounded Model of Organizational Schema Change During Empowerment
Abstract
We analyzed employee resistance to an organizational change project in which employees were empowered to participate in the design of a new organizational structure. What emerged from our analysis was the importance of cognitive barriers to empowerment. Employees' resistance appeared to be motivated less by intentional self-interest than by the constraints of well-established, ingrained schemas. Resistance was also fueled by skepticism among the employees about management's commitment to the new decision-making schema, especially because employees judged managerial actions to be inconsistent with their new espoused framework. A grounded model of schema change is developed for changes in organizational decision-making schemas during empowerment efforts. Theoretical implications and suggestions for improving organizational change efforts are proposed.
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
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277
Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1997) · Reis · doi:10.2307/40183951 · Cited by 11,113
Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0076546 · Cited by 7,246
Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action.
Jick, T. D. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392366 · Cited by 7,103
Plans and the structure of behavior.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960) · doi:10.1037/10039-000 · Cited by 4,630
Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs.
Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.961 · Cited by 805
Cited by
Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428112452151 · Cited by 13,227
Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward
Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2014.873177 · Cited by 1,764
NISHII, L. H., LEPAK, D. P., & SCHNEIDER, B. (2008) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00121.x · Cited by 1,410
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Labianca, G., Gray, B., & Brass, D. J.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2000-04
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 235-257
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2135175878
- Cited by
- 357
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 8.13
- 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.
