ABSTRACT This paper uses a case study to explore a basic dilemma: can the people who control organizations develop ideologies which simultaneously facilitate stability and change? This dilemma is likely to become most apparent when people set out to improve an organization within its current ideological context but the consequences implicit in the improvements are poorly understood. The meaning and value of the improvements are then likely to be assessed differently by superiors and subordinates, and by loyal members and heretics. The case study illustrates how resources are mobilized to constrain improvement attempts in such a way that the consequences reconfirm the preexisting organizational ideologies and halt the improvement attempts [I].
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 60 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.