The inference
CLAIM-122 holds that changing the conditions of efficacy changes behaviour while the competing preferences stay fixed. Tsoukas and Chia reread Barrett et al. on Total Quality in the US Navy (pp. 578–579):
- Junior officers “always put forward suggestions”.
- Under the old template those suggestions were “channelled … through the chain of command”.
- After TQ they “were brought into focus, amplified, and earned legitimacy”.
On this reading the suggestions held constant, and what changed was whether they could move the organization.
Critical questions
- Would the evidence be expected if the conclusion were false? Yes. If what changed was the content of the proposals, the same account would be given.
- Does it tell the claim apart from its rivals? No, and this is the question that fails. The new template also let members “notice new things, make fresh distinctions, see new connections” (p. 579). So the proposals were not held fixed, and CLAIM-122’s defeater, a change in what was preferred, is not excluded.
- Does the measure measure what it is said to? No. It is a second-hand reading of a published case, chosen because it showed change.
Rejected as evidence for CLAIM-122. TERM-023 remains the record’s analysis of what Tsoukas and Chia call the “structural context”.