Demystifying the Struggles of Private Sector Paradigmatic Change: Business as an Agent in a Complex Adaptive System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the author applies complex systems theory (CST) to help understand why, after 14 years of management scholar advocacy for a paradigmatic shift in management behavior, the field of management has been unable to move away from a technocentric paradigm. Using four principles of complex adaptive systems (CAS), the author shows that focusing exclusively on business behavior limits our attention to symptoms rather than the broader system of interacting agents whose collective behaviors legitimize and support an economic paradigm. By drawing on complexity and critical systems theory, the author then develops a three-phased process model that provides a preliminary conceptualization of what it might take to shift the business paradigm. The success of this shift is dependent on a consequential shift at the societal level, the interaction of which speaks to the implications for business as a recipient of this broader shift and, more important, its role as an agent in the process of creating new opportunities that sustain the life-supporting environmental and social systems. Through this model, the author presents important implications for policy makers and management theory.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".