Conventional versus Radical Moral Agents: An Exploratory Empirical Look at Weber’s Moral-points-of-view and Virtues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Max Weber’s work suggests that conventional management theory and practice is underpinned by a moral-point-of-view that places relatively high emphasis on both materialism and individualism. He calls for the development of radical management theory and practices to serve as a counterpoint. Both the conventional and radical moral-points-of-view are associated with specific virtues and practices. Weber suggests that, from a conventional moral-point-of-view, four primary virtues—mercy, submission, obedience and non-worldliness—give rise to specialization, centralization, formalization and standardization. In contrast, from a radical moral-point-of-view, these same four primary virtues are expected to give rise to sensitization, dignification, participation and experimentation (Dyck and Schroeder 2005). Our study contrasts and compares a sample of conventional and radical managers, to provide an empirical look at these expected differences, as well as testing for differences in their personal and spiritual virtues. Implications are discussed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".