Le mythe du leadership et les approches fonctionnalistes : au-delà de l’impératif héroïque
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans ce chapitre, nous proposons un regard critique sur les approches fonctionnalistes du leadership. Apres avoir presente les principaux travaux issus de cette approche dominante au sein des litteratures scientifique et professionnelle, nous mettons en exergue les differentes limites inherentes a ces etudes ainsi que leur manque d'utilite pragmatique. Ces limites etant deja actees dans la litterature depuis un certain nombre d'annees, nous nous interrogeons sur les raisons du succes de ces approches et de leur survivance en milieu professionnel. En particulier, nous soulignons que ces approches renforcent une vision heroique du leadership naturellement seduisante et dont l'origine est a trouver dans les mythes fondateurs du management contemporain. Nous presentons les effets pervers d'une telle conception et invitons a repenser le leadership afin de depasser cet imperatif heroique.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".