Leadership et leader: une théorie collusoire autor de l'illégitimité du pouvoir du dirigeant en management de types us? discussion et deconstrucion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Before the enormous differences of productivity, profitability, quality, commitment of employees who constantly widen between the two dominant rivals “models”, that of financial capitalism in the US on the one hand, and that of capitalism more industrial – technical of countries such as those of the northern Europe (Scandinavia, Germany), or south east Asia (Japan, South Korea…) is it not worth asking whether the mode of relations existing between “leaders” and conducted is not there for some reason? In other words, if the mode of legitimization of power of the owner and business leaders – as seen and perceived by workers, as unacceptable, and even as demobilizing ? Because after all, the ‘added value` the productivity, innovation… and the so-called ‘total quality” may not come from this that the collective intelligence – from what the synergy of employees can and “want” give. There are therefore an obvious problem of ‘` whose ways employees are encouraged to be creative, vigilant, intelligent… in what they are doing for their business. Much has been said and written on the question of «cultures of entreprieses» which would make the difference…, but, precisely, and what is addressing this text, why is there any ‘cultures” generating quality and productivity never denied on the one hand, and other not generating (comparatively) virtually that stress, demobilization, disengagement, low quality… to another side? Would it not – among other things – the legitimacy of people – in what they are and what they grant themselves – which arise in “leaders” which would be involved? That is the central question to which the present work will attempt to find answer.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".