Déterminants et significations des conduites d'hypertravail : une approche psychosociale et systémique- le cas des travailleurs et des travailleuses des secteurs du multimédia et des services informatiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Far from the anticipated decrease in working time and the emergence of a leisure society, we have instead noted, over the last 30 or so years, an increase in the time devoted to work by the most qualified workers, both in Quebec and in most other Western societies (Burke and Cooper, 2008;Lapointe, 2005;Lee, 2007).In a context where "temporal arrangements" (Thoemmes, 2000) tend to be individualized in order to better take into account the realities and needs of both employees and organizations, this thesis questions the "voluntary" nature of patterns of overwork observed among workers in the data processing and multimedia sectors.It focuses in particular on the psychosocial processes underlying the construction of these behavior patterns.As part of a psychosocial and systemic approach, our research is structured around a theory that resonates with individual and organizational operations, supported by the Psychic organizational system model (Aubert and de Gaulejac, 1991), and a theory of a plural and active socialization, based on the Activities system model (Baubion-Broye and Hajjar, 1998;Curie, 2000).Operationalized according to a grid structured around five levels of analysis (intra-individual, interpersonal, positional, ideological, and task and organization of work), we conducted 34 biographical interviews (26 men and 8 women) among workers from the data processing and multimedia sectors.The results highlight three types of processes leading to the adoption of "hyperwork behaviour": a case study illustrating a process of reinforcing a professional and "super worker" identity; a case study outlining a process of organizational hyper-affiliation and the subjugation of life outside work; and a case study describing sustained defensive overwork behavior, in a context of organizational trial.Lastly, the particular resonances observed among the levels and factors lead us to underline the importance of better understanding overwork by taking into account, from a diachronic and synchronic perspective, the meanings that individuals give to their behavior.We will also discuss the dynamic and evolving nature of the individual-collective-organizational relationship and of the differentiated role of organizations and work collectives in the construction of hyperwork behaviour.We conclude by highlighting certain implications of new work-time practices and norms that help develop and maintain hyperwork behaviour observed in these organizations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".