Saying What You Do and Doing What You Say: The Performative Dynamics of Lean Management Discourse
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why are certain managerial approaches able to impose themselves and influence organizational practices in a significant way? Inspired by the notion of performativity, this study investigates the case of the Québec public health care system, where a managerial theory – that of “lean management” – has recently emerged, gained saliency and become dominant in organizational practice. Adopting a longitudinal and multi-level research approach, we focus more precisely on the conditions that allow performativity to occur and increase, considering how this process unfolds over time. We study the processes and conditions through which lean management, imposed itself, both in the overall health care system and in two distinct health care organizations, becoming a reality for these organizations, and eventually reinforcing itself. By unveiling the action of three performative dynamics, the study reveals catalysts and inhibitors of performativity, that have relevance beyond the specific case.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it