La gestion paradoxale ou l’art de concilier changements délibérés et changements émergents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paradoxical approach is attracting increasing attention in management, not least because it seems suited to the turbulent, multidimensional reality of contemporary organizations. Paradox involves the coexistence of apparent contradictions in situations where opposing elements are all important, and choosing between them is not an option (Lewis and Smith, 2023). Consistent with the principles of grounded theorizing methodology, the proposed model is based on the experiences of managers who value their employees' initiative-taking. The simultaneous process of data collection and analysis was based on 21 interviews with managers from five different organizations, 76 hours of observation of management committees and four focus groups. We found that the intention to develop the ability to act (DAA) (i.e. a process that values initiative-taking by focusing on the actualization of skills) can make certain paradoxical tensions salient. More specifically, we have documented four pairs of paradoxical tensions linked to DAA: anticipation/reaction, control/autonomy, collective/individual, and stability/change. In an attempt to understand how managers cope with these tensions, we listed 16 managerial actions grouped on to four axes: alignment, empowerment, buy-in and evolution. In-depth analysis of the four pairs of tensions revealed that each has a deliberate and an emergent pole. The deliberate perspective refers to an articulated intention with a certain level of precision, control mechanisms, and collective agreement, while the emergent perspective is characterized by an absence of prior intention, openness, and responsiveness. Deliberate and emergent poles thus interact to create a constructive tension that makes the organization less vulnerable to extremes (i.e. polarization). We propose that these paradoxical tensions are interdependent, generating a dynamic equilibrium that leads to organizational evolution.
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".