To Overcome Ethical Dilemmas in an Organization: Paradox and Ethics of Freedom Can Help
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A theoretical model for managers responding to a morally challenging situation is developed in the article. This model explores and examines how managers deal with paradoxes created by ethical dilemmas. To explain their strategy, the authors’ model combines a moral philosophy approach – existentialism ‒ with paradox theories. Starting with an emblematic situation such as a dilemma, the lens of Smith and Tushman’s Paradoxical Cognition is used to develop the theoretical construct. Then, with the help of Sartre’s ethics of freedom, two stages that managers pass through to find a solution are explained. Drawing on those theories, a model of ethical cognition to solve the paradoxical tension issues from ethical dilemmas is submitted. A reflexive process that includes awareness, freedom, and personal projects is combined and described. Every stage with examples of issues from the previous research of human resource managers is illustrated. This model allows people to escape those paradoxical tensions and suggests how a person articulates and creates ethical principles to handle a paradoxical conflict. Based on the in-depth interviews reanalyzed, concrete illustrations about paradoxical cognition are shown. These semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted to determine how French-Canadian HR managers make ethical decisions (respondents: 37 HR managers working in Montreal and its suburbs (Quebec, Canada); period: 2013‒2017; number of questions: 16, divided into 4 sections; discourse analysis of data: using AtlasTi software). In doing so, the gap between theory and empirical with Sartre’s concepts such as Awareness, Freedom, and Project is overcome. This conceptual model can be used in the individual to solve of a moral dilemma and can be most valuable for manager when they are facing some moral paradoxical situations.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".