Editorial 'Mieux-être au travail : repenser le management et l'émergence de la personne'
Contributor(s)
KEDGE Business School [Talence] ; Ministère de l'Éducation nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche ( M.E.N.E.S.R. )Archives - Management & Sciences Sociales
Keywords
ManagementBien-être au travail
Bien-être au travail management
post-modernité
JEL : M - Business Administration and Business Economics • Marketing • Accounting • Personnel Economics/M.M1 - Business Administration/M.M1.M14 - Corporate Culture • Diversity • Social Responsibility
JEL : M - Business Administration and Business Economics • Marketing • Accounting • Personnel Economics/M.M1 - Business Administration
JEL : M - Business Administration and Business Economics • Marketing • Accounting • Personnel Economics
[ SHS.GESTION ] Humanities and Social Sciences/Business administration
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01865907https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01865907/document
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01865907/file/Editorial%20Yanat%20Brunet%20Silva.pdf
Abstract
International audienceDe nombreuses études académiques aussi bien que des témoignages dans les media continuent d’attirer l’attention sur la multiplication des cas de souffrance au travail : harcèlements, burn-out, voire suicides. Les réponses apportées ne se limitent plus au seul traitement curatif et individualisé du stress et de la souffrance au travail. Les logiques préventives et collaboratives qui se développent dans les entreprises témoignent de plus en plus d’un souci axiologique chez de nombreux managers.Ce numéro de Management et Sciences sociales sur le thème « Mieux-être au travail : repenser le management et l’émergence de la personne » a été préparé en collaboration avec la chaire « Mieux-être au travail » de la Caisse d’Epargne, en respectant le processus de sélection en double aveugle. Il permet d’aborder les questionnements autour des changements suivants qui sont en train d’émerger dans les entreprises :- Un travail de plus en plus collectif, collaboratif et coopératif remet en question les logiques et les activités individuelles. De nouveaux modes d’organisation font passer les salariés d’une situation de main-d’oeuvre obéissante et surveillée à celle d’une communauté devant travailler ensemble afin de générer de l’intelligence collective. C’est ainsi qu’émergent des logiques de « co » (collaboratif, coopération, co-working, co-production…). Les relations d’autorité, verticales voire patriarcales, tendent à évoluer vers des relations horizontales entre pairs s’éloignant du lien de subordination qui est au coeur du contrat de travail. En fait, c’est le rapport au travail qui est en train de se transformer.
Date
2017Type
info:eu-repo/semantics/articleIdentifier
oai:HAL:hal-01865907v1hal-01865907
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01865907
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01865907/document
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01865907/file/Editorial%20Yanat%20Brunet%20Silva.pdf
Copyright/License
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/licences/copyright/Collections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Bulgaria - Ex-post impact assessment of the act on limiting administrative regulation and administration control on economic activityWorld Bank (World Bank, 2010-07-01)The ex-post impact assessment of the Limiting Administrative Regulation and Administrative Control on Economic Activity Act (LARACEAA) is part of the World Bank's support to the Government of Bulgaria through on-going analytical and advisory work in the area of regulatory reform. The purpose of the present ex-post impact assessment of the LARACEAA is to: (i) assess how the Act has been enforced, (ii) identify and estimate the impacts of the Act, and (iii) provide recommendations for amendments to the Act. Chapter one emphasizes the importance of the Act as part of the Bulgarian Government's role in advancing regulatory reform and improving the business environment; gives the scope of the assessment and presents the sources of information utilized; and delineates general limitations of the analysis. Chapter two outlines a policy framework by discussing coherence with the Governmental and European Union (EU) policies, as well as touching upon relevant documents on regulatory reform, followed by analysis of the goal and objectives of the Act, and identification of performance indicators for the measurement of the impact of the Act. Chapter three depicts the results of the ex-post impact assessment, while the final chapter four identifies the main problem; discusses underlying drivers and effects of the problem; and proposes recommendations for amendments to the Act.
-
Bulgaria - Ex-post impact assessment
 of the act on limiting administrative regulation and
 administration control on economic activityWorld Bank (World Bank, 2012-03-19)The ex-post impact assessment of the
 Limiting Administrative Regulation and Administrative
 Control on Economic Activity Act (LARACEAA) is part of the
 World Bank's support to the Government of Bulgaria
 through on-going analytical and advisory work in the area of
 regulatory reform. The purpose of the present ex-post impact
 assessment of the LARACEAA is to: (i) assess how the Act has
 been enforced, (ii) identify and estimate the impacts of the
 Act, and (iii) provide recommendations for amendments to the
 Act. Chapter one emphasizes the importance of the Act as
 part of the Bulgarian Government's role in advancing
 regulatory reform and improving the business environment;
 gives the scope of the assessment and presents the sources
 of information utilized; and delineates general limitations
 of the analysis. Chapter two outlines a policy framework by
 discussing coherence with the Governmental and European
 Union (EU) policies, as well as touching upon relevant
 documents on regulatory reform, followed by analysis of the
 goal and objectives of the Act, and identification of
 performance indicators for the measurement of the impact of
 the Act. Chapter three depicts the results of the ex-post
 impact assessment, while the final chapter four identifies
 the main problem; discusses underlying drivers and effects
 of the problem; and proposes recommendations for amendments
 to the Act.
-
Collective ChoiceSchwartz, Justin (SelectedWorks, 2011-01-01)This short nontechnical article reviews the Arrow Impossibility Theorem and its implications for rational democratic decisionmaking. In the 1950s, economist Kenneth J. Arrow proved that no method for producing a unique social choice involving at least three choices and three actors could satisfy four seemingly obvious constraints that are practically constitutive of democratic decisionmaking. Any such method must violate such a constraint and risks leading to disturbingly irrational results such and Condorcet cycling. I explain the theorem in plain, nonmathematical language, and discuss the history, range, and prospects of avoiding what seems like a fundamental theoretical challenge to the possibility of democratic decisionmaking at all. I focus on the two constraints most writers have thought most vulnerable to relaxation, one implying that interpersonal comparisons of utility are impossible or unattainable, and that the decisions must be collectively rational in giving single unique ranking of all alternatives. I show that the standard attempts to evade the Arrow problem by relaxing these requirements fail. I also discuss versions of the objection that the Arrow problem somehow misses the point of democratic decisionmaking, and show that the main such approaches, Jon Elster's appeal to deliberative democracy, Arrow's own idea that the conditions giving rise to the problem arise infrequently, Alfred McKay's attempt to impose an implausible mathematical condition on collective deliberation, and Elizabeth Anderson & Richard Pildes' theory that value incommensurability renders collective rationality irrelevant, all fail because they do not evade the problem, are ad hoc, or presuppose its premises. I conclude that the Arrow Impossibility Theorem still poses a major and surprisingly intransigent theoretical problem for democratic theory. This research was supported by funding from the John Marshall Law School