The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Participatory Processes/Paradoxical Practices: Communication and the Dilemmas of Organizational Democracy
Abstract
This article brings together previous research efforts by the authors and reviews a wide range of relevant literatures to explain and analyze paradoxes of employee participation and workplace democracy. Although the authors do not take the position that all or even most of these paradoxes are necessarily harmful, they do maintain that there are a variety of practical avenues for dealing with them. The heart of the essay analyzes several main categories of participatory paradoxes: those of structure, agency, identity, and power. Following that, the authors offer practical suggestions for the management of paradoxes (and related tensions and contradictions), linking those recommendations to relevant theoretical and empirical propositions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital
Putnam, R. D. (1995) · Journal of Democracy · doi:10.1353/jod.1995.0002 · Cited by 14,037
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Paradoxical Thinking and Change in the Frames of Reference
Westenholz, A. (1993) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/017084069301400104 · Cited by 175
Cited by
Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162421 · Cited by 1,116
Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9172-7 · Cited by 811
Examining the tensions in workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions.
Putnam, L. L., Myers, K. K., & Gailliard, B. M. (2014) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726713495704 · Cited by 341
Laboratories of Oligarchy? How the Iron Law Extends to Peer Production
Shaw, A., & Hill, B. M. (2014) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12082 · Cited by 211
Speaking Up: Identifying Employees’ Upward Dissent Strategies
Kassing, J. W. (2002) · Management Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/089331802237234 · Cited by 162
Bal, P. M., & de Jong, S. B. (2017) · Dignity and the Organization · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-55562-5_9 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Stohl, C., & Cheney, G.
- Venue
- Management Communication Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-02
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 349-407
- ISSN
- 0893-3189 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-6798
- OpenAlex
- W2006155468
- Cited by
- 471
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 33.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
