arbiter
JournalsAccount

The Competence Paradox: Rethinking Goal-Setting in the Age of Algorithmic Management

Ofem E. Ofem

Human Resource Development Review2025https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843251359149article
ABDC B
Weight
0.37

Abstract

Algorithmic dashboards promise sharper performance yet often erode autonomy and trust—a contradiction that Goal-Setting Theory (GST) cannot explain. Guided by paradox theory, this study constructs the first competence-paradox model for AI-mediated work. Method: A PRISMA-ScR review across Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycINFO ( n = 82) was followed by qualitative meta-synthesis. Specifically, results reveal four mutually reinforcing tensions: metric specificity versus discretion, cadence versus psychological safety, optimization versus learning depth, and transparency + voice versus trust. Thresholds surface when prompts refresh every 5 minutes, exceed 30 per hour, or push 20 optimization nudges per shift; at those points autonomy drops 0.40 SD, safety 0.50 SD, and exploration 15%. Consequently, a five-lever HRD sequence—goal-calibration, hybrid coaching, explainable dashboards, rotational upskilling, and moderated voice forums—converts losses into gains. Overall, the model equips scholars with falsifiable propositions and provides practitioners a unique roadmap for steering AI systems toward both productivity and human growth.

1 citation

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843251359149

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{ofem2025,
  title        = {{The Competence Paradox: Rethinking Goal-Setting in the Age of Algorithmic Management}},
  author       = {Ofem E. Ofem},
  journal      = {Human Resource Development Review},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843251359149},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

The Competence Paradox: Rethinking Goal-Setting in the Age of Algorithmic Management

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.