Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Previous work on paradox and contradiction has argued for management approaches that transcend dilemmas through a kind of creative synthesis. The purpose of this paper is to investigate empirically how change leaders' efforts to transcend contradictions emerge, evolve and contribute to organizational change. Design/methodology/approach The paper analyses three case studies in different sectors drawing on interviews, documents and observations. Findings It is found that discourses of transcendence emerge as leaders bring new elements to the debate and supply a rationale that creatively bridges opposite poles of a dilemma. The credibility of the discourse is enhanced when it is embedded in extant institutional ideas, when stakeholders' interests and values appear to be accommodated and when leaders are viewed as legitimate. However, inherent contradictions tend to resurface over time, suggesting that while transcendence offers a powerful stimulus for change, its range and lifetime may be transitory. Three mechanisms associated with the acceptance of transcendent ideas (quasi‐resolution of conflict, strategic ambiguity and groupthink) may sow the seeds of their eventual re‐evaluation and dissolution. Originality/value By examining the antecedents and consequences of transcendent discourses over time, the paper provides a nuanced view of their potential and limitations.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".