COMPELLING IDENTITY: FUSING POSTSTRUCTURALIST THEORIZING TO UNDERSTAND GLOBAL CORPORATE MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to argue that the concept of identity regulation (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002) has much to offer in understanding management and leadership development in corporate, multinational contexts, but is incomplete without accounting for insecurity, both material and symbolic (Collinson 2003), experienced by the participants. Thus the paper will work to fuse these two seminal ideas – identity regulation and the importance of insecurity in identity construction-- through presenting findings of fieldwork in two contrasting international firms. The first, I argue, reflects a Darwinian model of management/leadership development; the second, a Creationist model. In each case, participants were carefully selected as future leaders of the firm and participated in an ‘elite ’ months-long development program, while performing their regular jobs. Using an iterative research design that combined in-depth interviews with key informants and program participants (N=47) in both firms, observations of their joint working in strategic project groups, and careful examination of the literature, this study presents findings which: a) illustrate two models of identity regulation in practice, b) outline in detail the identity
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".