The Multiple Logics of Conformity and Contrarianism: The Problem With Investment Banks and Bankers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pressures of conformity within a highly institutionalized organizational field such as corporate and investment banking in the United States are formidable. Coercive, cognitive, and normative pressures often move the herd in the same direction. Paradoxically, each firm believes it is unique and can manage future strategic actions, as it collectively runs off a cliff. This process is not bound in time or space, as researchers grounded in experience have suggested that costly financial bubbles have been common to banking organizational fields in both recent and ancient history. This override of learning may possibly be explained by mutually reinforcing institutional and organizational logics and processes. The author also argues that an awareness of the underlying conformist logics of financial mania, institutional, and configuration theory may explain why some organizations manage to be nonconformist or contrarian. These different firms observe this reliance on powerful multiple logics of conformity and resist them intendedly and unintendedly. The author calls this process contrarianism.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".