Ambition in Organizational Life: What the Heck Are We Talking About?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term ambition and its derivatives, such as ambitions, ambitious, and unambitious, constitute a commonly-used set of signifiers in business and managerial discourses. Despite this wide currency in the discourses of business professionals and practitioner-oriented publications, management researchers to date have not sought to understand ambition and the various ways that it figures in business discourses. In this paper, we take an interpretive, grounded theory approach to explore the intricate meanings and workings of the notion of ambition in three top-ranked practitioner-oriented business journals from 2010 to 2018. Our findings show that there are four different constellations of meaning that surround ambition. We identify and draw out the specifications of these constellations, which sheds light on how ambition is situated in different communicative contexts and connected with different regimes of managerial prescription. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these findings for management and organization studies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".