Bridging competing demands through co-leadership? Potential and limitations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collective leadership arrangements in which two people jointly occupy a shared leadership role space are often thought to enable the bridging of competing demands and sources of expertise and legitimacy in pluralistic settings where multiple institutional logics coexist. This research investigates 20 co-leadership dyads in health care organizations to examine whether, when, and how co-leadership arrangements can enable the bridging of institutional logics. Empirical findings suggest that the potential for bridging through co-leadership arrangements is present, but that it may often be achieved through the assimilation of one side by the other rather than balanced integration of competing demands. We conclude that the challenge of collective leadership (and of co-leadership, in particular) may lie not only in developing smooth relations among multiple leaders and their followers, but also in maintaining and mobilizing the tensions that can make their collaboration most fruitful. We suggest that the collective leadership literature has often missed the significance of this central paradox: that collective leadership may be most needed where it is most difficult to achieve. When it seems to operate most smoothly, it is possible that it may not always be fulfilling its mission.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it