Speaking in Unison: The Voice Dilemma in Open Strategy
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
In this paper, we adopt a Communication as Constitutive of Organizations (CCO) perspective to investigate how organizations implementing Open Strategy initiatives maintain openness and closure in tension by attending to a plurality of voices and their diversity (polyphony), while at the same time speaking in one strategic voice (monophony). Based on the Kiabi case, we explore what we name the voice dilemma by focusing on the ways different stakeholders involved in strategy making manage the co-authoring of strategy through voicing, negotiating, and legitimizing matters of concern. We contribute to extant literature by focusing on the management of polyphony and monophony as a way to embrace the paradox of openness that characterizes Open Strategy. More precisely, we show how some form of closure needs to be nurtured during the opening process (the co-authoring process during which multiple employees are invited to contribute to strategizing). However, we also argue that some form of opening needs to be nurtured during the closure process (the process during which the official authoring/positioning of the organization is finally defined). This study offers a longitudinal case that allows showcasing how the opening and closing strategies evolve over time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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