The burden of being atypical: The impact of (A)typicality in leader profiles on organizational reputation
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
Despite growing interest in appointing top leaders with atypical biographical profiles, many organizations follow typical expectations of what a leader’s profile looks like and avoid deviations from such expectations. This article aims to answer why such changes to leadership atypicality can be difficult by examining a major disadvantage of atypical leader profiles—organizational reputational penalties. Drawing on institutional theory and leadership categorization theory, we propose that atypical components in a leader’s profile are met with greater skepticism and scrutiny of leadership capability from external stakeholders, thereby leading to reputation losses. We examine this argument by developing and testing hypotheses on the reputational impact of atypicality in deans’ profiles in American law schools from 1998 to 2016. Our results show that atypical attributes of a leader’s profile are negatively associated with organizational reputation across a broad spectrum of deans’ key profile attributes, including their career path, education credentials, and gender minorities. We discuss the implications of these findings for the study of organizational atypicality and reputation.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 it