Holding onto the victory after the victory: Leadership lessons from the war in Ukraine for recovery and positive change
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
Case studies of countries at war are not typically part of the curriculum at business schools. However, such events have lots to offer in terms of leadership. Consider the following: Analysts estimated that the Russian Armed Forces would be capable of capturing Kyiv and removing the Ukrainian government within three days after the start of the full-scale invasion. However, more than three years into the war, Ukrainians have defied this prediction and continue to live through unimaginable hardship with exceptional fortitude. We highlight five main themes from the ongoing war and associated lessons for educational institutions, businesses, and leaders – resilience; fragmentation; grief; critical thinking; and vision – and make the point to never forget about the victory after the victory. Holding onto the victory will be crucial, not only to find a way forward but to keep despair at bay. Purpose, new perspective, and a sense of contributing to something larger can grow out of the need for wartime resilience. A new awareness of and commitment to gender equity can arise from fragmentation. Loss and grief can motivate societal change through post-traumatic growth. And the horrors of war can also serve as a wake-up call that leads to increased education and critical thinking. Such transformation is ongoing and can start now, even before the war is over.
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 | 0.000 | 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