Organizations increasingly face the seemingly intractable challenge of managing stakeholders with conflicting ideologies. Through a historical case study of extreme polarization and its eventual consensus, we propose a model of temporal-emotional framing. Specifically, we show how leaders frame future-oriented visions in two episodes of the Northern Ireland peace process. We identify how "determinate-trajectory” and "indeterminate-trajectory" frames differentially influence stakeholder support for change. Determinate-trajectory frames, which depict urgent, predictable, and inevitable futures, intensify diverse stakeholder groups’ emotional reactions and exacerbate polarization. Conversely, indeterminate-trajectory frames, which emphasize distant, unpredictable futures that call for collective agency, foster prospection and reduce antagonism to contemplate change. We identify three key mechanisms of (in-)determinate trajectory framing: temporal distance, directionality, and intertemporal coping. Our findings suggest that effective framing in polarized contexts involves combining these mechanisms to promote emotional regulation, tolerance of others’ perspectives, and inward-focused moral responsibility. This study offers novel insights for leaders navigating complex social challenges, highlighting the importance of crafting framing strategies that integrate stakeholders’ collective emotions and temporal perceptions.
