Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
11720 Page 1 of 12
SUBMISSION 11720
A PECHA KUCHA ABOUT SOCIAL EVALUATIONS
Primary Sponsor: Organization and Management Th...
11720 Page 2 of 12
OVERVIEW OF PDW: SOCIAL EVALUATIONS AND THE PECHA KUCHA FORMAT
Social evaluations are assessments of or...
11720 Page 3 of 12
viewed as the relative evaluation of an organization compared to other organizations either as a
genera...
11720 Page 4 of 12
Pecha Kucha is an innovation from Japan commonly used in design settings for
showcasing streamlined ide...
11720 Page 5 of 12
University Centre for Corporate Reputation has offered to sponsor a reception afterward. Details
on the...
11720 Page 6 of 12
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. 1996. Members' responses to organizational identity threats:
Encounteri...
11720 Page 7 of 12
Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. 2001. Middle-status conformity: Theoretical restatement and
empiric...
11720 Page 8 of 12
OMT AS PRIMARY SPONSOR
OMT is a very appropriate division to host this PDW. OMT bridges micro and macro...
11720 Page 9 of 12
This will provide people who are just learning about these topics a chance to learn more about
them and...
11720 Page 10 of 12
Yuri Mishina, Imperial University (Confirmed)
Jean-philippe Vergne, University of Western Ontario (Con...
11720 Page 11 of 12
Discussion Break (18 minutes; 178 minutes thus far)
Attendees will finish off the refreshments and con...
11720 Page 12 of 12
the corporate brand. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
King, B. G. & Whetten, D. A. 2008. Rethinking th...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

A Pecha Kucha About Social Evaluations

559

Published on

A Pecha Kucha about Social Evaluations
Social Evaluations Pecha Kucha

International-oriented
Research-oriented
Diversity-oriented

View Map

Organizer: David L. Deephouse; U. of Alberta
Speaker: Michael D. Pfarrer; U. of Georgia
Speaker: Alex B. Bitektine; HEC Montreal
Speaker: Cynthia E. Devers; Michigan State U.
Speaker: Scott D. Graffin; U. of Georgia
Speaker: Donald Lange; Arizona State U.
Speaker: Jean-Philippe Vergne; Ivey School of Business
Speaker: Yuri Mishina; Imperial College London
Speaker: Naomi A Gardberg; Baruch College
Speaker: William Newburry; Florida International U.
Speaker: Majken Schultz; Copenhagen Business School
Speaker: David A. Whetten; Brigham Young U.
Speaker: Stephen Brammer; U. of Warwick
Speaker: Violina Rindova; U. of Texas, Austin

There is growing interest in research on social evaluations. Social evaluations are assessments of organizations and their components made by stakeholders, such as customers, investors, current and potential employees, and communities. Many evaluations have been used in past research, including legitimacy, reputation, celebrity, stigma, rankings, and certifications. Social evaluations have been linked to many antecedents and consequences, such as organizational performance, CEO pay, stock market risk, job attractiveness, etc. (Bansal & Clelland, 2004; Deephouse, 2000; Turban & Cable, 2003; Wade, Porac, Pollock, & Graffin, 2006). This goal of the PDW is to provide a forum where people and ideas can meet and new ideas and relationships can be developed. Our session will adapt the Pecha Kucha format, an innovation from Japan used in design settings for showcasing new ideas. In this PDW, each person will present for five minutes with 10 slides, that is, 30 seconds per slide. Brief introductions of central concepts by emerging scholars will start the session. There are eighteen spaces for presenting new work – twelve of these spaces are reserved for junior scholars. Four senior scholars will serve as raconteurs and present integrative and provocative commentary after all of the new work is presented. Two breaks will provide opportunity for discussion.

Search Terms: Legitimacy , Reputation , Stigma

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
559
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "A Pecha Kucha About Social Evaluations"

  1. 1. 11720 Page 1 of 12 SUBMISSION 11720 A PECHA KUCHA ABOUT SOCIAL EVALUATIONS Primary Sponsor: Organization and Management Theory Division (OMT) Potential Secondary Sponsors: BPS, HR, MOC, OB, SIM, and TIM. Organizer: David Deephouse Dept. of Strategic Management and Organization, U. of Alberta Academic Representative for Canada, Reputation Institute International Research Fellow, Oxford University Centre for Corporate Reputation ABSTRACT (231/250 WORDS) There is growing interest in research on social evaluations. Social evaluations are assessments of organizations and their components made by stakeholders, such as customers, investors, current and potential employees, and communities. Many evaluations have been used in past research, including legitimacy, reputation, celebrity, stigma, rankings, and certifications, including Fortune’s Most Admired Companies in America and Business Week’s rankings of Business Schools. Social evaluations have been linked to many antecedents and consequences, such as organizational performance, CEO pay, stock market risk, job attractiveness, etc. (Bansal & Clelland, 2004; Deephouse, 2000; Turban & Cable, 2003; Wade, Porac, Pollock, & Graffin, 2006). This goal of the PDW is to provide a forum where people and ideas can meet and new ideas and relationships can be developed. Our session will adapt the Pecha Kucha format, an innovation from Japan used in design settings for showcasing new ideas. In this PDW, each person will present for five minutes with 10 slides, that is, 30 seconds per slide. Brief introductions of central concepts by emerging scholars will start the session. There are eighteen spaces for presenting new work – twelve of these spaces are reserved for junior scholars. Four senior scholars will serve as raconteurs and present integrative and provocative commentary after all of the new work is presented. Two breaks will provide opportunity for discussion. The Oxford University Centre for Corporate Reputation has offered to sponsor a reception.
  2. 2. 11720 Page 2 of 12 OVERVIEW OF PDW: SOCIAL EVALUATIONS AND THE PECHA KUCHA FORMAT Social evaluations are assessments of organizations and their components made by stakeholders, such as customers, investors, current and potential employees, and communities (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008). Many evaluations have been used in past research, including legitimacy, reputation, celebrity, stigma, awards, rankings, and certifications. Social evaluations have been linked to many antecedents and consequences, such as organizational performance, CEO pay, stock market risk, job attractiveness, etc. (Bansal & Clelland, 2004; Deephouse, 2000; Turban & Cable, 2003; Wade et al., 2006). There is growing interest in research on social evaluations. The goal of the PDW is to provide a forum where people and ideas can meet and new ideas and relationships can be developed. Social evaluations have been around for as long as there have been social relationships – individuals would make judgements of others. Different forms of social evaluations entered organizational studies in the last sixty years. Legitimacy was the first concept to garner attention, being mentioned in the first issue of Administrative Science Quarterly (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Parsons, 1956; Terreberry, 1968). Recent definitions focus on legitimacy as appropriateness within a social system. Sociological interest in stratification was applied to organizations with the concept of organizational status and similar concept of prestige (Berger, Rosenholtz, & Zelditch, 1980; Perrow, 1961; Podolny, 1993; Shrum & Wuthnow, 1988). Recent research views status as inherent to groups, such as middle-status conformity (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008; Phillips & Zuckerman, 2001). Research on organizational reputation co-evolved with the many rankings and ratings developed by media publications. Perhaps the most prominent reputational evaluations in research are Fortune’s Most Admired Companies in America and Business Week’s rankings of Business Schools (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). Reputation is generally
  3. 3. 11720 Page 3 of 12 viewed as the relative evaluation of an organization compared to other organizations either as a generalized evaluation or on particular dimensions of interest (Fombrun & Van Riel, 1997; Lange, Lee, & Dai, 2011). The emergence of famous CEOs like Bill Gates of Microsoft and Steve Jobs of Apple led to the application of the concept of celebrity from mass communication and entertainment to CEOs and then to organizations (Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004; Rindova, Pollock, & Hayward, 2006). Celebrity generally refers to heightened level of attention. Certifications represent third party recognition of qualification, often through the winning of awards and prizes (Graffin & Ward, 2010; Rao, 1994). The prior concepts generally have positive connotations, although celebrity sometimes can be a burden (Wade et al., 2006). Stigma, in contrast, indicates that a person, organization, or industry is viewed as having a fundamental flaw (Devers, Dewett, Mishina, & Belsito, 2009; Hudson & Okhuysen, 2009). There have been some efforts to compare and contrast the concepts. Most of these have been theoretical. For example, Deephouse and Suchman (2008) and Bitektine (2011) compared legitimacy, reputation, and status. Rindova et al. (2006) compared legitimacy, reputation, status, and celebrity. Devers et al. (2009) compared stigma with legitimacy, reputation, status, and celebrity. There have been fewer empirical efforts. Deephouse and Carter (2005) examined the antecedents of legitimacy and reputation. Graffin and Ward (2010) demonstrated how certifications contributed to long-term reputation by reducing uncertainty associated with performance standards. Pfarrer, Pollock, and Rindova (2010) examined performance consequences of reputation and celebrity. They found that high reputation firms were less likely to have positive earnings surprises than the typical firm and celebrity firms were more likely to have positive earnings surprises than the typical firm. These empirical studies provide a useful foundation for future empirical work in other settings and on different concepts.
  4. 4. 11720 Page 4 of 12 Pecha Kucha is an innovation from Japan commonly used in design settings for showcasing streamlined ideas. Each person presents 20 slides of design ideas with 20 seconds of commentary for each slide; similar concepts are lightning talks and ignite events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecha_Kucha). The title of Daniel Pink’s (2007) article in Wired Magazine said it all: “Pecha Kucha: Get to the PowerPoint in 20 Slides Then Sit the Hell Down.” He has a useful and entertaining example as a YouTube video. For more exemplary presentations, see http://www.pecha-kucha.org/. The Pecha Kucha format was used in at least one previous PDW, namely the 2011 session #220 called “Social Entrepreneurship and Broader Theories: Shedding New Light on the ‘Bigger Picture.’” The Pecha Kucha format will enable the formal participation of many people in this PDW, and I will favour junior scholars as formal participants. The Pecha Kucha format will be adapted for this PDW as follows. Most importantly, each person will present for five minutes with 10 slides, that is, 30 seconds per slide. Presentations with video or audio clips can have fewer slides, but the time limit per person remains five minutes. The session will begin with an introduction to the PDW and five of the core concepts within the social evaluation framework; this will be useful to those who are just learning about the area. There will be spaces for eighteen people to present new work. I plan to allocate twelve of the eighteen spaces to junior scholars and doctoral students in order to encourage their participation; providing opportunities for new scholars to enter a research area is important for its development. New work could include theoretical puzzles, definitional debate, measurement innovations, rich descriptions of practice, ethnographic observations, photographs, video or audio clips, etc.. Four senior scholars will offer integrative and provocative commentary after the last presentation of new work. There will be two discussion breaks of 20 minutes. The Oxford
  5. 5. 11720 Page 5 of 12 University Centre for Corporate Reputation has offered to sponsor a reception afterward. Details on the session structure are below. As a whole, these activities will provide excellent opportunities for developing new research and building relationships among scholars interested in social evaluations. REFERENCES FOR THE OVERVIEW Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. 2004. Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 93-103. Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. 1980. Status Organizing Processes. Annual Review of Sociology, 6: 479-508. Bitektine, A. 2011. Toward a theory of social judgment of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36: 151-179. Deephouse, D. L. 2000. Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26: 1091-1112. Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. 2005. An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 329-360. Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. C. 2008. Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism: 49-77. Oxford UK: Sage. Devers, C. E., Dewett, T., Mishina, Y., & Belsito, C. A. 2009. A general theory of organizational stigma. Organization Science, 20: 154-171. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. 1975. Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18: 122-136.
  6. 6. 11720 Page 6 of 12 Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. 1996. Members' responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 442-476. Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. 1990. What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 233-258. Fombrun, C., & Van Riel, C. 1997. The reputational landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 1: 5-13. Graffin, S. D., & Ward, A. J. 2010. Certifications and Reputation: Determining the Standard of Desirability Amidst Uncertainty. Organization Science, 21: 331-346. Hayward, M. L. A., Rindova, V. P., & Pollock, T. G. 2004. Believing one's own press: The causes and consequences of CEO celebrity. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 637-653. Hudson, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. 2009. Not with a Ten-Foot Pole: Core Stigma, Stigma Transfer, and Improbable Persistence of Men's Bathhouses. Organization Science, 20: 134-153. Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. 2011. Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37: 153-184. Parsons, T. 1956. Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations -- I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1: 63-85. Perrow, C. 1961. Organizational prestige: Some functions and dysfunctions. American Journal of Sociology, 66: 335-341. Pfarrer, M. D., Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. 2010. A tale of two assets: The effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors' reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1131-1152.
  7. 7. 11720 Page 7 of 12 Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. 2001. Middle-status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107: 379-429. Pink, D. H. 2007. Pecha Kucha: Get to the PowerPoint in 20 Slides Then Sit the Hell Down, Wired, 8/21. Podolny, J. 1993. A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98: 829-872. Rao, H. 1994. The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895-1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 29-44. Rindova, V. P., Pollock, T. G., & Hayward, M. L. A. 2006. Celebrity firms: The social construction of market popularity. Academy of Management Review, 31: 1-22. Shrum, W., & Wuthnow, R. 1988. Reputational status of organizations in technical systems. American Journal of Sociology, 93: 882-912. Terreberry, S. 1968. The evolution of organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12: 590-613. Tost, L. P. 2011. An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 36: 686-710. Turban, D. B., & Cable, D. M. 2003. Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 733-751. Wade, J. B., Porac, J. F., Pollock, T. G., & Graffin, S. D. 2006. The burden of celebrity: The impact of CEO certification contests on CEO pay and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 643-660.
  8. 8. 11720 Page 8 of 12 OMT AS PRIMARY SPONSOR OMT is a very appropriate division to host this PDW. OMT bridges micro and macro levels of analysis, much in the way that social evaluations do (Tost, 2011). Many participants in the session are also members of OMT. In past years, there have been sessions and symposia with legitimacy or reputation in the title of regular Academy sessions, but there has been little opportunity for integrative ideation or the building of social relationship among social evaluation scholars. This PDW will start this process at an opportune time for the development of this area of research. Members of BPS, HR, MOC, OB, SIM, and TIM may also be interested in this symposium. Social evaluations have been linked to competitive advantage, a central concern of BPS. There are social evaluations of HR practices, such as the best places for working women, and these evaluations may also help recruiting and retention. Reputation is a fundamentally cognitive and thus of interest to MOC members. Social evaluations may affect individuals’ motivation, commitment, and identification, important topics in OB. Social evaluations have been central when measuring corporate social performance, a central concern of SIM. Legitimacy and certifications are important components of the innovation process, a central concern for TIM. Thus, these divisions may be interested in co-sponsoring this PDW. FORMAT OF THE PDW FOR A THREE HOUR SESSION Introductory Presenters: (30 minutes) The PDW will be organized into a three hour session as follows. I will welcome participants and introduce the session. Five authors mentioned above, all of whom earned their doctorates since 2002, will introduce legitimacy, reputation, celebrity, stigma, and certifications.
  9. 9. 11720 Page 9 of 12 This will provide people who are just learning about these topics a chance to learn more about them and also exemplify the enthusiasm of junior scholars for this research area. An exemplary publication can be found at the end of this section. David Deephouse, University Of Alberta, Welcome to the PDW (Confirmed) Alex Bitektine, HEC Montreal, on Legitimacy (Confirmed) Cindy Devers, Tulane University, on Stigma (Confirmed) Don Lange, Arizona State University, on Reputation (Confirmed) Mike Pfarrer, University of Georgia, on Celebrity (Confirmed) Scott Graffin, University of Georgia, on Certifications (Confirmed) New Work Part 1 (60 minutes; 90 minutes thus far) Eighteen spaces of five minutes each are allocated to presenting new ideas for developing research in the area. Twelve people will comprise the first group. New ideas can include theoretical puzzles, definitional debate, measurement suggestions, rich description of practice, ethnographic observations, photographs, video or audio clips, etc. – essentially anything you want to highlight as an interesting issue for consideration on the topic of social evaluations. I wish to encourage creative thinking and do not wish to constrain innovative theorizing or empirical designs except within the limitation of the Pecha Kucha format. I recruited two assistant professors and two associate professors to illustrate interest in the session; an exemplary publication can be found at the end of this section. If the session is approved, I will recruit fourteen more people via Academy of Management divisional list serves and divisional newsletters. I will seek a diversity of backgrounds and approaches to the topics in order to facilitate creativity and synergy among session participants. Doctoral Students and Assistant Professors or equivalent
  10. 10. 11720 Page 10 of 12 Yuri Mishina, Imperial University (Confirmed) Jean-philippe Vergne, University of Western Ontario (Confirmed) Associate and Full Professors or equivalent Naomi Gardberg, City University of New York (Confirmed) Bill Newburry, Florida International University (Confirmed) Discussion Break (20 minutes; 110 minutes thus far) Attendees will meet each other over refreshments, discuss the presentations, develop relationships, and come up with new ideas for research. New Work Part 2 (30 minutes, 140 minutes thus far) Six more people will have the opportunity to present new ideas. Raconteurs (20 minutes, 160 minutes thus far) After all the new work has been presented, four senior scholars who have published many papers on these topics will serve as raconteurs and offer integrative and provocative commentary. I deliberately chose a demographically diverse group of two women and two men, half working in Europe and half working in the USA. An exemplary publication can be found at the end of this section. They will receive all the slides from all presenters in advance. They may also present additional comments based on new ideas which came up during the presentations and first discussion session. They are: Steve Brammer, University of Warwick (Confirmed) Violina Rindova, University of Texas (Confirmed if able to leave BPS Doctoral Consortium) Majken Schultz, Copenhagen Business School (Confirmed for Saturday afternoon) Dave Whetten, Brigham Young University (Confirmed)
  11. 11. 11720 Page 11 of 12 Discussion Break (18 minutes; 178 minutes thus far) Attendees will finish off the refreshments and continue to discuss the presentations, develop relationships, and come up with new ideas for research. Appreciative Conclusion (2 minutes) David Deephouse, University of Alberta Reception The Oxford University Centre for Corporate Reputation has graciously offered to sponsor a reception following the event, either on site or nearby. SELECTED PUBLICATIONS OF CONFIRMED PRESENTERS Bitektine, A. 2011. Toward a theory of social judgment of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36: 151-179. Brammer, S. & Millington, A. 2005. Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61: 29-44. Brammer, S. J., Pavelin, S. & Porter, L. A. 2009. Corporate charitable giving, multinational companies and countries of concern. Journal of Management Studies, 46: 575-596. Devers, C. E., Dewett, T., Mishina, Y., & Belsito, C. A. 2009. A general theory of organizational stigma. Organization Science, 20: 154-171. Gardberg, N. A. and Dowling, G. R. Forthcoming. Keeping score: The challenges of measuring corporate reputation. In M. L. Barnett and T. G. Pollock (Eds.), Oxford handbook of corporate reputation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Graffin, S. D. & Ward, A. J. 2010. Certifications and reputation: Determining the standard of desirability amidst uncertainty. Organization Science, 21: 331-346. Hatch, M. J. & Schultz, M. 2000. The expressive organization: Linking identity, reputation, and
  12. 12. 11720 Page 12 of 12 the corporate brand. Oxford: Oxford University Press. King, B. G. & Whetten, D. A. 2008. Rethinking the relationship between reputation and legitimacy: A social actor conceptualization. Corporate Reputation Review, 11: 192-207. Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. 2011. Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37: 153-184. Mishina, Y., Block, E. S., & Mannor, M. J. Forthcoming. The path dependence of organizational reputation: How social judgment influences assessments of capability and character. Strategic Management Journal. Newburry, W. 2010. Reputation and supportive behavior: Moderating impacts of foreignness, industry and local exposure. Corporate Reputation Review, 12: 388-405. Pfarrer, M. D., Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. 2010. A tale of two assets: The effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors' reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 1131-1152. Rindova, V. P., Pollock, T. G., & Hayward, M. L. A. 2006. Celebrity firms: The social construction of market popularity. Academy of Management Review, 31: 1-22. Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. 2005. Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 1033-1050. Vergne, J.-p. Forthcoming. Stigmatized categories and public disapproval of organizations: A mixed methods study of the global arms industry (1996-2007). Academy of Management Journal. Whetten, D. A. 1997. Theory development and the study of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 1: 26-34.

×