This document provides an overview of a proposed Pecha Kucha session on social evaluations at an Academy of Management conference. The session would feature brief presentations on concepts like legitimacy, reputation, celebrity, and stigma. It would begin with introductory presentations by emerging scholars on key concepts. Then 18 people would each have 5 minutes to present new work, with 12 slots reserved for junior scholars. Four senior scholars would provide commentary after all presentations. The goal is to provide a forum for developing new ideas and relationships among scholars interested in social evaluations research.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.