Online Workshop on Managing Social Evaluations in preparation for the JMS Special Issue
10 February 2023
In preparation for the special issue on “Managing Social Evaluations in a Complex
and Evolving World” in the Journal of Management Studies, we are calling for the
submission of long abstracts (up to 1,000 words excluding references, figures, and
tables) for an online workshop on Friday 10th February 2023.
The objective is for participants to get feedback on their paper as they prepare it for
submission to the special issue.
Deadline for submission of the abstract of 1,000 words: 23rd January 2023
Notification of acceptance: 30th January 2023
The workshop will take place online on the 10th of February 2023. We will
accommodate the time of the workshop with respect to the location of the
participants.
Please submit your 1,000 words abstract to: www.shorturl.at/nxCUZ
If you have any questions, please contact JMS.socialevaluations@gmail.com or
business.jms@durham.ac.uk
—————————-
CALL FOR PAPERS FOR A SPECIAL ISSUE
MANAGING SOCIAL EVALUATIONS IN A COMPLEX
AND EVOLVING WORLD
Submission deadline: 1 April 2023
Guest Editors:
Marco Clemente (ZHAW, Winterthur)
Gokhan Ertug (Singapore Management University, Singapore)
Michael Etter (King’s College London, UK)
Scott Graffin (University of Georgia, US)
Anastasiya Zavyalova (Rice University, US)
JMS Editor:
Yuliya Snihur (TBS Education, France)
BACKGROUND
This special issue will provide a platform for scholars interested in studying social evaluations,
a research topic that has grown tremendously in recent years. Such research includes a range of
concepts – including status (Podolny, 1993; Ertug and Castellucci, 2013; Graffin et al., 2013),
reputation (Rindova and Martins, 2012; Ertug et al., 2016), legitimacy (Patriotta et al., 2011;
Suchman, 1995; Bitektine, 2011; Suddaby et al., 2017, Tost, 2011), organizational misconduct
(Greve et al., 2010; Palmer, 2012), scandals (Clemente and Gabbioneta, 2017, Piazza and
Jourdan, 2018; Clemente et al., 2016;), stigma (Vergne, 2012), celebrity (Rindova et al., 2006;
Wade et al., 2006) and infamy (Zavyalova et al. 2017), as well as studies that look at social
evaluators, such as news media (Clemente and Gabbioneta, 2017), critics (Kovács et al., 2013),
rating agencies (Espeland & Sauder, 2007), and, increasingly, individual evaluators empowered
through digital media (Etter et al., 2019).
Although the literature on social evaluations has burgeoned in the last three decades, it
stays fragmented (Pollock et al., 2019). Several issues have emerged, including construct
proliferation (Bitektine, 2011; Deephouse and Carter, 2005, Devers et al., 2009), an increasing
range of theoretical approaches, multilevel perspectives (Bitektine and Haack, 2015), as well
as methodological (Snelson, 2016, Roulet et al., 2017; Bitektine et al., 2020) and empirical
challenges (Hannigan et al., 2019). It has become clear that different social evaluation
constructs overlap with each other and that there are common challenges and opportunities for
future work (Pollock et al., 2019).
This special issue is timely, given the increasing complexity and dynamism of the
environment where organizations operate. Organizational and strategy research has long
studied industries characterized by a high velocity (Eisenhardt, 1989) and hyper-competition
(D’Aveni, 2010). So, while such an environment is not new, what used to be an exception has
often become the norm. Terms like VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous)
environment and strategic agility have become common expressions in the business world
across industries (Bennett and Lemoine, 2014; Wang et al., 2021). Furthermore, the
digitalization of information, rise of social media, and stakeholder pressure on companies to
address grand challenges (e.g., climate change, economic and social inequality) have made
managing social expectations increasingly difficult and important for both established firms
and new ventures. Such a context raises many questions for social evaluation research,
especially about the fragility and stability of social evaluations and what organizations can do
to influence or respond to social expectations.
We envision a special issue to help unify social evaluation scholars by providing a
platform to discuss common challenges and explore cross-fertilization of theories and
methodologies. We are particularly interested in investigating questions that are related to
managing social evaluations in an increasingly complex and evolving environment within and
across levels (e.g., Bitektine and Haack, 2015; Ravasi et al., 2018). In this way, we aim to
appeal to a wide audience of social evaluation scholars and also engage with the challenges of
today’s world. While the research area on social evaluations has grown steadily in the last few
years, there remain limitations in the literature and a significant set of open questions, which
keeps getting replenished by the contemporary relevance of this topic (i.e., the need for us to
understand, theorize about, and explain what is happening in our world today).
One of the shortcomings of the literature on social evaluations is that scholars often
focus on different constructs within their own streams of work, which remain distinct and
separate from each other. This masks the fact that some of the challenges in the literature are
common to multiple sub-streams of research within social evaluations, including a shortage of
multilevel views, outdated methodologies for assessing social evaluations, and an
underemphasis on the evolving nature of social evaluations in the era of digital media. Indeed,
in recent years, firms have been increasingly held accountable for not only their financial
performance but also their ESG performance. Thus, in addition to the increasing pace of
information disclosure, the metrics by which firms and executives are being evaluated are also
evolving. Relatedly, new ventures can now access much larger audiences of social evaluators
through digital media, creating opportunities for the rapid spread of new ideas and business
models (Seidel et al., 2020), but also risking overly optimistic expectations and evaluations for
such newly minted celebrities. Having a debate that can bring about the cross-fertilization of
ideas across different constructs will be helpful to researchers in the area and enhance the
practical relevance of the insights that come from such research.
Key topics:
We invite both theoretical and empirical contributions to this SI. Following is a non-exhaustive
list of potential question areas. We are interested in addressing these questions both for
established firms and new ventures.
Common challenges in social evaluations research:
1. What are the opportunities to incorporate multilevel theorizing and analysis into
research on the increasingly dynamic and complex nature of social evaluations
(Bitektine and Haack, 2015; Ravasi et al., 2018)?
2. Given the increasing polarization within and across stakeholder groups, what are the
dark (or negative) sides of positive social evaluations for new and established firms –
such as celebrity and reputation (Zavyalova et al., 2016) – and the potential
advantages/benefits of negative social evaluations – such as infamy and stigma?
3. Social evaluations have been typically theorized as related to one specific audience
(Roulet, 2019) and unidimensional (Roulet and Clemente, 2018). What are the
implications when considering multiple audiences and multiple dimensions (Fini et al.,
2018; Ertug et al., 2016)? Do multiple audiences differentially respond to the same
information? And what are the implications of considering multiple dimensions of
social evaluations (Bitektine, 2011; Bundy et al., 2021)?
Managing social evaluations in a complex and evolving world:
4. What is the connection between social evaluations and temporality (Ravasi et al., 2018)?
To what extent do social evaluations remain stable or become fragile over time? What
can influence stability and fluidity, and what are their consequences? How can
organizations create, maintain, or change their social evaluations within an evolving and
complex environment with discursive techniques including framing, narratives, or
storytelling (Rhee & Fiss, 2014; Snihur et al., 2021; Vaara et al., 2016)?
5. Many pivotal studies on social evaluations were developed in the pre-social media era.
What are the implications of social evaluations in a world of increasing consumption of
social media and digital media more generally (Castello et al., 2016; Etter et al., 2019)?
6. Organizations are increasingly expected to take a stand on social issues (e.g., climate
change, social movements, discrimination, inequality) (Hambrick & Wowack, 2021).
How do social evaluations of such organizations change based on whether and how they
take a stand? And how can organizations manage scandals and diverging social
judgments around contested social issues?
7. Previous research has typically looked at one main social evaluator in a field or
combined evaluations of multiple social evaluators into one construct. How and why do
multiple evaluators interact (e.g., Illia et al., 2021)? Why is there heterogeneity among
evaluations of multiple evaluators? How do observers make sense of the potential
variance across evaluators?
8. Social evaluators, such as news media and ranking agencies, not only evaluate
organizations but are also being evaluated themselves by internal and external
stakeholders. How do stakeholders evaluate the credibility of social evaluators, and
what are the consequences? How do social evaluators react to being evaluated? How do
observers make sense of potential divergent evaluations?
9. Are current data, operationalizations, and methodologies used to study social
evaluations up to the task of capturing the way these evaluations happen and affect
organizations? How can new methods, such as machine learning, automated sentiment
analysis (Etter et al., 2018), and topic modeling (Hannigan et al., 2019), be applied to
the contemporary study of social evaluations?
SUBMISSION PROCESS AND DEADLINES
• The deadline for submissions is 1 April 2023.
• Submissions should be prepared using the JMS Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
(http://www.socadms.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/JMS-ManuscriptPreparationGuidelines.pdf).
• Manuscripts should be submitted using the JMS ScholarOne system
(https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jmstudies).
• Papers will be reviewed according to the JMS double-blind review process
• We welcome informal inquiries relating to the Special Issue, proposed topics, and
potential fit with the Special Issue objectives. Please direct any questions on the
Special Issue to the Guest Editors.
o Marco Clemente: marco.clemente@zhaw.ch
o Gokhan Ertug, gokhanertug@smu.edu.sg
o Michael Etter, michael.etter@kcl.ac.uk
o Scott Graffin, sgraffin@uga.edu
o Anastasiya Zavyalova, anastasiya.zavyalova@rice.edu
• Publication is expected in mid-2025.
REFERENCES
Bennett, N. and Lemoine, J. (2014). ‘What VUCA really means for you’. Harvard Business
Review, 92.
Bitektine, A. and Haack, P. (2015). ‘The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a
multilevel theory of the legitimacy process’. Academy of Management Review, 40, 49-75.
Bitektine, A. (2011). ‘Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of
legitimacy, reputation, and status’. Academy of Management Review, 36, 151-79.
Bitektine, A., Hill, K., Song, F. and Vandenberghe, C. (2020). ‘Organizational legitimacy,
reputation, and status: Insights from micro-level measurement’. Academy of Management
Discoveries, 6, 107-36.
Bundy, J., Iqbal, F. and Pfarrer, M. D. (2021). ‘Reputations in flux: How a firm defends its
multiple reputations in response to different violations’. Strategic Management
Journal, 42, 1109-38.
Castelló, I., Etter, M. and Årup Nielsen, F. (2016). ‘Strategies of Legitimacy Through Social
Media: The Networked Strategy’. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 402–32.
Clemente, M., Durand, R. and Porac, J. (2016). ‘Organizational wrongdoing and media
bias’. In Organizational wrongdoing: Key perspectives and new directions. Cambridge
University Press, 435-66.
Clemente, M. and Gabbioneta, C. (2017). ‘How does the media frame corporate scandals?
The case of German newspapers and the Volkswagen diesel scandal’. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 26, 287-302.
D’aveni, R. A. (2010). Hypercompetition. Simon and Schuster.
Deephouse, D. L. and Carter, S. M. (2005). ‘An Examination of Differences Between
Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation’. Journal of Management
Studies, 42, 329-60.
Devers, C. E., Dewett, T., Mishina, Y. and Belsito, C. A. (2009). ‘A general theory of
organizational stigma’. Organization Science, 20, 154–71.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). ‘Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity
environments’. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543-76.
Ertug, G. and Castellucci, F. (2013). ‘Getting what you need: How reputation and status
affect team performance, hiring, and salaries in the NBA’. Academy of Management
Journal, 56, 407-31.
Ertug, G., Yogev, T., Lee, Y. G. and Hedström, P. (2016). ‘The art of representation: How
audience-specific reputations affect success in the contemporary art field’. Academy of
Management Journal, 59, 113-34.
Espeland, W. N. and Sauder, M. (2007). ‘Rankings and reactivity: How public measures
recreate social worlds’. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 1-40.
6
Etter, M., Colleoni, E., Illia, L., Meggiorin, K. and D’Eugenio, A. (2018). ‘Measuring
organizational legitimacy in social media: Assessing citizens’ judgments with sentiment
analysis’. Business & Society, 57, 60-97.
Etter, M., Ravasi, D. and Colleoni, E. (2019). ‘Social media and the formation of
organizational reputation’. Academy of Management Review, 44, 28-52.
Fini, R., Jourdan, J. and Perkmann, M. (2018). ‘Social valuation across multiple audiences:
The interplay of ability and identity judgments’. Academy of Management Journal, 61,
2230-64.
Graffin, S. D., Bundy, J., Porac, J. F., Wade, J. B. and Quinn, D. P. (2013). ‘Falls from grace
and the hazards of high status: The 2009 British MP expense scandal and its impact on
parliamentary elites’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 313-45.
Greve, H. R., Palmer, D. and Pozner, J. E. (2010). ‘Organizations gone wild: The causes,
processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct’. Academy of Management
Annals, 4, 53-107.
Hambrick, D. C. and Wowak, A. J. (2021). ‘CEO sociopolitical activism: A stakeholder
alignment model’. Academy of Management Review, 46, 33-59.
Hannigan, T. R., Haans, R. F., Vakili, K., Tchalian, H., Glaser, V. L., Wang, M. S. and
Jennings, P. D. (2019). ‘Topic modeling in management research: Rendering new theory
from textual data’. Academy of Management Annals, 13, 586-632.
Illia, L., Colleoni, E., Etter, M. and Meggiorin, K. (2022). ‘Finding the Tipping Point: When
Heterogeneous Evaluations in Social Media Converge and Influence Organizational
Legitimacy’. Business & Society.
Kovács, B., Carroll, G. R. and Lehman, D.W. (2013). ‘Authenticity and consumer value
ratings: Empirical tests from the restaurant domain’. Organization Science, 25, 458–78.
Mishina, Y. and Devers, C. E. (2012). ‘On being bad: Why stigma is not the same as a bad
reputation’. The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation. 201.
Palmer, D. (2012). Normal organizational wrongdoing: A critical analysis of theories of
misconduct in and by organizations. Oxford University Press on Demand.
Patriotta, G., Gond, J. P. and Schultz, F. (2011). ‘Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies,
orders of worth, and public justifications’. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 1804-36.
Piazza, A. and Jourdan, J. (2018). ‘When the dust settles: The consequences of scandals for
organizational competition’. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 165-90.
Podolny, J. M. (1993). ‘A status-based model of market competition’. American Journal of
Sociology, 98, 829–72.
Pollock, T. G., Lashley, K., Rindova, V. P. and Han, J. H. (2019). ‘Which of these things
are not like the others? Comparing the rational, emotional, and moral aspects of reputation,
status, celebrity, and stigma’. Academy of Management Annals, 13, 444-78.
7
Ravasi, D., Rindova, V., Etter, M. and Cornelissen, J. (2018). ‘The formation of
organizational reputation’. Academy of Management Annals, 12, 574-99.
Rhee, E. Y. and Fiss, P. C. (2014). ‘Framing controversial actions: Regulatory focus, source
credibility, and stock market reaction to poison pill adoption’. Academy of Management
Journal, 57, 1734-58.
Rindova, V. P. and Martins, L. L. (2012). ‘Show me the money: A multi-dimensional
perspective on reputation as an intangible asset’. In Barnett, M. L. and Pollock, T. G. (Eds),
Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 16-33.
Rindova, V. P., Pollock, T. G. and Hayward, M. L. A. (2006). ‘Celebrity firms: The social
construction of market popularity’. Academy of Management Review, 31, 50–71.
Roulet, T. J. (2019). ‘Sins for some, virtues for others: Media coverage of investment banks’
misconduct and adherence to professional norms during the financial crisis’. Human
Relations, 72, 1436-63.
Roulet, T. J. and Clemente, M. (2018). ‘Let’s open the media’s black box: The media as a
set of heterogeneous actors and not only as a homogenous ensemble’. Academy of
Management Review, 43, 327-29.
Roulet, T. J., Gill, M. J., Stenger, S. and Gill, D. J. (2017). ‘Reconsidering the value of
covert research: the role of ambiguous consent in participant observation’. Organizational
Research Methods, 20, 487-517.
Seidel, V. P., Hannigan, T. R. and Phillips, N. (2020). ‘Rumor communities, social media,
and forthcoming innovations: The shaping of technological frames in product market
evolution’. Academy of Management Review, 45, 304-24.
Snelson, C. L. (2016). ‘Qualitative and mixed methods social media research: A review of
the literature’. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15.
Snihur, Y., Thomas, L. D., Garud, R. and Phillips, N. (2021). ‘Entrepreneurial framing: A
literature review and future research directions’. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
forthcoming.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). ‘Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches’.
Academy of Management Review, 20, 571-610.
Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A. and Haack, P. (2017). ‘Legitimacy’. Academy of Management
Annals, 11, 451-78.
Tost, L. P. (2011). ‘An integrative model of legitimacy judgments’. Academy of
management review, 36, 686-710.
Vaara, E., Sonenshein, S. and Boje, D. (2016). ‘Narratives as sources of stability and change
in organizations: Approaches and directions for future research’. Academy of Management
Annals, 10, 495-560.
8
Vergne, J. P. (2012). ‘Stigmatized categories and public disapproval of organizations: A
mixed-methods study of the global arms industry, 1996–2007′. Academy of Management
Journal, 55, 1027-52.
Wade, J. B., Porac, J. F., Pollock, T. G. and Graffin, S. D. (2006). ‘The burden of celebrity:
The impact of CEO certification contests on CEO pay and performance’. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 643-60.
Wang, X., Reger, R. K. and Pfarrer, M. D. (2021). ‘Faster, hotter, and more linked in:
managing social disapproval in the social media era’. Academy of Management Review, 46,
275-98.
Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D. and Reger, R. K. (2017). ‘Celebrity and infamy? The
consequences of media narratives about organizational identity’. Academy of Management
Review, 42, 461-80.
Zavyalova, A., Pfarrer, M. D., Reger, R. K. and Hubbard, T. D. (2016). ‘Reputation as a
benefit and a burden? How stakeholder’s organizational identification affects the role of
reputation following a negative event’. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 253–76.