We argue that the actions for which actors receive recognition vary as they move up the hierarchy. When actors first enter a community, the community rewards them for their easier-to-evaluate contributions to the community. Eventually, however, as these actors rise in status, further increases in stature come increasingly from engaging in actions that are more difficult to evaluate or even impossible to judge. These dynamics produce a positive feedback loop, in which those who have already been accorded some stature garner even greater status through quality-ambiguous actions. We present evidence from Stack Overflow, an online community, and from two online experiments consistent with these expected patterns.
We explore a key tension between certification and entrepreneurial entry. On the one hand, more stringent certifications may provide greater legitimacy. On the other hand, market entry may be facilitated by easing such standards. To reconcile this tension, we examine discontinued certifications. We draw on research into how new ventures use certifications to gain legitimacy, along with quantitative data from new venture credit records. We show that after a certification is discontinued, new ventures in emerging industries continue to conform to these discontinued certified standards. Our study shows that those whose attributes do not provide other sources of legitimacy (e.g., unconventional founders in emerging industries) are more likely than other new ventures to comply with discontinued certification. However, those with other legitimating attributes (e.g., elite institution alumni founders) can overcome such legitimacy deficits and take advantage of new rules easing entry. Overall, our findings show that discontinued certifications can become certification “relics” whose standards continue to linger and influence entry, even after they are no longer formally in effect. Our study and its findings enhance our understanding of institutional support for new ventures, as well as the repertoire of strategic actions available to new ventures to gain legitimacy and acceptance in the face of institutional change.
How do managers’ moves across jobs affect the subordinates they leave behind? Manager mobility disrupts established manager-subordinate relationships, as subordinates must now learn to work with a replacement. We explore how this relational disruption affects subordinates’ objective career success—specifically, their financial rewards and subsequent promotion chances. We argue that manager mobility may have both positive and negative implications for subordinate outcomes. The loss of an established relationship may reduce subordinates’ performance and managers’ propensity to reward them; on the other hand, relational disruption may make subordinates more willing and able to seek out valuable opportunities elsewhere in the organization. We also argue that these effects are likely to be greatest for those subordinates who had worked with the previous manager for longer. Using eight years of personnel data from the U.S. offices of a Fortune 500 healthcare company, we show how managers’ mobility is associated with a decrease in subordinates’ financial rewards but an increase in their promotion prospects.
Despite the generally positive consequences associated with justice, recent research suggests that supervisors cannot always enact justice, and responses to justice may not be universally positive. Thus, justice is likely to vary in both how much it is received and the employee reactions it engenders. In order to understand the range of justice responses, we develop a dynamic theory of justice by using person-environment fit to take both the value that an individual places in justice and the justice they received into account. Using this framework, we clarify the consequences of congruence versus incongruence in daily justice received and valued, which have implications for treatment discrepancies and subsequent work behavior. We also identify the differences between excess and deficient justice on cognitive and affective responses to justice. Our findings reveal that employees’ experience of justice is more complicated than simply whether the justice they received was high or low on a particular day. Using experience sampling and polynomial regression methods, we observe that not all instances in which employees receive high levels of justice are equivalent. In fact, we find that, depending on justice valued, receiving high levels of justice can be just as detrimental as receiving low levels. Additionally, we find that although both forms of justice misfit (excess and deficiency) cause-negative work outcomes, they affect these outcomes through differential responses to justice — with excess causing increased rumination and deficiency causing decreased positive affect. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for extant justice theory and for supervisor-employee work interactions.
We clarify conditions under which two seemingly contradictory yet widely observed tendencies occur in cultural markets where amateur connoisseurs evaluate products—reinforcement of previous consensus and contradiction of that same consensus. We start from prior work’s insight that achieving “distinction” requires that evaluators display tastes demonstrating higher skills of discernment and standards that are acknowledged as legitimate by others. Based on this, we argue that evaluators reinforce prior evaluations of products to demonstrate that they share the same quality standards as their peers, but they selectively contradict prior evaluations by downgrading widely acclaimed products, because doing the latter makes the evaluator appear to have even more sophisticated tastes than their peers. We test this account using 1.66 million reviews from an online platform where amateur connoisseurs publicly evaluate beers. Our analyses support an endogenous model explaining why and when evaluators may contradict existing evaluations even though a group plausibly sharing the same quality standards may have established such evaluations in the first place.
Formal hierarchies may be presumed to reduce uncertainty about the status ordering of employees as they imply a consistent global ranking. However, formal hierarchies in organizations are not merely linear, but are characterized by branching and nesting (i.e., they comprise subunits within the organization and subunits within other subunits), which creates a local ranking of individuals within each subunit. This can create tension between global and local formal ranks as status cues. Moreover, individuals may also draw on informal status cues that are inconsistent with formal ranks. Consequently, organizational members may experience upward status disagreement (USD), whereby each assumes they have higher status than the other. We offer a theoretical model that identifies important conditions under which cues arising from the structure of the formal hierarchy—either on their own or in conjunction with informal status cues—can be a source of USD. We also explore when USD can result in status conflict and identify moderators of this relationship. Our research has implications for how the frequency of USD can be mitigated as organizational structures become more complex and the workforce becomes increasingly diverse.
A growing body of scholarship studies the emergence of moral markets—sectors offering market-based solutions to social and environmental issues. To date, researchers have largely focused on the drivers of firm entry into these values-laden sectors. However, we know comparatively little about postentry dynamics or the determinants of firm survival in moral markets. This study examines how regional institutional logics—spatially bound, socially constructed meaning systems that legitimize specific practices and goals within a community—shape firm survival in emerging moral markets. Using a unique panel of firms entering the first eight years of the U.S. green building supply industry, we find that (1) a regional market logic amplifies the impacts of market forces by increasing the positive impact of market adoption and the negative impact of localized competition on firm survival, (2) a regional proenvironmental logic dampens the impacts of adoption and competition on firm survival, and (3) institutional complexity—the co-occurrence of both market and proenvironmental logics in a region—negates the traditional advantages of de alio (diversifying incumbent) firms, creating an opportunity for de novo (entrepreneurial entrant) firms to compete more effectively. Our study integrates research on industry emergence, institutional logics, and firm survival to address important gaps in our knowledge regarding the evolution and growth of environmental entrepreneurship in moral markets.
This research investigates the relationship between couples’ work-orientation incongruence—the degree to which romantic partners view the meaning of their own work differently—and their ability to succeed in making job transitions and experiencing satisfaction with the jobs they hold. We use a social information-processing approach to develop arguments that romantic partners serve as powerful social referents in the domain of work. By cueing social information regarding the salience and value of different aspects of work, partners with incongruent work orientations can complicate each other’s evaluation of their own jobs and the jobs they seek. In a longitudinal study of couples in which one partner is searching for work, we find that greater incongruence in couples’ calling orientations toward work relates to lower reemployment probability, a relationship that is mediated by an increased feeling of uncertainty about the future experienced by job seekers in such couples. Calling-orientation incongruence also relates to lower job satisfaction for employed partners over time. We contribute to the burgeoning literature on the role romantic partners play in shaping work outcomes by examining the effect of romantic partners’ perception of the meaning of work, offering empirical evidence of the ways in which romantic partners influence key work and organizational outcomes. Our research also contributes to the meaning of work literature by demonstrating how work-orientation incongruence at the dyadic level matters for individual work attitudes and success in making job transitions.
Distinguishing between status spillovers and status ripples, we argue that sudden positive status shifts create status ripples when the social actors experiencing the status shifts are more constrained from exploiting their higher status than the social actors to whom they are affiliated. Specifically, we examine the status ripple paradox that the status effects experienced by the affiliated actors sometimes are as strong, or even stronger, as the direct status effects experienced by the ascending actors themselves. Focusing empirically on prestigious CEO awards from U.S. news magazines, we examine the consequences of positive status shifts for the awarded CEOs and the CEOs who are on the boards of directors of the awarded CEOs’ firms. We find evidence of status ripples in CEO compensation by showing that awarded CEOs have relatively greater immediate but smaller subsequent increases in compensation, which results in lower overall compensation effects for the awarded CEOs. Moreover, we provide empirical evidence of the theoretical mechanisms behind the status ripple paradox by showing that external constraints in the form of increased media and analyst attention and increased expectations affect the status ripple effect.
We investigate how CEOs’ implicit motives can shape firms’ competitive intensity in response to external threats. We examine this phenomenon in the context of short seller activism, which occurs when an activist short seller publicly denounces a firm to drive down its stock price. Implicit motives are motivational dispositions that operate outside of an individual’s conscious awareness. We find that CEOs’ implicit needs for achievement and power are associated with a decrease in competitive intensity following short seller activism, implying that implicit motives can lead CEOs to avoid behaviors that they fear may result in failure or the exposure of weakness in the wake of an external threat. This study contributes to research on external threats and corporate governance by highlighting the role of CEOs’ implicit motives in shaping firms’ responses to activists. We emphasize the importance of integrating implicit motives into upper echelons research.