View Thread

Online Workshop on Managing Social Evaluations in preparation for the JMS Special Issue

  • 1.  Online Workshop on Managing Social Evaluations in preparation for the JMS Special Issue

    Posted 12-05-2022 09:01
    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

    Please submit your 1,000 words abstract to: 

    If you have any questions, please contact or

    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)


    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?


    • The deadline for submissions is 1 April 2023.
    • Submissions should be prepared using the JMS Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
    • Manuscripts should be submitted using the JMS ScholarOne system
    • 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:
    o Gokhan Ertug,
    o Michael Etter,
    o Scott Graffin,
    o Anastasiya Zavyalova,
    • Publication is expected in mid-2025.

    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.
    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,
    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.
    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,
    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.
    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,
    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.

    Joanne Cheseldine
    Journal of Management Studies