Search

Although previous literature has stated that negative evaluations could originate from misconduct, inaction towards relevant social and environmental issues, and the like, little has been said about exactly how and why these negative evaluations may disseminate, intensify, and generate harmful consequences on the organizational level, as opposed to staying vague and shared within a small group. In this symposium, we will discuss when and how a negative evaluation about an organization can escalate from a vaguely developed and localized form into a widely shared and strongly negative evaluation held by the general public, and under which conditions such negative evaluations could lead to significant and long-lasting adverse outcomes for organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This symposium is developed around two main organization and management theories: impression management theory and symbolic management theory. Through a comparison of four studies at multiple levels of analysis and a following discussion, the symposium promises to provide the audience with a better understanding of these concepts. In particular, it will be possible to discuss how impression and symbolic management relate to each other at multiple levels of analysis, and to consider implications for future research. Careers Embedded in Multiple Institutional Logics: the Construction of a Professional Image Presenter: Cleo Silvestri; Imperial College London The Face of the Entrepreneur: Visual Impression Management in Early Stage Ventures Presenter: Joao Cotter Salvado; London Business School Do You Get What You Pay For? The Unintended Consequence of Corporate Philanthropy Presenter: Eric Y. Lee; U. of Georgia Presenter: Daniel Gamache; U. of Georgia Social Network Ties and Symbolic Management in Firm leadership and Governance Presenter: James D. Westphal; U. of Michigan Presenter: Sun Hyun Park; Seoul National U. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Past studies on corporate reputation have shown the importance of having good reputation. Recently, however, research has started to examine how firms can repair their damaged reputation. Yet, our understanding of reputation damage and repair is still limited because so far studies focus on what firms should do but not what stakeholders might do. For example, do stakeholders change only their evaluation of a compromised firm or actually alter the process by which they evaluate such a firm? In this study we take the perspective of the shareholders and ask whether and how shareholders change their evaluative process following a reputation-damaging event and a reputation-restoring effort. We show that shareholders fundamentally change the process by which they evaluate a firm following certain signals but do this in a rather sophisticated way to maximize their interests, and that shareholders seem to keep track of a firm's past wrongdoing and reverse all their earlier reactions following positive signals from the firm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study attempts to differentiate between the effects of loss aversion and the house money effect on CEO decision making by examining the effects of performance relative to aspirations on two outcomes that are consequential to the CEO and reflect different interpretations of the personal risk s/he faces: her/his compensation mix and the number of exercisable but unexercised options s/he holds on to, and whether these effects are influenced by the firm's prominence. We find more general support for the predictions based on the house money effect than those based on loss aversion. Further, the prominence of the firm appears to decrease the percentage of cash compensation in the mix when performance is below aspirations and increase the number of shares of exercisable but unexercised options that the CEO chooses to hold onto. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]