We examined the extent to which organizations' reputations encompass different types of stakeholders' perceptions, which may have differential effects on economic outcomes. Specifically, we propose that reputation consists of two dimensions: (1) stakeholders' perceptions of an organization as able to produce quality goods and (2) organizations' prominence in the minds of stakeholders. We empirically examined the distinct antecedents and consequences of these two dimensions of reputation in the context of U.S. business schools. Results suggest that prominence, which derives from the choices of influential third parties vis-à -vis an organization, contributes significantly to the price premium associated with having a favorable reputation.

The authors distinguished 3 approaches to the study of perceived person-environment fit (P-E fit): (a) atomistic, which examines perceptions of the person and environment as separate entities; (b) molecular, which concerns the perceived comparison between the person and environment; and (c) molar, which focuses on the perceived similarity, match, or fit between the person and environment. Distinctions among these approaches have fundamental implications for theory, measurement, and the subjective experience of P-E fit, yet research has treated these approaches as interchangeable. This study investigated the meaning and relationships among the atomistic, molecular, and molar approaches to fit and examined factors that influence the strength of these relationships. Results showed that the relationships among the approaches deviate markedly from the theoretical logic that links them together. Supplemental analyses indicated that molar fit overlaps with affect and molecular fit gives different weight to atomistic person and environment information depending on how the comparison is framed. These findings challenge fundamental assumptions underlying P-E fit theories and have important implications for future research.

This article extends research on the relationship between employee mobility and firm performance by exploring how mobility between competitors and mobility between potential cooperators are different. We draw on social capital theory to argue that movement of employees both to and from clients may enhance firm performance, whereas only inward mobility from competitors benefits firms. We also hypothesize that it is more harmful for firms to lose social capital-laden human assets to competitors than to other potential employee destinations. We tested our hypotheses with a novel dyadic data set of patent attorney movements between law firms and Fortune 500 companies.

No abstract

Recruiting new employees is one of the biggest challenges facing small businesses, and a key component of organizational success. Unfortunately, existing human resource literature has almost entirely focused on medium and large firms. In addition, past recruitment research has neglected the possible influence of institutional forces on organizational recruitment success. This paper attempts to address these potential gaps in the literature by utilizing institutional theory to develop a strategic model of small business recruitment.