The Dynamics of Organizational Status

Podolny, Joel M.; Phillips, Damon J.

doi:10.1093/icc/5.2.453

Cited by 271 publications

(168 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

158

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, the manager for each team fills out the remaining roster spots by choosing players he thinks deserve recognition. Given that All-Star appearances are determined by the accumulated acts of deference (i.e., votes) from fans, players, and managers, this measure is consistent with the sociological view of status as the 'stock' that corresponds to the 'flow' of deference (Podolny and Phillips, 1996).…”

Section: Independent Variablesupporting

confidence: 60%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seeing Stars: Matthew Effects and Status Bias in Major League Baseball Umpiring

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper tests the assumption that evaluators are biased to positively evaluate high status individuals, irrespective of quality. Using unique data from Major League Baseball umpires' evaluation of pitch quality, which allow us to observe the difference in a pitch's objective quality and in its perceived quality as judged by the umpire, we show that umpires are more likely to over-recognize quality by expanding the strike zone, and less likely to under-recognize quality by missing pitches in the strike zone for high status pitchers. Ambiguity and the pitcher's reputation as a "control pitcher" moderate the effect of status on umpire judgment. Further, we show that umpire errors resulting from status bias lead to actual performance differences for the pitcher and team.Keywords: Status, Bias, Performance Forthcoming in Management Science2 Social scientists have long understood status to be an indicator of hierarchical position and prestige that helps individuals and organizations procure resources and opportunities for advancement (e.g., Whyte 1943;Podolny 2001;Sauder, Lynn, and Podolny 2012). Status markers, like ranking systems in education (Espeland and Sauder 2007) or awards and prizes (Rossman et al. 2010), accentuate quality differences among actors and create greater socio-economic inequality. Past research has advanced our understanding of how status hierarchies emerge and persist (Berger, Rosenholtz, and Zelditch 1980;Webster and Hysom 1998;Ridgeway and Correll 2006), on the psychological rewards of status attainment (e.g., Willer 2009;Anderson et al. 2012), on the association of status with characteristics such as race and gender (Ridgeway 1991), or on status outcomes, such as the accumulation of power, price and wage differentials, and other economic and social benefits (Podolny 1993;Benjamin and Podolny 1999;Thye 2000;Correll et al. 2007;Stuart, Hoang, and Hybels 1999;Bothner, Kim, and Smith 2011;Pearce 2011;Waguespack and Sorenson, 2011).In economic sociology, the classic statement of self-reproducing advantages is Robert Merton's (1968) theory of the Matthew Effect. Underlying the Matthew Effect is an assumption that individuals are biased to positively evaluate high status individuals irrespective of quality, and that this bias, rather than actual quality differences, perpetuates inequality between high status and low status actors. Scholars in status characteristics theory have made the case that this bias results from individuals' expectations and prior beliefs about competence and quality (Anderson et al. 2001;Ridgeway and Correll 2006;Berger et al. 1977;Ridgeway and Berger 1986), and experimental and audit studies have identified status characteristics as a mechanism that underlies discriminatory evaluations of low status individuals (e.g., Correll et al. 2007).Despite the evidence emanating from the experimental research in status characteristics studies, scholars studying the Matthew Effect in real world settings have had a more difficult time demonstrating that status bias is a mech...

show abstract

Section: Independent Variablesupporting

confidence: 60%

“…4 Podolny and Phillips (1996) argued that high status actors tend to benefit more when there is considerable ambiguity. One reason for this is that when there is greater ambiguity evaluators will resort to their prior expectations about performance.…”

Section: Conditions That Heighten Status-bias: Reputation and Uncertamentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing Stars: Matthew Effects and Status Bias in Major League Baseball Umpiring

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unlike reputation, status derives not so much from observation of or direct experience with a firm's past actions and investments but, rather, from observation of its affiliations with prominent network partners and its centrality within market exchange networks. The ability of status to increase the confidence of stakeholders in the quality of a firm is based on the assumption that the willingness of others to associate with a firm provides a gauge of the firm's underlying quality (Podolny, 1994;Podolny & Phillips, 1996). Overall, both status and reputation are intangible assets of the firm that derive from stakeholders' attempts to rationally evaluate a firm's value-creating potential by observing signals reflected in its past performance and transaction behaviors.…”

Section: How Celebrity Differs From Other Intangible Assetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Celebrity Firms: The Social Construction Of Market Popularity

Rindova

Pollock

Hayward

2006

AMR

594

489

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We extend the concept of celebrity from the individual to the firm level of analysis and argue that the high level of public attention and the positive emotional responses that define celebrity increase the economic opportunities available to a firm. We develop a theoretical framework explaining how the media construct firm celebrity by creating a "dramatized reality" in reporting on industry change and firms' actions. Firms contribute to this process by taking nonconforming actions and proactively seeking to manage impressions about themselves.

show abstract

“…From the perspective of the Resource Based View of the firm, positive CSP may result in a favourable corporate reputation (Podolny & Phillips, 1996) that is capable of producing rents (Barney, 1991), because, at least under certeris paribus conditions, a variety of stakeholders will prefer to interact with organizations that evince better CSP. In this regard, weak CSP may lead key stakeholders to avoid making relationship-specific investments in resources and processes and/or may lead them to withhold required capital, effort and valuable information (Adams, 1963).…”

Section: Firm Industry and Network Antecedents Of Corporate Social Permentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of firm, industry and network on the corporate social performance of Japanese firms

O’Shaughnessy

Gedajlovic

Reinmoeller

2007

Asia Pacific J Manage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We develop and test the thesis that corporate social performance (CSP) constitutes a socially constructed and shared strategic asset, which is not only influenced by factors specific to a firm, but also by the social performance of firms in its industry and inter-corporate network. Using variance decomposition, we analyze data from 130 large Japanese firms and find that both firm-specific and industrylevel factors account for significant variance in CSP, but network-level factors do not.Keywords Corporate social performance . Japan . Variance decomposition . Keiretsu . Networks . Industry-effects . Resource based view Over the past two decades, corporate social performance (CSP) has been the focus of significant attention from policy makers and the public at large and much theorizing and empirical investigation from the academic community. Wood (1991) defines CSP as the responsiveness a firm has towards its stakeholders. Similarly, Hillman and Keim (2001) consider CSP to combine a firm's attention to the needs of its stakeholders with its efforts to address social issues. Research has shown that firms exhibiting stronger CSP may gain advantages in attracting consumers (Brown & Asia Pacific J Manage (2007) 24:283-303

show abstract

The Dynamics of Organizational Status

Cited by 271 publications

References 4 publications

Seeing Stars: Matthew Effects and Status Bias in Major League Baseball Umpiring

Seeing Stars: Matthew Effects and Status Bias in Major League Baseball Umpiring

Celebrity Firms: The Social Construction Of Market Popularity

The influence of firm, industry and network on the corporate social performance of Japanese firms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About