Call for Papers

This sub-theme seeks to bring together research examining the micro-foundations of social evaluations, such as legitimacy, reputation, status, celebrity, trust, authenticity, and stigma. The micro-foundation approach concerns the processes through which individual evaluations are formed and become shared in society. To this end, we are interested in papers that examine social evaluations at different levels of analysis, including bottom up, top down and other cross level effects, individual and context interaction, group dynamics around consensus construction and destruction, as well as within-person fluctuation, and change in social evaluations over time and space. We welcome studies that use a diverse spectrum of qualitative and quantitative methods, as well as theoretical papers that explore the micro-foundations of both positive and negative social evaluations. We also encourage submissions that apply social evaluations theory to the challenges of modern organizations and societies and to previously underexplored domains – from arts, sports, and political polarization to social entrepreneurship, climate, conflict, and global governance.
 
Social evaluations concepts may relate to the individual, group, organizational, societal and practice levels. While a multi-level approach to social evaluations (Bitektine & Haack, 2015) has been a useful way to unpack some key concepts in this literature, including legitimacy (Suddaby et al., 2017), reputation, status (Pollock et al., 2019), stigma (Hudson & Okhuysen, 2009) and trust (Gillespie, Fulmer & Lewicki, 2021), further research is needed to understand the link among social evaluations and the production of evaluations at different levels.
 
From a micro-foundational perspective (Felin et al., 2015), we can consider how individual level evaluations aggregate or emerge to the organizational level, but also how the evaluation of organizations affects its members. While mechanisms might involve more than one level of analysis, considering a variety of evaluations at multiple levels can also yield fruitful contributions. Evaluations are sometimes nested within others, for example when there is variance in disapproval of organizations within a contested industry (Vergne, 2012). Multi-level investigation of social evaluations also requires novel methods that can link the different sources of evaluations and allow for examination of the evolution and consensus in evaluations over time (Anesa et al., 2022).
 
The recognition of the multi-level nature of social evaluations can generate insightful opportunities for theorization. The institutional perspective considers either the macro level of evaluations (Bitektine & Haack, 2015) or micro-level behaviors (Clemente & Roulet, 2015). Research on levels of analysis has identified several mechanisms by which individual perceptions and attitudes can coalesce at the organizational level and be shared by organizational members (Fulmer & Ostroff, 2016). For example, trust as a multi-level concept resides in inter-personal relations while affecting inter-organizational relationships (Bachmann et al., 2015). In a collective, individuals’ trust can exhibit convergence and divergence (Korsgaard & Bliese, 2021), resulting in different patterns of collective trust that carry implications for the organization as well as for individuals and their relationships (de Jong et al., 2021).
 
A multi-level approach links micro- and macro-levels research on social evaluations and can provide valuable cross-fertilization between these previously separate domains that focus on a single level of analysis and the associated factors and outcomes. Research across levels and across different types of evaluations will also encourage formation of a common language among scholars in the micro and macro domains while deepening our understanding of social evaluations. Such an understanding is urgently needed given the increasing fluidity with which social evaluations move across levels through social media and global communication.
 
We invite scholars to address social evaluations from diverse theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches and welcome contributions from diverse disciplines, such as management, organization science, psychology, sociology, and economics. We encourage submissions that apply social evaluations to enduring societal challenges, such as political polarization, climate change, conflict and global governance, as well as to previously underexplored domains such as arts, sports, and social entrepreneurship. Papers can address, but are not limited to, the following questions:

• How are different types of social evaluations created, maintained, destroyed and restored over time?

• What is the role of individuals, social networks, mainstream media, social media, authorities, and other actors in this process?

• How and under what circumstances do macro-level evaluations influence individuals’ perceptions and judgments, and vice versa?

• How do individual evaluators choose which judgment to express in their actions and discourse and which ones to hold private?

• How do evaluations at the individual level aggregate to the group and organizational levels?

• How do group and organizational-level evaluations affect members?

• When and why do audiences, depending on their characteristics, diverge or converge in their evaluations of social actors?

• When do different types of social evaluations converge or diverge?

• When do social evaluations affect macro-level processes and when do they not?

• How do different sources and types of social evaluations connect and interact?

• How do individual- and organizational-level evaluations change over time? What causes changes and under what circumstances? What is the role of micro, meso, and macro levels in this process?

• How do meso-level relationships, such as group dynamics, influence individual and organizational-level evaluations?

• When do organizational-level evaluations break down? What is the process?

• How might the macro and micro level dynamics of social evaluations differ for positive and negative evaluations?

References

• Anesa, M., Spee, A.P., Gillespie, N., & Petani, F.J. (2023): “Reassessing Moral Legitimacy in Times of Instability.” Journal of Management Studies, 60 (5), first published online on November 14, 2022; https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joms.12889
• Bachmann, R., Gillespie, N., & Priem, R. (2015): “Repairing Trust in Organizations and Institutions: Toward a Conceptual Framework.” Organization Studies, 36 (9), 1123–1142.
• Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2015): “The ‘Macro’ and the ‘Micro’ of Legitimacy: Towards a Multilevel Theory of the Legitimacy Process.” Academy of Management Review, 40 (1), 49–75.
• Clemente, M., & Roulet, T.J. (2015): “Public Opinion As a Source of Deinstitutionalization: A ‘Spiral of Silence’ Approach.” Academy of Management Review, 40 (1), 96–114.
• de Jong, B., Gillespie, N., Williamson, I., & Gill, C. (2021): “Trust Consensus Within Culturally Diverse Teams: A Multistudy Investigation.” Journal of Management, 47 (8), 2135–2168.
• Fulmer, C.A., & Ostroff, C. (2016): “Convergence and emergence in organizations: An integrative framework and review.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37 (Suppl. 1), 122–145.
• Felin, T., Foss, N.J., & Ployhart, R.E. (2015): “The Microfoundations Movement in Strategy and Organization Theory.” The Academy of Management Annals, 9 (1), 575–632.
• Gillespie, N., Fulmer, A., & Lewicki, R.J. (eds.) (2021): Understanding Trust in Organizations. A Multilevel Perspective. New York: Routledge.
• Hudson, B.A., & Okhuysen, G.A. (2009): “Not with a ten-foot pole: Core stigma, stigma transfer, and improbable persistence of men’s bathhouses.” Organization Science, 20 (1), 134–153.
• Korsgaard, M.A., & Bliese, P. (2021): “Divergence in collective trust.” In: A. Fulmer, N. Gillespie & R.J. Lewicki (eds.): Understanding Trust in Organizations: A Multilevel Perspective. New York: Routledge, chap. 3.
• Pollock, T.G., Lashley, K., Rindova, V.P., & 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 (2), 444–478.
• Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017): “Legitimacy.” Academy of Management Annals, 11 (1), 451–478.
• Tost, L.P. (2011): “An Integrative Model of Legitimacy Judgments.” Academy of Management Review, 36 (4), 686–710.
• 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 (5), 1027–1052.
•