Loading…

A BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF SOCIAL PERFORMANCE: SOCIAL IDENTITY AND STAKEHOLDER EXPECTATIONS

Firms use reference points to evaluate financial performance, frame gain or loss positions, and guide strategic behavior. However, there is little theoretical underpinning to explain how social performance is evaluated and integrated into strategic decision making. We fill this void with new theory...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Academy of Management review 2018-04, Vol.43 (2), p.259-283
Main Authors: NASON, ROBERT S., BACQ, SOPHIE, GRAS, DAVID
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-a0d949d7602c30499b26103346d7a21a304a75dadb33e264e36710aac7777d9d3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-a0d949d7602c30499b26103346d7a21a304a75dadb33e264e36710aac7777d9d3
container_end_page 283
container_issue 2
container_start_page 259
container_title The Academy of Management review
container_volume 43
creator NASON, ROBERT S.
BACQ, SOPHIE
GRAS, DAVID
description Firms use reference points to evaluate financial performance, frame gain or loss positions, and guide strategic behavior. However, there is little theoretical underpinning to explain how social performance is evaluated and integrated into strategic decision making. We fill this void with new theory built on the premise that inherently ambiguous social performance is evaluated and interpreted differently than largely clear financial performance. We propose that firms seek to negotiate a shared social performance reference point with stakeholders who identify with the organization and care about social performance. While incentivized to align with the firm, firm-identified stakeholders provide intense feedback when there are major discrepancies between their expectations and the firm’s actual social performance. Firms frame and respond to feedback differently depending on the feedback valence: negative feedback will be framed as a legitimacy threat, and firm responses are likely to be substantive; positive feedback will be framed as an efficiency threat, and firm responses are likely to be symbolic. However, social enterprises face a double standard in evaluations and calibrate responses to social performance feedback differently than do nonsocial enterprises. Our behavioral theory of social performance advances knowledge of organizational evaluations and responses to stakeholder feedback.
doi_str_mv 10.5465/amr.2015.0081
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2112645432</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>26528806</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26528806</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-a0d949d7602c30499b26103346d7a21a304a75dadb33e264e36710aac7777d9d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kE1Lw0AQhhdRMFaPHoWAJw-pszv7kT3GkNpCNRKr4GnZZlMwWFN320P_vVsqvpeBl2dm4CHkmsJYcCnu7dqPGVAxBsjpCUmoRsgwB3VKEkCJmeJMnJOLEHqIUSASclekD9W0eJ_VTTFPF9Oqbj7SepK-1uUsFi9VM6mbp-K5rC7J2cp-he7qb47I26RalNNsXj_OymKetSjybWbBaa6dksBaBK71kkkKiFw6ZRm1sbNKOOuWiB2TvEOpKFjbqhinHY7I7fHuxg8_uy5sTT_s_Hd8aRilcUNwZJHKjlTrhxB8tzIb_7m2fm8omIMNE22Ygw1zsBH5myPfh-3g_2EmBctzkPgL_nhVTg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2112645432</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF SOCIAL PERFORMANCE: SOCIAL IDENTITY AND STAKEHOLDER EXPECTATIONS</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Business Source Ultimate</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>NASON, ROBERT S. ; BACQ, SOPHIE ; GRAS, DAVID</creator><creatorcontrib>NASON, ROBERT S. ; BACQ, SOPHIE ; GRAS, DAVID</creatorcontrib><description>Firms use reference points to evaluate financial performance, frame gain or loss positions, and guide strategic behavior. However, there is little theoretical underpinning to explain how social performance is evaluated and integrated into strategic decision making. We fill this void with new theory built on the premise that inherently ambiguous social performance is evaluated and interpreted differently than largely clear financial performance. We propose that firms seek to negotiate a shared social performance reference point with stakeholders who identify with the organization and care about social performance. While incentivized to align with the firm, firm-identified stakeholders provide intense feedback when there are major discrepancies between their expectations and the firm’s actual social performance. Firms frame and respond to feedback differently depending on the feedback valence: negative feedback will be framed as a legitimacy threat, and firm responses are likely to be substantive; positive feedback will be framed as an efficiency threat, and firm responses are likely to be symbolic. However, social enterprises face a double standard in evaluations and calibrate responses to social performance feedback differently than do nonsocial enterprises. Our behavioral theory of social performance advances knowledge of organizational evaluations and responses to stakeholder feedback.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0363-7425</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1930-3807</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5465/amr.2015.0081</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Briarcliff Manor: Academy of Management</publisher><subject>Ambiguity ; Behavior ; Behavioral decision theory ; Companies ; Decision making ; Discrepancies ; Feedback ; Financial performance ; Legitimacy ; Social entrepreneurship ; Social identity ; Social interaction ; Stakeholders</subject><ispartof>The Academy of Management review, 2018-04, Vol.43 (2), p.259-283</ispartof><rights>Academy of Management Review 2018</rights><rights>Copyright Academy of Management Apr 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-a0d949d7602c30499b26103346d7a21a304a75dadb33e264e36710aac7777d9d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-a0d949d7602c30499b26103346d7a21a304a75dadb33e264e36710aac7777d9d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26528806$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26528806$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,33223,58238,58471</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>NASON, ROBERT S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BACQ, SOPHIE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GRAS, DAVID</creatorcontrib><title>A BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF SOCIAL PERFORMANCE: SOCIAL IDENTITY AND STAKEHOLDER EXPECTATIONS</title><title>The Academy of Management review</title><description>Firms use reference points to evaluate financial performance, frame gain or loss positions, and guide strategic behavior. However, there is little theoretical underpinning to explain how social performance is evaluated and integrated into strategic decision making. We fill this void with new theory built on the premise that inherently ambiguous social performance is evaluated and interpreted differently than largely clear financial performance. We propose that firms seek to negotiate a shared social performance reference point with stakeholders who identify with the organization and care about social performance. While incentivized to align with the firm, firm-identified stakeholders provide intense feedback when there are major discrepancies between their expectations and the firm’s actual social performance. Firms frame and respond to feedback differently depending on the feedback valence: negative feedback will be framed as a legitimacy threat, and firm responses are likely to be substantive; positive feedback will be framed as an efficiency threat, and firm responses are likely to be symbolic. However, social enterprises face a double standard in evaluations and calibrate responses to social performance feedback differently than do nonsocial enterprises. Our behavioral theory of social performance advances knowledge of organizational evaluations and responses to stakeholder feedback.</description><subject>Ambiguity</subject><subject>Behavior</subject><subject>Behavioral decision theory</subject><subject>Companies</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Discrepancies</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Financial performance</subject><subject>Legitimacy</subject><subject>Social entrepreneurship</subject><subject>Social identity</subject><subject>Social interaction</subject><subject>Stakeholders</subject><issn>0363-7425</issn><issn>1930-3807</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kE1Lw0AQhhdRMFaPHoWAJw-pszv7kT3GkNpCNRKr4GnZZlMwWFN320P_vVsqvpeBl2dm4CHkmsJYcCnu7dqPGVAxBsjpCUmoRsgwB3VKEkCJmeJMnJOLEHqIUSASclekD9W0eJ_VTTFPF9Oqbj7SepK-1uUsFi9VM6mbp-K5rC7J2cp-he7qb47I26RalNNsXj_OymKetSjybWbBaa6dksBaBK71kkkKiFw6ZRm1sbNKOOuWiB2TvEOpKFjbqhinHY7I7fHuxg8_uy5sTT_s_Hd8aRilcUNwZJHKjlTrhxB8tzIb_7m2fm8omIMNE22Ygw1zsBH5myPfh-3g_2EmBctzkPgL_nhVTg</recordid><startdate>20180401</startdate><enddate>20180401</enddate><creator>NASON, ROBERT S.</creator><creator>BACQ, SOPHIE</creator><creator>GRAS, DAVID</creator><general>Academy of Management</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K9.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180401</creationdate><title>A BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF SOCIAL PERFORMANCE</title><author>NASON, ROBERT S. ; BACQ, SOPHIE ; GRAS, DAVID</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-a0d949d7602c30499b26103346d7a21a304a75dadb33e264e36710aac7777d9d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Ambiguity</topic><topic>Behavior</topic><topic>Behavioral decision theory</topic><topic>Companies</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Discrepancies</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Financial performance</topic><topic>Legitimacy</topic><topic>Social entrepreneurship</topic><topic>Social identity</topic><topic>Social interaction</topic><topic>Stakeholders</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>NASON, ROBERT S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BACQ, SOPHIE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GRAS, DAVID</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>The Academy of Management review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>NASON, ROBERT S.</au><au>BACQ, SOPHIE</au><au>GRAS, DAVID</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF SOCIAL PERFORMANCE: SOCIAL IDENTITY AND STAKEHOLDER EXPECTATIONS</atitle><jtitle>The Academy of Management review</jtitle><date>2018-04-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>259</spage><epage>283</epage><pages>259-283</pages><issn>0363-7425</issn><eissn>1930-3807</eissn><abstract>Firms use reference points to evaluate financial performance, frame gain or loss positions, and guide strategic behavior. However, there is little theoretical underpinning to explain how social performance is evaluated and integrated into strategic decision making. We fill this void with new theory built on the premise that inherently ambiguous social performance is evaluated and interpreted differently than largely clear financial performance. We propose that firms seek to negotiate a shared social performance reference point with stakeholders who identify with the organization and care about social performance. While incentivized to align with the firm, firm-identified stakeholders provide intense feedback when there are major discrepancies between their expectations and the firm’s actual social performance. Firms frame and respond to feedback differently depending on the feedback valence: negative feedback will be framed as a legitimacy threat, and firm responses are likely to be substantive; positive feedback will be framed as an efficiency threat, and firm responses are likely to be symbolic. However, social enterprises face a double standard in evaluations and calibrate responses to social performance feedback differently than do nonsocial enterprises. Our behavioral theory of social performance advances knowledge of organizational evaluations and responses to stakeholder feedback.</abstract><cop>Briarcliff Manor</cop><pub>Academy of Management</pub><doi>10.5465/amr.2015.0081</doi><tpages>25</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0363-7425
ispartof The Academy of Management review, 2018-04, Vol.43 (2), p.259-283
issn 0363-7425
1930-3807
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2112645432
source International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Business Source Ultimate; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection
subjects Ambiguity
Behavior
Behavioral decision theory
Companies
Decision making
Discrepancies
Feedback
Financial performance
Legitimacy
Social entrepreneurship
Social identity
Social interaction
Stakeholders
title A BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF SOCIAL PERFORMANCE: SOCIAL IDENTITY AND STAKEHOLDER EXPECTATIONS
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T20%3A42%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20BEHAVIORAL%20THEORY%20OF%20SOCIAL%20PERFORMANCE:%20SOCIAL%20IDENTITY%20AND%20STAKEHOLDER%20EXPECTATIONS&rft.jtitle=The%20Academy%20of%20Management%20review&rft.au=NASON,%20ROBERT%20S.&rft.date=2018-04-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=259&rft.epage=283&rft.pages=259-283&rft.issn=0363-7425&rft.eissn=1930-3807&rft_id=info:doi/10.5465/amr.2015.0081&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26528806%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-a0d949d7602c30499b26103346d7a21a304a75dadb33e264e36710aac7777d9d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2112645432&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=26528806&rfr_iscdi=true