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...
Saved in:
Published in: | The Academy of Management review 2018-04, Vol.43 (2), p.259-283 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
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 & 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 |