Search results

The popularity of research into categories has grown in recent decades and shows no sign of abating. This introductory article takes stock of the research into two facets of categorization, addressing it both as a cognitive and a social process. We advocate a rebalance toward the social process of categorization, paying more heed to the entity to be categorized, the actors involved, their acts, and the context and timing, which informs these activities. We summarize the contributions to the volume in relation to these dimensions and briefly discuss avenues for future research.

Our editorial argues that categories theory can be advanced by embracing heuristics research, and the insight that audiences often evaluate items based on multiple valued criteria. Thus, rather than building on extant theory – which suggests that categories embody specific evaluative criteria, or that audiences operate according to a set “theory of value” – the authors argue that hybrids research would benefit from attending to the underlying processes that actors use to weigh and balance the diverse considerations that guide their decisions. The authors define and discuss three commonly used heuristics (satisficing, lexicographic preferences, and elimination by aspects), and show how these might lead audiences to support different types of hybrid entities.

This chapter studies the conditions under which market intermediaries reward or sanction market actors who deviate from the prevailing categorical order. The authors first assess how the expertise of a market intermediary – an understudied determinant of their authority – can lead to a positive evaluation of categorical deviation. Then, the authors identify two inhibitors that are likely to temper such positive appraisal: identity preservation and competition among market intermediaries. Factoring in both micro-level and macro-level dimensions of market dynamics, this chapter contributes to research on market intermediaries, the evolution of category systems, and more broadly, to the microfoundations of institutional change.

Extant research presents firms’ purpose as a consensual and positive attribute. This paper introduces an alternative perspective, which sees firms’ purposefulness as defined in relation to specific audiences. A firm’s purposefulness to a focal audience can be either positive or negative. Audiences find firms with which they share a common prioritization of issues more purposeful in absolute terms. Audiences find firms with which they share a common understanding of issues positively purposeful. Conversely, audiences find firms with an opposite understanding of issues negatively purposeful. Audiences harness specific resources to support firms they find positively purposeful and to oppose firms they find negatively purposeful. This paper introduces topic modeling and word embeddings as two techniques to operationalize this audience-based approach to purposefulness.

In this chapter we develop a new approach, based on the identification of strategy classes, to study how firms face multiple demands. The procedure that we propose (called Relational Class Analysis) stems from an analysis of the similarity of associative patterns across multiple observable outcomes, which reflect the underlying set of choices firms make to similarly address demands. Empirically, the study of 18 financial and extra-financial performance outcomes for 3,655 firms shows the existence of three main strategic classes. Drawing on our analysis, we redefine strategy as the set of committed decisions undertaken to resolve trade-offs between multiple concurrent objectives and discuss the implications of our approach for eight core questions for strategy and organizational theory.

We propose that institutional logics are resources organizations use to leverage their strategic choices. We argue that firms with an awareness of multiple available logics, expressed by a larger stock of competences and a broader industrial scope are more likely to add an institutional logic to their repertoire and to become purist in this new logic. We also hypothesize that a favorable opportunity set as expressed by status leads high and low status firms to add a logic but not to focus exclusively on this new logic. We examine our hypotheses in the French industrial design industry from 1989 to 2003 in which a managerialist logic emerged and prevailed along with the pre-existing institutional logics of modernism and formalism. Our findings contribute to theory on the relationship between organizations’ strategy and institutional change and partially address the paradox of why high-status actors play a key role in triggering institutional change when such change is likely to undermine the very basis of their social position and advantage.

A key component of evolutionary models in economics and organizational research, the notion of organizational selection is rarely the object of inquiry. It generally suggests instead a neutral and unquestioned process, a mechanism explaining organizational success and survival. In this chapter, we explore the variation of selection; we problematize the notion of selection and do an exercise in conceptual genealogy. We differentiate between three patterns of firm selection: Darwinian, strategic, and institutional and define the associated “embedded rationalities” that buttress those different selection patterns. We illustrate how selection differed and evolved through time by exploring two empirical cases – France and the United States. Building upon our empirical exploration, we stress some important contributions for three theories familiar to strategy scholars – resource-based view, population ecology, and institutional theory. We also point to some consequences for empirical research and suggest new directions for future work on the dynamics of organizational action.

This chapter explains organizational accountability in context of a revolutionary change by the emotional capability of an organization and the ethical orientation of its top executives. Four situations lead to four propositions accounting for the level and durability of an organization's accountability. This chapter fills a gap in the literature by articulating two antecedents of organizational accountability, underlines the relevance of organizational ethics, and extends the realm of emotion management to strategic organizational outcomes.

The aim of this paper is to give empirical evidence of the fundamental mechanisms underlying the resource systemics: time compression diseconomies, asset mass efficiency, and interconnectedness of assets. It assumes that time, resource properties and interactions are the critical elements leading to accumulation of idiosyncratic resources, firm performance and survival. Results from a Cox regression on a simulated dataset confirm the protective effects of time compression diseconomies, asset mass efficiency, and interconnectedness of assets against firm's death.