The Effect of Organizational Atypicality on Reference Group Selection and Performance Evaluation

References

• Audia PG, Brion S (2007) Reluctant to change: Self-enhancing responses to diverging performance measures. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes. 102(2):255–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Audia PG, Brion S, Greve HR (2015) Self-assessment, self-enhancement, and the choice of comparison organizations for evaluating organizational performance. Gavetti G, Ocasio W, eds. Cognition and Strategy. Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 32 (Emerald Group Publishing Ltd., Bingley, UK), 89–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Audia PG, Locke EA, Smith KG (2000) The paradox of success: An archival and a laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change. Acad. Management J. 43(5):837–853.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barney JB (1986) Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Sci. 32(10):1231–1241.Link, Google Scholar
• Barsalou LW (1983) Ad hoc categories. Memory Cognition 11(3):211–227.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baum JA, Rowley TJ, Shipilov AV, Chuang YT (2005) Dancing with strangers: Aspiration performance and the search for underwriting syndicate partners. Admin. Sci. Quart. 50(4):536–575.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berk JB, Green RC (2004) Mutual fund flows and performance in rational markets. J. Political Econom. 112:1269–1295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boone C, Wezel FC, van Witteloostuijn A (2013) Joining the pack or going solo? A dynamic theory of new firm positioning. J. Bus. Venturing 28(4):511–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buunk AP, Gibbons FX (2007) Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 102(1):3–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chevalier J, Ellison G (1997) Risk taking by mutual funds as a response to incentives. J. Political Econom. 105(6):1167–1200.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cyert RM, March JG (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Vol. 2 (Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• DiPrete TA, Eirich GM, Pittinsky M (2010) Compensation benchmarking, leapfrogs, and the surge in executive pay. Amer. J. Sociology 115(6):1671–1712.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dunning D, Meyerowitz JA, Holzberg AD (1989) Ambiguity and self-evaluation: The role of idiosyncratic trait definitions in self-serving assessments of ability. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 57(6):1082–1090.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Durand R, Rao H, Monin P (2007) Code and conduct in French cuisine: Impact of code changes on external evaluations. Strategic Management J. 28(5):455–472.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elsbach KD, Kramer RM (1996) Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(3):442–476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Festinger L (1954) A theory of social comparison. Human Relations 7(4):117–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goodman PS (1974) An examination of referents used in the evaluation of pay. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 12(2):170–195.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goodman PS, Haisley E (2007) Social comparison processes in an organizational context: New directions. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 102(1):109–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greve HR (2003) A behavioral theory of R&D expenditures and innovations: Evidence from shipbuilding. Acad. Management J. 46(6):685–702.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heider F (1958) The Psychology of Interperonal Relations (Wiley, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu G (2006) Jacks of all trades and masters of none: Audiences’ reactions to spanning genres in feature film production. Admin. Sci. Quart. 51(3):420–450.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu G, Hannan MT, Koçak Ö (2009) Multiple category memberships in markets: An integrative theory and two empirical tests. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 74(1):150–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hu S, Blettner D, Bettis RA (2011) Adaptive aspirations: Performance consequences of risk preferences at extremes and alternative reference groups. Strategic Management J. 32(13):1426–1436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hyman HH (1942) The psychology of status. Hyman H, Singer E, eds. Archives of Psychology. Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research, Vol. 269 (Free Press, New York ), 147–165.Google Scholar
• Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financial Econom. 3(4):305–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jordan AH, Audia PG (2012) Self-enhancement and learning from performance feedback. Acad. Management Rev. 37(2):211–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–291.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J. Political Econom. 98(6):1325–1348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Karpik L (2010) Valuing the Unique: The Economics of Singularities. Economics Books, Vol. 9215 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• KC D, Staats BR, Gino F (2013) Learning from my success and from others’ failure: Evidence from minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Management Sci. 59(11):2435–2449.Link, Google Scholar
• Kovács B, Johnson R (2014) Contrasting alternative explanations for the consequences of category spanning: A study of restaurant reviews and menus in San Francisco. Strategic Organ. 12(1):7–37.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kulik CT, Ambrose ML (1992) Personal and situational determinants of referent choice. Acad. Management Rev. 17(2):212–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psych. Bull. 108(3):480–498.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leung MD, Sharkey AJ (2013) Out of sight, out of mind? Evidence of perceptual factors in the multiple-category discount. Organ. Sci. 25(1):171–184.Link, Google Scholar
• Litov LP, Moreton P, Zenger TR (2012) Corporate strategy, analyst coverage, and the uniqueness paradox. Management Sci. 58(10):1797–1815.Link, Google Scholar
• Massini S, Lewin AY, Greve HR (2005) Innovators and imitators: Organizational reference groups and adoption of organizational routines. Res. Policy 34(10):1550–1569.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGraw AP, Larsen JT, Kahneman D, Schkade D (2010) Comparing gains and losses. Psych. Sci. 21(10):1438–1445.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mook DG (1983) In defense of external invalidity. Amer. Psych. 38(4):379–387.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore DA, Flynn FJ (2008) The case for behavioral decision research in organizational behavior. Brief AP, Walsh J, eds. Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 2 (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ), 399–431.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Myers CG, Staats BR, Gino F (2014) “My bad!” How internal attribution and ambiguity of responsibility affect learning from failure. Harvard Business School NOM Unit Working Paper (14–104), Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Navis C, Glynn MA (2010) How new market categories emerge: Temporal dynamics of legitimacy, identity, and entrepreneurship in satellite radio, 1990–2005. Admin. Sci. Quart. 55(3):439–471.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Negro G, Leung MD (2013) “Actual” and perceptual effects of category spanning. Organ. Sci. 24(3):684–696.Link, Google Scholar
• Negro G, Hannan MT, Rao H (2010) Categorical contrast and audience appeal: Niche width and critical success in winemaking. Indust. Corporate Change 19(5):1397–1425.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Fong CT (2005) Building organization theory from first principles: The self-enhancement motive and understanding power and influence. Organ. Sci. 16(4):372–388.Link, Google Scholar
• Pontikes EG (2012) Two sides of the same coin how ambiguous classification affects multiple audiences’ evaluations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 57(1):81–118.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porac JF, Wade JB, Pollock TG (1999) Industry categories and the politics of the comparable firm in CEO compensation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(1):112–144.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rao H, Davis GF, Ward A (2000) Embeddedness, social identity and mobility: Why firms leave the NASDAQ and join the New York Stock Exchange. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(2):268–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rao H, Monin P, Durand R (2003) Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. Amer. J. Sociology 108(4):795–843.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Romero DM, Uzzi B, Kleinberg J (2016) Social networks under stress. Proc. 25th Internat. Conf. World Wide Web, International World Wide Web Conf. Steering Committee, Montréal, Québec, April 11–15, 9–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott WR, Davis GF (2007) Organizations and Organizing (Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ).Google Scholar
• Sedikides C, Gregg AP (2008) Self-enhancement: Food for thought. Perspect. Psych. Sci. 3(2):102–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sensoy BA (2009) Performance evaluation and self-designated benchmark indexes in the mutual fund industry. J. Financial Econom. 92(1):25–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simon HA (1947) Administration Behavior: Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Skowronski JJ, Carlston DE (1989) Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psych. Bull. 105(1):131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith EB (2011) Identities as lenses: How organizational identity affects audiences’ evaluation of organizational performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 56(1):61–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith EB, Chae H (2016) “We do what we must, and call it by the best names”: Can deliberate names offset the consequences of organizational atypicality? Strategic Management J. 37(6):1021–1033.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith EB, Gaughan K (2017) Better in the shadow? Public attention, media coverage and market reactions to female CEO announcements. Working paper, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
• Tajfel H, Turner JC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Austin WG, Worchel S, eds. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Brooks Cole, Monterey, CA), 33–47.Google Scholar
• Tan J, Shao Y, Li W (2013) To be different, or to be the same? An exploratory study of isomorphism in the cluster. J. Bus. Venturing 28(1):83–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tang Y, Wezel FC (2015) Up to standard? Market positioning and performance of Hong Kong films, 1975–1997. J. Bus. Venturing 30(3):452–466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vergne JP (2012) Stigmatized categories and public disapproval of organizations: A mixed methods study of the global arms industry. (1996–2007). Acad. Management J. 55(5):1027–1052.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vergne JP, Wry T (2014) Categorizing categorization research: Review, integration, and future directions. J. Management Stud. 51(1):56–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (1999) The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. Amer. J. Sociology 104(5):1398–1438.Crossref, Google Scholar