The Role of Third-Party Rankings in Status Dynamics: How Does the Stability of Rankings Induce Status Changes?

References

• Allison PD (1982) Discrete-time methods for the analysis of event histories. Sociol. Methodology 13(1):61–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allison PD (2009) Fixed Effects Regression Models (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allison PD (2010) Survival Analysis Using SAS: A Practical Guide, 2nd ed. (SAS Institute, New York).Google Scholar
• Allison PD (2014) Event History and Survival Analysis: Regression for Longitudinal Event Data, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, vol. 46 (SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Allison PD, Christakis NA (2006) Fixed-effects methods for the analysis of nonrepeated events. Sociol. Methodology 36(1):155–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Asch SE (1955) Opinions and social pressure. Sci. Amer. 193(5):31–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Askin N, Bothner M (2016) Status-aspirational pricing: The “Chivas Regal” strategy in U.S. higher education, 2006-2012. Admin. Sci. Quart. 61(2):217–253.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnard C (1938) The Functions of the Executive (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Bermiss YS, Zajac EJ, King BG (2013) Under construction: How commensuration and management fashion affect corporate reputation rankings. Organ. Sci. 25(2):591–608.Link, Google Scholar
• Bidwell M, Won S, Barbulescu R, Mollick E (2015) I used to work at Goldman Sachs! How firms benefit from organizational status in the market for human capital. Strategic Management J. 36(8):1164–1173.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blank G (2007) Critics, Ratings and Society (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, New York).Google Scholar
• Bowers A, Greve H, Mitsuhashi H, Baum J (2014) Competitive parity, status disparity, and mutual forbearance: Securities analysts’ competition for investor attention. Acad. Management J. 57(1):38–62.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bradshaw M (2004) How do analysts use their earnings forecasts in generating stock recommendations? Account. Rev. 79(1):25–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bowers A, Prato M (2018) The structural origins of unearned status: How arbitrary changes in categories affect status position and market impact. Admin. Sci. Quart. 63(3):668–699.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2000) The network structure of social capital. Res. Organ. Behav. 22:345–423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Byrne J (2014) How Duke achieved its no. 1 Businessweek ranking. Poets and Quants (November 12), https://poetsandquants.com/2014/11/12/businessweek-2014-ranking/.Google Scholar
• Castellucci F, Ertug G (2010) What’s in it for them? Advantages of higher-status partners in exchange relationships. Acad. Management J. 53(1):149–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clemente M, Durand R, Porac J (2016) Organizational wrongdoing and media bias. Palmer D, Smith-Crowe K, Greenwood R, eds. Organizational Wrongdoing: Key Perspectives and New Directions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 435–473.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Durand R, Kremp PA (2016) Classical deviation: Organizational and individual status as antecedents of conformity. Acad. Management J. 59(1):65–89.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elsbach K, Kramer R (1996) Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(3):442–476.Google Scholar
• Espeland W, Sauder M (2007) The reactivity of rankings: How public measures change social worlds. Amer. J. Sociol. 113(1):1–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Espeland WN, Sauder M (2016) Engines of Anxiety: Academic Rankings, Reputation, and Accountability (Russell Sage Foundation, New York).Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Mateo I (2007) Who pays the price of brokerage? Transferring constraint through price setting in the staffing sector. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 72(2):291–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleischer A (2009) Ambiguity and the equity of rating systems: United States brokerage firms, 1995-2000. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(4):555–574.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Giorgi S, Weber K (2015) Marks of distinction: Framing and audience appreciation in the context of investment advice. Admin. Sci. Quart. 60(2):333–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Groysberg B (2010) Chasing Stars: The Myth of Talent and the Portability of Performance (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gould RV (2002) The origins of status hierarchies: A formal theory and empirical test. Amer. J. Sociol. 107(5):1143–1178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hannan MT, Freeman J (1977) The population ecology of organizations. Amer. J. Sociol. 82(5):929–964.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong H, Kacperczyk M (2010) Competition and bias. Quart. J. Econom. 125(4):1683–1725.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jiang JX, Stanford MH, Xie Y (2012) Does it matter who pays for bond ratings? Historical evidence. J. Financial Econom. 105(3):607–621.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kovács B, Sharkey A (2014) The paradox of publicity: How awards can negatively affect the evaluation of quality. Admin. Sci. Quart. 59(1):1–33.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lamont M, Thévenot L, eds. (2000) Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology: Repertoires of Evaluation in France and the United States (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lamont M (2012) Toward a comparative sociology of valuation and evaluation. Annual Rev. Sociol. 38:201–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leifer EM (1988) Interaction preludes to role setting: Exploratory local action. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 53(6):865–878.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lounsbury M, Rao H (2004) Sources of durability and change in market classification. Soc. Forces 82(3):969–999.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lynn FB, Podolny JM, Tao L (2009) A sociological (de) construction of the relationship between status and quality. Amer. J. Sociol. 115(3):755–804.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Machung A (1998) Playing the ranking game. Change: Magazine Higher Learn. 30(4):12–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Makower J (2014) Do Newsweek’s green rankings still matter? GreenBiz (June 5), http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/06/05/do-newsweeks-green-rankings-still-matter.Google Scholar
• Malter D (2014) On the causality and cause of returns to organizational status: Evidence from the Grands Crus Classés of the Médoc. Admin. Sci. Quart. 59(2):271–300.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martins L (2005) A model of the effects of reputational rankings on organizational change. Organ. Sci. 16(6):701–720.Link, Google Scholar
• McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembk P, ed. Frontiers in Econometrics (Academic Press, New York), 105–142.Google Scholar
• Merton RK (1968) The Matthew effect in science. Science 159(3810):56–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milgram S (1963) Behavioral study of obedience. J. Abnormal Soc. Psych. 67(4):371.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morgeson F, Nahrgang JD (2008) Same as it ever was: Recognizing stability in the Businessweek rankings. Acad. Management Learn. Ed. 7(1):26–41.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neuhaus JM, Kalbfleisch JD (1998) Between- and within-cluster covariate effects in the analysis of clustered data. Biometrics 54(2):638–645.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Padgett JF, Ansell CK (1993) Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400-1434. Amer. J. Sociol. 98(6):1259–1319.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Paolella L, Durand R (2016) Category spanning, evaluation, and performance: Revised theory and test on the corporate law market. Acad. Management J. 59(1):330–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peltz (2001) The Class of 1972: Where are they now? Institutional Investor Magazine (October 1), http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b15134mbhzf37f/the-class-of-1972.Google Scholar
• Pforr K (2014) Femlogit-implementation of the multinomial logit model with fixed effects. Stata J. 14(4):847–862.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips DJ, Zuckerman EW (2001) Middle-status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. Amer. J. Sociol. 107(2):379–429.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piazza A, Castellucci F (2014) Status in organization and management theory. J. Management 40(1):287–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Podolny JM (1993) A status-based model of market competition. Amer. J. Sociol. 98(4):829–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prato M, Ferraro F (2018) Starstruck: How hiring high-status employees affects incumbents’ performance. Organ. Sci. 29(5):755–774.Link, Google Scholar
• Reingold D (2006) Confessions of a Wall Street Analyst (Collins Publishing, New York).Google Scholar
• Rindova VP, Petkova AP, Kotha S (2007) Standing out: How new firms in emerging markets build reputation. Strategic Organ. 5(1):31–70.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rossman G, Schilke O (2014) Close, but no cigar: The bimodal rewards to prize-seeking. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 79(1):86–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salganik MJ, Dodds PS, Watts DJ (2006) Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science 311(5762):854–856.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salganik MJ, Watts DJ (2008) Leading the herd astray: An experimental study of self-fulfilling prophecies in an artificial cultural market. Soc. Psych. Quart. 71(4):338–355.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sauder M (2006) Third parties and status systems: How the characteristics of status matter. Theory Soc. 35(3):299–321.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sauder M (2008) Interlopers and field change: The entry of U.S. News into the field of legal education. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(2):209–234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sauder M, Espeland W (2006) Strength in numbers? A comparison of law and business school rankings. Indiana Law J. 81(1):205–227.Google Scholar
• Sauder M, Lancaster R (2006) Do rankings matter? The effects of US News & World Report rankings on the admissions process of law schools. Law Soc. Rev. 40(1):105–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapin S (2011) A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Sharkey A, Bromiley P (2015) Can rankings have indirect effects? Evidence from the organizational response to peers’ environmental ratings. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 80:63–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharkey AJ (2014) Categories and organizational status: The role of industry status in the response to organizational deviance. Amer. J. Sociol. 119(5):1380–1433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simmel G (1950) Wolff KH (trans.), The Sociology of Georg Simmel (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Sorenson O (2014) Status and reputation: Synonyms or separate concepts? Strategic Organ. 12(1):62–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van de Rijt A, Shor E, Ward C, Skiena S (2013) Only 15 minutes? The social stratification of fame in printed media. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 78(2):266–289.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walton D (2010) Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority (Penn State University Press, University Park, PA).Google Scholar
• Washington M, Zajac EJ (2005) Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Acad. Management J. 48(2):282–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (1999) The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. Amer. J. Sociol. 104(5):1398–1438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (2004) Structural incoherence and stock market activity. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 69(3):405–432.Crossref, Google Scholar