When Do Evaluators Publicly Express Their Legitimacy Judgments? An Inquiry into the Role of Peer Endorsement and Evaluative Mode

Tijs van den Broek (), David J. Langley (), Michel L. Ehrenhard () and Aard Groen ()
Additional contact information
Tijs van den Broek: Department of Organization Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
David J. Langley: Department of Innovation Management & Strategy, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, 9747 AE, Netherlands; Department of Strategic Business Analysis, TNO, 2595 DA The Hague, Netherlands
Michel L. Ehrenhard: Department of Hightech Business & Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences, University of Twente, 7522 NH Enschede, Netherlands
Aard Groen: University of Groningen Center of Entrepreneurship, University of Groningen, 9747 AT Groningen, Netherlands

Organization Science, 2023, vol. 34, issue 6, 2143-2162

Abstract: Legitimacy theory describes how individuals evaluate an organization’s behavior, form propriety evaluations, and subsequently decide whether to publicly express their legitimacy judgments. These individual judgments are influenced by sources of collective validity, for example, from recognized authority or from peer endorsement. Whereas most research on this topic has focused on the effects of authority, we study the influence of peer endorsement on the public expression of legitimacy judgments. Additionally, we assess evaluators’ preparedness to expend cognitive effort, that is, their evaluative mode, as an important condition under which judgment expressions are made. We present a set of three vignette experiments and one field study, all situated in social media that are quickly becoming the dominant setting for the expression of legitimacy judgments. This research provides new evidence that peer endorsement stimulates evaluators to express their judgments, particularly for evaluators who expend limited cognitive effort. Additionally, we find that evaluators in the active and passive evaluative modes act differently when their propriety evaluations are based on instrumental, moral, or relational considerations. These findings extend current legitimacy theory about how peer endorsement functions as a source of validity and when individual evaluators decide to publicly express their legitimacy judgments. This is important because individuals’ public expressions can bring about a cascade of judgments that change the consensus on an organization’s legitimacy, potentially contributing to institutional change.

Keywords: legitimacy; judgment; expression; social evaluation; social media; experimental design; deliberation; collective validity; endorsement; institutional change; collective action; dual process theories (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1604 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:34:y:2023:i:6:p:2143-2162

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Organization Science from INFORMS Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Asher ().