Pollock, T. G., Lashley, K., Rindova, V. P., & Han, J.-H. (2019). Which of These Things Are Not Like the Others? Comparing the Rational, Emotional, and Moral Aspects of Reputation, Status, Celebrity, and Stigma. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 444–478. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0086
Summary
Organizations are continually judged by external stakeholders who assess them on multiple dimensions that, although often intangible, can significantly affect their market performance, access to resources, and overall competitive position. In their review article, Pollock and colleagues offer an integrative theoretical framework to clarify the differences and overlaps among four key social evaluations – reputation, status, celebrity, and stigma – and how these are shaped by three central sociocognitive aspects: rational, emotional, and moral.
The Core Constructs
Reputation is traditionally understood as the aggregate of stakeholders’ perceptions about an organization’s past actions and its ability to deliver on promises. It is primarily based on rational evaluations. Business analysts, investors, and customers assess reputation by looking at factors such as product quality, management performance, and consistency in behavior over time. Yet, the authors emphasize that while rational information (like performance metrics or product reviews) forms the backbone of reputation, it is not divorced from emotional responses or moral judgments. For example, a firm that demonstrates integrity or a strong commitment to social responsibility may enjoy an enhanced reputation even when its performance data are similar to competitors.
Status differs subtly from reputation. While reputation centers on perceived quality and outcomes, status reflects a firm’s position within a social hierarchy. It is an intersubjectively agreed‐upon ranking that not only considers objective performance but also how well a firm conforms to or exemplifies the values and norms of its industry or community. The evaluation of status thus blends rational assessments (such as comparative performance) with moral components (how the firm’s values align with those of its stakeholders) and, to a lesser extent, emotional responses. High-status organizations are often seen as role models, and their position is maintained by public deference and continued performance consistency.
Celebrity in an organizational context refers to firms that capture widespread attention largely through the strong emotional responses they evoke. Unlike reputation or status, where analytical comparisons play a significant role, celebrity is driven mainly by affect. Firms that are considered celebrities tend to generate excitement, admiration, and even a sense of identification among audiences—even if they may not necessarily lead in traditional performance metrics. This phenomenon is particularly notable in industries where rapid media cycles and social media amplify emotional narratives, making the firm appear dynamic, innovative, or trendsetting.
Stigma represents the darker side of social evaluations. It occurs when an organization is judged to have traits that are deeply at odds with the prevailing moral standards or values of society. Stigmatized organizations trigger strong negative emotions—such as disgust or fear—and are often labeled as tainted or discredited. Unlike the transient nature of some emotional reactions, the moral judgments that underlie stigma tend to be resistant to change. Once a firm is stigmatized, even rational evidence of change or improved performance may not suffice to repair its standing.
The Three Aspects of Social Evaluations
A key contribution of the article is the dissection of how rational, emotional, and moral aspects interplay to create each type of social evaluation.
- Rational Aspect:
This dimension involves deliberate, logical assessments of an organization. Stakeholders use observable data—such as financial performance, quality of products, and historical consistency—to form a judgment. Rational evaluations assume that there is a “true” quality that can be discerned through careful analysis. In the context of reputation, the rational aspect is dominant, as it draws on established performance metrics and comparative assessments. - Emotional Aspect:
Emotions play a critical role in shaping how stakeholders feel about an organization. These evaluations are often made quickly, sometimes even unconsciously. The emotional aspect is more pronounced in the case of celebrity and stigma. For celebrity, the rapid, affective response of audiences is key; consumers are drawn to the excitement and charisma of the firm, sometimes overlooking more measured, rational analyses. Conversely, in stigma, negative emotional reactions reinforce moral disapproval, leading to lasting damage in public perception. - Moral Aspect:
Moral evaluations focus on whether an organization’s actions align with the ethical and normative standards of society. These evaluations are particularly important when decisions are perceived as a reflection of an organization’s core values. For example, when a firm engages in corporate social responsibility or conversely violates ethical norms, these actions can have a profound impact on its reputation and status. Moral judgments tend to be deeply ingrained and are often less susceptible to change even in the face of rational evidence.
Integrative Framework and Implications for Research and Practice
The authors propose that although all social evaluations contain elements of rational, emotional, and moral content, the relative weight of each aspect varies by construct. Reputation is primarily rational, yet imbued with emotional and moral nuances; status involves a balance of rational and moral considerations with a touch of emotion; celebrity is chiefly driven by emotional appeal with lesser emphasis on rational analysis; and stigma is dominated by moral and emotional negativity with minimal rational justification.
The framework underscores the importance of clarity in how these constructs are defined and measured. The article critiques earlier research for conflating these constructs with their antecedents or consequences. For instance, many studies have used measures such as media coverage or survey rankings to capture reputation without clearly distinguishing whether these measures reflect underlying quality (a rational assessment) or simply popularity (an emotional one).
For researchers, the article calls for more refined theoretical models and measurement tools that capture the distinct sociocognitive content of each social evaluation. It encourages future studies to design empirical investigations that separate the rational, emotional, and moral components, thereby offering a clearer picture of how each influences stakeholder behavior.
From a practical standpoint, business leaders can take away several key messages. Understanding that stakeholders evaluate a firm on multiple dimensions—each influenced by logical, affective, and moral factors—can inform better decision-making. Companies should not only strive for high-quality performance (addressing the rational aspect) but also be mindful of the emotional narratives they create and the moral values they uphold. This multidimensional approach to managing social evaluations can help firms build stronger, more resilient intangible assets.
By embracing a holistic strategy, managers can better anticipate how different audiences might perceive their actions. For example, a decision that might seem financially sound (rational) could be perceived as cold or unethical (moral/emotional) if not handled with transparency and empathy. Therefore, integrating communication strategies that address all three aspects can mitigate risks—especially in crisis management, where emotional and moral backlash can quickly escalate.
In sum, the article by Pollock et al. provides both a conceptual and empirical roadmap for disentangling the complex web of social evaluations. Its insights are valuable not only for academic researchers but also for practitioners seeking to harness the power of reputation, status, and even celebrity, while avoiding the pitfalls of stigma. The multidimensional framework emphasizes that in today’s interconnected and media-driven environment, every decision, behavior, and communication can ripple across the rational, emotional, and moral dimensions of public perception.
10 Practical Insights for Business Owners and Managers
- Holistic Evaluation: Understand that your company’s image is not just about numbers. Stakeholders judge on logical performance, emotional appeal, and ethical values.
- Manage Reputation Actively: Focus on delivering consistent quality and transparent performance metrics to build a strong rational reputation.
- Align with Core Values: Ensure that your company’s actions and communications reflect widely held moral values to bolster both status and reputation.
- Harness Emotional Engagement: Use marketing and public relations to evoke positive emotional responses, much like successful celebrity brands.
- Monitor Media Narratives: Track how your firm is portrayed in the media, as both positive and negative emotional tones can quickly alter public perception.
- Anticipate Crisis Impact: Recognize that even rational decisions can trigger strong emotional and moral reactions during crises; plan communications accordingly.
- Differentiated Positioning: Use the insights from the framework to distinguish your firm from competitors by emphasizing unique strengths across all three dimensions.
- Employee Alignment: Cultivate a company culture that reinforces the moral and emotional aspects of your brand, ensuring employees act as ambassadors.
- Long-Term Asset Building: Invest in building intangible assets such as reputation and status—these can provide competitive advantages that are hard to replicate.
- Measure Multiple Dimensions: Develop or adopt evaluation tools that separately assess rational performance, emotional engagement, and moral alignment to guide strategic decisions.
By integrating these insights into your business strategy, you can more effectively manage your firm’s social evaluations and turn intangible perceptions into tangible competitive advantages.