No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

 Organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation have similar antecedents, social construction processes and consequences. Nonetheless, an improved understanding of relationships between legitimacy and reputation requires that differences between the two be specified and clarified. Our examination of past research indicates that legitimacy emphasizes the social acceptance resulting from adherence to social norms and expectations whereas reputation emphasizes comparisons among organizations. We empirically examine two antecedents of the financial, regulatory, and public dimensions of legitimacy and reputation in a population of US commercial banks. We find that isomorphism improves legitimacy, but its effects on reputation depend on the bank's reputation. Moreover, higher financial performance increases reputation, but does not increase the legitimacy of high performing banks.

We draw from socioemotional wealth and social identity research to develop a theory on reputational differences among family and non-family firms. We propose that family members identify more strongly with their family firm than non-family members do with either a family or non-family firm. Heightened identification motivates family members to pursue a favourable reputation because it allows them to feel good about themselves, thus contributing to their socioemotional wealth. We hypothesize that when the family's name is part of the firm's name, the firm's reputation is higher because family members are particularly motivated for their firm to have a better reputation. Family members also need organizational power to pursue a favourable reputation; thus, we hypothesize that the level of family ownership and family board presence should be associated with more favourable reputations. We find support for our theory in a sample of large firms from eight countries with disparate governance systems and cultures.