How Organizations Move from Stigma to Legitimacy: The Case of Cook’s Travel Agency in Victorian Britain

Abstract

Based on an in-depth historical study of how Thomas Cook's travel agency moved from stigmatization to legitimacy among the elite of Victorian Britain, we develop a dialogical model of organizational destigmatization. We find that audiences stigmatize an organization because they fear that it threatens a particular moral order, which leads them to mount sustained attacks designed to weaken or eradicate the organization. Our model suggests that an organization that experiences this form of profound disapproval can nonetheless purge its stigma and become legitimate through a two-step process: first the organization engages in stigma reduction work designed to minimize overt hostility among audiences by showing that it does not pose a risk to them. Second it engages in stigma elimination work designed to gain support from stigmatizers by showing that it plays a positive role in society. Our study therefore reorients organizational stigma research from a focus on how organizations can cope with the effects of stigma, and considers instead how they can eradicate the stigma altogether. We also shed light on much neglected audiencelevel dynamics by examining the process through which audiences construct stigma and why these constructions change.

The Dynamics of (De)Stigmatization: Boundary construction in the nascent category of organic farming

“…Stigmatization and its resistance may also help redefine the core purpose of the organization (Tracey and Phillips, 2016). In addition, Hampel and Tracey (2017) showed how Thomas Cook's travel agency, stigmatized by the elite as promoting a morally corrupt practice, resisted stigmatization and moved to legitimacy.…”

From farms to fuel tanks: Stakeholder framing contests and entrepreneurship in the emergent U.S. biodiesel market

“…Consequently, stakeholders may assert their own objectives “as unique and incommensurable with” the elements underlying other stakeholders' frames (Besharov & Smith, , p. 368) and may emphasize the distinctiveness of their frame compared to elements of the frame they oppose. This reaction can manifest as stigmatization, whereby stakeholders depict opponents' frames as morally wrong or fundamentally flawed in some way (Durand & Vergne, ; Hampel & Tracey, ; Tracey & Phillips, ) . For example, competing dissimilar and incompatible frames occurred between American brewers and temperance activists during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.…”

“…In sum, environmental groups' efforts to redefine the biodiesel category appeared to change entrepreneurs' perceptions of market meaning, from the idea that agrarian and environmental features could coexist to an exclusive definition that accepted only recycled material feedstocks . Because stigmatized elements carry the risk of social disapproval, which can damage new ventures' ability to acquire market resources and support (Hampel & Tracey, ; Vergne, ), entrepreneurs will likely found ventures with technologies and practices that reflect the noncontested elements and avoid ventures that reflect the stigmatized elements. We therefore expect that increased salience of the environmental frames, which are dissimilar to and incompatible with agrarian and industry frames, will lead to greater market entry of ventures that use waste vegetable oil feedstocks and decreased market entry of ventures that use oilseed feedstocks.Hypothesis Greater salience of the environmental frames will result in increased foundings of ventures using WVO feedstocks . Hypothesis Greater salience of the environmental frames will result in decreased foundings of ventures using oilseed feedstocks .…”

When Do Theories Become Self-Fulfilling? Exploring the Boundary Conditions of Performativity

“…Actors usually engage in counteracting behavior if they see an opportunity to make profit or are ideologically motivated (den Hond & de Bakker, 2007). At the same time, legal constraints (Zuckerman, 2012) or fear of stigma (Hampel & Tracey, 2016;Roulet, 2014) may limit counteracting behavior.…”