Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Balancing between Legitimacy and Distinctiveness in Corporate Messaging: A Case Study in the Oil Industry

  • The Contributor
  • Published:
Corporate Reputation Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper shows how 6 large oil companies express their identity by using 2 messaging patterns in managing legitimacy and distinctiveness. In the first pattern (aiming at legitimacy), companies focus on transparency, sincerity and consistency to build understanding and acceptance among stakeholders. In the second pattern (aimed at distinctiveness) companies take a more provocative standpoint in a public debate to facilitate competitive advantage. We develop a theoretical framework and propositions explaining when and how oil companies adopt 1 of the 2 patterns depending on their existing reputation, experienced institutional pressures and their organizational identity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert, S. and Whetten, D.A. (1985) ‘Organizational identity’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 7 (1), 263–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991) ‘Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage’, Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S., Kozinets, R.V. and Sherry, J.F., Jr. (2003) ‘Teaching old brands new tricks: Retro branding and the revival of brand meaning’, Journal of Marketing, 67 (July), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T.J., Dacin, P.A., Pratt, M.G. and Whetten, D.A. (2006) ‘Identity, intended image, construed image and reputation: An interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 99–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J.K. and Cantrell, R.S. (1984) ‘A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates’, Psychological Reports, 55, 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheney, G. and Christensen, L.T. (2000) ‘Organizational identity: Linkages between internal and external communication’, in F.M. Jablin and L. Putman (eds.), The New Handbook of Organizational Communication: Advances in Theory, Research and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 231–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colvin, G. (2007) Exxon=oil, g*dammit!, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8405398/index.htm 23 April.

  • Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D. (2004) ‘Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 173–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarniawska, B. (1997) Narrating the Organization: Dramas of Institutional Identity, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darley, W.K. and Smith, R.E. (1993) ‘Advertising claim objectivity: Antecedents and effects’, Journal of Marketing, 57 (4), 100–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D.L. (1999) ‘To be different, or to be the same? It's a question (and theory) of strategic balance’, Strategic Management Journal, 20, 147–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D.L. and Carter, S.M. (2005) ‘An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation’, Journal of Management Studies, 42, 329–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) ‘The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J.E. and Dukerich, J.M. (1991) ‘Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation’, Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S., O'Neill, R.M. and Lawrence, K.A. (2001) ‘Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change’, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 716–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A., Wood, W. and Chaiken, S. (1978) ‘Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) ‘Building theories from case study research’, The Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellen, P.S., Webb, D.J. and Mohr, L.A. (2006) ‘Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 147–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K.D. (1994) ‘Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 57–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K.D. and Elofson, G. (2000) ‘How the packaging of decision explanations affects perceptions of trustworthiness’, Academy of Management Journal, 43, 80–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C.M. (1995) ‘Corporate communications: Comparing executives private and public statements’, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, P.C. and Zajac, E.J. (2006) ‘The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling’, Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1173–1193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. and Rindova, V.P. (2000) ‘Reputation management at shell’, in M. Schultz, M.J. Hatch and M. H. Larsen (eds.), The Expressive Organization, Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, pp. 77–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990) ‘What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy’, Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (2004) Fame and Fortune, How Successful Companies Build Winning Reputations, Financial Times/Prentice Hall, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forehand, M.R. and Grier, S. (2003) ‘When is honesty the best policy? The effect of stated company intent on consumer skepticism’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 349–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginzel, L.E., Kramer, R.M. and Sutton, R.I. (1993) ‘Organizational impression management as a reciprocal influence process: The neglected role of the organizational audience’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 227–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M. and Corley, K.G. (2000) ‘Organizational identity, image and adaptive instability’, Academy of Management Review, 25, 63–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing Company, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, M.A. and Abzug, R. (2002) ‘Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organizational names’, Academy of Management Journal, 45, 267–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunig, J.E. and Pepper, F.C. (1992) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckert, A. and Heckert, D.M. (2002) ‘A new typology of deviance: Integrating normative and reactivist definitions of deviance’, An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 449–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heugens, P.P.M.A.R., Van Riel, C.B.M. and Van den Bosch, F.A.J. (2004) ‘Reputation management capabilities as decision rules’, Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1349–1377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H.H. (1972) Causal Schemata and the Attribution Process, General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, N. and Greyser, S.A. (1997) The Brent Spar Incident: “A Shell of a Mess”, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamertz, K., Heugens, P. and Calmet, L. (2005) ‘The configuration of organizational images among firms in the Canadian beer brewing industry’, Journal of Management Studies, 42, 818–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lounsbury, M. and Glynn, M.A. (2001) ‘Cultural entrepeneurship: Stories, legitimacy and the acquisition of resources’, Strategic Management Journal, 22, 545–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., Feldman, M.S., Hatch, M.J. and Sitkin, S.B. (1983) ‘The uniqueness paradox in organizational stories’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 438–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, K.D. and Johnson, J.L. (2008) ‘A framework for ethical conformity in marketing’, Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 103–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977) ‘Institutional organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology, 80, 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978) Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R., Snow, C.C., Meyer, A.D. and Coleman, H.J. (1978) ‘Organizational strategy, structure, process’, Academy of Management Review, 3, 546–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moldoveanu, M. and Paine, L.S. (2006) Royal Dutch/Shell in Nigeria a/b, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1991) ‘Strategic responses to institutional processes’, Academy of Management Review, 16, 145–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1981) ‘Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms’, Research in Organizational Behavior, 3, 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978) The External Control of Organizations, Harper & Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philips, D.J. and Zuckerman, E.W. (2001) ‘Middle-status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets’, The American Journal of Sociology, 107, 379–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pondy, L.R., Frost, P.J., Morgan, G. and Dandridge, T.C. (1983) Organizational Symbolism, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. (1998) Competitive Strategy Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, The Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravasi, D. and Schultz, M. (2006) ‘Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture’, Academy of Management Journal, 49, 433–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt, F. and Richman, E. (2001) Harvard Business Review Case: Global Climate Change and Bp Amoco, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V.P. and Fombrun, C.J. (1999) ‘Constructing competitive advantage: The role of firm-constituent interactions’, Strategic Management Journal, 20, 691–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V.P., Petkova, A.P. and Kotha, S. (2007) ‘Standing out: How new firms in emerging markets build reputation’, Strategic Organization, 5 (1), 31–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V.P., Pollock, T.G. and Hayward, M.L.A. (2006) ‘Celebrity firms: The social construction of market popularity’, Academy of Management Review, 31, 50–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1978) ‘Principles of categorization’, in E. Rosch and B.B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and Categorization, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 27–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. and Wood, S. (2005) ‘Paradox and the consumption of authenticity through reality television’, Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (2), 284–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheff, T.J. (1988) ‘Shame and conformity – the deference-emotion system’, American Sociological Review, 53, 395–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, M., Antorini, Y.M. and Csaba, F.F. (2005) Towards the Second Wave of Corporate Branding, Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow, N. (2007) ‘Persuasion with case studies’, Academy of Management Journal, 50, 20–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjovall, A.M. and Talk, A.C. (2004) ‘From actions to impressions: Cognitive attribution theory and the formation of corporate reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review, 7, 269–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srull, T.K. and Wyer, R.S. (1989) ‘Person memory and judgment’, Psychological Review, 96, 58–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck, W.H. and Milliken, F.J. (1988) ‘Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense’, in D.C. Hambrick (ed.), The Executive Effect: Concepts and Methods for Studying Top Managers, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 35–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M.C. (1995) ‘Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches’, Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R. (2006) ‘From the editors: What grounded theory is not’, Academy of Management Journal, 49, 633–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C.J., Rindfleisch, A. and Arsel, Z. (2006) ‘Emotional branding and the strategic value of the doppelganger brand image’, Journal of Marketing, 70 (1), 50–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K.E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigelt, K. and Camerer, C. (1988) ‘Reputation and corporate strategy: A review of recent theory and applications’, Strategic Management Journal, 9, 443–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D.A. and Mackey, A. (2002) ‘A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation’, Business & Society, 41, 393–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, G., LeMasters, K. and Heffering, M. (1982) Theory Construction in Marketing: Some Thoughts on Thinking, John Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S. and Markman, A.B. (1998) ‘Overcoming the early entrant advantage: The role of alignable and nonalignable differences’, Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Mignon D van Halderen

  2. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Cees B M van Riel

  3. Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

    Tom J Brown

Authors
  1. Mignon D van Halderen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cees B M van Riel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tom J Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

Table A1.

Table A1 Additional examples from the data
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Halderen, M., van Riel, C. & Brown, T. Balancing between Legitimacy and Distinctiveness in Corporate Messaging: A Case Study in the Oil Industry. Corp Reputation Rev 14, 273–299 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2011.19

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2011.19

Keywords

Search

Navigation