Countervailing Claims: Pro-Diversity Responses to Stigma by Association Following the Unite the Right Rally

IF 8.3 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Reuben Hurst
{"title":"Countervailing Claims: Pro-Diversity Responses to Stigma by Association Following the Unite the Right Rally","authors":"Reuben Hurst","doi":"10.1177/00018392231203008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Why do firms take positions on divisive social issues? In this article, I draw on theories of stigma by association to explain why firms’ mere proximity to controversial political actors may lead stakeholders to presume that firms silent on social issues are misaligned with the stakeholders’ sociopolitical preferences. Firms, in turn, countervail these presumptions of misalignment by eschewing silence and claiming sociopolitical positions. Substantiating this theory in the context of employee recruitment following the 2017 Unite the Right White supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, I show that Charlottesville’s employers combated presumptions that they shared demonstrators’ anti-diversity positions by making countervailing pro-diversity claims in their online job postings. In supplementary analysis, I show that the rally was associated with a newfound wage premium in job postings by Charlottesville’s employers but that this premium was lower when employers made pro-diversity claims. This study advances understanding of strategic sociopolitical positioning whereby firms make calculated appeals to stakeholders. It contrasts with related research showing that firms use social claims to combat negative evaluations resulting from their own actions or to differentiate from competitors. In doing so, it suggests opportunities for further research investigating, for example, additional motivations for firms’ sociopolitical positioning, how positioning might evolve in the context of growing political polarization, and how positioning might relate to workplace inequality and diversity.","PeriodicalId":7203,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Science Quarterly","volume":"643 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Science Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392231203008","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Why do firms take positions on divisive social issues? In this article, I draw on theories of stigma by association to explain why firms’ mere proximity to controversial political actors may lead stakeholders to presume that firms silent on social issues are misaligned with the stakeholders’ sociopolitical preferences. Firms, in turn, countervail these presumptions of misalignment by eschewing silence and claiming sociopolitical positions. Substantiating this theory in the context of employee recruitment following the 2017 Unite the Right White supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, I show that Charlottesville’s employers combated presumptions that they shared demonstrators’ anti-diversity positions by making countervailing pro-diversity claims in their online job postings. In supplementary analysis, I show that the rally was associated with a newfound wage premium in job postings by Charlottesville’s employers but that this premium was lower when employers made pro-diversity claims. This study advances understanding of strategic sociopolitical positioning whereby firms make calculated appeals to stakeholders. It contrasts with related research showing that firms use social claims to combat negative evaluations resulting from their own actions or to differentiate from competitors. In doing so, it suggests opportunities for further research investigating, for example, additional motivations for firms’ sociopolitical positioning, how positioning might evolve in the context of growing political polarization, and how positioning might relate to workplace inequality and diversity.
反补贴主张:在团结右翼集会后,支持多样性的协会对污名的回应
为什么公司会在有争议的社会问题上采取立场?在本文中,我利用关联污名理论来解释为什么企业仅仅接近有争议的政治行为者就可能导致利益相关者认为,对社会问题保持沉默的企业与利益相关者的社会政治偏好不一致。反过来,公司通过避免沉默和主张社会政治立场来抵消这些不一致的假设。在2017年弗吉尼亚州夏洛茨维尔举行的“团结右翼白人至上主义者”集会之后的招聘背景下,我证实了这一理论。我表明,夏洛茨维尔的雇主通过在网上招聘广告中提出支持多元化的主张,反驳了他们与示威者持相同反多元化立场的假设。在补充分析中,我表明,这种反弹与夏洛茨维尔雇主招聘信息中新发现的工资溢价有关,但当雇主发表支持多元化的声明时,这种溢价就会降低。这项研究促进了对战略社会政治定位的理解,即企业对利益相关者的计算呼吁。与此形成对比的相关研究表明,企业利用社会主张来对抗因自身行为而产生的负面评价,或与竞争对手区分开来。在这样做的过程中,它提出了进一步研究调查的机会,例如,公司社会政治定位的其他动机,定位如何在日益增长的政治两极分化的背景下演变,以及定位如何与工作场所的不平等和多样性相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.50
自引率
3.80%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Administrative Science Quarterly, under the ownership and management of the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, has consistently been a pioneer in organizational studies since the inception of the field. As a premier journal, it consistently features the finest theoretical and empirical papers derived from dissertations, along with the latest contributions from well-established scholars. Additionally, the journal showcases interdisciplinary work in organizational theory and offers insightful book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信