Sonia S. SIRAZ

This study advances organizational legitimacy research by examining the microlevel mechanisms through which evaluators form propriety beliefs. Building on legitimacy-as-perception research, which posits that evaluators rely on validity cues to make judgments, we argue that individual evaluators draw on broader, more nuanced sets of information than previously acknowledged. Specifically, we theorize and show how coexisting, distinct validity cues (authorization and endorsement) combine with evaluators' microlevel perceptions of an organization's categorical fit to shape propriety beliefs. Across two factorial survey experiments (n = 1,866), perceived categorical fit emerges as the strongest and most consistent predictor of propriety beliefs. Validity cues shape propriety beliefs, but their effects are far from uniform. The findings also reveal that cue valence matters and that complex interplays of validity cues distinctly influence propriety beliefs. This research contributes to legitimacy-as-perception literature, and more specifically to microlevel legitimacy by offering a granular perspective on how propriety beliefs get constructed from diverse informational cues. By introducing categorical fit as a novel explanatory mechanism, we extend existing theory and encourage further investigations of how it influences microlevel legitimacy perceptions and how various combinations of validity cues can shape evaluations of organizational legitimacy.

Recent advances in research have shed light on why and how community-based enterprises (CBEs) emerge. Nevertheless, little is known about the underlying factors that contribute to their success over time. This lack of attention is intriguing, given CBEs’ widespread proliferation as an instrument for socioeconomic development. We contribute to the CBE literature by applying and extending socioemotional wealth (SEW) to the CBE context. Our findings demonstrate how the presence of community socioemotional wealth (CSEW) enables CBEs to achieve enduring success. Beyond the presence of SEW's five traditional dimensions, we identify two new dimensions (empowerment and holistic mission) unique to CBEs. When jointly present, these seven dimensions explain how CSEW creates a favorable terrain for the CBE to succeed.

This study contributes to the legitimacy literature by investigating the perceived appropriateness of legitimation strategies used by controversial organizations. Through a mixed‐method approach comprising interviews and conjoint experiments, we shed light on how evaluators perceive the appropriateness of five legitimation strategies used by the foie gras industry in France and how evaluators' environmentalism and media skepticism influence their perceptions. Some strategies favored by the industry are perceived as inappropriate by evaluators and thus may obstruct or, worse, counter the intended goal of legitimacy enhancement. Moreover, we observe that evaluators' high environmentalism and high media skepticism affect the perceived appropriateness of the strategies, albeit not of all five. Evaluators with high media skepticism favor explanation discourses and strategies that establish a common identity of the industry. Evaluators with high environmentalism favor the use of recognizable quality standards and labels, yet they are wary of high levels of organization through structured representation of industry interests.

Despite a proliferation of research on legitimacy, the ‘grey area’ that lies between legitimacy and illegitimacy remains undertheorized. Responding to calls for further research, we clarify the construct of legitimacy and extend legitimacy theory by providing a conceptual framework for analyzing the legitimacy‐illegitimacy continuum. First, we propose three novel legitimacy states between legitimacy and illegitimacy – conditional legitimacy, unknown legitimacy, and conditional illegitimacy – and elaborate on the distinct qualitative characteristics of the five legitimacy states. Second, we offer a model of the dynamics of legitimacy state change and the (in)stability of the issue‐specific reference framework that is used to judge them. Third, we explain how our legitimacy states bridge the research streams on legitimacy judgment formation and legitimation strategies. By doing so, we integrate these research streams and enumerate discursive strategies for each state. Our article contributes to a more robust understanding of both how legitimacy states can be conceptualized and analyzed in future research and how they can be dealt with in managerial practice.