Academy of Management Review
Strategic Cognition and Issue Salience: Towards an
Explanation of Firm Responsiveness to Stakeholder
Concerns
Journal:
Manuscript ID:
Manuscript Type:
Keyword:
Academy of Management Review
AMR-2011-0179-Original.R3
Original Manuscript
Stakeholder Theory, Perceptual Issues, Strategy Implementation/ Process,
Cognition (Managerial), Decision Making (General), Corporate Social
Responsibility
Page 1 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
STRATEGIC COGNITION AND ISSUE SALIENCE:
TOWARDS AN EXPLANATION OF FIRM RESPONSIVENESS TO STAKEHOLDER
CONCERNS
Jonathan Bundy
University of Georgia
[email protected]
Christine Shropshire
University of Georgia
[email protected]
Ann K. Buchholtz
Rutgers University
[email protected]
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Associate Editor Jean-Philippe Bonardi and three
anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback and guidance. Additionally, the authors wish
to thank Michael Pfarrer, Amy Hillman, Jeanne Logsdon, and participants at the 2011 Academy
of Management Annual Conference for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.
1
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 2 of 55
ABSTRACT
As a new perspective for understanding firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns, we propose
a strategic cognition view of issue salience, i.e., the degree to which a stakeholder issue resonates
with and is prioritized by management. More specifically, we explain how a firm’s cognitive
structures of organizational identity and strategic frames utilize differing core logics to influence
managerial interpretation of an issue as salient. We then present a typology of firm
responsiveness and suggest that firms will respond more substantially to those issues perceived
as salient to both cognitive logics and more symbolically to those issues salient to only one logic.
This paper fills key gaps in our understanding of how firms manage and respond to stakeholders
by focusing on the salience of the issue and incorporating strategic cognition as a key mediating
mechanism.
Keywords: Strategic cognition, issue salience, stakeholder management, public affairs/issues
management
2
Page 3 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
Firm responsiveness, defined as the degree to which a firm is willing to provide a
thoughtful response to stakeholder concerns and commit to continued work on the issue (David,
Bloom, & Hillman, 2007; IRRC, 1993), has long held the interest of organizational scholars.
Early work in stakeholder theory addressed firm responsiveness by developing general strategies
of stakeholder management (Freeman, 1984), outlining broad firm responsibilities to
stakeholders (Carroll, 1979), and examining stakeholder characteristics to determine which
stakeholders should command managerial attention (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Building
from these models and typologies, recent research has begun to highlight the heterogeneous
nature of stakeholder concerns and idiosyncratic interactions between stakeholders and target
firms (de Bakker & den Hond, 2008). Indeed, the concept of stakeholder multiplicity or “the
degree of multiple, conflicting, complementary, or cooperative stakeholder claims made to an
organization,” has begun to take root (Neville & Menguc, 2006: 377). Researchers are now
paying more attention to the diversity of stakeholder issues – i.e., the explicit concerns and
requests raised by individuals/groups that can affect or be affected by the firm (Freeman, 1984) –
and the process by which managers interpret, balance, and respond to these claims (e.g., Eesley
& Lenox, 2006; Mitchell, Agle, Chrisman, & Spence, 2011; Rowley, 1997).
Much extant research on why or how firms respond to stakeholder issues approaches the
question from the stakeholder’s perspective or focuses on external drivers such as environmental
and stakeholder characteristics (e.g., David et al., 2007; Eesley & Lenox, 2006; Reid & Toffel,
2009). For example, one stream of research examines stakeholder characteristics by asking
which stakeholder groups receive managerial attention (Agle, Mitchell, & Sonnenfeld, 1999;
David et al., 2007; Mitchell et al., 1997). Other work examines the influence of institutional,
competitive and individual motivators (Bansal & Roth, 2000) or network influences (Reid &
Toffel, 2009; Rowley, 1997). However, despite this body of work, considerable debate persists
regarding the mechanisms that drive firm actions in response to stakeholder concerns (cf.
Laplume, Sonpar, & Litz, 2008). Moreover, there have been few attempts to examine the
3
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 4 of 55
cognitive process used by managers and decision-makers to interpret, understand, and react to
the actual issue under consideration.
We suggest a new perspective for understanding firm responsiveness to stakeholder
concerns by developing a strategic cognition view of issue salience, which we define as the
degree to which a stakeholder issue resonates with and is prioritized by management. In doing
so, we position issue salience as a central driver of firm responsiveness. Firms and managers do
not respond to stakeholder and environmental characteristics per se. Instead, they respond to
specific issues and concerns advocated by stakeholders, e.g., emissions reduction advocated by
environmental stakeholders, governance reform advocated by shareholders, and fair labor
practices advocated by employees. In developing our perspective we recognize the wealth of
prior research on firm responsiveness that emphasizes various issue characteristics: e.g., who
sponsors it (e.g., Agle et al., 1999; Mitchell et al., 1997), how much institutional attention the
issue receives (e.g., Bonardi & Keim, 2005; Reid & Toffel, 2009), and its potential impact on the
organization and stakeholders (e.g., Jones, 1991). However, we also suggest that an important
yet missing component for understanding responsiveness is managers’ interpretation of the issue
and its characteristics as salient to the firm and thus worthy of a response. We describe a
strategic cognition process (cf. Narayanan, Zane, & Kemmerer, 2011) used by managers to
determine issue salience as an outcome of issue interpretation. Furthermore, given that firm
responsiveness has largely been understood as action taken against some specific request or
demand (e.g., David et al., 2007; Eesley & Lenox, 2006), we use this strategic cognition process
to suggest a direct relationship between issue salience and a firm’s response.
Our central purpose is to present an issue salience perspective for examining firm
responsiveness to stakeholder issues. In developing this perspective, we make two primary
contributions. First, we position the strategic cognition structures of organizational identity
(Albert & Whetten, 1985; Dutton & Dukerich, 1991) and strategic frames (Huff, 1982) as
integral and interrelated components to the issue interpretation process. Organizational identity
guides issue interpretation using an expressive logic, which is related to how the firm defines and
4
Page 5 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
displays conceptions of the self, while a firm’s strategic frame facilitates issue interpretation
using an instrumental logic predicated on the rational pursuit of organizational goals (Polletta &
Jasper, 2001; Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003). Both cognitive structures work simultaneously to
influence issue interpretation. Managers interpret a stakeholder issue as salient based on its
relationship to the logic of each cognitive structure. Issues perceived as consistent (i.e.,
materially supporting, reinforcing, or confirming) or conflicting (i.e., materially challenging or
threatening) with the core logic of each structure will have higher salience, while issues
perceived as unrelated (i.e., immaterial to cognitive structures) will have lower salience.
Second, we utilize the overall level of issue salience and nature of an issue’s cognitive
interpretation (i.e., whether the issue is perceived as consistent or conflicting) to develop a
typology of stakeholder issues. We then use these issue types to discuss a firm’s expected
response. In doing so, we consider the materiality of response, being either symbolic or
substantive, as well as the general form of response, being either defensive or accommodative.
We also explore the consequences of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), or instances when
an issue is interpreted as consistent with one logic but conflicting with the other.
In pursuing these objectives, we contribute to the literature by developing a strategic
cognition perspective to understand how managers process and respond to the ever-expanding
range of issues championed by stakeholders (Laplume et al., 2008). Our theory develops the
mediating process between issue characteristics as inputs and firm responsiveness as output,
utilizing an organizational perspective of strategic cognition and issue salience. We consider the
influence of both expressive and instrumental logics in shaping managerial interpretation of
stakeholder issues, answering a call for research to investigate the dynamic relationship of the
two logics (Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003) and also connect interpretation to firm action in the
form of responsiveness. Thus, our framework provides a more complete understanding of to
whom and what firms pay attention (e.g., March & Olsen, 1976; Ocasio, 1997), as well as how
they respond given a level of attention.
5
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 6 of 55
Consider an example of environmental sustainability as a stakeholder issue for Walmart.
Although Walmart was an exemplar in driving down prices by taking advantage of economies of
scale, the company was long criticized for their lack of attention to environmental concerns.
Eventually, however, executives at Walmart recognized that their economies of scale could
provide a strategic advantage in the area of sustainability. "At Wal-Mart, we realized, we've
learned, that what many people criticize us for also happens to be one of our greatest
opportunities, which is our size," said Rand Waddoups, senior director of strategy and
sustainability (Truini, 2008: 12). In October 2005, Walmart announced broad sustainability
initiatives because such investments “help Walmart differentiate itself from its competition,
maintain a license to grow, and make its supply chain dramatically more efficient. In other
words, a good business sustainability plan would help Walmart get even better at what it does
best: drive down costs to generate profits” (Plambeck & Denend, 2008: 54). Characteristics of
the environmental issue alone did not trigger Walmart’s heightened responsiveness to
sustainability concerns, largely because the nature of the issue did not change – nor did the
power, legitimacy or urgency of the stakeholders involved (Mitchell et al., 1997). Instead,
Walmart executives began to cognitively interpret the issue as materially consistent with its
identity as a low-cost leader and consistent with its strategic frame of leveraging economies of
scale. We draw on the strategic cognition literature to explain how managers use organizational
cognitive structures of identity and strategic frames to process and prioritize the wealth of
stakeholder issues faced by a firm such as Walmart.
We organize the paper as follows. First, we briefly review the issue salience literature to
highlight previous use of expressive and instrumental logics to understand stakeholder issues.
We then formally define issue salience and present a strategic cognition framework of issue
salience. In doing so, we discuss how different characteristics of the issue influence perceptions
of salience. In the second half of the paper, we describe how issue salience leads to firm action
and responsiveness and present a typology of stakeholder issues and firm responses. We end
with a discussion of the implications of our theoretical model and an agenda for future research.
6
Page 7 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
STAKEHOLDER ISSUE SALIENCE
Research investigating the concept of issue salience appears in several streams of
organizational literature, emphasizing both stakeholder and firm perspectives. Scholars taking a
stakeholder perspective regularly focus on the degree to which an issue resonates with a
stakeholder group, suggesting that stakeholders mobilize around an issue because of their
collective perception of its criticality as driven by identity (Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003),
culture (Jones, Felps, & Bigley, 2007), or emotional connection to the issue (Bansal & Roth,
2000). This social identity and emotional perspective can explain why certain stakeholders
advocate for radical issues or lost causes, such as when “gadfly” shareholders propose extreme
resolutions (Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003). Issues are salient to stakeholder groups to the degree
that they connect with deeper meanings of what defines the group and makes it unique. Research
on collective identity in social movements refers to this characteristic of identity as an expressive
logic, suggesting that actions motivated by identity serve to express identity to external
constituents and stakeholders (Polletta & Jasper, 2001). For example, Scott and Lane (2000: 44)
use expressive logic to argue “identity is best understood as contested and negotiated through
iterative interactions between managers and stakeholders.” As such, an organization’s desire to
articulate its identity to pertinent stakeholders can influence the expressive salience of external
issues (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008).
While stakeholder views of issue salience emphasize expressive logic from an identity
perspective, strategic views of issue salience focus on firm-level interpretations of how an issue
potentially affects the firm as it attempts to achieve its goals (Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Jackson
& Dutton, 1988; Thomas, Clark, & Gioia, 1993). For example, strategic issues management
research investigates the extent that an issue “is likely to have an important impact on the ability
of the enterprise to meet its objectives” (Ansoff, 1980: 133). Thus, issue salience perceptions are
a function of how the firm strategically frames the issue. Managers prioritize issues based on
perceptions of how the issue relates to strategic decisions and goals, and managerial action
follows this prioritization. An important conclusion of this research is that issues not framed as
7
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 8 of 55
influential to strategic goals do not receive priority or attention (Ansoff, 1980). Thus, in contrast
to the expressive logic of organizational identity, strategic frames are driven by an instrumental
logic concerned with the rational pursuit of organizational objectives (Polletta & Jasper, 2001). If
managers interpret an issue as instrumentally salient for achieving strategic goals, they grant it
increased priority and attention.
Drawing from both perspectives outlined above, we formally define issue salience as the
degree to which a stakeholder issue resonates with and is prioritized by management. Implicit in
our definition is a characterization of issue salience as a perceptual outcome of a strategic
cognition process. We suggest that the expressive and instrumental cognitive structures of
organizational identity and strategic frames, respectively, drive this perception. The salience of
an issue is a function of its perceived relationship with the interpretive logic of each cognitive
structure (Ashforth & Mael, 1996). Thus, building from the stakeholder literature highlighted
above, an issue is consistent with an organization’s expressive logic if perceived as having
bearing on or being material to the expression of an organization’s core values and beliefs.
Similarly, drawing from research on strategic issues management, an issue is consistent with an
organization’s instrumental logic if perceived as materially supporting or useful to the
achievement of strategic goals. In contrast, an issue is conflicting with each respective structure
when it is interpreted as materially challenging or threatening to an organization’s identity or
strategic frame. Finally, an issue may also be perceived as unrelated to an organization’s
expressive or instrumental logic. In such cases, the issue is largely seen as irrelevant to the
achievement of an organization’s goals or the expression of its identity.
Our overarching framework of issue salience appears in Table 1 below. Those issues
perceived as materially related to both cognitive logics – either consistent or conflicting - will be
highly salient to managers (as identified in the dark shaded section of Table 1). Issues perceived
as materially related to only one logic - either consistent or conflicting - will be moderately
salient (as identified in the light shaded sections of Table 1). Finally, issues perceived as
unrelated to both cognitive logics will have low salience (as identified in the lower right section
8
Page 9 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
of Table 1). Several important aspects of our framework should be noted. First, consistent with
prior research, we consider each cognitive structure to be independent of the other while
operating simultaneously to influence interpretation and salience (Ashforth & Mael, 1996). We
discuss more on the nature of each structure and their interrelationship in the following section.
Second, our conception of salience distinguishes issue interpretation in both positive and
negative terms: as consistent and conflicting. This is consistent with research in strategic issues
management, which highlights issues as both opportunities and threats (e.g., Dutton & Jackson,
1987; Jackson & Dutton, 1988), and also with research on identity, which often considers the
role of identity threats in addition to opportunities to express identity (e.g., Dutton & Dukerich,
1991). Thus, in utilizing the concepts of consistency and conflict to understand salience, we
allow for both positively and negatively salient issues. Viewing salience in such terms also
allows us to consider instances of cognitive dissonance, i.e. when an issue is perceived as
consistent with one logic but conflicting with the other. We detail the implications of cognitive
dissonance in our section on firm responsiveness. For the current discussion regarding issue
salience we suggest that dissonant issues will be highly salient, as are consonant issues, or those
issues uniformly consistent or conflicting with both logics.
-------------------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
-------------------------------------------As mentioned above, much of the previous work exploring firm reactions to stakeholder
issues focuses on the influence of exogenous issue characteristics, e.g., how much power or
legitimacy is held by a sponsoring stakeholder (e.g., Mitchell et al., 1997) or how the issue is
embedded in the organizational environment (e.g., Reid & Toffel, 2009). We build on this
literature by focusing on how firms cognitively process these characteristics, i.e., how managers
interpret an issue as meaningful to the organization’s core logics. Reaction to an issue is not
automated but rather driven by issue interpretation and perception (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991;
Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Jackson & Dutton, 1988). Our arguments draw from the strategic
9
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 10 of 55
cognition perspective (Narayanan et al., 2011) which emphasizes the role of cognitive structures
including strategic frames and organizational identity. We now turn our attention to strategic
cognition and discuss the role of each cognitive structure in determining issue salience. While we
focus on explicating the interpretation process, we also recognize previous research and highlight
potential exogenous characteristics of an issue that can influence its interpretation.
STRATEGIC COGNITION AND PERCEPTIONS OF ISSUE SALIENCE
Strategic cognition is the study of organizational cognitive structures and decision
processes in an attempt to understand strategic decision-making (Narayanan et al., 2011; Porac &
Thomas, 2002). Behavioral biases and interpretive frames constrain managers’ ability to make
complex decisions (Finkelstein, Hambrick, & Cannella, 2009; Kabanoff & Brown, 2008; Walsh,
1995). Such biases, in part, determine which information receives managerial attention and how
managers interpret it. Thus, strategic cognition describes the information-filtering or
sensemaking process through which strategic issues are interpreted (Finkelstein et al., 2009).
Accounting for strategic cognition allows us to enter the black box of managerial
decision-making to understand how firms act as interpretation systems to receive and process
stakeholder issues (Daft & Weick, 1984). Strategic cognition is a function of organizational
characteristics (e.g., age, size), top manager traits (e.g., functional or educational background),
and values (Daft & Weick, 1984; Finkelstein et al., 2009; Hambrick & Mason, 1984). In this
way, and consistent with prior literature in strategic cognition (e.g., Daft & Weick, 1984; Dutton
& Dukerich, 1991; Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Pratt & Foreman, 2000), we adopt a managerial
perspective. Additionally, stakeholder management is typically considered an enterprise-level
strategy (Schendel & Hofer, 1979). Thus, rather than focusing on individual agency, our theory
resides at the organizational level to understand how strategic cognitive mechanisms influence
the processing of and responsiveness to stakeholder issues.
Research in strategic cognition often focuses on traditional strategic issues, such as the
definition of industry and competitive boundaries (Porac & Thomas, 2002) or the nature of
strategic change (Nadkarni & Narayanan, 2007), although some work has also addressed firm10
Page 11 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
stakeholder interactions (cf. Brickson, 2005; Scott & Lane, 2000). However, the question
remains: how do firms cognitively process stakeholder issues to determine salience and
subsequent responsiveness? To answer this question, we focus on firm cognitive structures,
which represent the relatively stable characteristics and/or repeated patterns of behavior used to
interpret strategic information (Kabanoff & Brown, 2008; Narayanan et al., 2011). Cognitive
structures are the mechanisms and biases that direct the sensemaking process of “information
seeking, meaning ascription, and action” (Thomas et al., 1993: 240). If strategic cognition is the
process for sensemaking, cognitive structures represent the tools for this process.
Firms face numerous and diverse stakeholder concerns. For an external issue to receive
attention and reaction from the firm, it must be interpreted as somehow related or relevant to a
firm. As mentioned above, research on issue salience has previously focused on the cognitive
structures of organizational identity and strategic frames, viewing each as a mechanism for
processing external issue information and guiding firm perceptions and decisions (Ashforth &
Mael, 1996; Narayanan et al., 2011). Each cognitive mechanism captures unique aspects of issue
interpretation and can act independently to influence the salience of a stakeholder concern.
Ashforth and Mael (1996:20) consider the relationship between organizational identity and
strategic frames to be “mutually reinforcing, although not determining.” Thus, similar to
Donaldson and Preston’s (1995) distinction between the core normative and instrumental aspects
of stakeholder theory, strategic cognition research distinguishes between an expressive logic
inherent in organizational identity and an instrumental logic of strategic frames (Ashforth &
Mael, 1996; Narayanan et al., 2011; Polletta & Jasper, 2001). These two distinct logics
differentiate the influence of each structure on firm attention to stakeholder issues.
Identity is often expressed in terms of how organizations “wish” to be perceived and is
used to construct a desirable self (Polletta & Jasper, 2001). Rowley and Moldoveanu (2003: 211)
discuss this aspect of cognition for stakeholder groups suggesting that identity-driven actions
“may not be taken by the group to satisfy the members’ rational interests but, rather, to affirm the
members’ collective identity.” Thus, issues often become salient because of their normative or
11
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 12 of 55
expressive value, not necessarily because of their instrumental value. The expressive logic
inherent in identity focuses on the ability of an issue to serve as a claim for identity construction
and is not necessarily concerned with the issue’s strategic significance (Albert & Whetten, 1985;
Ashforth & Mael, 1996).
Alternatively, while identity is often associated with emotional resonance and intrinsic
value (Albert, Ashforth, Gioia, Godfrey, Reger, & Whetten, 1998; Weick, 1999), strategic
frames reflect cause-and-effect beliefs for effective strategic action to achieve organizational
goals (Chattopadhyay, Glick, Miller, & Huber, 1999). Such an instrumental logic is often
calculated on the basis of cost-benefit considerations without explicitly accounting for identity or
expressive concerns (Polletta & Jasper, 2001; Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003). Therefore, salience
and attention may also be granted to an issue because it serves an instrumental purpose,
independent of its relationship to identity.
In summary, identity is related to organizational rhetoric and display of desired images
while strategic frames are related to calculative action aimed at achieving performance
outcomes. We further explore each cognitive structure below, focusing on how various
stakeholder issue characteristics work to influence managerial perceptions of salience.
Organizational Identity and Issue Salience
The construct of organizational identity reflects that which is distinctive and enduring
about an organization (Albert & Whetten, 1985) or how an organization views and defines itself.
From a sensemaking perspective (Weick, 1979; 1995), organizational identity is a critical lens
used by organizational members to interpret the world. Identities reflect collective understanding
and represent a source of differentiation from other firms. Organizational identity is perceived as
a “root construct” used to situate cognitive processing and sensemaking (Albert, Ashforth, &
Dutton, 2000: 13; Ashforth, et al., 2008).
Whether a stakeholder issue is material to a firm’s core values and beliefs – the primary
content of organizational identity – renders an issue expressively salient (Ashforth, 2001;
Ashforth et al., 2008). Multiple stakeholder- and issue-related factors are important when
12
Page 13 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
considering how an issue is perceived as expressively salient. However, specifying all the
exogenous characteristics of an issue that may render it salient is outside the scope of the current
manuscript. Instead, we distill three broad issue characteristics that may influence managerial
cognitive processing: characteristics of the sponsoring stakeholder, characteristics of the actual
request or issue under consideration, and characteristics of the institutional or environmental
context (e.g., Mitchell et al., 1997; Reid & Toffel, 2009; Rowley & Berman, 2000).
Regarding the sponsoring stakeholder, managers - in understanding and expressing
organizational identity - are cognizant of who presents a specific demand or concern. Salient
stakeholders’ support of an issue can influence or reinforce how an organization perceives itself,
especially if those stakeholder groups or their espoused issues are central to the organization’s
identity. For example, theory on organizational identity orientation explains that a firm’s
perception of an issue as confirming or denying its collective identity with stakeholders gives the
issue meaning and priority (Brickson, 2005; 2007). Thus, an organizational identity defined by a
relationship with a particular stakeholder will render the concerns of that stakeholder material to
identity and likely to obtain expressive salience. Consider the case of Johnson & Johnson whose
mission and credo prioritize a responsibility and commitment to consumers. Any concern raised
by this stakeholder group is likely to be perceived as consistent with the firm’s identity and thus
given consideration. Similarly, any issue that threatens Johnson & Johnson’s relationship with
consumers would conflict with identity and thus also command salience.
Like identity orientation, the concept of referent-others also provides context for
cognitive processing with respect to identity. Referent-others are stakeholders with a particularly
strong influence on the process of self-definition (Greenwald & Breckler, 1985; Scott & Lane,
2000). Any issue influencing the relationship with a referent stakeholder would likely be
perceived as related to the firm’s expressive logic. Similarly, the idea of stakeholder legitimacy
often indicates a moral or normative obligation to certain stakeholders (Jones et al., 2007;
Mitchell et al., 1997; Phillips, 2003). An identity defined by a stakeholder relationship can create
13
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 14 of 55
normative obligations to referent stakeholders and thus issues raised by these stakeholders are
seen as important to the core values of an organization.
Stakeholder issues may also command managerial attention not because of the issue’s
sponsor but because of the specific issue being raised. For example, an organizational identity
strongly rooted in conceptions of justice or fairness may influence firm managers to give salience
to justice-related requests from stakeholders (e.g., Logsdon & Van Buren, 2008). Just as a
stakeholder advocates for an issue based on a desire to articulate identity (Rowley &
Moldoveanu, 2003), a firm processes stakeholder issues in relation to organizational identity to
determine if worthy of attention. Organizations like Patagonia or Herman Miller, whose value
statements stress environmental stewardship and sustainability, are likely to perceive issues
related to the environment as salient given the potential to express their identity.
The firing of comedian Gilbert Gottfried as the voice of the Aflac duck illustrates how
issue characteristics that conflict with a firm’s core values and identity can inspire a high level of
salience. Shortly after the devastating 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, Gottfried posted a
series of jokes about the disaster. Comedians often cross boundaries and companies often
respond when their spokespeople use material that is publicly offensive. However, the clash of
Gottfried’s material with Aflac’s core values amplified its perceived salience for Aflac. Aflac
espouses a core philosophy of servant leadership and has been consistently ranked on Fortune’s
“Most Admired Companies” and Ethisphere Magazine’s “World’s Most Ethical Companies”
lists (Grillo, 2010; Washington, Sutton, & Field, 2006). To respond with derision instead of
concern for the people of Japan stood in sharp contrast with Aflac’s identity. The issue was
highly salient to Aflac and they crafted an immediate response, firing Gottfried, removing all
television ads, placing newspaper ads offering condolences, and contributing generously to the
relief effort (Belson, 2011).
Finally, broader institutional and environmental aspects of an issue may influence its
salience. An important function of organizational identity is the expression of uniqueness; an
organization’s identity serves as a tool for differentiation (Ashforth & Mael, 1996; Rowley &
14
Page 15 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
Moldoveanu, 2003). Stakeholder issues that offer little opportunity for a firm to express its
unique identity will likely be perceived as unrelated to organizational identity. For example, as
an early adopter of a majority-vote standard for director elections, Intel was able to capitalize on
the expressive value in setting itself apart from competitors as a leader in corporate governance
and accountability (Allen, 2007; Intel, 2006). Following Intel’s adoption, nearly three-quarters of
the S&P 500 also moved to a majority-vote standard, making the issue far less material to late
adopter firms in the expression of a unique identity. Thus, issue timing and degree of
institutionalization can influence the expressive interpretation of an issue.
In summary, we suggest that organizational identity directs managerial attention and
promotes issue salience. Because identity is primarily understood using an expressive logic,
issues that are perceived as materially supporting or challenging a firm’s ability to express its
identity to stakeholders will have expressive salience, i.e., resonate with and be prioritized by
management. A number of stakeholder-, environmental- and issue-specific characteristics can
influence a firm’s perception of expressive salience, including the centrality of the sponsoring
stakeholder or issue topic to the firm’s identity or the ability of the issue to convey a unique
identity within environmental constraints. Managers interpret stakeholder concerns in terms of
their material relationship to the expression of organizational identity. Thus, we suggest:
Proposition 1: Stakeholder issues perceived as either consistent or conflicting
with a firm’s organizational identity will have expressive salience to managers.
Strategic Frames and Issue Salience
While organizational identity reflects how a firm defines itself and expresses its purpose,
a strategic frame is the cognitive mechanism for translating that purpose into strategic action
(Daft & Weick, 1984; Nadkarni & Narayanan, 2007). A strategic frame is “the knowledge
structure that informs strategic decisions, a cognitive template that individuals impose on the
information environment to give it form and meaning” (Narayanan et al., 2011: 309). In other
words, strategic frames shape the interpretation and translation of environmental context into
competitive decisions. Strategic frames use an instrumental logic to serve as filters, paths, or
15
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 16 of 55
reference points, providing focus on information and actions that conform to what is necessary
for success (Huff, 1982). Finkelstein and colleagues (2009) suggest that frames influence a
filtering process in determining which information receives attention (i.e., is in the field of
vision). For a stakeholder issue to be considered instrumentally salient, it must first fall within
the strategic field of vision and overcome other stimuli. Ashforth and Mael (1996:46) explain
that “to be labeled a strategic issue, something must be noticed and interpreted as potentially
relevant to the organization’s status or performance.” Issues not interpreted as instrumental to the
organization’s pursuit of objectives receive little attention (Barr, Stimpert, & Huff, 1992;
Narayanan et al., 2011).
As with identity, firms use strategic frames to interpret and understand stakeholder issues
(Dutton, Fahey, & Narayanan, 1983; Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Jackson & Dutton, 1988; Thomas
et al., 1993). Research in strategic issues management often invokes the concept of strategic
framing to describe classification and response schemas for issue interpretation. Managers use
strategic frames to categorize an issue and determine its level of priority (Ansoff, 1980), yet
these frames are also a product of social construction and influence (Porac & Thomas, 2002).
Thus, previous work relating issue characteristics directly to firm responsiveness provides insight
into these input factors of cognitive processing. In other words, and similar to organizational
identity, an issue’s sponsor, consequences, and surrounding context all influence managers’
cognitive interpretation of whether the issue is materially related to the instrumental logic of the
organization.
As mentioned above, managers are aware of the source of issues they face and may direct
their attention depending on the issue’s sponsor (Dutton, Walton, & Abrahamson, 1989). Extant
research has developed a number of stakeholder-based frameworks focusing on the instrumental
relationship between the stakeholder and the firm. For example, early work stressed the internal
or external position of the stakeholder relative to the firm (Freeman, 1984) as well as the
stakeholder’s contractual relationship with the firm, often categorized as primary versus
secondary (Clarkson, 1995). The idea of issue networks (Frooman, 2010) also highlights the
16
Page 17 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
importance of considering the web of stakeholders with an interest in the issue. Mitchell and
colleagues (1997) developed perhaps the most well-known instrumental framework of
stakeholder characteristics by focusing on stakeholder salience, or the degree of priority given to
different stakeholder groups based on attributes of the stakeholder. According to their typology,
stakeholder salience is a function of the power, urgency, and legitimacy of the stakeholder group.
Several empirical examinations lend partial support to models of stakeholder salience (Agle et
al., 1999; David et al., 2007; Eesley & Lenox, 2006), suggesting that managers indeed pay
attention to salient stakeholders when making strategic decisions. Thus, the characteristics of an
issue advocate can influence a firm’s cognitive processing using strategic frames.
Managers are also cognizant of the broader competitive and institutional environment in
which stakeholder concerns are embedded. As institutional attention to certain issues rises, firms
face increasing pressure to consider the issue in their strategic frame (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983;
Scott, 1995). Research in corporate political activity suggests that firms confronted with “widely
salient” issues find resistance difficult and face increased pressure to conform (Bonardi & Keim,
2005). As firms become aware of peer company responses, they may be more likely to embrace
similar choices (Abrahamson & Rosenkopf, 1997; Haveman, 1993). Whether imminent
government action (King & Lenox, 2000; Reid & Toffel, 2009) or intensified media attention to
a specific stakeholder issue (Deephouse, 2000; Desai, 2011; Pollock & Rindova, 2003), the
institutional environment helps establish and validate a stakeholder agenda (McCombs, 1981;
Rogers, Dearing, & Bregman, 1993) which also heightens managerial awareness and may shape
an issue’s instrumental interpretation .
The intensity or nature of stakeholder issues also influences instrumental interpretation.
Decisions that have an impact on the firm and on other stakeholders vary in their influence and
in the concomitant level of their issue intensity, which is the “issue related imperative” in the
situation (Jones, 1991: 372) encompassing both strategic and moral issue considerations. For
example, the consequences of product recalls can be moral (Cheah, Chan, & Chieng, 2007)
and/or financial (Thirumalai & Sinha, 2011). Jones’s (1991) issue-contingent construct of moral
17
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 18 of 55
intensity considers multiple elements of an issue, from magnitude of consequences and social
consensus to temporal immediacy and proximity, and explores how these elements influence
managerial decision-making. Thus, the impact of the issue itself on the organization can also
shape perception of instrumental salience.
The aforementioned firing of comedian Gilbert Gottfried as the voice of the Aflac duck
also illustrates how an issue can be interpreted from an instrumental perspective using strategic
frames. The magnitude of the event, social consensus regarding its harm, and the immediacy of
the impact combined to create a high level of moral intensity. Furthermore, the offending
remarks held a high level of proximity as Aflac has approximately 4000 employees in Japan and
derives more than 70 percent of its revenue there (Belson, 2011). The nature of the concerns or
the collective intensity of the issue was conflicting with Aflac’s strategic frame, granting it
instrumental salience.
In summary, strategic frames represent an organization’s understanding of cause-effect
relationships in the competitive environment based within an instrumental logic. Issues
interpreted as related to strategic goals, either as consistent or conflicting, receive consideration
and attention. Thus, we suggest that stakeholder issues perceived through the frame as pertinent
to competitive advantage and performance are instrumentally salient, while those interpreted as
unrelated to the strategic frame are not. Stakeholder- and issue-specific characteristics, including
salience of the advocate stakeholder, institutional attention given to the issue, and intensity of
issue consequences, influence perceptions of issue salience to strategic frames. Thus:
Proposition 2: Stakeholder issues perceived as either consistent or conflicting
with a firm’s strategic frame will have instrumental salience to managers.
Issue Salience to Both Organizational Identity and Strategic Frames
We outline above the function of organizational identity and strategic frames in
determining the expressive and instrumental salience of stakeholder issues. Consistent with
strategic cognition research, which often considers each structure separately (cf. Narayanan et
al., 2011), we discuss the influence of each cognitive structure as an independent element in a
18
Page 19 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
firm’s sensemaking process. We suggest, however, that an issue with only expressive or
instrumental salience, and not both, will result in only a moderate level of total salience. We now
describe how an issue garners high salience by highlighting the interrelationship between the two
cognitive structures.
While serving distinct expressive and instrumental functions, organizational identity and
strategic frames are loosely-coupled, reciprocally-related cognitive structures that can reinforce
or bias one another (cf. Ashforth & Mael, 1996; Dutton & Penner, 1993; Gioia & Thomas, 1996;
Narayanan et al., 2011; Polletta & Jasper, 2001). For example, Ashforth and Mael (1996),
building on the work of Dutton and Penner (1993), suggest that strategic frames focus a firm’s
attention to expressively salient issues based on aspects of instrumental importance, legitimacy
and feasibility. Organizations often seek opportunities to express identity across a wide range of
diverse and unrelated issues, and strategic frames serve to filter or restrict this range by guiding
managerial attention to those issues with strategic importance for the organization. Similarly,
organizational identity can guide strategic frames to focus on issues that have some relationship
with broader organizational values. Ultimately, those issues that “speak to the raison d’etre and
core competencies of the organization” will be seen as more attractive to the organization
(Ashforth & Mael, 1996: 46) and as more legitimate targets for action (Dutton & Penner, 1993).
Thus, expressive issues that also carry instrumental importance, or vice-versa - instrumental
issues that also allow for identity expression, will be given the highest priority by managers.
Research on strategic agenda building helps to illustrate this point (Dutton & Dukerich,
1991; Dutton & Penner, 1993; Dutton, 1997). Defined as the set of issues that command
managerial attention, strategic agendas reflect managers’ limited capacity in the number of issues
that can be prioritized. Issue- and firm-specific factors may encourage an issue’s placement on a
firm’s strategic agenda, including the issue’s perceived instrumental value, (in)consistency with
shared organizational values, and internal and external norms and expectations (Dutton, 1997).
Issues that satisfy more of these factors are likely to be more prominent on the strategic agenda.
An example is Dutton and Dukerich’s (1991) study of the New York/New Jersey Port Authority.
19
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 20 of 55
Homelessness existed as an instrumentally salient issue for the Port Authority for a number of
years. However, the issue did not achieve priority on the Port Authority’s strategic agenda until it
gained expressive salience via the issue’s increase in national attention and social legitimation
(Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Dutton, 1997). Thus, a perceived conflict with the organization’s
identity was the catalyst needed to raise a moderately salient (i.e., instrumentally salient only)
issue into a highly salient one, having both instrumental and expressive salience.
Given the reinforcing relationship between identity and frames, we suggest that issue
salience is further heightened by the issue’s perceived relationship to expressive and instrumental
logics, collectively. An issue that has bearing on both the expression of organizational identity,
thus expressive salience, and on the achievement of strategic goals and objectives, thus
instrumental salience, will capture the total attention of managers and enjoy a greater degree of
resonance and prioritization than an issue relevant to only one cognitive mechanism. Similarly,
issues lacking a connection to either identity or strategic frames will evade managerial attention
and fail to resonate with organizational decision-makers. Thus, we propose:
Proposition 3: Stakeholder issues perceived as either consistent or conflicting
with both a firm’s organizational identity and strategic frames will have high
salience to managers.
Proposition 4: Stakeholder issues perceived as unrelated to both a firm’s
organizational identity and strategic frames will have low salience to managers.
Given this understanding of issue salience, a number of questions remain regarding the
relationship between salience and firm responsiveness. For example, how do firms respond when
a stakeholder issue is highly salient and perceived as consistent (or conflicting) with both
interpretive logics? Alternatively, how do firms respond when an issue is salient to each logic but
the nature of each relationship is at odds, such as when an issue is perceived as consistent with
identity but conflicting with strategic frames, or vice versa? How do firms act on a moderately
salient issue, or issues perceived as salient to only one logic? To answer these questions, we
propose a typology of strategic cognition, issue type and responsiveness. In doing so, we
20
Page 21 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
describe how total issue salience influences the general substance of the response, ranging from
symbolic to substantive, while the nature of the interrelationship between cognitive structures
influences the general form of the response, ranging from defensive to accommodative.
We depict our typology in Table 2 below, which expands on the issue salience
framework presented in Table 1. Among highly-salient issues, we first explore consonant
cognitive interrelationships, i.e., when an issue is perceived as uniformly consistent or
conflicting to both cognitive structures. Such issues are depicted in the top-left and bottom-right
corners of the dark shaded section of Table 2. Consonant issues are likely to trigger substantive
accommodative responses in cases of consonant consistency, and substantive defensive
responses in cases of consonant conflict. We then attend to situations of cognitive dissonance,
when an issue is perceived as consistent with one structure but conflicting with the other
structure. These issue types are found in the upper-right and bottom-left corners of the dark
shaded section of Table 2. Such issues prompt a unique type of responsiveness in the form of
substantive negotiation. Next, we address firm responsiveness to moderately salient issues, or
those issues relevant to only one cognitive structure, as depicted in the light shaded sections of
Table 2. We end with issues perceived as immaterial or unrelated to both cognitive structures,
depicted in the bottom-right section of Table 2.
-------------------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here
-------------------------------------------ISSUE SALIENCE AND RESPONSIVENESS
The propositions above specify the nature and level of issue salience by explicating the
cognitive process underlying managerial interpretation of stakeholder issues. Rather than
defining issue salience based on firm actions (e.g., Eesley & Lenox, 2006), we conceive of issue
salience as an outcome of cognitive interpretation, a perception of expressive importance and/or
instrumental influence. However, perception in and of itself does not specify action. Instead, the
cognitive structures and interpretive logics “establish the parameters of behavior” (Ashforth &
21
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 22 of 55
Mael, 1996: 48). Responsiveness captures the firm’s commitment and course of action following
perceptions of salience. If issue salience represents the resonance and priority of an issue once
cognitively processed, then responsiveness reflects behavior based on that issue’s salience.
Within- and between-firm responsiveness to stakeholder issues is often quite mixed.
Consider an example using one specific stakeholder group – firm shareholders. Securities and
exchange laws allow qualified shareholders to submit, for proxy consideration, resolutions
concerning any number of issues, including social and governance policy issues. During a recent
proxy season, the Walt Disney Company received eight shareholder resolutions, with sponsors
ranging from individual “gadfly” shareholders to major public pensions such as CalPERS and
the New York City Pension Fund. These resolutions addressed a variety of issues such as
international labor standards, CEO/Chairman duality, and shareholder access to proxy material.
Disney responded to these requests in dramatically different ways: effectively ignoring some,
embracing others, and outright resisting several. Some of the resolutions Disney rejected enjoyed
sponsorship by prominent shareholders and broad public support. Additionally, other firms
facing similar resolutions responded quite differently, and in many cases, those firms accepted
resolutions Disney rejected and vice versa. Explaining such variance in firm responsiveness has
long been a goal of stakeholder research. While external factors are important, models limited to
stakeholder and environmental characteristics offer insufficient explanation for why some issues
receive support while others provoke fierce battles. Thus, our focus on cognition and salience
can advance research on responsiveness by considering the logics and structures of stakeholder
issue interpretation and the subsequent connection to action in response.
We define responsiveness as the degree to which the firm is willing to provide a
thoughtful response and commit to continued work on the area of stakeholder concern (David et
al., 2007; IRRC, 1993). Our definition connotes action but is not limited to a discrete outcome,
i.e., that the firm either does or does not respond. Rather, we conceive of responsiveness as an
array of choices for action characterized by the nature of issue salience. Responsiveness also
does not imply a strict adoption or rejection of stakeholder requests but rather incorporates a
22
Page 23 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
range of potential outcomes regarding firm behavior towards the stakeholder issue. Wood (1991)
describes responsiveness as comprised of the social impact, programs, and policies implemented
by a company in response to stakeholder issues. Thus, responsiveness is a collection of actions
by the firm. Similarly, as the “action phase of management,” Carroll (1979: 502) suggests that
responses can vary from doing nothing (i.e., non-responsiveness) to doing much (i.e., substantive
responsiveness).
Consistent with Doty and Glick’s recommendations (1994), our typology of
responsiveness suggests specific relationships among issue types, based on salience and
cognitive consonance/dissonance, and a firm’s expected response, in terms of substance and
form. Response substance is the degree of material action taken in reaction to the issue, often
resulting in significant changes to the firm’s “goals, structures, and processes” (Ashforth &
Gibbs, 1990: 178; Ashforth & Mael, 1996; David et al., 2007). Ashforth and colleagues (2008)
suggest that behaviors are probabilistic outcomes of identity and thus highlight the positive
relationship between identity and substantive action. Identities provide trajectories for action;
they make action more or less feasible given the relationship with organizational identity. The
same is true for strategic frames, which serve to focus managerial attention and shape managerial
behavior (Dutton & Jackson, 1987). Issues interpreted as highly salient, thus having a perceived
material expressive and instrumental relationship, are more likely to garner a substantive
response. Dutton and Ashford use similar logic to suggest that “management’s allocation of
attention to an issue is a necessary precursor to their taking substantive action on an issue”
(1993: 404). Because the issue is perceived to have materiality in its relationship with the firm’s
cognitive structures, the firm will respond in a material manner by committing substantial
resources, time, energy and effort to the issue.
In contrast, responsiveness to less salient issues is likely to be more symbolic in nature.
That is, firms may seek to signal compliance with external demands while, in reality, continuing
in their own incumbent self-interest (Oliver, 1991). Instead of genuinely conforming to external
standards, firms will portray conformity through symbolic action, allowing the firm to gain
23
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 24 of 55
legitimacy and other benefits while doing little to change firm processes and cognitions
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Suchman, 1995). Indeed, symbolic responsiveness is seen as an
active attempt by firms to manipulate external expectations to be more closely aligned with firm
goals (Oliver, 1991). Thus, firms often use symbolic management to deal with external
expectations that do not align with the firm’s expressive or instrumental goals. Additionally,
given limited capacity to process and respond to external stimuli, including stakeholder issues
(Cyert & March, 1963; Daft & Weick, 1984; Finkelstein et al., 2009), managers must prioritize
issues, substantively responding to those issues most critical to the organization and symbolically
responding to those issues found to be less important. Stakeholder issues perceived as
moderately salient enjoy some level of priority but do not capture the attention or responsiveness
granted to higher salience issues.
In addition to the substance of responsiveness, we also consider its form. We draw from
research on strategic issues management, impression management, and identity management
(e.g., Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Elsbach, 2003; Elsbach & Kramer, 1996) to suggest that
responsiveness can be defensive or accommodative in nature, depending on issue consistency or
conflict, respectively. Issues perceived as materially consistent with a firm’s cognitive structures
engender an accommodative response, while conflicting issues engender a defensive response. If
viewing the issue in negative terms, a firm employs a defensive response to distance itself from
the issue, uphold existing cognitive structures, and attempt to eliminate the perceived threat of
the issue (Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Elsbach & Kramer, 1996). In contrast, a firm employing an
accommodative response embraces the issue, viewing it in positive terms. In this sense,
accommodative responsiveness is similar to the concepts of dialogue (Logsdon & Van Buren,
2008; 2009) and stakeholder integration (Heugens, 2002), which highlight a focal firm’s
willingness to engage with the sponsoring stakeholder in a positive and open manner.
We now address each section of Table 2, beginning with issues having high salience
given their alignment with both cognitive structures.
High Issue Salience and Substantive Responsiveness
24
Page 25 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
Cognitive Consonance. Issues interpreted as consistent with both organizational identity
and strategic frames are considered true opportunities, while issues interpreted as conflicting
with both cognitive structures are true threats. These issues appear in the top-left and bottomright corners of the dark shaded section in Table 2. An issue representing a true opportunity
allows the organization to express its identity and promotes action that fits its instrumental logic
of strategic success. Under these conditions, the issue will have high salience as it resonates with
the firm’s cognitive structures and is prioritized by management as both an expressive and
instrumental opportunity. Such issues engender substantive accommodative responses as the firm
embraces the issue. For example, in response to concerns regarding its carbon emissions and use
of coal energy, New Belgium Brewery embraced the issue as a true opportunity and responded
by becoming the first brewery in the U.S. completely powered by wind energy (Bundy, 2012).
Environmental stewardship and the promotion of sustainable change are core values in New
Belgium’s identity, so reducing carbon emissions by switching from coal to wind power was
highly aligned with the firm’s expressive logic. In addition, being the first firm in its industry to
rely on wind power allowed New Belgium to differentiate itself from competitors. New Belgium
leveraged publicity from the switch and is now well known and highly regarded as a sustainable
enterprise. Thus, from a strategic frame perspective, the move was beneficial in building the
firm’s reputation and brand (Ferrell & Hartline, 2011).
In contrast, a stakeholder issue representing a true threat conflicts with both the firm’s
identity and strategic frame. Like a true opportunity, a true threat will be highly salient as
managers assess the nature and degree of the perceived challenge and formulate potential
responses. To minimize the likelihood of harm, the response will be defensive and substantive. A
recent example of a firm responding to a true threat is Google’s response to the U.S. Stop Online
Piracy Act (SOPA) bill. The SOPA bill challenged Google’s identity as a facilitator of free
speech and information. The bill also threatened Google’s strategic frame, as compliance with
the act would have been excessively burdensome for companies like Google. Google responded
25
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 26 of 55
by engaging in heavy lobbying against the bill, deploying a large-scale publicity campaign, and
even threatening to blackout the webpage (Lyons, 2012).
Our examples of New Belgium and Google represent substantive action and response by
the focal firms, indicative of their willingness to engage and make a serious commitment to
addressing the stakeholder issue. The responses chosen by these firms were highly-publicized,
costly initiatives and exemplify substantial responsiveness to issues of high salience. The
responses took the form of accommodative or defensive based on issue perception as consistent
or conflicting, respectively, with both cognitive structures. Thus, we propose:
Proposition 5a: Stakeholder issues perceived only as true opportunities will elicit
substantive accommodative responses from managers.
Proposition 5b: Stakeholder issues perceived only as true threats will elicit
substantive defensive responses from managers.
Cognitive Dissonance. Issues that are material to both cognitive structures may also be at
odds, e.g., an issue perceived as consistent with one structure may be conflicting with the other.
Such interpretations create cognitive dissonance for managers as they attempt to determine the
appropriate response. An issue perceived to be conflicting with organizational identity yet
consistent with an organization’s strategic frame is termed an identity conflict. An issue
conflicting with the strategic frame but consistent with identity is termed a frame conflict. These
issues appear in the bottom-left and top-right corners of the dark shaded section in Table 2.
Dissonance between expressive and instrumental logics is familiar to researchers in the field of
business ethics. The basis of an ethical dilemma is the idea that one’s identity or conception of
the self – a core construct related to values and ethical beliefs – is at odds with the options
available to enacting this identity (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2009); in other words, “Who I am/what I
value” conflicts with “What it takes to succeed.”
In reviewing research on organizational identity, Ashforth and colleagues suggest that
various factors influence the degree of dissonance between a firm’s identity and strategic action
including “situational constraints, competing identifications, impression management concerns,
26
Page 27 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
and so on” (2008: 331). Issue-specific characteristics, including the salience of the sponsoring
stakeholder, the institutional environment surrounding the issue, and the intensity of the issue
itself, can also constrain and influence perceptions of an issue. Consider an issue consistent with
identity yet conflicting with strategic frames, such as demands from an identity-relevant
stakeholder for strategic initiatives incompatible with a firm’s current strategic frame. Given the
potential implications for the firm, the issue will be substantively prioritized. Indeed, Ashforth
and Mael (1996) argue that issues are most salient and attended to when they invoke ambiguity
or disagreement between the firm’s cognitive structures. However, while it seems evident that
issues of cognitive dissonance command salience, and thus substantive responsiveness, the form
of response is likely neither accommodative nor defensive.
Stakeholder issues have been characterized as “socially constructed disruptions of
institutional order” or ongoing battles of sensemaking and sensegiving whereby combating
participants attempt to influence the social environment (Lamertz, Martens, & Heugens, 2003:
82). Those stakeholder issues which induce identity or frame conflict represent a particularly
strong disruption of order, a “sensebreaking” or “dislocating” event that triggers fundamental
questioning of one’s sense of self (Ashforth et al., 2008; Ashforth & Mael, 1996; Pratt, 2000).
Such events constitute an explicit “shift from the experience of immersion in projects to a sense
that the flow of action has become unintelligible in some way” (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld,
2005: 409). In response to the cognitive dissonance created by the conflict, managers will engage
in efforts to bring about consensus or alignment among competing frames (Festinger, 1957;
Jackson, 2002; Strauss, 1978; Swann, 1987). In other words, perceived inconsistences in a firm’s
understanding of itself and its strategic goals call for a renegotiation of the status quo (Strauss,
1978). Thus, we suggest that in response to identity and frame conflicts, firms will engage in
substantive negotiation, which we define as efforts by the focal firm to bring consonance to the
interpretive logics used to understand an issue.
Google’s identity conflict involving its foreign expansion to China highlights this
sensebreaking-negotiation response. Committed to free expression and open access to
27
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 28 of 55
information, Google struggled with censorship by the Chinese government while recognizing the
potential to serve the largest economy in the world (Levy, 2011). Executives at Google valued
the introduction of their search engine to China, even on the government’s restrictive terms,
because of its consistency with strategic frames; however, insiders grappled with the move’s
misalignment with corporate identity. After multiple run-ins with Chinese authorities, Google
announced it was “no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over
the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we
could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may
well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China” (Drummond,
2010). Documented internal disputes among Google founders and current executives indicate the
strife over reconciling business growth with continued governmental compliance, and ultimately,
Google withdrew from mainland China and ended its experiment in censorship (Levy, 2011).
An example of frame conflict is New Belgium’s move to distribute its product in
aluminum cans instead of glass bottles, based on evidence that cans are more environmentally
friendly (Bundy, 2012). This strategy was consistent with New Belgium’s identity as an
environmentally-conscious organization. However, when consumers voiced their displeasure
with the change and claimed that the new packaging reduced product quality, New Belgium
faced a frame conflict as the new strategy risked widespread rejection by consumers. In response,
the organization engaged in extensive external negotiation, issuing press releases and reports
highlighting the environmental friendliness of cans and disputing claims that product quality
suffers.
Just as New Belgium Brewery attempted to resolve its frame conflict over sustainable
packaging, Google conducted broad negotiation efforts toward resolution of their identity
conflict over censored operations in China. Organizations facing identity or frame conflict are
likely to respond by engaging in substantive negotiation, ideally until the issue becomes either
consonantly aligned or immaterial to one or both of the dissonant cognitive structures. Therefore,
we suggest:
28
Page 29 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
Proposition 6: Stakeholder issues perceived only as identity or frame conflicts
will elicit substantive negotiation responses from managers.
In sum, stakeholder issues with high salience garner substantive responses from
managers. By definition, such issues have a high degree of resonance and priority and
thus receive managerial attention in a meaningful and significant way. Given the vast
assortment of stakeholder concerns brought to firms on an ongoing basis, and the fact that
firms face cognitive and resource limits in their ability to respond to every issue, we next
address issues perceived as salient to only one cognitive structure. These issues appear in
the light grey sections of Table 2.
Moderate Issue Salience and Symbolic Responsiveness
Some issues may be perceived as material to only one cognitive structure. As noted
above, the defining element of issue salience to identity is a perceived relationship with an
organization’s expressive logic, such that the issue presents a significant influence on a firm’s
ability to express or enact its identity. We also suggest that some attempts to express identity
have little to do with strategic performance or goals (Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003). The same is
true for strategic frames; although perceived as instrumentally salient, some issues fail to connect
with identity. Issues perceived as consistent (or conflicting) with organizational identity yet
unrelated to strategic frames are expressive opportunities (or expressive threats), while issues
consistent (or conflicting) with only strategic frames are instrumental opportunities (or
instrumental threats). These four issue types encourage firm responsiveness that is largely
symbolic in nature.
We have established that stakeholder issues materially related to strategic frames follow
an instrumental logic. Two matters of corporate governance reform involving shareholder
resolutions illustrate how firms respond to such instrumental issues. Between 2005 and 2009,
powerful investment advisory services and governance watchdog groups launched widespread
campaigns supporting two separate governance reforms: shareholder proxy access and adoption
of a majority-vote standard for board of director elections. Excluding advantages given to first29
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 30 of 55
movers, these initiatives were largely immaterial to most firms as a matter of organizational
identity. However, in the case of the majority-vote standard, the policy quickly diffused and
received broad institutional support. As a source of structural legitimacy (DiMaggio & Powell,
1983), the policy was quickly recognized as consistent with strategic frames, creating an
instrumental opportunity for institutional and shareholder compliance. However, the response to
such issues was largely symbolic. Indeed, the Council for Institutional Investors, one of the
strongest proponents for majority-vote, has recently expressed concerns regarding the symbolic
way in which the policy seems to have been adopted (CII, 2010; Lublin, 2009). Westphal and
Zajac (1994; 1995; 1998) found a similar effect in their studies investigating adoption of
executive long-term incentive plans. Early adopters implemented the plans in earnest while later
adoption was largely symbolic, as firms attempted to gain legitimacy yet maintain strict control
over their structures and processes. Without a strong connection to identity, there was little
incentive for firms to substantively implement the policy, especially as stakeholders seemed
mollified by simple adoption, thus allowing the adopting firms to take advantage of the
instrumental opportunity.
In contrast, allowing shareholders full proxy access would involve a substantial change to
corporate governance at publicly traded firms, and the proposal was met with widespread
resistance. Thus, proxy access as a shareholder issue presented an instrumental threat as the issue
conflicted with strategic frames. Firms responded by allowing the issue to go to non-binding vote
on proxy ballots, thus allowing them to signal consideration of the issue without invoking any
true reform. The issue managed to garner some attention but ultimately had little lasting effect,
resonance, or priority by organizational decision-makers. Dutton and Dukerich (1991) described
a similar response to an instrumental threat in their study on the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey. The Port Authority’s initial interpretation of the presence of homeless individuals in
its facilities was largely instrumental; the Authority perceived little connection between the issue
and its identity. The organization responded symbolically, asking external partners to deal with
the issue rather than substantially addressing the issue itself. Until the Port Authority’s
30
Page 31 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
interpretation of the issue evolved to recognize that the issue was identity relevant as well, its
response was symbolic and defensive.
In contrast to the instrumental logic of strategic frames, stakeholder issues salient to
organizational identity yet unrelated to strategic frames follow an expressive logic. Again, we
offer examples to illustrate stakeholder issues likely to resonate with identity yet unlikely to be
prioritized in strategic decision making. Requests for philanthropy and community involvement
often offer a firm an expressive opportunity to enact deeply-rooted values without materially
affecting pursuit of strategic objectives (e.g., Margolis & Walsh, 2003). For example, Moir and
Taffler (2004) suggest that donations made by IBM to the non-profit ArtSkills were largely
altruistic, meaning the donations were not connected to IBM’s business strategy or stakeholder
relationships. Thus, the donations were largely symbolic and disconnected from instrumental
logic, only serving an expressive purpose.
Alternatively, requests that actively oppose core beliefs and self-concept yet have little to
do with strategic frames represent expressive threats. Consider stakeholder activists such as
PETA or Greenpeace, who often employ extreme smear campaigns against companies they
perceive as violating animal or environmental rights. Often lacking legitimacy in the eyes of the
public (Mitchell et al., 1997), such campaigns generally have little impact on a target firm’s
strategic performance. Without a solid connection to strategic outputs or goals, these issues are
unrelated to strategic frames and so firms respond symbolically and defensively. For example,
Starbucks used a product derived from crushed insects as a red food-coloring additive in some of
its coffees and smoothies. PETA and vegan activists raised concerns and organized a change.org
campaign against Starbucks, claiming its use of the additive was deceptive, unnatural and
unfriendly to vegan consumers (Shute, 2012). Starbucks initially responded by issuing a press
release explaining that the additive is naturally-occurring, FDA-approved, and commonly used
by food preparers in order to avoid artificial ingredients; thus, using the additive maintained
Starbucks’ commitment to providing safe and natural products. Eventually Starbucks switched to
a product derived from tomatoes, although some argue that such a move remains deceptive
31
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 32 of 55
(Mestel, 2012). Regardless, Starbucks initially perceived the issue as largely expressive and its
response was generally symbolic and defensive.
In summary, symbolic responsiveness represents an attempt by firms to resolve issues
that are perceived as materially related to only one cognitive structure and thus only moderately
salient. Issues perceived as consistent or conflicting with strategic frames alone are instrumental
opportunities and threats, and issues consistent or conflicting with identity alone are expressive
opportunities and threats. The form of responsiveness corresponds with issue type, wherein a
consistent issue signals an opportunity for symbolic accommodative responsiveness while
conflict signals a threat for symbolic defensive responsiveness. Thus,
Proposition 7a: Stakeholder issues perceived only as instrumental or expressive
opportunities will elicit symbolic accommodative responses from managers.
Proposition 7b: Stakeholder issues perceived only as instrumental or expressive
threats will elicit symbolic defensive responses from managers.
Low Issue Salience and Non-Responsiveness
Finally, some issues are perceived as immaterial, i.e., not related to either an
organization’s identity or strategic frame. These non-issues can be found in the lower-right
section of Table 2. Extending the stakeholder activism examples above, some activism involves
broad campaigns conducted without meaningful targets or purposeful association between the
issue and the focal firm. While the stakeholder group may be passionate about the issue,
inconsequence to strategic cognition renders the issue easily ignored and dismissed (Marens,
2002; Rowley & Moldoveanu, 2003). An example of a non-issue is the movement urging
companies to reincorporate in North Dakota, which enacted the most shareholder-friendly
corporate governance law in the United States (Tuna, 2008). Since that change, a group of
activist investors, including noted shareholder activist Carl Icahn, has targeted major
corporations with resolutions urging them to reincorporate in North Dakota. Five years later,
only American Railcar Inc., majority-controlled by Icahn, has approved the proposal
(Marketwatch, 2009). According to Richard Ferlauto, the head of corporate governance and
32
Page 33 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
pension investment at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, "this
is more a wake-up call for Delaware to modernize than any significant attempt to attract business
in North Dakota" (Tuna, 2008). Of course, events such as shareholder litigation can change a
non-issue into a true or instrumental threat, but as long as such concerns are unrelated to both
organizational identity and strategic frames, they largely represent non-issues to managers.
Issues perceived as unrelated to strategic cognition, i.e., immaterial to organizational
identity or strategic frames, will lack salience and thus, by definition, be unlikely to resonate
with or be prioritized by management. Low salience also implies little to no responsiveness, and
such issues may be momentary distractions or nuisances among the diverse landscape of
stakeholder demands. The non-issue holds neither importance nor meaning in how firms
interpret the external environment and manage stakeholder relationships. Therefore,
Proposition 8: Stakeholder issues perceived only as non-issues will elicit little to
no response from managers.
We present Table 3 below to summarize our arguments and examples related to
firm responsiveness and issue salience.
-------------------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here
-------------------------------------------DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Our ultimate goal in presenting a cognitive theory of issue salience is to establish a new
research agenda for exploration of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. We advance
theoretical understanding of stakeholder concerns by proposing issue salience as a distinct
construct driven by cognitive interpretations of the issue. In contrast to previous work, we model
issue salience as the key antecedent of firm responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. We
contribute to research by positioning issue salience as an intermediating construct, the outcome
of firm perceptions of issue characteristics and a cognitive process through which external issue
factors are interpreted. Additionally, our treatment of organizational identity and strategic frames
33
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 34 of 55
as simultaneous but unique constructs advances research in strategic cognition, which
traditionally considers the influence of only one or lumps the constructs together (Narayanan et
al., 2011). Thus, in explicating the dual nature of issue salience, we advance research
investigating the multiple motivations of managers in responding to stakeholder demands.
We also contribute to research by explicitly considering how issue salience relates to firm
responsiveness. Not only do we consider how managerial attention is cognitively organized, but
we propose a typology of issue type and responsiveness to translate attention into action. By
providing a cognitive explanation for a firm’s response in both substance and form, we
contribute to our understanding of symbolic management and firm responsiveness. We address
instances of cognitive dissonance and introduce negotiation as a discrete response to such
situations. In doing so, we also advance our understanding of how stakeholders and the issues
they champion can induce change or alter a firm’s cognition.
While this paper proposes issue salience as the focal point, we recognize that firms
manage multiple issues at once and that issues evolve over time. How an issue is perceived by
managers is dynamic, and while our typology classifies levels of salience and discusses expected
responses, the separation between categories and quadrants may be superficial. Thus, consistent
with the recommendations of Doty and Glick (1994), we present a variety of issue types that
represent complex constructs and provide an abstract and falsifiable model for future testing.
One fruitful area for future research is the cyclical or iterative nature of issue salience and
responsiveness. It is likely that responsiveness will shape subsequent requests and inputs to
perceptions of salience, from contextual characteristics to cognitive understanding of the issue at
hand. The relationship between salience and responsiveness may be reinforcing; initial salience
influences initial responsiveness, which influences future salience, and so on. Future work could
refine this iterative model, identify other important dimensions, and investigate potential limits
or boundaries to the influence of salience. Like Proffitt & Spicer (2006), we recognize that there
may be value in capturing the entire life cycle of an issue, including its earliest inception in order
to understand fully the evolution of an issue’s meaning and interpretation.
34
Page 35 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
Our theory also offers opportunities to explore the mediating nature of strategic cognition
and refine our understanding of strategic outcomes. Scholars have used various perspectives to
explain strategic change, using a rational lens to examine direct effects of environmental
conditions such as uncertainty, competition or regulation (e.g., Haveman, 1992; Wiersema &
Bantel, 1993) or using a cognitive lens to view how environmental context affects strategy
through managerial cognition (Barr et al., 1992; Brown & Blackmon, 2005). Rajagopalan and
Spreitzer (1997) integrate these disparate perspectives to propose a multi-lens framework of
strategic change, in which environmental conditions affect strategy through managerial
cognition. Our theoretical model of issue salience responds to their call for research to explore
strategic change as reflective of both environmental antecedents and managerial cognition, and
our logic suggests that institutional and stakeholder effects may directly influence strategic
cognitive structures and thus indirectly influence issue salience. In other words, strategic
cognition represents the key mediating process by which external factors translate to issue
salience within the firm. Previous research notes that external stimuli are more likely to be
perceived as reinforcing cognitive structures rather than altering them (e.g., Barr et al., 1992;
Gary & Wood, 2011). Thus exploring when issue characteristics such as institutional attention or
stakeholder salience are more likely to challenge or impel change in strategic frames and
organizational identity may be an interesting area for future research.
Our theory also connects to the large body of prior work on stakeholder activism and firm
performance, in both financial and social terms. A review of stakeholder theory suggests
appropriate stakeholder management should be associated with increased financial performance,
reputation, trust, efficiency, innovation, flexibility and negatively related to risk and uncertainty
(Parmar et al., 2010). Similarly, a separate review of the shareholder activism literature supports
a positive relationship between responsiveness and short-term financial performance (Gillan &
Starks, 2007), although empirical research has also reported a negative relationship between
responsiveness and social performance (David et al., 2007). We believe that work exploring
connections between stakeholders and performance will especially benefit from focusing on
35
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 36 of 55
issue salience and that empirical studies incorporating our model may be productive avenues for
additional research. By focusing on issue salience, researchers can begin to better understand
how institutional, stakeholder, and cognitive forces combine to influence firm outcomes.
Theory to date does not explain how firms decide between competing stakeholder claims
(Kaler, 2006) or how firms effectively respond to individual requests when faced with multiple,
conflicting demands (e.g., Hadani, Goranova, & Khan, 2011). Our model of issue salience
enables researchers to address these vexing questions. Additional theoretical development may
further explore the influence of organizational decision makers outside of the top management
team as well as the potential for agency issues within the executive suite. An upper echelons
perspective views the background and experiences of top managers as highly influential to
organizational outcomes (Hambrick & Mason, 1984); thus, a lens of managerial cognition or
other more “micro” approaches may further enrich our understanding of the realities of
managing and crafting responses to stakeholder concerns.
Organizational identity and strategic frames each represent extensive bodies of research,
and our typology focusing on the consistent or conflicting relationship between an issue and each
structure provides only an initial step at mapping the complexity of the strategic cognition
process and corresponding salience of stakeholder issues. We do not attempt to capture all
aspects of strategic cognitive structures and leave for future theorizing the opportunity to deepen
our understanding of the interrelationship between these mechanisms and the influence of
potential moderators. While we view the relationship between identity and strategic frames to be
independent and reciprocal, we encourage future research to explore the potential contingency
and moderating factors that may influence this relationship.
For example, organizational identity scholars discuss factors such as the multidimensionality and strength of identification (Ashforth & Mael, 1996), which may further
advance our theory of how firms process and prioritize stakeholder concerns and how they
behave, especially in instances of cognitive dissonance. Firms with strong identities often frame
issues that are consistent with organizational identity as also being strategic (Ashforth & Mael,
36
Page 37 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
1996; Gioia & Thomas, 1996). Thus, an organization like Johnson & Johnson, whose identity
centers around service to consumers, will strategically frame issues from this stakeholder group
as instrumental simply because of their proximity and connection to identity. In other words, the
expression of an organizational identity relative to a particular stakeholder is also seen as
instrumental to achieving organizational objectives. Similarly, the relationship of an issue to
strategic frames may be influenced by the firm’s strategic flexibility (Nakdarni & Narayanan,
2007), its scanning orientation, or its perceived ability to control an issue (Thomas et al., 1993).
Additional dynamic factors such as the timing of issues, the urgency of stakeholder claims, and
even the stochastic nature of information processing are also likely to affect whether and how an
issue commands high salience.
If issue salience influences firm responsiveness, in general, we might also expect an
influence on performance outcomes. However, this relationship is highly complex. For example,
responsiveness to an issue based on strong consistency with organizational identity could
actually hurt performance, such as when a firm chooses to donate a large percentage of profits to
a specific cause in order to maintain a philanthropic self-concept. Recognizing a range of firm
responsiveness including substantive, symbolic, and negotiation responses, in concert with the
cognitive process determining issue salience, may allow scholars a rich opportunity to explore
the true nature of the relationship between responsiveness and performance.
Our attention to issue salience also informs the research stream specifically related to
symbolic management (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Westphal & Zajac, 1998). Highly salient issues
are likely to engender substantive responses from managers, based on their alignment with both
organizational identity and strategic frames. However, our typology also describes how a
perceived material relationship with only one cognitive structure may promote more symbolic or
satiating responses. Future research could focus on the interplay between managerial symbolism
and decoupling and issue salience. How does the level and nature of issue salience influence the
significance and scale of firm response? Are there repercussions to enacting symbolic responses
to salient issues? Do firms respond differently to expressive versus instrumental opportunities, or
37
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 38 of 55
expressive versus instrumental threats? Connecting the construct of issue salience to managerial
symbolism can inform our understanding of the antecedents and consequences of symbolic
responses.
We also recognize that there may be additional drivers of each aspect within our model
and the possibility that issue salience may be a second- or even third-order construct. We know
that stakeholder salience itself is a multi-dimensional construct (Agle et al, 1999; Crawford,
Williams, & Berman, 2011; Mitchell et al., 1997), and that between- and within-firm as well as
external factors are likely to influence issue salience and firm responsiveness. While most
previous work explores issue and stakeholder characteristics driving firm response, we highlight
how exemplary stakeholder, issue-specific, and environmental issue characteristics may
influence the interpretation of salience. Our intention was not to formulate a fully saturated
model of responsiveness to stakeholder concerns. Instead, we propose a first step by calling
attention to strategic cognition as a mediating process and issue salience as a perceptual outcome
influencing responsiveness. In balancing the challenges of integrating multiple perspectives and
providing a parsimonious theoretical model, we hope our initial steps will facilitate broad and
varied extensions of organizational and stakeholder research in the future.
We acknowledge that the construct of issue salience specifically, and our proposed model
more broadly, present challenges for empirical testing. Perhaps prior research concentrates on
singular environmental factors or stakeholder variables as drivers of firm responsiveness given
their more accepted and readily available archival measures. Strategic cognition, interpretation,
and sensemaking are difficult to capture without primary data, and so the development of our
model could benefit from case study or other qualitative research design, which may motivate
further inductive theory building. Researchers have used similar approaches when investigating
complex cognitive processes such as identity change and evolution (e.g., Clark, Gioia, Ketchen,
& Thomas, 2010). Techniques employing content analysis also present promising opportunities
to test our model (e.g., Duriau, Reger, & Pfarrer, 2007), including the use of word counts,
computer aided content analysis, and other methods focused on analyzing firm communication to
38
Page 39 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
determine managerial cognitive orientation (Cho & Hambrick, 2006; Kaplan, 2008).
Additionally, cognitive mapping as a form of content analysis has been a popular method for
capturing strategic frames (Huff, 1990). However, much of this research has focused on nonevaluative variables, such as counts of keywords indicating strategic focus and managerial
attention (Kabanoff & Brown, 2008). Because we position issue salience as cognitive
interpretation, a simple examination of public filings might be confounded by organizational
attempts at impression management (Abrahamson & Hambrick, 1997).
We encourage multi-method research to explore the relationships posited in our model
and suspect that scholars may find such research design to be especially fruitful, in line with
work using qualitative and quantitative data to assess cognitive processes of managers in
recognition of threats versus opportunities (Gregoire, Barr & Shepherd, 2010). Well-executed
studies employing multiple methodologies not only offer rich evidence with greater
generalizability but also are more likely to be highly-cited, high-impact papers in the long run
(Molina-Azorin, 2012). A promising setting to employ a multi-method technique is within the
phenomenon of shareholder resolutions (e.g., David et al., 2007; Logsdon & Van Buren, 2008).
Future research could employ qualitative content analysis techniques, such as cognitive mapping,
to analyze text contained within shareholder requests and firm responses. Such analysis,
combined with the traditional quantitative response variables used to investigate shareholder
resolutions (cf. David et al., 2007), may reveal how identity and strategic frame influence a
firm’s prioritization of shareholder issues and subsequent nature of responsiveness. Empirical
research could also follow multiple issues within one firm, one issue across multiple firms, or
even the evolution of issue salience as an issue changes in relatedness to firm cognitive
structures, as with Walmart’s investment in sustainability initiatives. Despite the challenges of
empirically testing our overarching model, we hope that our focus on issue salience will help to
clarify previous findings and advance our understanding of responsiveness to stakeholder issues
and the complex relationships between the organization and its many stakeholders.
39
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 40 of 55
In conclusion, we believe that this theoretical model contributes to scholarship and
practice in several ways. We develop the mediating role of strategic cognition to issue salience,
recognizing the importance of organizational identity and strategic frames in understanding how
stakeholder issues resonate with organizational decision-makers. This contribution also reflects
practical implications for organizations with respect to stakeholder responsiveness. While other
stakeholder research considers the characteristics of stakeholders or patterns of targeting firms
with their demands, we focus on the firm and the cognitive process of how issues become more
or less salient. We recognize that managers must identify, understand, and assign priority to the
issue before they can respond to any demands accessory to the issue, and that responsiveness
includes a broad collection of choices for action and engagement aligning with the firm’s
willingness or commitment to addressing the issue. Particularly promising is research motivated
by our theoretical model to help firms better manage relationships with stakeholders and respond
to their vast array of preferences and requests.
While we develop a cognition-based theoretical model regarding firm perceptions of
stakeholder issues, we believe our model also has practical application. Firm managers and
stakeholders need only look inward and examine the firm’s identity and strategic frame to
understand how the firm might respond to an issue. With this understanding, managers can
examine stakeholder issues for core characteristics related to their cognitive structures and craft
appropriate responses. Similarly, external stakeholders may attempt to frame their concerns
consistent with a firm’s cognitive structures in order to achieve desired objectives and
engagement with the targeted organization. Whether firms consciously or more subliminally
manage stakeholder relationships, we also envision implications of our theory for organizational
outcomes such as financial and social performance. We suggest a number of avenues for
additional theorizing and empirical testing and hope that our overarching model constitutes a
meaningful research agenda to enrich our understanding of the relationship between stakeholder
concerns and firm responsiveness.
40
Page 41 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, E., & Hambrick, D. C. 1997. Attentional homogeneity in industries: The effect of
discretion. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 513-532.
Abrahamson, E. & Rosenkopf, L. 1997. Social network effects on the extent of innovation
diffusion: A computer simulation. Organization Science, 8: 289-309.
Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 1999. Who matters to CEOs? An investigation
of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy
of Management Journal, 42: 507-525.
Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., & Dutton, J. E. 2000. Organizational identity and identification:
Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25:
13-17.
Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., Gioia, D. A., Godfrey, P. C., Reger, K., & Whetten, D. A. 1998.
What does the concept of identity add to organization science? In D. A. Whetten, & P. C.
Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations: 273294. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. 1985. Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior,
7: 263-295.
Allen, C. H. 2007. Study of majority voting in director elections. Chicago: Neal, Gerber &
Eisenberg LLP.
Ansoff, H. 1980. Strategic issue management. Strategic Management Journal, 1: 131-148.
Ashforth, B. E. 2001. Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ashforth, B., & Gibbs, B. 1990. The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization
Science, 1: 177-194.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. 2008. Identification in organizations: An
examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34: 325-374.
41
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 42 of 55
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. 1996. Organizational identity and strategy as a context for the
individual. In J. A. C. Baum, & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Advances in strategic management,
Vol. 13: 19-64. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. 2000. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness.
Academy of Management Journal, 43: 717-736.
Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. 1992. Cognitive change, strategic action, and
organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 15-36.
Belson, K. 2011. After the disasters in Japan: A stoic response from Aflac. New York Times,
April 16: B4.
Bonardi, J., & Keim, G. 2005. Corporate political strategies for widely salient issues. Academy
of Management Review, 30: 555-576.
Brickson, S. L. 2005. Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational
identity and organizations' relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 50: 576-609.
Brickson, S. L. 2007. Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and
distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 32: 864-888.
Brown, S., & Blackmon, K. 2005. Aligning manufacturing strategy and business level
competitive strategy in new competitive environments: The case for strategic resonance.
Journal of Management Studies, 42: 793-815.
Bundy, J. 2012. New Belgium Brewery: Defining a business on sustainability. In A. Carroll, &
A. K. Buchholtz, Business and society: Ethics, sustainability and stakeholder
management (8th ed.): 688-691. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Carroll, A. B. 1979. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy
of Management Review, 4: 497-505.
Carroll, A., & Buchholtz, A. K. 2009. Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder
management (7th ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.
42
Page 43 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., Miller, C. C., & Huber, G. P. 1999. Determinants of executive
beliefs: Comparing functional conditioning and social influence. Strategic Management
Journal, 20: 763-790.
Cheah, E., Chan, W., & Chieng, C. 2007. The corporate social responsibility of pharmaceutical
product recalls: An empirical examination of U.S. and U.K. markets. Journal of
Business Ethics, 76: 427-449.
Cho, T. S., & Hambrick, D. C. 2006. Attention as the mediator between top management team
characteristics and strategic change: The case of airline deregulation. Organization
Science, 17: 453-469.
CII. 2010. Majority voting for directors. Washington, D.C: Council for Institutional Investors
Press Release.
Clark, S. M., Gioia, D. A., Ketchen Jr, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. 2010. Transitional identity as a
facilitator of organizational identity change during a merger. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 55: 397-438.
Clarkson, M. B. E. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social
performance. Academy of Management Review, 20: 92-117.
Crawford, E. P., Williams, C., & Berman, S. 2011. Stakeholder salience revisited: Enlightening,
balancing, and transcending. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings.
Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Daft, R., & Weick, K. 1984. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems.
Academy of Management Review, 9: 284-295.
David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. J. 2007. Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and
corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 91-100.
de Bakker, F. G. A., & den Hond, F. 2008. Introducing the politics of stakeholder influence: A
review essay. Business & Society, 47: 8-20.
43
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 44 of 55
Deephouse, D. 2000. Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass
communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26: 1091-1112.
Desai, V. M. 2011. Mass media and massive failures: Determining organizational efforts to
defend field legitimacy following crises. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 263278.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147160.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts,
evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20: 65-91.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. 1994. Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward
improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review, 19: 230-251.
Drummond, D. 2010. A new approach to China. Mountain View, CA: Google Press Release.
Duriau, V., Reger, R., & Pfarrer, M. 2007. A content analysis of the content analysis literature in
organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements.
Organizational Research Methods, 10: 5-34.
Dutton, J. E. 1997. Strategic agenda building in organizations. In Z. Shapira (Ed.),
Organizational decision making: 81-106. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issues to top management. Academy of
Management Review, 18: 397-428.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. 1991. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in
organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 517-554.
Dutton, J. E., Fahey, L., & Narayanan, V. K. 1983. Toward understanding strategic issue
diagnosis. Strategic Management Journal, 4: 307-323.
Dutton, J., & Jackson, S. 1987. Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action.
Academy of Management Review, 12: 76-90.
44
Page 45 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
Dutton, J. E., & Penner, W. J. 1993. The importance of organizational identity for strategic
agenda building. In J. Hendry, G. Johnson, & J. Newton (Eds.), Strategic thinking:
Leadership and the management of change: 89-113. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Dutton, J., Walton, E., & Abrahamson, E. 1989. Important dimensions of strategic issues:
Separating the wheat from the chaff. Journal of Management Studies, 26: 379-396.
Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. 2006. Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic
Management Journal, 27: 765-781.
Elsbach, K. 2003. Organizational perception management. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 25: 297-332.
Elsback, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. 1996. Members' responses to organizational identity threats:
Encourntering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41: 442-476.
Ferrell, O. C., & Hartline, M. D. 2011. Marketing strategy (5th ed.). Mason, Ohio: SouthWestern Cengage Learning.
Festinger, L. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, Jr, A. A. 2009. Strategic leadership: Theory and
research on executives, top management, and boards. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University
Press.
Freeman, R. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Frooman, J. 2010. The issue network: Reshaping the stakeholder model. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 27: 161-173.
Gary, M. S., & Wood, R. E. 2011. Mental models, decision rules, and performance
heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 569-594.
Gillan, S., & Starks, L. 2007. The evolution of shareholder activism in the united states. Journal
of Applied Corporate Finance, 19: 55-73.
45
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 46 of 55
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. 1996. Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking
during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 370-403.
Greenwald, A. G., & Breckler, S. J. 1985. To whom is the self presented. In B. R. Schlenker
(Ed.), The self and social life: 126-145. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gregoire, D. A., Barr, P. S., & Shepherd, D. A. 2010. Cognitive processes of opportunity
recognition: The role of structural alignment. Organization Science, 21: 413-431.
Grillo, J. 2010. The duck stops here. Georgia Trend, 25(9): 18-23.
Hadani, M., Goranova, M., & Khan, R. 2011. Institutional investors, shareholder activism, and
earnings management. Journal of Business Research, 64: 1352-1360.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its
top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193-206.
Haveman, H. A. 1993. Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 593-627.
Heugens, P. 2002. Strategic issues management: Implication for corporate performance.
Business & Society, 41: 456-468.
Huff, A. 1982. Industry influences on strategy reformulation. Strategic Management Journal, 3:
119-131.
Huff, A. 1990. Mapping Strategic Thought. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Intel. 2006. Intel board adopts majority vote standard for election of directors. Santa Clara, CA:
Intel Press Release.
IRRC. 1993. Church activists offer thoughts on withdrawals: Look for 'good faith' for the
corporate communicty. News for Investors, October: 1-10.
Jackson, R. L. 2002. Cultural contracts theory: Toward an understanding of identity negotiation.
Communication Quarterly, 50: 359-367.
Jackson, S., & Dutton, J. 1988. Discerning threats and opportunities. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 33: 370-387.
46
Page 47 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
Jones, T. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent
model. Academy of Management Review, 16: 366-395.
Jones, T. M., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. A. 2007. Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions:
The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32: 137-155.
Kabanoff, B. & Brown, S. 2008. Knowledge structures of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders:
Content, structure, stability, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 149171.
Kaler, J. 2006. Evaluating stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 69: 249-268.
Kaplan, S. 2008. Cognition, capabilities, and incentives: Assessing firm response to the fiberoptic revolution. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 672-695.
King, A., & Lenox, M. 2000. Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry's
responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 698-716.
Lamertz, K., Martens, M., & Heugens, P. 2003. Issue evolution: A symbolic interactionist
perspective. Corporate Reputation Review, 6: 82-93.
Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. 2008. Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that
moves us. Journal of Management, 34: 1152-1189.
Levy, S. 2011. In the plex: How Google thinks, works, and shapes our lives. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Logsdon, J., & Van Buren III, H. 2008. Justice and large corporations: What do activist
shareholders want? Business & Society, 47: 523-548.
Logsdon, J., & Van Buren III, H. 2009. Beyond the proxy vote: Dialogues between shareholder
activists and corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 87: 353-365.
Lublin, J. 2009. Directors lose elections, but not seats. Wall Street Journal, September 28: B4.
Lyons, D. 2012. Google gets grumpy: Tech giants square off against Congress. Newsweek, 159
(4): 15.
Marens, R. 2002. Inventing corporate governance: The mid-century emergence of shareholder
activism. Journal of Business & Management, 8: 365-389.
47
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 48 of 55
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. 2003. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by
business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 268-305.
Marketwatch. 2009. Ichan firm reincorporates in North Dakota.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/icahn-firm-reincorporates-in-north-dakota-2009-0612: June 12.
McCombs, M. E. 1981. The agenda-setting approach. In D. D. Nimmo, & K. R. Sanders (Eds.),
Handbook of political communication: 121-140. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mestel, R. 2012. Cochineal and Starbucks: Actually, the dye is everywhere.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/20/news/la-heb-cochineal-starbucks-20120420. Los
Angeles, CA: The Los Angeles Times.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and
ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-363.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., Chrisman, J. J., & Spence, L. J. 2011. Toward a theory of
stakeholder salience in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21: 235-255.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification
and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of
Management Review, 22: 853-886.
Moir, L., & Taffler, R. J. 2004. Does corporate philanthropy exist?: Business giving to the arts in
the U.K. Journal of Business Ethics, 54: 149-161.
Molina-Azorin, J. F. 2012. Mixed methods research in strategic management: Impact and
applications. Organizational Research Methods, 15: 33-56.
Nadkarni, S., & Narayanan, V. K. 2007. Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility, and firm
performance: The moderating role of industry clockspeed. Strategic Management
Journal, 28: 243-270.
Narayanan, V. K., Zane, L. J., & Kemmerer, B. 2011. The cognitive perspective in strategy: An
integrative review. Journal of Management, 37: 305-351.
Neville, B., & Menguc, B. 2006. Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the
48
Page 49 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66: 377-391.
Ocasio, W. 1997. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
18: 187-206.
Oliver, C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management
Review, 16: 145-179.
Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. 2010.
Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4: 403-445.
Phillips, R. 2003. Stakeholder Theory and Organization Ethics. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.
Plambeck, E. L., & Denend, L. 2008. Wal-Mart. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(2): 5359.
Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. 2001. Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of
Sociology, 27: 283-305.
Pollock, T., & Rindova, V. 2003. Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public
offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 631-642.
Porac, J., & Thomas, H. 2002. Managing cognition and strategy: Issues, trends and future
directions. In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of strategy
and management: 165-181. London: Sage.
Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. 2000. Classifying managerial responses to multiple
organizational identities. Academy of Management Review, 25: 18-42.
Proffitt, W. T., Jr, & Spicer, A. 2006. Shaping the shareholder activism agenda: Institutional
investors and global social issues. Strategic Organization, 4: 165-190.
Rajagopalan, N., & Spreitzer, G. M. 1997. Toward a theory of strategic change: A multi-lens
perspective and integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 22: 48-79.
Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. 2009. Responding to public and private politics: Corporate
disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 1157-1178.
49
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 50 of 55
Rogers, E. M., Dearing, J. W., & Bregman, D. 1993. The anatomy of agenda-setting research.
Journal of Communication, 43: 68-68.
Rowley, T. J. 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences.
Academy of Management Review, 22: 887-910.
Rowley, T., & Berman, S. 2000. A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business
& Society, 39: 397-418.
Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. 2003. When will stakeholder groups act? An interest-and
identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management
Review, 28: 204-219.
Schute, N. 2012. Is that a crushed bug in your frothy Starbucks drink?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/03/30/149700341/food-coloring-made-frominsects-irks-some-starbucks-patrons. Washington D.C.: National Public Radio.
Scott, S., & Lane, V. 2000. A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of
Management Review, 25: 43-62.
Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schendel, D. E., & Hofer, C. W. (Eds.). 1979. Strategic management: A new view of business
policy and planning. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.
Strauss, A. 1978. Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes, and social order. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of
Management Review, 20: 571-610.
Swann, W. B. 1987. Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 53: 1038-1051.
Thirumalai, S., & Sinha, K. K. 2011. Product recalls in the medical device industry: An
empirical exploration of the sources and financial consequences. Management Science,
57: 376-392.
50
Page 51 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. 1993. Strategic sensemaking and organizational
performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Academy
of Management Journal, 36: 239-270.
Truini, J. 2008. Wal-Mart applies itself toward global citizenship. Waste News, 14: 12.
Tuna, C. 2008. Shareholders ponder North Dakota law. Wall Street Journal, December 8: B6.
Walsh, J. 1995. Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane.
Organization Science, 6: 280-321.
Washington, R. R., Sutton, C. D., & Field, H. S. 2006. Individual differences in servant
leadership: The roles of values and personality. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 27: 700-716.
Weick, K. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. Berkley, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. 1999. That's moving: Theories that matter. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8: 134142.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking.
Organization Science, 16: 409-421.
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. 1994. Substance and symbolism in CEOs’ long-term incentive
plans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 367–390.
Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. 1998. The symbolic management of stockholders: Corporate
governance reforms and shareholder reactions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43:
127-153.
Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. 1993. Top management team turnover as an adaptation
mechanism: The role of the environment. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 485-504.
Wood, D. J. 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review,
16: 691-718.
Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. 1995. Accounting for the explanations of CEO compensation:
Substance and symbolism. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 283-308
51
Academy of Management Review
Table 1
A Strategic Cognition Framework for Issue Salience
Relationship with Strategic Frame
Conflicting
Unrelated
Conflicting
Consistent
Consistent
Relationship with Organizational Identity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 52 of 55
Unrelated
High Salience –
Expressive and Instrumental
Salience
Moderate
Salience –
Expressive
Salience
Only
Moderate Salience –
Instrumental Salience
Only
Low Salience
52
Page 53 of 55
Table 2
Strategic Cognition, Issue Type, and Responsiveness
Consistent
Conflicting
Unrelated
Consistent
True Opportunity –
Substantive
Accommodative
Frame Conflict –
Substantive
Negotiation
Expressive
Opportunity –
Symbolic
Accommodative
Conflicting
Identity Conflict –
Substantive
Negotiation
True Threat –
Substantive
Defensive
Expressive Threat –
Symbolic Defensive
Unrelated
Relationship with Strategic Frame
Relationship with Organizational Identity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
Instrumental
Opportunity –
Symbolic
Accommodative
Instrumental Threat
–Symbolic
Defensive
Non-Issue – No
Response
53
Academy of Management Review
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 54 of 55
Table 3
Firm Responsiveness and Examples
Issue Type
Expected Response
Example
True Opportunity
Substantive
Accommodative
New Belgium Brewery and
wind power
True Threat
Substantive Defensive
Google and SOPA legislation
Identity Conflict
Substantive Negotiation
Google and China
Frame Conflict
Substantive Negotiation
New Belgium Brewery and
aluminum cans
Instrumental
Opportunity
Symbolic
Accommodative
Majority-vote and LTIP
adoption
Instrumental Threat
Symbolic
Defensive
Proxy access and NY/NJ Port
Authority
Expressive Opportunity
Symbolic
Accommodative
Altruistic philanthropy: IBM
and ArtSkills
Expressive Threat
Symbolic
Defensive
Extreme activism: PETA and
Starbucks
No Response
Gadfly shareholder resolution:
Reincorporation in North
Dakota
Non-Issue
54
Page 55 of 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Review
Jonathan Bundy ([email protected]) is a doctoral candidate in strategic management at the Terry
College of Business, University of Georgia. His research interests include stakeholder
management, reputation and social evaluations, corporate corruption and crises, and corporate
governance.
Christine Shropshire ([email protected]) is an assistant professor of management at the
Terry College of Business, University of Georgia. She received her Ph.D. from Arizona State
University. Her research is in the area of corporate governance, including interlocking directors,
board composition and effectiveness, diversity in the upper echelons, and stakeholder
management.
Ann K. Buchholtz ([email protected]) is Professor of Leadership and Ethics at
Rutgers Business School and Research Director of the Institute for Ethical Leadership. She
received her Ph.D. from the Stern School of Business at New York University. Her research
concerns ethics and social responsibility, with a focus on corporate governance.
55