How do firms differentiate themselves from others, and how do audiences respond to their distinctiveness? Optimal distinctiveness theory suggests that an intermediate level of distinctiveness in a single point or a balance in the level of distinctiveness across multiple points is most beneficial to a firm as it addresses both competition and conformity pressures. However, empirical studies have found positive, inverted U-shaped, and U-shaped relationships between distinctiveness and audience evaluation. Using CSR strategy as a research context, I develop a theory of two forms of distinctiveness—positioning distinctiveness and topic distinctiveness—and explore each form’s unique and interactive effect on audience evaluation. Building on cognitive categorization research, I argue that positioning distinctiveness, or the extent to which the pattern of resource allocation across an established set of strategic decisions differs from that of category prototypes, will have a positive relationship with subsequent audience evaluation. However, topic distinctiveness, or the extent to which a firm differentiates itself from others by introducing new practices to its category, will show an inverted U-shaped relationship with audience evaluation. I also examine how positioning distinctiveness moderates the effect of topic distinctiveness and predict that audiences will assess a firm’s topic distinctiveness more positively when a firm has a high level of positioning distinctiveness in its main topic domain. In addition, I investigate how strategic distinctiveness in business strategy and environmental-level factors moderate the effects of positioning and topic distinctiveness by influencing audiences’ demands for differentiation and conformity. Utilizing the sample of S&P 500 firms from 2001 to 2018, I empirically examine the hypothesized relationships. By analyzing annual CSR reports using state-of-the-art natural language programming and topic modeling techniques, I develop a novel measure of topic distinctiveness in CSR strategy. This dissertation contributes to the optimal distinctiveness literature by simultaneously examining multiple forms of distinctiveness and by unpacking the conditions under which demands for conformity and differentiation may vary.

Scholars have been studying firm innovation as a process or an outcome. Recently a couple of studies have examined the less tangible aspect of firm innovation, that is, a firm’s reputation for innovation, and have suggested that reputation for innovation is a distinct resource. However, these studies have never dug deeper to uncover the mechanism of this reputation. As a result, it is unclear how this reputation is built, maintained, or utilized. Innovation, as a form of creative destruction, is associated with uncertainty, complexity, conflict, and setback. It is thus expected that the characteristics of innovation may endow reputation for innovation with distinctive organizational implications. Yet no systematic study that integrates innovation research with reputation research exists. The purpose of the dissertation is to provide a general theory that systematically explores the antecedents, outcomes, and nature of reputation for innovation. In the first chapter, I provide a literature review of reputation multiplicity and introduce a configurational framework that maps each reputation into the following facets: actor, attribute, audience, intermediary, and valence. In the second chapter, I integrate innovation research into reputation research to build a general theory of reputation for innovation and further conclude that reputation for innovation has a paradoxical nature, since it is easy to manipulate but hard to sustain. In the last chapter, I study how a firm’s reputation for innovation impacts its response strategy for a negative event: being sued for patent infringements. I propose and find that a firm’s reputation for innovation has differential effects on its response strategies for patent litigation initiated by different parties. By providing an integrative literature review, a conceptual framework, and an empirical verification of reputation for innovation, the dissertation builds a solid foundation for future research.

This dissertation examines the influence of inventor chief executive officers (CEOs) on major strategic outcomes, including strategic change, strategic distinctiveness, and stakeholder management. Inventor CEOs are those who hold at least one patent. Approximately 20 percent of firms in the innovation-intensive industries are managed by inventor CEOs. Famous CEOs like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sanjay Mehrotra, and Mark Zuckerberg are all examples of inventor CEOs. Despite the large presence of inventor CEOs in the business world, the management literature has not examined how they can affect firms’ strategic choices. Building on studies about inventors and strategic leadership, I identify a CEO’s background of being an inventor as an important type of experience that can influence major strategic outcomes. My theory explains why inventor CEOs have the unique attributes of divergent thinking and intrinsic motivation. These unique attributes of inventor CEOs lead them to pursue strategies that are deviant from the past, different from other firms, and responsive to diverse demands of multiple stakeholders. I build on theories about CEO power, firms’ slack resources, and industry dynamism to explain how they moderate the effect of inventor CEOs. Using a longitudinal database of S&P 1500 firms and their CEOs’ inventor background, I empirically test my theoretical predictions. I find that firms managed by inventor CEOs pursue more strategic change compared to other firms. The results of the analysis also show that CEO power and firm slack resources strengthen the influence of inventor CEOs on strategic change.

This dissertation explores the determinants of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) perquisites, i.e., nonmonetary compensation offered to particular employees and not essential to the accomplishment of a CEO’s duties. While the current CEO perquisite literature has focused on understanding the economic determinants of CEO perquisites, I study the social-psychological determinants of perquisites. Specifically, I propose that organizational status is positively associated with CEO perquisites. The status literature suggests that high-status organizations derive benefits from status and status signals, while agency theory proposes that perquisites are a way for CEOs to extract private rents. Therefore, I posit that for high-status organizations, the benefits derived from certain CEO perquisites may negate the costs associated with those perquisites. I examine a specific CEO perquisite: the mandatory use of corporate aircraft for personal travel. Prior research and the popular press suggest that this perquisite is often seen not only as a status signal but also as an agency cost. Accordingly, I hypothesize that higher status organizations and organizations with higher status directors are more likely than lower status organizations or organizations with lower status directors to mandate their CEOs to use corporate aircraft for personal travel. I also propose that the effect is stronger for low- or high-status organizations than for middle-status organizations. In addition, I hypothesize five contingencies moderating the above relationships. I examine hypothesized relationships using a sample of S&P 500 organizations, and I find support for many of my hypotheses. This dissertation contributes to both status and executive compensation literature.

Unethical behavior is a phenomenon that is unavoidable in the workplace. Ethical transgressors, when caught, often receive feedback regarding their actions. Though such moral feedback—feedback that is in response to an ethical transgression—may be aimed at curtailing future unethical behavior, I seek to demonstrate that under certain conditions, moral feedback may promote subsequent unethical behavior. Specifically, I propose that moral intensity and affective tone are two primary dimensions of moral feedback that work together to affect ethical transgressor moral disengagement and future behavior. The notion of moral disengagement, which occurs when self-regulatory systems are deactivated, may account for situations whereby individuals perform unethical acts without associated guilt. Despite the burgeoning literature on this theme, research has yet to examine whether feedback from one individual can influence another individual’s moral disengagement. This is surprising considering the idea of moral disengagement stems from social cognitive theory which emphasizes the role that external factors have in affecting behavior. With my dissertation, I draw from research primarily in social psychology to explore how moral feedback affects transgressor moral disengagement. To do so, I develop a typology of moral feedback and test how each moral feedback type affects transgressor future behavior through moral disengagement.