Widening economic inequality has been identified as a moral challenge that constitutes a global impediment to socioeconomic well-being. While incongruities exist within any dynamic system, a sustained unequal value distribution can lead to social and economic obstructions for individuals and communities. Entrepreneurship has been identified as a force for good and subsequently funded as an institutional methodology to disburse well-being by democratizing economic empowerment. Current popular approaches are institutionalized in wealthier Western contexts, encapsulated in linear narratives, and aggressively exported to new, foreign environments. Due to the often-unrecognized philosophical assumptions underlying these narratives, current approaches tend to limit the benefits of entrepreneurship to specific audiences and position the promoting institutions as entrepreneurial imperialists, creating an economic hegemony as they reinforce current power dynamics and save the most valuable entrepreneurial exchanges for those with access and resources, often benefiting the institutions economically. While much has been written on removing the impediments to current entrepreneurial approaches, this dissertation prioritizes practical utility by proposing the need for a refreshed philosophical approach, a new entrepreneurial narrative, and dynamic institutional networks that prioritize autonomy towards more effectively engaging a favorite of current entrepreneurial narratives: the rising generation.

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.

The Equifax data breach took place in 2017 and was the largest data breach of its time. The breach affected 143 million individuals and caused large amounts of confidential and sensitive data, such as credit cards, birthdays, addresses, and social security numbers to be stolen (Brinkley-Badgett, 2018). This paper will closely analyze the Equifax data breach. Specifically, Equifax’s background, crisis history, and breach timeline will be broken down. These three components are all important when it comes to understanding Equifax’s actions. Timothy Coombs is a founder of Situational Crisis Communication Theory, and his interpretation of the theory will be used as a framework for this paper. Both his book, Ongoing Crisis Communication and article, Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis: The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory, will be heavily referenced. Using Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) as a framework, these components will be assessed and categorized. “SCCT provides a mechanism for anticipating how stakeholders will react to a crisis in terms of the reputational threat posed by the crisis” (Coombs, 2007). By identifying the crisis type and crisis response strategies, Equifax’s actions will be analyzed and measured. The size, timeline, and media response will help identify what type of crisis Equifax falls into, and why their actions caused them to be categorized so. After analyzing the Equifax data breach, two other breaches will be analyzed and compared. The comparison of Equifax to Capital One and Home Depot, will help determine how Equifax could have been more effective through crisis response strategies. Capital One and Home Depot are two data breaches that were able to implement “effective” uses of crisis management and meet consumer expectations. Through the comparative analysis, recommendations as to what Equifax could have done differently will be made. The comparisons of their crisis type, actions, and response strategies will help shape recommendations for Equifax’s past crisis.

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.

Managers’ control over the timing and content of information disclosure represents a significant strategic tool which they can use at their discretion. However, extant theoretical perspectives offer incongruent arguments and incompatible predictions about when and why managers would release inside information about their firms. More specifically, agency theory and theories within competitive dynamics provide competing hypotheses about when and why managers would disclose inside information about their firms. In this study, I highlight how voluntary disclosure theory may help to coalesce these two theoretical perspectives. Voluntary disclosure theory predicts that managers will release inside information when managers perceive that the benefits outweigh the costs of doing so. Accordingly, I posit that competitive dynamics introduce the costs associated with disclosing information (i.e., proprietary costs) and that agency theory highlights the benefits associated with disclosing information. Examining the context of seasoned equity offerings (SEOs), I identify three ways managers can use information in SEO prospectuses. I hypothesize that competitive intensity increases proprietary costs that will reduce disclosure of inside information but will increase discussing the organization positively. I then hypothesize that capital market participants (e.g., security analysts and investors) may prefer managers to provide more, clearer, and positive information about the SEO and their firms. I find support for many of my hypotheses.