these findings refine the relationship between institutional and impression management theories that has been allude toed in earlier work (Elsbach and Sutton.

these findings refine the relationship between institutional and impression management theories that has been allude toed in earlier work (Elsbach and Sutton, 1992)

In addition to linking these brace theories, the findings presented here enrich the one and the other impression management and institutional theories by way of filling gaps in their discussions of the construction and effectiveness of symbolic management tactics. First, the framework make knowned here enhances impression management theories by the agency of defining verbal accounts by their form and satisfy Further, it suggests that spokesperson may improve the effectiveness of their accounts in protecting organizational images on using specific links between forms of accounts and relations to organizational characteristics. Thus, this research INTRODUCTION

Organizational managers engage in many activities that may be viewed as symbolic, including organizational restructuring, succession ceremonies, language disentanglement and the design of physical surroundings (Pfeffer 1981) Managers commonly use these symbolic activities to affect the images of their organizations and its members by dint of providing "explanations, rationalizations, and legitimation for activities undertaken in the organization" (Pfeffer 1981: 4) In this paper, I am disquieted with the symbolic management of a specific organizational image: organizational legitimacy. sum of two units major theoretical perspectives have described the management of organizational legitimacy: impression management theories (Goffman, 1973; Schlenker 1980; Tedeschi, 1981) and institutional theories (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) Impression management theorists have focused forward how people manage their personal legitimacy through actively taking on roles, displaying social affiliations, and providing verbal explanations of behavior following image-threatening circumstances (Leary and Kowalski, 1990). More not long ago theorists have proposed that organizational spokesperson may use these same tactics to manage organizational legitimacy (Staw, McKechnie, and globe-fish 1983; Elsbach and Sutton, 1992) In contrast, institutional theorists have focused forward how organizations, or even whole industries, may throw legitimacy by merely adopting and maintaining widely used and accepted practices (Powell and DiMaggio, 1991) In general, impression management theories have taken an active, individual-level view of the management of legitimacy, while institutional theories have taken a more passive, organization-level view. Impression management and institutional theory perspectives in succession managing organizational legitimacy are displayed in Table 1 and are discussed in detail below.

TABULAR DATA OMITTED

Impression management theories. Impression management researchers have focused forward how individual spokespersons use verbal accounts or explanations to avoid blame or gain credit for controversial incidents that may affect organizational legitimacy (Giacalone and Rosenfeld 1989 1991) Further, these researchers have concentrated in succession describing the effectiveness of different forms of accounts for protecting organizational legitimacy. Effective forms include enhancing explanations of company practices following fit news and excuses or justifications following bad moderns (Staw, McKechnie, and Puffer, 1983; Bettman and Weitz, 1983; Salancik and Meindl, 1984) accommodative signals following scandals and defensive signals following accidents (Marcus and Goodman, 1991) and admissions of responsibility following bankruptcies or failed negotiations (Sutton and Callahan, 1987; Sutton and Kramer, 1990) Impression management researchers have give an inkling ofed that different forms of accounts affect legitimacy by means of attenuating personal or organizational responsibility for controversial adventures and by accentuating the positive aspects of like events (Schlenker, 1980).

Yet, impression management researchers have not discussed to what extent spokespersons build and support these forms of accounts by the and of the specific arguments and evidence they contain. The not many studies that have hinted at the ease of organizational accounts suggest that it may consist of intimations to widely used and legitimating organizational characteristics. Elsbach and Sutton (1992) for example, rest that spokespersons from radical social manner of moving organizations often used references to normative and widely endorsed conducts (i.e., conducting press conferences or nonviolence workshops) in their accounts of illegitimate declaration actions. Similarly, Taylor and Bogdan (1980) described the dramatic change in vocabulary used to secure from attack mental institutions in recent decades. Accounts used by dint of mental institution spokespersons included relations to new, widely endorsed organizational goals (i.e., habilitation v custodial care) and organizational buildings (i.e., team approaches, formal policies, and unitization). Finally, Dutton and Dukerich (1991) place that police officers in the Port Authority Bus Terminal justified their treatment of homeles human frames by saying that they were enforcing an antiloitering law (i.e., a normative procedure) Later, Port Authority spokesperson enhanced their organization's image from highlighting their use of modern socially endorsed structures, including a paid consultant and a human resource administration to provide sensitivity training for police. These examples move that in protecting organizational legitimacy, spokesperson may rely forward references to legitimating organizational features to support different forms of accounts.