12412

Presenter Symposium

The marginalized, the marginalizing and the quest for legitimacy

Organizers Chris Klinghardt John Amis University of Edinburgh Business School University of Edinburgh Business School University of Edinburgh, UK University of Edinburgh, UK s1573947@sms.ed.ac.uk john.amis@ed.ac.uk Discussant Paul Tracey Judge Business School University of Cambridge, UK p.tracey@jbs.cam.ac.ukServing the marginalized: Studying organizations aiding the most vulnerable Bryant Hudson IESEG School of Management IESEG, France b.hudson@ieseg.fr Socially reintegrating the homeless: Identity work, place and overcoming stigma Chris Klinghardt John Amis University of Edinburgh Business School University of Edinburgh Business School University of Edinburgh, UK University of Edinburgh, UK s1573947@sms.ed.ac.uk john.amis@ed.ac.uk What happens when social movements fail? The case of Stop Child Marriage in IndonesiaLaura Claus Emily Block UCL School of Management Alberta Business School University College London, UK University of Alberta, Canada l.claus@ucl.ac.uk eblock@ualberta.ca The discredited and the discreditable: Why stigmatizing behavior does not always result in stigmatization Karen Patterson Jo-Ellen Pozner Anderson School of Management Leavey School of Business University of New Mexico, USA Santa Clara University, USA patterson@unm.edu jep@jo-ellenpozner.com

2

Potential Sponsor Divisions: Organization and Management Theory, Organization Development and Change, Social Issues in Management

3

Overview of the symposium

This symposium invites consideration of the ways in which organizations interact with

marginalized groups and to what effect. While such groups are, by definition, shunned by parts of

society, there is growing recognition that organizations can play a transformative role in

reintegrating them into communities. While there are strong moral and often commercial reasons

for organizations engaging in such activities, there are also potential threats to the organizations

involved. Our objective with this symposium is to open up discussion about the potential impact

that organizations can have on those who are disadvantaged, and in so doing also uncover some

of the organization processes, practices and outcomes that may be influenced through the

engagement in such activities.

To date, organizational and institutional arrangements that can reduce social exclusion have

been under-investigated by management theorists. This is unfortunate because organizations and

institutions are heavily implicated in the marginalization of individuals and groups (e.g., Amis,

Munir, Lawrence, Hirsch & McGahan, 2018; Tharchen & Garud, 2017). We explore ways in

which organizations not only contribute to such mechanisms of exclusion but also how they may

be able to erode them through the challenging of widely held beliefs and rules that help shape

social life.

At an individual level, we are interested in the processes through which individuals that

engage with organizations can develop in ways that allow them to overcome their social

exclusion, for example through triggered identity work that changes self-perceptions (Ashforth,

Kreiner, Clark & Fugate, 2007; Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). Such organizations can help

individuals to revisit and reconstruct a positive sense of self that is re-aligned with audience

expectations through the (re)association with mainstream morals and values (Stenger & Roulet,

4

2018; Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000). This in turn can lead to broader community support and

subsequent reintegration of previously excluded individuals.

At an organizational level, we explore the ways in which organizations manage their

interactions and associations with marginalized groups. In addition to looking at the structures

and systems that are developed, it is also necessary to consider organizational outcomes. In this

respect, it is important to recognize that organizations that work with marginalized groups and

address socially sensitive issues can be marginalized themselves (Tracey & Phillips, 2016;

Hampel & Tracey, 2015). The association with marginalized groups can result in a threat to

legitimacy that can generate stakeholder disapproval often leading to greater scrutiny and

diminished financial performance (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Jeong and Kim, 2018). We thus also

examine the ways in which organizations defend themselves and regain social approval among

relevant audiences in order to sustain legitimacy, a problem that has recently been raised in the

institutional literature (Hampel & Tracey, 2015; Jeong and Kim, 2018).

In the first paper, Hudson creates a framework for the symposium by reflecting on the

ways in which organizational scholars can utilize a “lens of organizations that serve the

marginalized” to better understand both the processes of marginalization and the management of

stigma directed at the organization itself. Hudson argues that overcoming marginalization

constitutes what has variously been termed a grand challenge (George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi

& Tihanyi, 2016) or wicked problem (Camillus, 2008) because its underlying conditions are

characterized by very high levels of complexity and uncertainty.

As such, overcoming marginalization can appear impossible to address by standard

governmental policy interventions (Head & Alford, 2015) or existing market mechanisms (Mair,

Martí, & Ventresca, 2012), and therefore other forms of organization are pivotal in providing

5

solutions to the harmful effects of these problems. In addition to direct action, organizations can

take on the challenge of advocating on behalf of affected marginalized groups through for

example governmental lobbying, promotion, activism or attempt to lessen the negative effects.

An organizational lens in addressing these challenges allows us to focus attention

differently, allowing discovery and knowledge creation across a wide range of organizational

features, domains, settings and levels of analysis. This will reveal strategies and processes that

allow organizations to successfully engage with marginalized groups. Subsequent papers in the

symposium show varying ways in which this can take place.

In the second paper, Klinghardt and Amis study social exclusion in its extreme from of

homelessness. They study Sport Great Britain (SGB), a social enterprise, that uses sport as a

context in which homeless people – termed as players within the organization – can positively

influence their self-perception, something that often proves to be a key step in their societal

reintegration. Specifically, they investigate how particular places can trigger positive identity

work among marginalized individuals. Drawing on the stigmatization, place, emotions and

identity work literatures, Klinghardt and Amis engage in a longitudinal qualitative study that

involves interviews, observations and documentary data. Early findings point to the ways in

which sport and three emergent characteristics of place – security, relationships and purpose –

interacted at multiple levels to trigger an emotional response that in turn helped to reduce the

self-perception of stigmatization among SGB’s players. While the data analyses remain ongoing,

theoretical contributions pertaining to the ways in which place precipitates emotional responses

that in turn lead to positive identity work are offered.

In paper three, Claus and Block study the social movement “Stop Child Marriage” in

Indonesia that failed to realize its primary objective to change the marriage law. However, the

6

actors behind the movement used the refusal of the Constitutional Court to change the law as a

discursive opportunity to frame the issue as a national concern to drive action.

The case study contributes to undertheorized social movement failures and their aftermaths

(Giugni, McAdam, & Tilly, 1999). The study illuminates processes by which activists can

continue to drive activism after they have ‘failed’ in the public’s eye. This furthers understanding

of how movements turn public failure into local success.

The preliminary findings show how social movements can continue to drive change even

after they have all but disappeared from the public sphere. The discursive strategies utilized

varied along three dimensions according to: 1) the type of issue coupling, 2) the nature of actor’s

public and private activities, and 3) the distance of actors from the effected communities. Post-

mortem, these strategic approaches allowed actors to legitimate opposition to child marriage

through their organizational expertise and to motivate local activism.

In the fourth paper, Patterson and Pozner study what accounts for the denigration of

identities to address the question why some actors are stigmatized by negative behaviours while

others are not. Goffman’s (1963) original distinction between the discredited and the

discreditable does not fully address this and neither does more recent research that differentiates

event stigma from core stigma. Patterson and Pozner develop a model that describes external and

audience factors that can interrupt the stigmatization process. Primarily this research identifies

cognitive, emotional and institutional mechanisms that lead audiences to turn away their attention

from the discreditable. This advances understandings of how to limit, impede or negate the

stigmatization process.

7

Relevance to divisions

This symposium application is being submitted to the Organization and Management

Theory (OMT), Organization Development and Change (ODC) and Social Issues in Management

(SIM) divisions. Here we explain the relevance of the symposium to each division.

The issues addressed in this symposium are at the very core of the OMT content domain.

We are focused on the building and testing of theories about organizations that serve society. We

are also very overtly engaged with a reemerging interest in how organizations contribute to

society, in our case through the social reintegration of marginalized groups. In so doing, we

address current OMT division topics including identity work, emotions, social movements and

social change. OMT’s preferred multi-dimensional focus is met in our research through theory

building at individual, organizational and societal levels.

The symposium will be of interest to ODC members because we examine ways in which

change can be realized at multiple levels using a variety of methods. For example, we examine

how innovative change agents develop practices that reimagines how individuals that engage

with organizations alter their self-perceptions and enter a process of social reintegration. In

addition, we show why some actors that engage in negative behaviours are marginalized while

others are not. This exposes the mechanisms that impact the stigmatization process and how

actors may be able to strategically change their behaviour to avoid marginalization. At an

organizational level we illustrate how collective failures can be turned into opportunities

potentially resulting in institutional and societal changes.

The theoretical issues addressed in this symposium also will be directly relevant to the

interests of the SIM division. Our symposium discusses burning social issues related to poverty,

deprivation, marginalization and exclusion. We show how organizations can offer approaches to

8

help address these grand social challenges. In so doing, we examine organizational practices that

are designed to help overcome marginalization and, in so doing, establish more ethical norms,

values and moral principles. Such actions can change institutional arrangements that are

responsible for the social exclusion of particular groups. In so doing, we address the overall

question of how organizational arrangements can have meaningful impacts on society, while

advancing knowledge about practices and methods that establish sustainable social change.

Proposed format of symposium

Length: 90 minutes

Minutes 0 – 5: Welcome and introduction to the symposium

• Paul Tracey

Minutes 5 – 65: Paper presentations (15 minutes each)

• Serving the marginalized: Studying organizations aiding the most vulnerable.

Bryant Hudson

• Socially reintegrating the homeless: Identity work, place and overcoming stigma.

• Chris Klinghardt & John Amis

• What happens when social movements fail? The case of stop child marriage in Indonesia.

Laura Claus & Emily Block

• The discredited and the discreditable: Why stigmatizing behaviour does not always result

in stigmatization. Karen Patterson & Jo-Ellen Pozner

Minutes 65 – 90: Comments and facilitated discussion

• Paul Tracey

9

Synopsis of each paper

Serving the marginalized: Studying organizations aiding the most vulnerable

Bryant Hudson

Organizational scholars have begun to examine those social conditions labelled as grand

challenges (George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi & Tihanyi, 2016) and wicked problems (Camillus,

2008; Head & Alford, 2015) and the ways that organizations can at least begin to address them.

These social conditions, characterized by very high levels of complexity and uncertainty, include

environmental pollution and resource scarcity, global diseases and pandemics, displaced people

and migration, and social and economic inequalities, among others. Clearly, these conditions can

and do lead to serious negative consequences for all those affected by them. As these problems

and challenges often appear un-addressable by standard governmental policy and intervention

(Head & Alford, 2015) or existing market mechanisms (Mair, Martí & Ventresca, 2012), other

forms of organizing and organizations have been and continue to be important mediators to seek

and provide at least partial solutions and amelioration of the harmful effects these problems

cause.

One category of grand challenges, wicked problems, and social inequalities is that of

socio-economic marginalized peoples and communities. The marginalized are those people and

communities that are pushed to the edges of society, denigrated, and shunned by powerful social

actors, with limited access to physical and social resources necessary for individual and

community well-being. Such marginalization creates economic and social disadvantages that

often lead to illness, lack of education and job skills, and a lack of social cohesion and validation

at the community level, including the threat of violence and social dysfunction within that

10

community, and are recognized as those most vulnerable to grand challenges and wicked

problems. These expressions of marginalization are the result of multiple, entwined complex

social processes, including dynamics of power, identity, economics, religious, sexual, and racial

prejudices, gendered dynamics, and culture, and are not easily understood or remedied.

In response to the plight of the marginalized, organizations have often taken on the

challenge of ameliorating, diminishing, or otherwise offsetting the negative consequences of

marginalization. Religious and other social service organizations have long taken on the burden

of serving the marginalized, even incorporating that service into or as the sole focus of their

mission. Non-profit organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), mutual aid societies,

and organizational cooperatives are but a few of the types of organizations that have taken on the

challenges and burdens of serving the marginalized. Governmental sponsored organizations and

governmental agencies are often given that task as well.

More recently, for-profit commercial enterprises and so-called social enterprises have also

begun to find ways to serve the marginalized in a variety of organizational forms and in a variety

of ways. These organizations often seek to provide goods and services to marginalized

community members, and sometimes provide employment opportunities, as ways of serving the

marginalized. Often organizations will take on the challenge of advocating on behalf of the

marginalized through governmental and public lobbying, promotion, and activism to attempt to

lessen or ameliorate the negative effects of marginalization, or to remove the marginalization and

attempt to integrate the formerly marginalized into the broader social community.

As organizations and organizing continue to address the grand challenges and wicked

problems associated with the overcoming of marginalized people and communities, it is

imperative for organizational scholars to study these organizations, and to learn what various

11

inputs, outcomes, and processes allow them to begin to or continue to serve the marginalized.

Gauging various indicators of effectiveness, success, durability, and continued access to

important resources are but a few of the ways organization scholars can understand and even

promote beneficial organizational responses to such an important social challenge. Further, using

the lens of serving the marginalized allows organization scholars to examine organizations across

multiple domains - traditional commercial firms, social enterprises, nonprofit and NGOs, and

governmental agencies – allowing the continued development of management and organizational

knowledge across a variety of settings. The use of the lens of serving the marginalized would also

cross a variety of processes such as survival, failure, and strategies, and contexts such as

entrepreneurial ventures, organizational demographics, organizational networks, and

organizational fields.

Problem of stigma management. One of the greatest challenges of organizations that serve

the marginalized is the management of social stigma (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Devers, Dewett,

Mishina & Belsito, 2009; Goffman, 1963; Hudson, 2008; Link & Phelan, 2001). Organizations

serving the marginalized must both find ways to manage and ameliorate the stigmatization of

their clients or employees, but to also manage the stigma directed at the organization itself

(Hampel & Tracey, 2016; Tracey & Phillips, 2016). Research on organizational stigma has begun

to show how it is managed, ranging from hiding (e.g. Hudson & Okhuysen, 2009), removing (e.g.

Piazza & Perretti, 2015) to even embracing (e.g. Helms & Patterson, 2014) it. Yet more work is

needed to understand not only how stigma is managed at the individual and organizational levels,

but to also understand the cross-level and stigma transfer processes, and the interactions of

stigma with other organization processes both negative and positive. Using a lens of

organizations that serve the marginalized would allow important and timely research that is

12

focused on a particular type or source of stigmatization, providing for a more fine-grained

analysis as well as informing the field of stigma research and organization studies more broadly.

While the problem of stigma transfer from stigmatized constituencies to organizations has begun

to be addressed, the important question of possible amplification of stigma back to those already

marginalized constituencies needs study. Further, how stigma is transferred from one or more

organizations serving the marginalized to entire industries or fields whose members may or may

not be serving the marginalized is also an important question.

Other important problems. Of course, other questions also deserve attention. For

example, management of mission-value congruence within the organizations and various

stakeholder groups (Suar & Khuntia, 2010; Wright & Pandey, 2008), and mission creep (Jonker

& Meehan, 2008) for organizations serving the marginalized are important issues. Also, while

access to, management of, and the strategic leveraging of resources are well known problems for

organizations in general, particular strategies of resource management for organizations serving

the marginalized likely face additional complexity. Lastly, issues of personnel and organizational

burnout prevention and management in such organizations also deserve attention.

Conclusion. Clearly, research that focuses on organizations serving the marginalized will

yield important academic, practitioner, and social benefits. Using such a lens focuses attention

differently, allowing discovery and knowledge creation across a wide range of organizational

features and processes, research domains, and levels of analysis. Using such a lens for the benefit

of the marginalized themselves and to address the grand challenges and wicked problems of

which the marginalized and society more broadly suffer also allows organization scholars to

build and maintain relevance in an often troubled world.

13

Socially reintegrating the homeless: Identity work, place and overcoming stigma

Chris Klinghardt & John Amis

In Scotland, one of the wealthiest nations on earth, social exclusion in its extreme from of

homelessness remains a significant problem (The Guardian, 2018). Despite efforts by various

agencies, strategies to overcome homelessness remain elusive, often hindered by a lack of

funding in a public sector depleted of resources by government spending policies. In this context,

several social enterprises and charities have emerged to try to help homeless people. One of

these, the focus of our study, is Sport Great Britain (SGB). Attracted by its apparent success at

rehabilitating homeless people, we are engaged in a longitudinal study to examine why its

strategies have proved effective. Our early findings have pointed to the ways in which sport and

place have interacted at multiple levels to trigger an emotional response that has in turn helped to

reduce the self-perceived stigmatization that often proves to be a considerable barrier to the

reintegration of the homeless into society. This has allowed us to address the broader question of

how place can trigger emotions within stigmatized individuals leading to positive identify work.

Our work has allowed us to develop some emergent theoretical contributions to the

identity work literature. First, we show how SGB’s sport sessions have created a sense of

psychological security for the players through the provision of support, encouragement and

development of self-belief. This has precipitated changes in self-perception by enhancing self-

worth among the players. Second, the players build relationships with each other and the coaches.

This has created support networks that have been missing for many years among players who

have suffered from trauma, addictions and/or mental illness. Third, sport participation creates a

positive purpose and structure through the provision of regular practices and games that can be

crucial in overcoming self-destructive behaviours.

14

We theoretically framed our research by drawing on the identity work, emotions, place

and stigmatization literatures. The concept of identity work is based on the provisional,

temporary, negotiated and contested character of identities (Alvesson, Ashcraft & Thomas,

2008). Identity work can deeply influence our understanding of self and others’ identities

(Ybema, Keenoy, Oswick, Beverungen, Ellis & Sabelis, 2009). Fundamentally, identity work can

determine the confirmation and transformation of self-concepts (Beech, 2011; Thomas & Davies,

2005). Identity work is closely related to emotions, because emotions constitute an important

element of self-definition (Fineman, 2003). Fredrickson and Branigan (2005: 313) define

emotions as “short-lived experiences that produce coordinated changes in people’s thoughts,

actions and physiological responses.” Emotions signal the presence of stimuli that demand

attention. When emotions are stimulated they can disrupt current cognitions and behaviours

(Forgas, 1992).

One way in which emotions might be triggered is by individuals’ interactions with

particular places. Places that have meanings for individuals often precipitate an emotional

reaction (Tuan, 1977). Our approach to place is rooted in social geography (Tuan, 1977).

However, we see places as more than geographic locations. Places are meaningful locations, an

intersection between location, material form, sets of meanings and values (Cresswell, 2004;

Lawrence & Dover, 2015). As such, interactions with particular locations and the associated

emotional response can, we contend, positively influence feelings of self-worth that in turn are

important when considering individuals who have been stigmatized.

Goffman (1963: 3) defined stigma as “an attribute that is deeply discrediting”, an extreme

kind of social disapproval by diverse audiences that reduces the individual “from a whole and

usual person to a tainted, discounted one.” Social discreditation almost inevitably leads to a

15

reduction in feelings of self-worth and diminishes social ties as a consequence of external status

loss and negative perceptions. Thus, stigma reduction is important to increase the chances of

marginalized individuals becoming socially reintegrated.

We adopted a qualitative single case study methodology (Yin, 2003) in which data were

collected from interviews, observations and documents. Semi-structured interviews were carried

out with SGB staff, volunteers, players and partners, while observations captured their

interactions with the football pitches. An abductive theory building approach was used in which

we continually worked back and forth between emergent empirical understandings and existing

theory.

Our findings make it apparent that a key component of the success of SGB has been the

creation of a set of unique places, the sporting arenas, that have become clearly differentiated for

the players from their external environments. These have become sanctuaries for the players that,

in conjunction with the people that they interact with at SGB, create first, a sense of security,

second, a set of meaningful relationships, and third, a discovered purpose. Importantly, these

factors are not experienced individually but rather are shared with other players. These factors

trigger strong emotions among the players leading to positive identity work, which in turn

substantially changes their self-perception and allows them to begin the process of social

reintegration.

“Like so many addicts, I was leading a double life I was constantly lying to my mum and dad, but

I was also lying to myself”(Player)

Security is provided in SGB’s sport sessions through the creation of a positive

environment that is stigma-free. Heavy emphasis is placed on putting the individual’s needs

ahead of any institutional or funding requirement allowing players to develop at their own pace.

16

The sport sessions repeatedly trigger feelings of support, encouragement and self-belief. This in

turn appears to change self-perceptions by (re)awakening a sense of self-worth.

Further, SGB’s does not categorize people, only situations in which they find themselves.

This creates places that are truly inclusive safety zones. No questions are asked and no judgment

applied. Often, this is the first time in years that players can open up, show their real self and

identity. Being honest is a new feeling for many of these players who have found themselves

constantly marginalized by society. SGB has created an environment in which the players feel

able to open-up, share problems and fears, and get feedback. Sharing problems, while still being

accepted, creates trust. Trust in others fundamentally erodes negative worldviews and helps to

prepare the players to form the relationships required to socially re-integrate.

“At SGB, I’m surrounded by positive people all the time. The staff and coaches at the drop in

sessions are always available to help.” (Player)

Relationships are provided in SGB’s sport sessions through close interactions with other

players and coaches. The idea is to build a support network that has, in many cases, been missing

for many years among players who have suffered trauma, neglect and/or mental illness. Tackling

challenges like addictions is easier when shared among peer groups, something that has been

traditionally lacking for many players who have lost touch with family and friends. Feeling a

sense of belonging and that somebody cares clearly makes a significant difference for players

who have frequently come to attribute their social-exclusion to their own inadequacies or

mistakes.

A key role in this rehabilitation is played by SGB’s coaches who frequently become role

models. The coaches are themselves former players who have become rehabilitated by SGB. The

coaches are therefore living exemplars of change. The players clearly identify with and gravitate

17

to these coaches who are respected for their achievements. Coaches can build close relationships

because they can empathise with the players and are credible. This is fundamental for the success

of SGB. Coaches trigger positive emotions of belonging and hope with the players.

“Being the captain brings a responsibility which I’m well aware of. But I feel I can do my team

justice. If my mother was alive she would be proud.” (Captain)

Purpose is given to the players through the provision of “a place to be” and a structure. It

was apparent throughout our interviews that the discovering of a purpose was vital in helping

them overcome isolation and in many cases addictions. The opportunity to play football in a

structured environment was important in establishing self-worth. Further, becoming part of a

team-environment fostered communication, something that was lacking in the lives of virtually

all of the players that we interviewed. It also created an immediate sense of belonging, something

that was predominantly lacking in the players lives.

The structure provided by scheduled football practices and games created a positive

routine that appeared to be crucial in overcoming self-destructive behaviours. In wanting to

attend sessions and then striving to play well initiated greater desire for players to take care of

themselves by, for example, curtailing drug and alcohol use and eating more healthily. Further,

getting fitter clearly had positive physical and mental health benefits. Players can take

development courses, play in tournaments and ultimately become coaches. Feelings of

excitement, joy and satisfaction were reported as important in helping to address the depression

suffered by many players. Identities associated with destructive behaviors changed to those

aligned with self-care and self-respect, which further prepares the players for social re-

integration. In the presentation, we further develop our findings and outline their implications for

18

theorizing how place, emotions and identity work create processes that can enable individuals to

overcome social exclusion.

19

What happens when social movements fail? The case of Stop Child Marriage in Indonesia

Laura Claus & Emily Block

When on June 18th, 2015, Stop Child Marriage1 failed to realize its primary objective – to

change the marriage law that still prohibits children to be married before graduating primary

school – the Indonesian public voiced their disappointment. The reasoning of the Constitutional

Court judges was heavily anchored in Islamic texts, which many thought to be “unacceptably

backwards” (PP, 2015); judges were even labelled “paedophiles” (SM, 2015). The actors behind

Stop Child Marriage, however, were celebrating. While the movement dissolved, in our interviews,

they articulated: “now we can finally start driving real action” (AA, 2015). In their minds, the

Constitutional Court’s failure to amend the marriage law enabled the emergence of discursive

opportunities through which they could begin to frame child marriage as a national concern and

drive initiatives that would address the practice. However, with the public perceiving Stop Child

Marriage as having failed, the question that emerged was how do social movement actors re-invent

themselves to translate discursive spaces into local action?

Social movement theories demonstrate that one way to enable societal changes is by

mobilizing people into an “organized collective effort” (Den Hond & De Bakker, 2007; see also,

Diani & McAdam, 2003; McCarthy & Zald, 1977). Social activism has been shown to be an

effective vehicle of change that particularly low power, marginalized, and persecuted actors may

leverage to advance their own interests. Examples from the US include students organizing to

register black voters in the 1960s (e.g., McAdam, 1988) and activists pursuing LGBT rights (e.g.,

1Pseudonym for local social movement in Indonesia (2013-2015).

20

Taylor et al., 2009) accomplishing results such as the Supreme Court’s ruling for same-sex

marriages.

Most of these studies examine cases of “success”, that is, how social movements emerge,

mobilize, and translate into institutional change. Social movement failures, on the other hand are

undertheorized (Giugni, McAdam & Tilly, 1999). More specifically, while we have considerable

insight about the factors and processes that might lead to failure (e.g., Giugni, 1998; McCarthy &

Zald, 1977; Piven & Cloward, 1978; Tilly, 1978), we know much less about the aftermath of such

failures.

In this study, we followed actors of a “failed” social movement as they took their second

attempt to mobilize against child marriage. Comprising a total of 22 actors, the movement was

orchestrated by different types of organizations “behind the scenes” and carried out by student

groups as the “public face”. Please see Figure 1 for a visualization of the movement’s actors and

their social positions within the movement against child marriage in Indonesia.

The arrangement outlined in figure 1 was for reasons of religious sensitivity. Child

marriage is deeply anchored in Islamic texts and often justified by referring to Prophet

Muhammad having married his wife Aisha when she was six years old. It is therefore a legally

and culturally accepted practice. In the past, organizations that had campaigned against it were

accused of blasphemy and international organizations were threatened with expulsion from the

country. As an eclectic group composed of lawyers, psychologists, academics, students, and other

organizations, the collective decided to unite on a common goal: to submit a judicial review to

the Constitutional Court requesting to amend the marriage law. Despite staging protests and

carefully generating public momentum leading up to the judges’ decision, the movement failed.

21

Citing the Qur’an and the Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet), the country’s highest judges defended

the current marriage law.

Figure 1. Public visibility and distance to affected communities of movement actors

22

To explore how these actors re-invented themselves after they were deemed “dead” by the

Indonesian public (PA, 2016), we conducted a single embedded case study (Yin, 2013) where the

broad case is the movement and the embedded cases are the seven largest actors that composed

the movement. Our study includes interview, observation, and archival data that span four years

from the initiation of collective action in 2013 until 2017.

Our preliminary findings suggest that not all social movements are played out in the

public discourse, and that movements, even after they disappear in the public sphere, can

continue to drive change using a different set of strategies. We find that the Constitutional

Court’s decision provided discursive opportunities for former actors of Stop Child Marriage to

strategically situate the issue of child marriage in the public discourse. In so doing, the different

actors varied on three dimensions: 1) the type of issue coupling, 2) the variation between their

public and private activities and 3) their distance from the effected communities. Their strategic

approaches post-mortem, in turn, allowed actors to legitimate the ‘issue’ of child marriage

through their organizational expertise, and to motivate local activism. In the next iteration of this

work, we will examine how these combinations led to local change. Please see Figure 2 for a

preliminary model of how discursive opportunities enable local change.

We seek to contribute to existing social movement literature by shedding light onto the

processes by which actors can continue to drive activism even after they have “failed” in the

public’s eye. We hereby intend to build on research defining the “success” and “failure” of social

movements as well as studies concerned with the outcomes and consequences of collective action

(e.g., Guigni, 1998; Giugni, McAdam, & Tilly, 1999). Much research has focused on the impact

of movements by relating their action to changes in legislation or some other indicator of policy

change (e.g., Amenta, Carruthers, & Zylan, 1992; Tarrow, 1993). Our preliminary findings

23

suggest that this conceptualization might be misleading. We further outline strategies that ‘failed’

movement actors may use to turn public failure into local success.

Figure 2. Preliminary model of how discursive opportunities enable local change

24

The discredited and the discreditable: Why stigmatizing behavior does not always result in

stigmatization

Karen Patterson & Jo-Ellen Pozner

Why are some actors stigmatized by negative behavior while others emerge from such

events relatively unscathed? In his canonical work, Goffman (1963) argues that stigmatization –

the denigration and discrediting of one’s social identity because of an undesirable attribute or

behavior - varies based on the observability of the undesirable attribute. What accounts for the

stigmatization of some discreditable actors and the relative security of others? We build on the

insight that social evaluation is a function of the work of audiences who adjudicate the legitimate

from the illegitimate (Greve, Palmer & Pozner, 2010) who link discrediting marks to negative

stereotypes or professional norms, leading to a loss of status and discrimination (Link & Phelan,

2001). From this perspective, it becomes clear that audiences can minimize, denigrate, or turn

their attention from the discreditable, avoiding stigmatization and maintaining or restoring the

status of potentially stigmatized actors. We identify some of the mechanisms and processes that

impede the process of stigmatization.

We address the role that audiences and other external factors play in determining how

discreditable actors avoid stigmatization. Although much research has addressed what

stigmatized actors might do to overcome or erode stigma, we address the environmental and

psychological forces that might preclude audiences from bestowing negative evaluations on such

actors in the first place. Neither episodic events nor core discreditable marks lead to

stigmatization unless audiences identify the discrediting event or mark (Link & Phelan, 2001)

and then stigmatize the actor. Not all discreditable events or marks are recognized by relevant

25

audiences (Hoffman & Ocasio, 2001; Stenger & Roulet, 2018), and even attention to them does

not always result in the assignment of stigma.

Link and Phelan (2001) argue that the stigmatization process involves several steps prior

to the assignment of stigma. First, the discrediting event or mark must exist. These can vary from

a scandal, such as the financial fraud committed by Michael Milken, to a concealable mark, such

as identifying as homosexual in a highly gendered profession, to repeated unethical

organizational behaviors, such as the persistent concealment of domestic violence and traumatic

brain injury research in the NFL. Next, the link between discrediting marks and negative

stereotypes that already exist within the social system must be made. Third, audiences or social

control agents must label the identity of those involved in or marked by the stigmatizing event the

designation of “other” or “different.” The fourth step involves status loss and discrimination on

the part of the stigmatized parties. Finally, this can only occur within a framework where social

differences exist and the process can be enacted.

Building on Link and Phelan (2001), we focus on the role of audiences in social

evaluation. When audiences do not recognize a discrediting event or mark, the stigmatization

process may not take root or may be easily corrected or reversed. Because audiences play such an

important role in social evaluations, it is necessary to consider how the evaluative process might

be influenced by internal audience factors, primary among them biased cognition (e.g., Tversky

& Kahneman, 1974; Bazerman and Moore, 2008), and external environmental constraints,

including institutional norms (e.g., DiMaggio and Powell, 1983; Berger and Luckman, 1966).

Consequently, we develop a model describing the ways in which cognition and emotion, and

institutional constraints interrupt the process through which audiences engage in the process of

stigmatization.

26

Cognitive and emotional barriers to stigmatization

Cognitive dissonance reduction. Given the unclear, conflicting, and confusing

circumstances and explanations that often accompany the revelation of discrediting marks –

particularly for public figures, organizations, and institutions with which individuals have only

arms-length (or weaker) relationships, it is likely that many engage in cognitive dissonance

reduction when evaluating discredited others.

Nostalgia, attachment, and loyalty. In some instances, audiences may have formative,

positive associations with a discreditable actor based on early experiences that shaped their tastes.

Nostalgia triggered by negative information and associated moods might increase audiences’

affect, induce recognition of positive self-attributes, and generate feelings of social connectedness

(Sedikides, Whildschut, Arndt & Routledge, 2008) and therefore color sensemaking process.

This is particularly likely to be true in settings where attachment to the discredited actor was

formed early in one’s life (e.g., Simpson & Rholes, 1998). Nostalgia and attachment might also

engender feelings of loyalty to the discredited actor, preventing observers from assigning

negative evaluations.

Collective effervescence. Discrediting marks that might attach to events enjoyed in a

community might also go unnoticed because audiences are caught up in the collective

effervescence, or sense of unity of thought, action, and excitement that accompanies the

experience. Like those who experience nostalgia for their childhood football heroes, those who

have witnessed or participated in a championship game may rely on that experience to guide their

evaluations of team members, preventing them from associating misbehaving players with

discrediting criminal activity.

27

Trust. Trust and distrust have been demonstrated to play a role in attribution of blame, a

critical aspect of the negative evaluative process that leads to stigmatization. The trust inherent in

social relationships insulates wrongdoers from blame, while victims are more likely to attribute

blame to those with whom they do not have trusting relationships (e.g., Yenkey, 2018), although

that trust often leads people to open themselves up to victimization (e.g., Baker & Faulkner,

2004). Trust may prevent individuals from making connections between the discredited and

negative stereotypes.

Institutional and pragmatic barriers to stigmatization

Institutional complexity. Significant research examines how organizations operating in

institutionally complex environment may reconcile competing standards and expectations (Kraatz

& Block, 2008). Actors that face competing expectations about their behaviors may address one

logic over another (Toubiana & Zietsma, 2017) or engage in strategic silence with some

audiences, while publicizing the same information to other audiences or at other times (Stenger &

Roulet, 2018).

Decoupling. Organizations can engage in a number of activities that might distance them

from being assigned stigma. Elsbach and Sutton (1992) provide a well-known example of

organizations engaging in decoupling activities in order to avoid being stigmatized for

questionable, even illegal, behaviors. Audiences may be well aware of the discreditable activities

but due to actors’ impression management, such as decoupling or silence (Carlos & Lewis,

2018), may not assign a discrediting mark.

Positive social evaluations. Much research has addressed the outcomes that result from

positive social evaluations including celebrity (Rindova, Pollock & Hayward, 2006), legitimacy

(Suddaby, Bitektine & Haack, 2017), reputation (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990) and status

28

(Podolny, 1993; Washington & Zajac, 2005). Positive social evaluations may be modified by a

number of internal and external factors, but research on positive social evaluations has generally

shown that they can protect actors from a variety of negative outcomes that may result from

discreditable behaviors (although findings on the longevity of the effect vary and in fact, negative

outcomes can occur as well).

Violation of expectations. Certain fields carry expectations about actors’ knowledge,

expertise, morality, or other salient characteristics that the audiences are unable or unwilling to

take upon themselves. In such fields, audiences may be less likely to assign stigma or even

recognize the discreditable behaviors due to the inherent violation of institutional expectations or

the audiences’ inability or unwillingness engage in the behavior on their own. Conversely,

audiences may give undo emphasis to the behaviors because due to the intense emotional

investments often present in such institutions (Toubiana & Zietsma, 2017; Gutierrez, Howard-

Grenville & Scully, 2010).

We explore the cognitive, emotional and institutional characteristics of marginalizing

audiences and their environments that influence the stigmatization process. We believe that by

identifying the mechanisms that impact the stigmatization process, researchers can better

understand how external factors influence the treatment of and consequences for the stigmatized.

29

References

Alvesson, M., Lee Ashcraft, K., & Thomas, R. (2008). Identity matters: Reflections on the construction of identity scholarship in organization studies. Organization, 15(1), 5-28. Amenta, E., Carruthers, B. G., & Zylan, Y. (1992). A hero for the aged? The Townsend Movement, the political mediation model, and US old-age policy, 1934-1950. American Journal of Sociology, 98(2), 308-339. Amis, J. M., Munir, K. A., & Mair, J. (2017). Institutions and economic inequality. The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism, 705-736. Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of management Review, 24(3), 413-434. Ashforth, B., E. Kreiner, G., A. Clark, M., & Fugate, M. (2007). Normalizing dirty work: Managerial tactics for countering occupational taint. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 149-174. Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (2004). Social networks and loss of capital. Social Networks, 26(2), 91-111. Bazerman, M. H., & Moore, D. A. (2008). Judgment in managerial decision making. Beech, N. (2011). Liminality and the practices of identity reconstruction. Human relations, 64(2), 285-302. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge (First ed.). Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Boiger, M., & Mesquita, B. (2012). The construction of emotion in interactions, relationships, and cultures. Emotion Review, 4(3), 221-229. Brown, A. D. (2015). Identities and identity work in organizations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(1), 20-40. Burt, R. S., & Knez, M. (1995). Kinds of third-party effects on trust. Rationality and society, 7(3), 255-292. Camillus, J. C. (2008). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard business review, 86(5), 98. Carlos, W. C., & Lewis, B. W. (2018). Strategic silence: Withholding certification status as a hypocrisy avoidance tactic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 130-169. Clemente, M., & Roulet, T. J. (2015). Public opinion as a source of deinstitutionalization: A “spiral of silence” approach. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 96-114

30

Cozolino, L. (2014). The neuroscience of human relationships: Attachment and the developing social brain. WW Norton & Company. Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction (Malden, MA, Blackwell). Den Hond, F., & De Bakker, F. G. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901-924. Devers, C. E., Dewett, T., Mishina, Y., & Belsito, C. A. (2009). A general theory of organizational stigma. Organization Science, 20(1), 154-171. Diani, M., & McAdam, D. (2003). Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action. Oxford University Press. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(6), 147. Elsbach, K. D., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Defining who you are by what you're not: Organizational disidentification and the National Rifle Association. Organization Science, 12(4), 393-413. Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management theories. Academy of management Journal, 35(4), 699-738. Fineman, S. (2003). Understanding emotion at work. Sage.

Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research: Edition 4. Sage Publications Limited. Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of management Journal, 33(2), 233-258. Forgas, J. P. (1992). Affect in social judgments and decisions: A multiprocess model. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 227-275). Academic Press. Fredrickson, B. L., & Branigan, C. (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoires. Cognition & emotion, 19(3), 313-332. George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880. Gieryn, T. F. (2000). A space for place in sociology. Annual review of sociology, 26(1), 463-496.

31

Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of management Review, 25(1), 63-81. Giugni, M. G. (1998). Was it worth the effort? The outcomes and consequences of social movements. Annual review of sociology, 24(1), 371-393. Giugni, M., McAdam, D., & Tilly, C. (Eds.). (1999). How social movements matter (Vol. 10). U of Minnesota Press. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on a spoiled identity. Jenkins, JH & Carpenter. Greve, H. R., Palmer, D., & Pozner, J. E. (2010). Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 53-107. Gutierrez, B., Howard-Grenville, J., & Scully, M. A. (2010). The faithful rise up: Split identification and an unlikely change effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 673-699. Hampel, C. E., & Tracey, P. (2015). Stigmatized in Infancy but not for Life: The Legitimation of the Travel Agency in Victorian England. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2015, No. 1, p. 13428). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Phelan, J. C., & Link, B. G. (2013). Stigma as a fundamental cause of population health inequalities. American journal of public health, 103(5), 813-821. Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739. Helms, W. S., & Patterson, K. D. (2014). Eliciting acceptance for “illicit” organizations: The positive implications of stigma for MMA organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1453-1484. Hoffman, A. J., & Ocasio, W. (2001). Not all events are attended equally: Toward a middle-range theory of industry attention to external events. Organization science, 12(4), 414-434. Hudson, B. A. (2008). Against all odds: A consideration of core-stigmatized organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 252-266. Hudson, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2009). Not with a ten-foot pole: Core stigma, stigma transfer, and improbable persistence of men's bathhouses. Organization Science, 20(1), 134-153. Jeong, Y. C., & Kim, T. Y. Between Legitimacy and Efficiency: An Institutional Theory of Corporate Giving. Academy of Management Journal, (ja). Jonker, K., & Meehan III, W. F. (2008). Curbing mission creep. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(1), 60-65.

32

Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 840, 243-275. Lawrence, T. B., & Dover, G. (2015). Place and institutional work: Creating housing for the hard-to-house. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(3), 371-410. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual review of Sociology, 27(1), 363-385. Lok, J., Creed, W. E. D., DeJordy, R., & Voronov, M. (2017). Living institutions: Bringing emotions into organizational institutionalism. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 691-620. Lovelace, J. B., Bundy, J., Hambrick, D. C., & Pollock, T. G. (2018). The shackles of CEO celebrity: Sociocognitive and behavioral role constraints on “star” leaders. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 419-444. Mair, J., Marti, I., & Ventresca, M. J. (2012). Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 819-850. McAdam, D. (1988). Freedom Summer. Oxford, England ; New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American journal of sociology, 82(6), 1212-1241. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340-363. Mishina, Y., & Devers, C. E. (2012). On being bad: Why stigma is not the same as a bad reputation. The Oxford handbook of corporate reputation, 201-220. Pescosolido, B. A., & Martin, J. K. (2015). The stigma complex. Annual review of sociology, 41, 87-116. Pfarrer, M. D., Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. (2010). A tale of two assets: The effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors' reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1131-1152. Piazza, A., & Perretti, F. (2015). Categorical stigma and firm disengagement: Nuclear power generation in the United States, 1970–2000. Organization Science, 26(3), 724-742. Piven, F.F. & R. A. Cloward (1978). Poor People’s Movements: Why they success, how they fail. Vintage Books Edition.

33

Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American journal of sociology, 98(4), 829-872 Pozner, J. E. (2008). Stigma and settling up: An integrated approach to the consequences of organizational misconduct for organizational elites. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(1), 141-150. Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. (2010). Organizations behaving badly: When are discreditable actions likely to damage organizational reputation?. Journal of business ethics, 93(1), 39-50. Rholes, W. S., & Simpson, J. A. (2004). Attachment Theory: Basic Concepts and Contemporary Questions. Rindova, V. P., Pollock, T. G., & Hayward, M. L. (2006). Celebrity firms: The social construction of market popularity. Academy of management review, 31(1), 50-71. Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. (2008). Nostalgia: Past, present, and future. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(5), 304-307. Sharkey, A. J. (2014). Categories and organizational status: The role of industry status in the response to organizational deviance. American Journal of Sociology, 119(5), 1380-1433. Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. E. (1998). Attachment theory and close relationships. Guilford Press. Stenger, S., & Roulet, T. J. (2018). Pride against prejudice? The stakes of concealment and disclosure of a stigmatized identity for gay and lesbian auditors. Work, Employment and Society, 32(2), 257-273. Suar, D., & Khuntia, R. (2010). Influence of personal values and value congruence on unethical practices and work behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(3), 443-460. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review, 20(3), 571-610. Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 451–478. Sutton, R. I., & Callahan, A. L. (1987). The stigma of bankruptcy: Spoiled organizational image and its management. Academy of Management journal, 30(3), 405-436. Tarrow, S. (1993). Social protest and policy reform: May 1968 and the Loi d'orientation in France. Comparative Political Studies, 25(4), 579-607. Taylor, V., Kimport, K., Van Dyke, N., & Andersen, E. A. (2009). Culture and mobilization: Tactical repertoires, same-sex weddings, and the impact on gay activism. American Sociological Review, 74(6), 865-890.

34

Tharchen, T., & Garud, R. (2017). The emergence of new market categories in stigmatized industries: the case of e-cigarettes. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2017, No. 1, p. 12624). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Manageme The Guardian (2018). At least 320.000 homeless people in Britain, says Shelter [online]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/22/at-least-320000-homeless-people-in-britain-says-shelter [20.11.18]. Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2005). Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance: New public management and managerial identities in the UK public services. Organization studies, 26(5), 683-706. Tilly, C. (1978). From mobilization to revolution. Reading, [Mass.]: Addison-Wesley Pub. Toubiana, M., & Zietsma, C. (2017). The message is on the wall? Emotions, social media and the dynamics of institutional complexity. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 922-953. Tracey, P., & Phillips, N. (2016). Managing the consequences of organizational stigmatization: Identity work in a social enterprise. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 740-765. Tuan, Y. F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. U of Minnesota Press. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. Washington, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48(2), 282-296. Wildschut, T., Sedikides, C., Arndt, J., & Routledge, C. (2006). Nostalgia: content, triggers, functions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 91(5), 975. Wright, B. E., & Pandey, S. K. (2008). Public service motivation and the assumption of person—Organization fit: Testing the mediating effect of value congruence. Administration & Society, 40(5), 502-521. Ybema, S., Keenoy, T., Oswick, C., Beverungen, A., Ellis, N., & Sabelis, I. (2009). Articulating identities. Human Relations, 62(3), 299-322. Yenkey, C. B. (2018). Fraud and market participation: social relations as a moderator of organizational misconduct. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(1), 43-84. Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (Fifth ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (p. 181). Thousand Oaks, Calif.