A MARKETING STRATEGY LENS ON THE CONCEPT OF LEGITIMACY: AN
INTERPLAY OF PURPOSE VALUES OF ORGANIZATIONS AND LEGITIMACY
THEORY
By
Pinar Runnalls

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Business Administration – Marketing – Doctor of Philosophy
2017

ABSTRACT
A MARKETING STRATEGY LENS ON THE CONCEPT OF LEGITIMACY: AN
INTERPLAY OF PURPOSE VALUES OF ORGANIZATIONS AND LEGITIMACY
THEORY
By
Pinar Runnalls
Scholars and managers in the marketing field have been looking for ways to identify and
explain why their business partners act a certain way, how they can influence the business
partners’ actions or decisions, and how to instill a value system within the organization that
would allow for such influence. Although not labeled as “legitimacy,” most of the studies within
the marketing literature look for an answer that can satisfy the questions of how to control the
exchange partner (either supplier or buyer), how to influence the exchange partner, how to
overcome opportunistic behavior, how to communicate effectively within an exchange
relationship, how to create trust, how to maintain trust, and many more questions that allow
scholars and managers alike to ask and find a solution that benefits the firms.
Legitimacy helps firms establish credibility. Once established, it will allow others in the
institutional environment to expect certain behavior patterns from the focal firm. Throughout the
exchanges, the focal firm is likely to use different reference points in order to communicate why
a certain action needs to be taken, which in turn will shape the expectations of the exchange
partners. This concept becomes even more critical when the presence of trust comes into the
play. Trust will likely emerge when firms act in accordance with the norms and expectations of
their exchange partners however legitimizing actions will not likely create trust but presence of
trust will strengthen the legitimacy and performance outcomes.
Thus, Essay 1 aims to uncover the link among the purpose values of organizations and
how they lead to legitimacy strategy creation. Later, it links organizations’ legitimacy strategies

to the market verification activities of the firm and consequently, firm performance. In order to
provide a holistic picture, two dimensions of competitive environment have been introduced as
moderating factors. In other words, six purpose values (dignity, plurality, solidarity, subsidiarity,
reciprocity, and sustainability), four legitimacy strategies (authorization, rationalization,
moralization, mythopoesis), two commonly studied verification actions (interfirm and market
monitoring), and two competitive environment dimensions (competitive intensity and
competitive hostility) have been identified and included in the conceptual model.
Secondly, Essay 2 focuses on the moderating effect of trust on the link between
legitimacy actions and firm performance. By turning legitimacy strategies into actions, Essay 2
aims to uncover how interfirm trust can help strengthen or weaken the link between legitimizing
behavior implemented by the firms and the consequent impact on the performance. In order to
provide a complete picture, five different types of trust (affect-based, institutionalization-based,
deterrence-based, competence-based, and intentional trust) have been identified between
exchange partners in institutional environments. Inclusion of the different types of trust allows
for a more complete picture on the legitimacy actions and firm performance because legitimacy
actions are a collective approval of the behavior by exchange partners and trust will likely have
an impact on the approval of the behavior and performance linkage.

Copyright by
PINAR RUNNALLS
2017

Annem ve Babam Icin,
Ahmet Kekec & Nalan Kekec

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank all the people who helped and supported me throughout my Ph.D
program and the completion of this dissertation. First of all, I would like to thank my dissertation
advisor and mentor, Dr. Tomas Hult for his invaluable help throughout my Ph.D. program. He
was there not only as a dissertation chair but also as a mentor and a support mechanism when I
needed as a doctoral student. I am and will be forever thankful for his support. I consider myself
one of the luckiest doctoral students to have had him as my dissertation advisor. So, thank you
for everything, Dr. Tomas Hult.
Secondly, I would also like to thank the rest of the committee members. Specifically, I
would like to thank Dr. Roger Calantone for his time and suggestions throughout the completion
of my dissertation. I learned a lot during our discussions about institutional theory and my
proposal of different conceptual models. Next, I would like to thank Dr. Hang Nguyen and Dr.
Clay Voorhees for their comments and helpful insights on different methods to test my
hypothesized relationships. Lastly, I would like to thank my external committee member, Dr.
Srinivas Talluri for his time and encouragement when I needed it the most.
Finally, I would not have been where I am today, if I didn’t have the forever support and
encouragement of my family, espeically my parents, Ahmet Kekec and Nalan Kekec. I am one of
the luckiest people on earth to have such a wonderful family. So, thank you mom and dad and
thank you my brother, Emre Kekec, and sister, Elif Kekec.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x
Essay 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 1
The Effects of Purpose Values of Organizations and Legitimacy Strategies on Market
Verification Actions and Performance............................................................................................ 1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Theoretical Background .................................................................................................................. 4
Purpose Values of Organizations ................................................................................................ 4
Legitimacy Strategies.................................................................................................................. 9
Market Verification Actions ..................................................................................................... 12
Competitive Environment ......................................................................................................... 15
Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................... 16
Dignity and Legitimacy Strategies............................................................................................ 17
Solidarity and Legitimacy Strategies. ....................................................................................... 20
Plurality and Legitimacy Strategies. ......................................................................................... 22
Subsidiarity and Legitimacy Strategies. ................................................................................... 24
Reciprocity and Legitimacy Strategies. .................................................................................... 27
Sustainability and Legitimacy Strategies. ................................................................................. 29
Legitimacy Strategies and Verification Actions. ...................................................................... 32
Moderating Effects of Competitive Environment..................................................................... 33
Verification Actions and Performance...................................................................................... 35
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 36
Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 36
Measures ................................................................................................................................... 36
Control Variables ...................................................................................................................... 37
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 38
Measurement Results ................................................................................................................ 38
Confirmatory Factor Analysis................................................................................................... 40
Structural Equation Modeling ................................................................................................... 42
Path Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 44
Discussion and Implications ......................................................................................................... 47
Future Research Directions and Limitations............................................................................. 55
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 59
Essay 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 70
The Moderating Effect of Interfirm Trust on Legitimacy and Performance ................................ 70
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 70
Theoretical Background ................................................................................................................ 72
Legitimacy Actions ................................................................................................................... 72
Trust .......................................................................................................................................... 76
Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................... 80
vii

Legitimacy and Performance .................................................................................................... 81
Moderating Role of Trust.......................................................................................................... 82
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 85
Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 85
Study Measures ......................................................................................................................... 86
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 87
Measurement Results ................................................................................................................ 87
Confirmatory Factor Analysis................................................................................................... 89
Structural Equation Modeling ................................................................................................... 90
Path Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 93
Discussion and Implications ......................................................................................................... 95
Future Research Directions and Limitations............................................................................. 99
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 101
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 103

viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Shared Variances .......

39

TABLE 2 Composite Reliabilities, Average Variances Extracted, Factor Loadings, and Fit
Statistics……………………………………………………………………………

41

TABLE 3 Path Analysis Results………………………………………………... …

44

TABLE 4 Path Analysis Results…………………………………………………….

46

TABLE 5 Path Analysis Results for Interaction Effects.............................................

47

TABLE 6 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Shared Variances….........

87

TABLE 7 Composite Reliabilities, Average Variances Extracted, Factor Loadings, and Fit
Statistics…………………………………………………………………………….

89

TABLE 8 Interaction Effects………………………………………………….........

92

TABLE 9 Path Analysis Results……………………………………………….........

94

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Conceptual Model Essay 1 ….........................................................................

58

Figure 2 Conceptual Model Essay 2…..........................................................................

100

x

Essay 1

The Effects of Purpose Values of Organizations and Legitimacy Strategies on
Market Verification Actions and Performance
Introduction
Marketing strategy literature has extensively focused on how different organizational
cultures can have an impact on the actions taken by the organizations. These actions range from
employing different market orientation cultures (Jaworksi and Kohli 1993; Homburg and
Pflesser 2000; Kirca et al 2005) to how marketing as a department can be more influential
(Boyd, Chandy, and Cunha Jr. 2010; Nath and Mahajan 2011). Although marketing strategy
scholars understand the effects of organizational culture on marketing strategy construction and
effectiveness, firm level research has paid limited attention to how different organizational
values can lead to the use of legitimacy strategies that firms may employ on the path to creating
successful marketing strategies. Legitimacy strategy creation is important especially within a
marketing strategy context because marketing managers need to explain and prove evidence of
what they do is valuable for organizations (Boyd, Chandy, and Cunha Jr.2010).
Legitimacy is one of the main topic areas that has been studied widely by scholars within
the institutional theory framework (Scott 1995; Deephouse 1999; Aldrich and Fiol 1994;
DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Additionally, political scientists, sociologists, and organizational
population ecology scholars have looked into how legitimacy is created and used within an
organizations environment (Johnson and Holub 2003). Specifically in the management literature,
the legitimacy efforts and communicating legitimacy between business partners have found to be
very useful when firms want to initiate change and reduce the resistance by others in exchange
relationships (Vaara and Tienari 2011; Vaara and Monin 2010; Erkama and Vaara 2010).
However, marketing literature lacks the sufficient evidence about how legitimacy impacts a

1

firm’s decisions and how different legitimacy strategies can provide organizations with the
needed support from their exchange partners. Although there are studies where scholars study the
legitimacy of marketing departments within firms and legitimacy creation between channel
partners (e.g. Grewal and Dharwadkar 2002), surprisingly, there is still a gap in the
organizational level legitimacy creation in the marketing strategy literature.
It is important to pay attention and study the organizational values and cultures because
these values will likely dictate the behaviors of organizations as well as the people within them
(Hollensbe et al 2014). The purpose of an organization is the clear guideline in terms of how the
firm should act and what is expected of the firm. Legitimacy concept is closely linked to the
purposes of the organization because legitimacy of a firm is also conceptualized as the firm
“acting the way others expect it to act,” or in other word, acting “appropriately,” or “in
accordance with the societal expectations”. As the purpose values of organizations become clear,
organizations will be able to form strategies that align with their values. Thus, examining the six
distinct values of organizations - dignity, solidarity, plurality, subsidiarity, reciprocity, and
sustainability – will allow for a deeper understanding of how organizational culture plays a role
in formalizing distinct strategies.
Secondly, although legitimacy has been studied by different research streams, there is
little understanding of how legitimacy can be applied to marketing strategy. This study employs
the four distinct legitimating strategies that Leeuwen and Wodak (1999) identified and Vaara and
Tienari (2008) brought to merger and acquisition literature – authorization, rationalization,
moralization, and mythopoesis. Clarifying the distinct strategies used by organizations and
applying a marketing strategy lens will provide fruitful conversation avenues for marketing

2

strategy scholars to recognize the different nuances within organizations, relating to legitimacy
strategies.
Porter (1981) suggests that organizational culture leads to strategy and strategy leads to
actions. Within the legitimacy framework, organizations will inherently need to communicate
and influence the actions of those they engage in exchanges. Thus, organizational purpose and
legitimating strategies outlined above prepare the grounds for verification actions – interfirm and
market monitoring. Both of the monitoring actions need to be considered when studying
legitimacy because in order to provide “legitimate” arguments, firms will need to analyze and
interpret the marketplace so that they can present evidence and address the necessities of such
strategies. This will allow organizations to recognize and efficiently use their resources and
capabilities (Prahalad and Hamel 1990).
However, organizations are not alone in institutional their institutional environments.
Bitekine and Haack (2015) suggest that legitimacy is not only at the micro-level but also at the
macro-level, meaning an inclusion of the actors collectively. The relationship between
legitimacy strategies and verification actions will likely be affected by how competitors act and
react (Covin and Covin 1990). Therefore, this study aims to identify the boundary conditions
through the moderating effect of competitive environment.
The rest of the paper is as follows: First, the purpose values of organizations, then the
legitimacy strategies are defined and explained through a marketing strategy perspective. Next,
verification actions are explained. Then, hypotheses are developed and the research method to be
adopted and data collection procedures to be employed are described.

3

Theoretical Background
Purpose Values of Organizations
In institutional environments, organizations strive to establish legitimacy through
explaining and identifying what they stand for and that they will behave the way they are
expected to behave. Hollensbe et al (2014) suggest that organizations can be the creators of trust
if they “redefine” their purpose. They identify six key dimensions of purpose values – dignity,
solidarity, plurality, subsidiarity, reciprocity, and sustainability. McWilliams and Smart (1993)
state that institutional environments include different elements such as buyers, suppliers,
products, demands and so on. Six different purpose values will likely help define the overarching
framework for businesses to be a part of the environment they operate in, and not apart from it
(Hollensbe et al 2014).
Dignity. Organizations that have the value of dignity, engages in actions that treat their
employees as someone, not something (Hollensbe et al 2014). Respecting all stakeholders are
‘who’ instead of ‘what’ will help organizations achieve the value of dignity that they can utilize
when it comes to running their daily operations as well as achieving strategic goals. Strategic
goals are usually thought to be competitive advantage in which scholars explore how differences
in firms’ resources and capabilities allow them to gain edge in the marketplace (Rumelt,
Schendel, and Teece 1991; Barney 1991). In order to pursue and achieve these goals,
organizational leaders will need to pay attention to their employees. Literature on organizational
support and employee dedication have shown positive links between employee satisfaction and
employee performance and absenteeism, and a negative link with employee turnover (Mathieu
and Zajac 1990; Meyer and Allen 1997; Mowday, Porter, and Steers 1982).
Additionally, leadership literature has also studied different styles of leadership and how
different styles have affected the employee performance (Bono and Judge 2003). Leadership

4

styles also influence the organizational climate and organizational survival (Nasution,
Mahargiono, and Soesatyo 2016). Social exchange literature also backs this point up, suggesting
that when employees are treated with dignity, they will respond to the organization favorably
(Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002). These favorable responses arise because according to
organizational support theory, employees of the organization start to identify and perceive the
organization to have human-like characteristics. This is also present in how different actors
within a marketplace judge organizations: judging the firm based on its actions rather than
singling out specific employees or individuals (Levinson 1965). When analyzed together, the
link between the employee actions and the firm’s actions become clearer in a way that shows, if
an organization were to treat its employees as objects, then employees start to disassociate. This
creates a little bubble, in which employees do not have the shared understanding which in turn
inhibits engaging in good citizenship behaviors. This is problematic because when the
perceptions of dignity is low in an organization, the mutual dependency or the mutual obligations
based on shared humanity, or common good, starts to dissipate.
Solidarity. An organization is not mutually exclusive from its institutional environment. Other
organizations, such as governmental bodies, suppliers, customers will all require and demand
attention from the firm. Organizations that are high in solidarity value will likely overcome these
hurdles because they will be able to communicate the underlying theme within the solidarity
concept: “we are all in this together” (Hollensbe et al 2014). Solidarity, like dignity, has the
fairness component within itself. Hollensbe et al (2014) state that solidarity includes fairness,
honesty, and shared understanding between customers and suppliers that help them make better
choices.

5

Theories of social and interpersonal justice in organizations have long studied how
perceptions of fairness can impact the organization’s operations as well as how it affects the
perceived organization support by its employees. These aspects are especially important for
organizations because if a firm is not perceived as a fair or honest entity, its stakeholders will
start to question the morals and the ethics of the firm. Organizational support literature has
identified two different types of justice – distributive and procedural. Distributive justice deals
with how fair the actions are and procedural justice focuses on to how fair the process of taking
those actions (Greenberg 1990). These concepts become important within the notion of solidarity
because organizations need to realize and recognize that other parties that they interact with
matter. Once this message is communicated clearly, it will help stakeholders identify what the
organization brings to the table and what they offer in exchange (Mowday 1991). Once the
solidarity value is achieved, through the perceptions of justice and fairness, organizations will
likely to reap the benefits of having more satisfied stakeholders, and in turn strengthened
relationships with these stakeholders (Moorman, Blakely, and Niehoff 1998).
Plurality. Within institutional environments, organizations follow a set of guidelines and rules,
which then become the norm of the institutional environment (Deephouse 1996; Scott 1987).
Following these norms and staying within the boundaries of these norms lead the organizations
to start to become more and more alike. In turn, the diversity levels start to decrease. However in
the strategy literature, scholars have long been studying how firms achieve competitive
advantage (Rumelt, Schendel, and Teece 1991; Barney 1991). Firms need to be heterogeneous
enough so that they can offer different value propositions and stay competitive.
Firms that rate high on the plurality value will likely be more responsive to the
marketplace because plurality emphasizes relationships among entities rather than focusing on

6

transactions. Economically driven models assert that organizations are inherently untrustworthy
thus use of contracts are a must. However, behavioral theorists argue that organizations are
trusting (Barney and Hansen 1994). The plurality concept explains the side that behavioral
theorists are arguing for: plurality encourages diversity, which allows innovation to take place.
When organizations are innovative, they are more likely to be up-to-date with the latest trends.
This allows them to be more responsive.
The level of responsiveness becomes very important within the context of understanding
customers. With the increased globalization of the marketplace, firms need to strengthen their
positions by creating “a spirit of fraternity through clear, purpose-driven values that respect
cultural differences” (Hollensbe et al 2014, p. 1231). Communicating the message of plurality
will allow them to strengthen the relationships between the firms and their customers, suppliers,
and employees, which in turn will turn into favorable performance results (Palmatier et al 2006;
Palmatier, Dant, and Grewal 2007).
Subsidiarity. Subsidiarity value of an organization is the notion of being able to promote
accountability and delegating some of the decision making to the different levels of the
organization (Hollensbe et al 2014); which promotes freedom with responsibility. Several
theorists have proposed different definitions for the freedom, ranging from more negative views
(absence of restraint) to more positive ones (opportunity to act in a certain way). Within an
organizational value framework, when employees are given an opportunity to act in a certain
way, it allows them to understand the process of the decision making within the organization,
thus providing more depth to the understanding of what the organization stands for. Thus, it
allows for employees not only not to feel alienated but also to provide a sense of belonging
(Keeley 1987; Hollensbe et al 2014).

7

Reciprocity. Building relationships between organizations and their exchange partners rely on the
reciprocity and the concept of reciprocity leads to certain expectations from an organizations
different stakeholders. Baer et al (2015) argue that when organizations are trusted, employees of
the organization also enter into a different state of mind, which in turn affect their overall
performance and commitment to the firm. In addition to the employee performance, reciprocity
will allow organizations to leverage knowledge, resources and capabilities, all of which are
positively linked to performance outcomes of organizations. Within institutional environments,
organizations that score high on the reciprocity scale will likely reap the benefits of being
perceived as a stable organization that keeps its end of the bargain.
There are several views on how exchange partners do business together. Economic
models insist on using legal and contractual protections as these models suggest that exchange
partners are inherently untrustworthy. On the other hand, behaviorally oriented models criticize
this notion and argue that exchange partner are inherently trustworthy therefore the contractual
agreements are unnecessary and redundant (Barney and Hansen 1994). When organizations are
high on the reciprocity value, the underlying expectation is that organization will conduct its
operations for mutual benefits of the parties involved.
Sustainability. Vast amount of literature has been published in the marketing field about
sustainability. Although not exhaustive, some of the prominent research streams focus on
sustainable marketing practices, green marketing, and corporate social responsibility (Sharma et
al 2010; Luchs et al 2010). There are five issues that most research have analyzed –
sustainability drivers, management, outcomes, company, consumer aspects (Leonidou,
Katsikeas, and Morgan 2013; Varadarajan 2014). Sustainability value is especially important for

8

organizations because Davis, Schoorman, and Donaldson (1997) argue that stewardship of
people should be the guiding principle of the firm.
Organizations that are high on the sustainability value will likely take steps toward caring
for their environment, employees, and other stakeholder groups. Despite of its challenges,
organizations need to strive for minimizing the negative impact they may have on their
environment through the pursuit of replenishing what is used and finding new ways to replace
what has been consumed (Hollensbe et al 2014).
Legitimacy Strategies
Legitimacy concept has been studied within the marketing strategy literature in terms of
the credibility of the focal firm as well as using this credibility in order to influence decisions
(Payan and McFarland 2005). Vaara and Tienari (2008) have distinguished and applied Leeuwen
and Wodak’s (1999) ‘grammar of legitimation’ to an organizational level. In this study, four
legitimacy strategies are described – authorization, rationalization, moralization, and
mythopoesis- in order to provide a more comprehensive understanding of why companies may
engage in certain strategies when dealing with interfirm exchanges.
Authorization. Deephouse (1999) states that regulatory forces are usually enforced through
governments. A government can exert a certain power over the organization that could be costly
for the organization if it ignores such rules. There are also other regulatory bodies, such as
environmental agencies, that also impose specific rules on the organizations. In order to be
accepted by the regulatory forces, an organization has to follow these rules and regulations in
order to gain legitimacy from its regulatory environment.
Authorization inherently deals with how specific actors in power view the situation and
suggest the courses of actions to be taken (Erkama and Vaara 2010). Legitimation of actions is a
lengthy process and it deals with power and politics (Rojo and van Dijk 1997; van Leeuwen and
9

Wodak 1999). This inherent nature allows for the direct link between the actions taken and the
power of the actors that employ them (Rojo and van Dijk 1997). When actors within institutions
want to legitimize their positions they may make certain references to authorities and regulatory
bodies (Vaara and Monin 2010). Planning for the use of these references to authority figures
within institutions will likely help managers position their arguments as necessary, justifiable, or
even inevitable.
Rationalization. Rationalization is a legitimation strategy that uses references within specific
settings and debates, such as references to expectations of improved financial performance
(Erkama and Vaara 2010; Varra and Monin 2010). Schuman (1995) posit that “organizational
practices and policies need to be deemed ‘desirable, proper, or appropriate’ within the given
context” (p. 574). van Dijk (1998) and van Leeuwen and Wodak (1999) argue that legitimacy is
established over time and provides justification for actions taken in different contexts. Once
established, legitimacy will help managers to explain their actions as necessary and acceptable in
specific settings (van Dijk 1998; van Leeuwen and Wodak 1999; Vaara and Monin 2010).
Quantifying the expected benefits and providing scientific rationale managers can establish
legitimacy when it comes to why they make certain decisions. Because providing evidence that
future market will need the specific course of action to be taken and that there are no other
beneficial alternatives can help strengthen their justification for the situation. Thus, legitimizing
their actions and decisions to strategize differently in a given context would need the use of
rationalization strategy (Erkama and Vaara 2010).
Scanning the environment and being aware of the changing institutional pressures, not
every firm will react the same when it comes to their organizational responses (Oliver 1991).
Although the general understanding of the institutional theory is that institutions arise and

10

operate within environments they conform to, institutions are not static. They evolve and with
the changing conditions, institutions also change. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) touch upon this
fact implicitly when they argue about a field-level approach, in which certain elements of the
environment or market pressures can change and demand different things from organizations. All
of a sudden, organizations can find themselves within an industry that starts to lose its welldefined borders. Thus, rationalization strategy can handle these possible changes within a
marketplace by providing evidence of previous or present situations.
Moralization. Normative forces help with routinizing the actions taken and the routinization of
the behavior will allow firms to be stable (Emery and Trist 1965; Terreberyy 1968; Meyer and
Rowan 1991) and will help firms with increasing efficiency and a general understanding of what
is expected of them (Dowling and Pfeffer 1975). These forces allow managers to take a handsoff approach, which then leads to increased efficiencies because everyone knows what to do and
what is expected in the end (Chang, Bai, and Li 2015; Granovetter 1985).
The moralization strategy entails taken for granted assumptions and actions. Scott (1995)
identifies normative forces as the unwritten rules and norms. These implicit rules and norms also
play a role in establishing legitimacy for organizations because most likely organizations will
follow their counterparts and start to behave according to how they operate and behave in the
given institutional environment. Cognitive forces entail the cultural influences that usually takes
the form of taken-for-granted rules. They help firms control and coordinate its operations
because society itself presents certain allowances and constraints for the organization. Zucker
(1977) argues that these moral rules become factual through a cultural persistence process,
transmission, maintenance, and resistance to change. This habitual form is foundational to
moralization strategy and that managers need to act within specific norms and values because

11

managers need to gain approval of their institutional environments in order to be accepted by
regulatory bodies as well as the society (Scott 1995; Deephouse 1999; Aldrich and Fiol 1994;
DiMaggio and Powell 1983).
Mythopoesis. DiMaggio (1991) argues that institutionalization allows for firms to create a body
of knowledge that is available in the professionals’ minds. Through their networks, professionals
also bring in different perspectives and attract other experts in the field which creates
organization of professional associations. By having a set of rules and guidelines, professionals
can take a hands-off approach and focus on the boundary-spanning activities (Day 1994). These
activities can help managers to give examples of other firms when they want to legitimize their
actions through mythopoesis. Mythopoesis refers to framing the decisions of managers through
the use of examples of other firms, managers’ tacit knowledge, and narratives of what has
happened in the past or what is happening in the present (Vaara and Monin 2010; Erkama and
Vaara 2010). Use of the narratives can help managers to present evidence within the marketplace
in order to establish that the legitimacy of their actions. Organizations can survive by being
aware of emerging trends and changes in their environment and through environmental scanning,
professionals can keep the organizations up to date and meet the expectations of the social actors
successfully.
Market Verification Actions
Verification actions by exchange partners are usually considered to be a result of the need
to reduce information asymmetries between partners (Eisenhardt 1985). Gundlach and Cannon
(2010) state that there are at least three verification strategies in order to safeguard one’s
operations – interfirm monitoring, information sharing, market monitoring. In this study,
interfirm monitoring and market monitoring are included as the verification actions implemented
by the firm. Information sharing is not included as a verification action because Yilmaz and
12

Kabadayi (2006) found that monitoring can also be an antecedent to information sharing between
partners.
Interfirm Monitoring. Heide, Wathne, and Rokkan (2007) define monitoring “as an effort made
by one party to measure or “meter” the performance of another (p. 426). Interfirm relationships
require firms to actively control and coordinate their operations with that of their partners; in
accordance with the regulatory and voluntary rules (Buchanan 1992; Frazier 1999; Yilmaz and
Kabadayi 2006). Institutional theory states that organizations within an institutional environment
respond and react to three distinct forces; regulatory, normative, and cognitive forces. These
forces provide specific guidance to organizations in the form of regulations (Scott 1995), identify
the unwritten rules and norms (Scott 2005), and entail the cultural influences that usually take the
form of taken-for-granted rules (Zucker 1977). Thus, in this paper, interfirm monitoring refers to
the degree to which exchange partners observe and control each other’s behavior in accordance
with social rules and cues (Gould 1993; Snyder 1979; Graeff 1996).
Transaction cost and agency theories suggest that monitoring is used to reduce
opportunistic behavior, where strategic alliance literature focuses on how monitoring could be
utilized for partners to uncover the potential cooperative strategies as well as choice of
relationships that they would like to build with each other (Stafford 1994). Interorganizational
governance mechanisms, especially relational governance, have also been studied extensively in
order to uncover how each firm can obtain competitive advantage (Bakos and Treacy 1986;
Johnston and Vitale 1988; Venkatraman, Loh, and Koh 1994) and the effect of these governance
mechanisms on the overall market activity (Volkoff, Chan, and Newson 1999). Interfirm
monitoring is an essential component for firms to be competitive due to increasing
interdependencies of the firms in the marketplace.

13

Market Monitoring. Market monitoring is an important concept for interorganizational
partnerships because it allows firms to be up-to-date with the latest changes in the marketplace.
The analysis of companies, competitors, as well as customers in marketplace is critical to a
firm’s strategy building activities. It allows firms to be flexible and quick to respond to changes
within a market.
Volberda (1997) suggests that firms will be successful at being flexible if they can
effectively respond to a competitive change in the marketplace with a proper managerial
capability. He argues that organizations can be flexible in three areas: operational, structural, and
strategic. Operational flexibility consists of being able to alter the routines, structural flexibility
entails the alteration of current processes, and lastly strategic flexibility includes the way
managers interpret the direct and indirect signals from the market and come up with the most
responsive solution. In addition to these three areas, he identifies a third concept of
metaflexibility, which “involves the processing of information to facilitate the continual
adjustment of the composition of management's flexibility mix in line with changes in the
environment. This requires the creation, integration and application of flexibility increasing
capabilities.” (p. 172).
Business networks literature has also studied how firms are related to one another in the
marketplace. Ritter, Wilkinson, and Johnston (2004) argue that firms require well executed
market monitoring practices because they are not always in control of all the relationships they
have with the environment; they control and be controlled, influence and be influenced by other
actors. At that point, market monitoring becomes a very important task for organizations because
organizations need to be able to respond to the opportunities presented and created by other

14

actors in the marketplace (Ritter and Gemunden 2003). Otherwise, they may end up taking
actions that produce undesirable outcomes (Tenbrunsel and Messick 1999).
Competitive Environment
Institutional environments, by nature, are hosts to multiple firms. Number of competitors
and the aggressiveness of the competition need to be taken under consideration while trying to
accomplish successfully integrating influence strategies and efficiently monitoring the exchange
partners and the market because the competitive intensity will likely impact the relationship
between the legitimacy strategies of a firm and its consequent impact on its market verification
actions. Competitive intensity and hostility need to be considered together because intensity
inherently deals with the strength of rivals (Barnett 1997) and hostility deals with how aggressive
the rival is (Covin and Covin 1990). Thus, competitive intensity and hostility become critical
components to identify the boundary conditions of such relationships.
Competitive Intensity. Barnett (1997) defines competitive intensity as “the magnitude of effect
that an organization has on its rivals’ life chances.” (p. 130). According to Barnett (1997)
competition becomes experience-based as organizations age. In turn, this will lead to a crowded
institutional environment although the strength, as he defined it, may not be strong enough to
shake off the rival. This is an interesting point because as institutions grow, they become stable
and as competitive environments grow, they also becomes stable, as the forces cannot push rivals
out of the competitive arena. Therefore, competitive intensity becomes one of the critical
external element that impact a firm’s operations.
Competitive Hostility. In its most basic form, competitive hostility relates to how aggressive your
competitors are. Marketing literature has studied offensive strategies taken by firms (Porter
1985), marketing warfare tactics (Kotler and Singh 1981), and the use of surprise when trying to
gain an offensive edge (Rothschild 1984). All these strategies and actions taken by the firms
15

determine the level of hostility between rivals. Firms within an institutional environment can
engage in any of the aforementioned aggressive behavior. If the level of hostility is high within
an institutional market, then the exchange partners may retaliate with a counter-aggressive
action, which could potentially increase the level of competitive hostility within the competitive
environment.

Hypotheses
Scott (1995) defines institutions as “…cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and
activities that provide stability and meaning to social behavior. Institutions are transported by
various carriers – culture, structure, and routines – and they operate at multiple levels of
jurisdiction” (p. 33). Once a firm is born and starts to grow and interact with its environment, the
institutionalization starts. When competitors increase in number and complexity, firms need to be
able to adapt to their situational factors and act accordingly. In order to be able to survive in such
environments, institutionalization helps greatly (Meyer and Rowan 1991). On the other side
“organizations which have structural elements not institutionalized in their environments should
be more likely to fail, as such unauthorized complexity must be justified by claims of efficiency
and effectiveness” (Meyer and Rowan 1983, p. 53). Institutionalization requires firms to balance
and respect all relations that it has with its internal and external environment.
Organizations need to gain approval of their institutional environments in order to be
accepted by regulatory bodies as well as the society. Thus, this leads to organizational
conformity to institutional norms, which then leads to legitimization of the focal organization
(Scott 1995; Deephouse 1999; Aldrich and Fiol 1994; DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Normative
forces help with routinizing the actions taken and the routinization of the behavior will allow
firms to be stable (Emery and Trist 1965; Terreberyy 1968; Meyer and Rowan 1991) and will
help firms with increasing efficiency and a general understanding of what is expected of them
16

(Dowling and Pfeffer 1975; Meyer and Rowan 1977). These forces allow managers to take a
hands-off approach, which then leads to increased efficiencies because everyone knows what to
do and what is expected in the end (Chang, Bai, and Li 2015; Granovetter 1985). Additionally,
Blau (1964) argues that norms of fair exchange also develops over time and they regulate and
eliminate continuous negotiations or conflicts. Cook and Rice (2003) argue that the existing
institutions lack credibility and legitimacy however, social exchange theory provides another
framework for organizations to create appropriate organizational culture to utilize proper
legitimacy strategies.
Dignity and Legitimacy Strategies.
Emerson (1972) argues that power processes create the institutional environments. He
supports the notion where “the concept of an exchange relation, and the principles which
surround it, provide a basis for studying the formation and change of social structures as
enduring relations among specified actors, with the exchange relations as the structural unit” (p.
60). When the dignity value is emphasized and increased in an organization, it is likely that the
organization will engage in legitimacy strategies that refer to more established counterparts in
order to provide support for its actions (Anderson and Weitz 1992). These references will likely
include the authority and power figures within the marketplace as well as humanizing the
authority figure by portraying the governing body as the law-maker or regulatory agent.
Humanizing these actors in the marketplace will likely increase the strength of their arguments,
which in turn will lead to adoption of such legitimacy strategy.
H1a: Higher levels of dignity value in an organization will increase the organization’s attempt to
engage in authorization strategies.
Rationalizing an action or a thought requires an individual to make certain connections
between events. For example, if a company wants to increase its sales, it may decide to increase
17

its advertising, which in turn should lead to increased sales (Assmuss et al 1984; Mela et al
1997). Having high levels of dignity, will likely help a company to create these associations with
more ease because there will be more humanesque connections between the actions and
reactions. Rather than distancing itself by referring to actors in the marketplace by ‘somethings’,
the organization will likely to perceive them to be its partners, more specifically exchange
partners. This will also allow them to connect with others, which in turn will help the firm to
communicate its goals and actions with more thorough explanations as to ‘why’ certain actions
were or to be taken (Rindfleisch and Heide 1997). This line of thinking will also help operations
within the firm. When managers perceives the board members as individuals and board members
perceive the manager as ‘someone who is trying to do his/her job to the best of his/her abilities”,
this will help managers’ job at explaining the actions of a firm through specific examples and
consequences (Boyd, Chandy, and Cunha Jr.2010; Nath and Mahajan 2011)
H1b: Higher levels of dignity value in an organization will increase the organization’s attempt to
engage in rationalization strategies.
Dignity value of an organization allows marketplace actors to assign human-like
characteristics to firms which in turn puts more pressure to organizations to act within the norms
and values of the marketplace. Homans (1961) stated that “the actual social behavior of
individuals is in direct contact with one another” (p. 3). Cook and Whitmeyer (1992) argued that
Homans’ proposition is the basis of role-conforming behavior. When organizations do not have
high levels of dignity, that is treating stakeholder as someone not something, mutual dependence
and mutual obligations end up being lost. Higher levels of dignity value will likely encourage
firms to engage in moralization strategies, because human-like characteristics will require firms
to be in contact with one another, which in turn forces firms to conform to norms of the

18

institutional environment. Thus, taken together, when organizations have high levels of dignity
values, they will likely to engage in moralization strategies in order to influence their exchange
partners.
H1c: Higher levels of dignity value in an organization will increase the organization’s attempt to
engage in moralization strategies.
Institutional environments are created by organizations and their interactions with one
another. These interactions provide the basis for social construction, in which the theories of
social construction are used to enhance the understanding of how actors within an institutional
environment create and realize situations (Edvardsson, Tronvoll, and Gruber 2011). Berger and
Luckmann (1967) argued that these actors create these situations in which the question of
subjectivity arises. Within this concept, organizations that are high in dignity value will likely act
as an individual and follow the pattern of learning as humans do; learn, adapt, and make choices
(Hoffman 1990). Mythopoesis strategy entails firms’ to rely on narratives and personal
experiences. Firms that are high in dignity value will likely seem to possess more human like
characteristics as well as attributing more human like characteristics to their exchange partners.
They will listen to one another and plan effectively through their combined experiences and tacit
knowledge. Thus, firms that are high in dignity value will likely to engage in mythopoesis
strategies in order to influence their exchange partners because this legitimacy strategy is based
on the personal narratives and managerial experiences.
H1d: Higher levels of dignity value in an organization will increase the organization’s attempt to
engage in mythopoesis strategies.

19

Solidarity and Legitimacy Strategies.
Hollensbe et al (2014) state that solidarity entails the mindset of ‘we are all in this
together’ as well as a shared understanding of all parties. Shared understanding, stability and
trust among the key internal and external exchange partners are assumed when organizational
conduct is discussed (Perry-Smith 2006). Organizations that are high in solidarity values will
likely recognize the differing needs of different partners and try to take action that is mutually
beneficial. One ways to accomplish the legitimacy of these actions is through referencing the
regulatory bodies within the institutional environment. The use of the authorities for justification
of actions will improve the perceptions of justice and fairness. This in turn will allow employees
to feel as part of the organization (Webster 1993). Through a high level of solidarity value, the
organization will likely be able to communicate the laws and regulation with ease because
employees feel a part of the organization and that the organization is likely to be seen as
considerate about the all stakeholders’ needs and wants.
H2a: Higher levels of solidarity value in an organization will increase the organization’s attempt
to engage in authorization strategies.
Legitimacy establishes certain frames for the exchange partners (Vaara and Monin 2010;
van Dijk 1998; Leeuwen and Wodak 1999). This is especially true for firms that are high in the
solidarity value because the solidarity value inherently forces firms to be aware of the
surroundings and realizing the differences. When the solidarity value is established within an
organization, the firm will likely increase its usage of rationalization strategy because
rationalization strategy will likely help the organization establish the need for the necessary
action. In order to communicate the fairness and the just act, the organization may need to use
references that create the support needed for certain actions. These actions could include answers

20

to questions of why select one supplier over another, why do it a little more differently than
others in the institutional environments. Sharma, Netemeyer, and Mahajan (1990) state that when
organizations are able to establish the expectations from employees as a whole, solidarity value
will likely increase, in turn will open way to successful creation of rationalization strategy.
H2b: Higher levels of solidarity value in an organization will increase the organization’s attempt
to engage in rationalization strategies.
Institutional theory posits that organizations are embedded within the environments that
they operate in (DiMaggio and Powell 1983) and they respond and react to normative forces.
Scott (2005) identifies the normative forces as he unwritten rules and norms. Because the norms
and values of the environment are unwritten, the rules and guidelines become unclear for
organizations. However, if organizations have high levels of solidarity value, they can potentially
communicate the fairness in their actions because there are certain expectations of the employees
which in turn makes up of the norms within an organization (Heide and John 1992). Thus, higher
levels of solidarity purpose will likely help the firm to establish successful moralization
strategies.
H2c: Higher levels of solidarity value in an organization will increase the organization’s attempt
to engage in moralization strategies.
DiMaggio (1991) states that structuration increases the density of interorganizational
contacts and the flow of information. It helps with the emergence of a center-periphery structure
and allows for a collective definition of the field. In addition to that, he also argues that
institutionalization allows for firms to create a body of knowledge that is available in the
professionals’ minds. Through their networks, professionals also bring in different perspectives
and attract other experts in the field which creates organization of professional associations.

21

Organizations that have higher levels of solidarity value will likely to engage in mythopoesis
strategies because the knowledge that is present in managers’ minds are very valuable to the
actors in the institutional environment. This helps with the shared understanding of how
managers bring in solutions to problems that benefit the interorganizational relationships as a
whole rather than focusing on side (Heide and John 1992). When solidarity value is high,
managers will likely recognize the others, in this case, exchange partners, and would likely use
their experiences and tacit knowledge as a reference point.
H2d: Higher levels of solidarity value in an organization will increase the organization’s attempt
to engage in mythopoesis strategies.
Plurality and Legitimacy Strategies.
Institutional change is thought to occur either individualistically or holistically
(DiMaggio 1988; Beckert 1999; Fligstein 1997; Schiller-Merkens 2007). At the individualistic
level, change is considered to be an outcome of the agent that has caused it, where at the holistic
level, the change is caused by a shock from the environment. Organizations that are high in
plurality value are likely to be high on their emphasis of holistic level which allows for the
emphasis on diversity and relationships. When institutional changes are thought to occur at two
different levels, plurality value will likely encourage organizations to engage in authorization
strategies because mechanistic approaches can help alleviate some of the challenges that come
with conformity and diversity (Davis and Marquis 2005). This is especially true for
interorganizational relationships due to the nature of complex diverse relations between entities.
Thus, increased levels of diversity will likely help firms plan for references to authority figures
in order to communicate the need for certain actions.
H3a: Higher levels of plurality value in an organization will increase the organization’s attempt
to engage in authorization strategies.
22

Within an institutional framework, firms aim to meet, not exceed, the expectations of
“social actors” (Bansal and Clelland 2004). Although firms create habitual behaviors and
processes, institutional theory also suggests that in order to survive in the market, firms need to
be able to change with the changing conditions around them. Organizations that have high levels
of plurality value likely to engage in rationalization strategies because a firm needs to focus on
diversity but also conform to the norms within the institutional environment. Flexibility of
organizations in changing market conditions is vital for survival but it can become complicated
due to institutional pressures. When organizations increase the level of plurality purpose,
exchange partners will likely feel appreciated and welcomed by business partners (Herche 1995).
Thus, plurality values can lead to careful planning of rationalization strategies in order to gain
the necessary resources in order to stay flexible and true to the plurality value of the
organization.
H3b: Higher levels of plurality value in an organization will increase the organization’s attempt
to engage in rationalization strategies.
Scanning the environment and being aware of the changing institutional pressures, not
every firm will react the same when it comes to their organizational responses (Oliver 1991).
Boiral (2007) suggests that firms could engage in “superficial or ceremonial conformity”.
Superficial conformity happens because in order to strengthen and/or support their legitimacy
within the institutional environment, organizations within an institution act in accordance to the
institutional norms, whether these norms are embedded in the cognitive actions of actors or
embedded in the history of the institutions (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Organization with high
levels of plurality value will likely emphasize the relationships within an institutional
environment ((Herche 1995). Although there are specific norms to follow, plurality also favors

23

the diversity. This discrepancy between the plurality value and moralization strategy allows
business partners to share themselves and accept one another (Deshpande and Webster 1989), in
which the norms and values of both are communicated and expected. Therefore, in order to be
able to bring in different concepts or act differently than the other actors, organizations that are
high in plurality value will likely reference specific value systems that provide the moral basis
for their actions.
H3c: Higher levels of plurality value in an organization will increase the organization’s attempt
to engage in moralization strategies.
The level of responsiveness and creativity becomes an interesting and complex issue
within the context of institutional environment. Organizations need to stay true to the norms and
values but at the same time differentiate itself and be competitive. Communicating the message
of plurality will allow organizations through the narratives of managers’ experiences and the past
stories of success or failure will likely help the organization in terms of strengthening the
position it is taking (Desphande and Webster 1989). When organizations feel appreciated and
welcomed by their exchange partners, this will likely lead to more sharing of tacit knowledge
and more sharing of the experiences (Herche 1995). Therefore, organizations that are high in
plurality value will benefit from using the narratives to indicate how the issue can be resolved.
H3d: Higher levels of plurality value in an organization will increase the organization’s attempt
to engage in mythopoesis strategies.
Subsidiarity and Legitimacy Strategies.
Subsidiarity values include empowerment of employees and promoting accountability
throughout the organization. Sleeter (1991) argues that submissive members of the groups will
not be able to define empowerment because they have not experienced it. When it comes to
empowerment, it should be done collectively. Through empowerment, organizations will be able
24

to create organization cultures that nurture employees’ sense-making abilities. Haskins (1996)
suggests that the organizational sense making is not as easy as it sounds. Different actors will
interpret the same activity differently. Pacanowsky and O’Donnell-Trujillo (1982) adds to the
organizational culture by bringing the interpretation aspect. They suggest that rather than
focusing on explanations of why certain actions are being taken, firms need to understand how
those actions are being interpreted. Successful interpretation of differing activities will likely
result from increased empowerment rather than implementing laws. Therefore, an organization
will be less likely to use authorization strategy in order to communicate its actions to its
exchange partner within an institutional environment. The organization will likely create these
relationships with the partners that both firms will likely interpret the actions similarly, thus
diminishing the need to refer to regulatory bodies and law makers.
H4a: Higher levels of subsidiarity value in an organization will decrease the organization’s
attempt to engage in authorization strategies.
Empowerment goes hand in hand with the freedom of speech in order to create an
organizational culture that promotes subsidiarity value (Haskins 1996). When organizations are
high in subsidiarity, the overall culture will likely promote free speech. Organizations will likely
benefit from such freedom because within institutional environments, they are expected to act a
certain way although they still need to differentiate themselves from competition (Barney 1991’
Porter 1996). Freedom of speech comes in handy, as the era we are in, businesses expect a lot
more from teamwork based activities. Teams that are able to communicate effectively will likely
perform better (Haskins 1996), in turn, will be able to offer more creative solutions to the firm.
In order to survive in their institutional environment, firms need to be able to change with the
changing conditions around them. When firms possess high levels of subsidiarity value, they can

25

effectively create solutions and provide specific examples to their exchange partners as to why
certain actions are taken. This stems from exchange partners’ comfort level when it comes to
raising opinions and being able to refer to specific contexts when taking action. Thus,
rationalization strategy will likely be planned successfully in order to provide support for the
creative solutions that arise from empowering the employees and allowing freedom of speech
within organizations.
H4b: Higher levels of subsidiarity value in an organization will increase the organization’s
attempt to engage in rationalization strategies.
Subsidiarity value inherently deals with the notion of sense of belonging. When
employees are empowered and delegated authority, they will likely feel more connected to their
organizations. Walter (1984) identified three different levels of moral judgment: moral value
defined by punishment and reward, moral value resides in filling the correct roles, maintaining
order, and meeting expectations of others, and lastly moral value resides in conformity to shared
standards, rights, and duties (p. 425). When organizations establish the subsidiarity value, the
basis of moral judgments will likely change and evolve into conforming to the shared
understanding. This is especially important because organizations cannot succeed without
improving the team performance (Walter 1984), in this case, the relations they have with their
exchange partners. Thus, when organizations have high levels of subsidiarity value will likely
emphasize the institutional norms and values in their communications with their exchange
partners.
H4c: Higher levels of subsidiarity value in an organization will increase the organization’s
attempt to engage in moralization strategies.

26

The professionals that are present in institutional environments will likely have advanced
training and adopt professional codes of conduct (Aiken and Hage 1966). Similar to teambuilding activities, subsidiarity value will likely encourage these professionals to communicate
and share their personal experiences and thoughts when a decision needs to be made. Higher
subsidiarity values will likely encourage organizations to engage in more intrapersonal relations
and communication (Webster 1993). This open communication would nurture and allow
managers to communicate through narratives and personal experiences when dealing with
exchange partners. Thus, it is likely that subsidiarity value will increase the level of
communication and openness, which in turn, will likely increase the use of mythopoesis
strategies by organizations.
H4d: Higher levels of subsidiarity value in an organization will increase the organization’s
attempt to engage in mythopoesis strategies.
Reciprocity and Legitimacy Strategies.
Organizations enter into series of contracts with their counterparts and these contracts
could be formal, informal, or even unspoken (Cyert and March 1963; Keeley 1980; Keeley
1987). These contracts and agreements link two different actors to each other. When the link is
created, the concept of reciprocity starts to emerge. When two separate organizations enter into
an agreement, unless they have been in business long enough, both parties will be entering into a
less stable and more uncertain environment. Both firms will be looking to identify where they
stand and what to expect (Schaubroeck, Peng, and Hannah 2013). Regulations and rules within
an institutional environment will provide a helpful guideline for these firms. When organizations
are high in reciprocity value, they will likely engage in mutually beneficial activities. These
could include acting responsibly and following the regulations imposed by the regulatory bodies.

27

Because if one of the partners do not act in accordance with the institutional laws, the other
partner could be affected (Rojo and Dijk 1997).
H5a: Higher levels of reciprocity value in an organization will increase the organization’s
attempt to engage in authorization strategies.
Organizations that are high in reciprocity value will likely reap the benefits of
exchanging and leveraging resources with their exchange partners. Shaobroeck, Peng, and
Hannah (2013) argue that high quality exchange relationships involve affect-based emotions
between the parties. This connection will likely help firms obtain the necessary information and
understand the institutional environment better. This, in turn, leads to an understanding of the
specific context the firms are operating under. When an organization nurtures and supports the
value of reciprocity within its culture, it is greatly helping itself to understand its surroundings
and frame of references. Therefore, the higher levels of reciprocity value within an organization
will allow organization to exchange more information and create a better understanding of the
environment. When organizations understand the environment better, they can use information
within the specific context to support their actions and decisions more thoroughly.
H5b: Higher levels of reciprocity value in an organization will increase the organization’s
attempt to engage in rationalization strategies.
Organizations that are high in reciprocity value will likely increase their use of
moralization strategies because interorganizational relationships are complex and
multidimensional (Hitt et al 2000; Mesquita 2007), but at the same time in need of stability.
Adhering to norms and values of the institutional environments become vital to these
relationships in a way that, organizations expect the exchange partner to act in a certain way,
which creates stability. When organizations emphasize the importance of reciprocity within

28

itself, the managers within an organizational body will likely be encouraged to use institutional
norms and values when addressing the reasons for such reciprocal behavior (Meyer, Allen, and
Smith 1993). Therefore, when organizations increase their reciprocity value, the level of
planning for the moralization strategies should also be high.
H5c: Higher levels of reciprocity value in an organization will increase the organization’s
attempt to engage in moralization strategies.
The interactions between exchange partners sometimes demand transfer of tacit
knowledge, or in other words, hard to codify assets (Connelly, Miller, and Devers 2012). When
organizations build and cultivate reciprocity value within organizations, the relationship between
exchange partners grows stronger (Meyer, Allen, and Smith 1993) and leads to reduced need for
formal agreements. This opens doors to more interpersonal communication and interpersonal
exchanges between the organizations (Heide and John 1992). Thus, when the reciprocity value is
high, the relationships between firms may evolve and prosper into more exchanges, which in turn
will likely lead to more informal communication patterns. This would likely increase the use of
tacit knowledge and managerial experience when providing support for an organizations’ actions
to its exchange partners.
H5d: Higher levels of reciprocity value in an organization will increase the organization’s
attempt to engage in mythopoesis strategies.
Sustainability and Legitimacy Strategies.
Sustainability is one of the mostly studied concepts in marketing. The examples of some
of the scholarly research include the effects of corporate environmentalism (Banerjee et al 2003)
to sustainability marketing (Chabowski, Mena, and Gonzalez-Padron 2011; Varadarajan 2014),
from green marketing (Sharma et al 2010; Luchs et al 2010) to corporate social responsibility
(Peloza and Shang 2011). When organizations pursue and integrate the sustainability value into
29

their organizational cultures, they start to impact the overall environment around them. This
environment is not only the marketplace they operate in, but also their employees, shareholders,
customers, and other stakeholders. Sustainability becomes a very important concept because
firms’ exchange partners expect a degree of ‘caring for the environment’ from their counterparts
(Leonidou, Katsikeas, and Morgan 2013). Organizations that value and actively consider the
environment will likely be well-informed on the consequences of their actions (Wood 1991).
Thus, it is likely that the organizations with higher levels of sustainability will do their
homework and be more knowledgeable about their interactions with its environment. This
increased knowledge will likely present itself as an increase in the planning of authorization
strategy in order to justify their actions, whether they do it consciously or unconsciously.
H6a: Higher levels of sustainability value in an organization will increase the organization’s
attempt to engage in authorization strategies.
Organizations with higher levels of sustainability values will inherently be aware of their
environments due to the “leave it the way you found it” mentality. They will be more aware of
what is happening around them. Sustainability requires organizations to understand their
environments as well as their impact on the environment. Wood (1991) argues that in order to be
able to rank high on the sustainability value, organizations need to have social responsibility
principles as motivating factors and how the environment that it operates in perceives these
attempts at sustaining the environment (Leonidou, Katsikeas, and Morgan 2013). Chabowski,
Mena, and Gonzalez-Padron (2011) states that organizations need to pay attention to issues such
as community relations, education support, and charitable contributions. Thus, when
organizations have higher levels of sustainability value, they will likely to refer to the contextual

30

cues present in their environments due to the built-in environmental scanner called; sustainability
value.
H6b: Higher levels of sustainability value in an organization will increase the organization’s
attempt to engage in rationalization strategies.
Maignan and Ferrell (2004) suggest that one of the conceptualizations of the corporate
social responsibility actions is based on social obligations. Within that concept, firms need to
make a decision based on what types of actions are desirable in a given social setting. In
interorganizational relations, the organization with the higher sustainability value will likely be
more aware of the surroundings and what is expected of the firms to do. Maignan and Ferrell
(2004) propose that “organizations act in a socially responsible manner when they align their
behaviors with the norms and demands embraced by their main stakeholders” (p. 6). Thus, when
organizations are high on sustainability value, the planning use of norms and social values will
likely increase in order to provide support for their actions.
H6c: Higher levels of sustainability value in an organization will increase the organization’s
attempt to engage in moralization strategies.
“In the long run, those who do not use power in a manner which society considers
responsible will tend to lose it” (Davis 1973, p. 314). In order to convey the message of why an
organization is taking certain actions in the most possibly responsible way, the role of managers
becomes vital. They can communicate the importance of sustainability to the organization’s
different stakeholders through their know-how (Leonidou, Katsikeas, and Morgan 2013).
Managers’ professionalism and experience will likely come in handy, when the organization
would like to explain why they are doing what they are doing. With the increased emphasis
placed on the sustainability value, organizations will be more aware of what stakeholders value

31

and expect. At that point, managers’ knowledge becomes one of the critical components for
interacting with its partners. Thus, increased levels of sustainability values will likely lead to
increased use of a manager’s know-how, expertise, and experiences.
H6d: Higher levels of sustainability value in an organization will increase the organization’s
attempt to engage in mythopoesis strategies.
Legitimacy Strategies and Verification Actions.
Legitimacy strategies allow firms to incorporate the necessary support mechanisms and
resources in order to take convincing actions. For instance, authorization strategy bases its
arguments on the authorities and already in place laws and regulations (Boyle et al 1992). Within
specific contexts, managers can make the argument that a specified course of action is inevitable
or is a necessity, which is supported through the rationalization strategy. When it comes to
moralization strategy, firms communicate the message that the exchange partners need to act in
accordance with what is expected of them in the marketplace. Institutional environments have
inherent norms and values, which are respected and expected. These norms and values can be
communicated to the organization and exchange partners through the experiences and narratives
of the managers (Swasy 1979; Kohli and Zaltman 1988), as it is planned in the mythopoesis
strategy. In its totality, legitimacy strategies are formed and formalized with the hopes that
organizations take certain actions that are deemed appropriate and in accordance with the market.
When organizations act “appropriately”, the necessity of closely monitoring the exchange
partners start to decrease.
With the changes in institutional markets, organizations evolve and this evolution leads to
institutional changes. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) touch upon this fact implicitly when they
argue about a field-level approach, in which certain elements of the environment or market
pressures can change and demand different things from organizations. In order to reduce the
32

need for monitoring and allocating resources to other crucial areas within an organization –
otherwise lost in monitoring activities of the partner – legitimacy strategies embedded within
organizations can prove very useful and important. Therefore, organizations that formally
strategize for legitimacy will likely decrease the need for interfirm monitoring.
When the increased use of legitimacy strategies are present, firms can allocate more time
and resources to anticipate the market changes. They can keep a close eye on the competitors and
the potential avenues for growth. It may also allow firms to allocate necessary resources to
product development that can provide them with a competitive edge. Therefore, the increased
employment of legitimacy strategies will likely increase the market monitoring activities of the
firm by allowing firms to allocate the resources appropriately and more successfully to the
necessary areas of the firm.
H7: Increased use of legitimacy strategies in an organization will (a) decrease the interfirm
monitoring, and (b) increase the market monitoring.
Moderating Effects of Competitive Environment
As institutions grow and evolve, exchanges between partners become more mechanistic
and within the expected norms. At the same time, when competitive environment grows, the
overall nature of the competition will likely evolve and also become more stable (Barnett 1997).
Although competitive, institutional environments will likely benefit from a mature and intense
competitive environment because inherently, institutions favor stability. This will likely allow
firms to capitalize on the allocation of resources (Martin and Javalgi 2016).
Competitive hostility on the other hand can throw off the balance within an institutional
environment. Organizations may need to increase their efforts to either proactively attack or be

33

ready for a potential attack by a rival firm (Porter 1985; MacMillan 1983). All this effort may
undermine the effective and efficient resource allocation of firms.
Through the formulation of legitimacy strategies, organizations aim to eliminate the need
to constantly monitor exchange partners, thus enjoy the consequent scale and scope efficiencies.
These efficiencies could range from reducing the use of redundant resources to leveraging the
unused resources to better monitor the marketplace (Martin and Javalgi 2016; Romanelli 1987).
With the increased levels of competitive intensity, the strength of rivals to influence one another
will decrease. With the reduced levels of strength, organizations may not need to monitor their
exchange partners as closely. Thus:
H8: Increased levels of competitive intensity will strengthen (a) the negative relationship
between legitimacy strategies and interfirm monitoring (b) positive relationship between
legitimacy strategies and market monitoring.
On the contrary, increased levels of competitive hostility will likely keep organizations
on their feet, in which they need to constantly monitor their exchange partners as well as the
market (Covin and Covin 1990). This is due to the increased levels of aggressiveness and
potential retaliation by the rivals. Increased levels of aggressiveness could also push firms to
focus their attentions on short term tactics such as focusing more on 4Ps instead of formulizing
legitimacy strategies in order to influence their exchange partners (Slater and Narver 1994). This
shorter term emphasis will likely take away from the more long term focus on establishing
legitimacy in the institutional environment. Overall, increased hostility will weaken an
organization’s attempts to leverage its legitimacy to control its resource allocation and efficiency
measures. Thus:

34

H9: Increased levels of competitive hostility will (a) weaken the negative relationship between
the legitimacy strategies and interfirm monitoring (b) strengthen the positive relationship
between legitimacy strategies and market monitoring.
Verification Actions and Performance.
Verification actions of firms entail monitoring of one another as well as monitoring the
market that they operate in. Interfirm monitoring entails regulatory and voluntary control and
coordination of an exchange partners activities (Buchanan 1992; Heide, Wathne and Rokkan
2007). Stafford (1994) states that interfirm monitoring may uncover unrealized advantages for
firms in terms of identifying necessary resource exchanges, learning from one another, and
creating meaningful relationships that are hard to imitate. Identification and realization of these
potential benefits will likely increase the performance of firms because it will likely reduce the
redundant allocation of specific resources, finding new and novel ways to create competitive
advantage, and the intangible and ambiguous nature of interfirm relationships that can prove
useful when it comes to accomplishing certain tasks.
On the other hand, market monitoring will likely allow firms to be up to date with the
latest market information. Being up to date with the changes in the marketplace will help firms to
be flexible and ready for any necessary changes. This flexibility is important for a firm’s
performance because effectively responding to a change in the marketplace will likely determine
the success of the firm (Volberda 1997). Without the necessary and vital knowledge of the
marketplace, firms are likely to take slower actions and may lose out on opportunities that their
fast-responding counterparts have benefited from (Ritter and Gemunden 2003). Therefore, when
firms actively monitor each other as well as the marketplace, they will be more informed on what
type of changes are out there and prepare them for necessary adjustments (e.g selection of
different exchange partners) (Ittner et al 1999). Being able to respond to changes in a timely
35

manner will likely increase the firm’s performance by being more responsive and providing the
necessary products and services to a dynamic marketplace.
H10: Increased use of verification actions will increase firm performance.

Methodology
Data Collection
To empirically test the hypotheses, an online survey has been administered for the effects
of organizational cultural values (dignity, solidarity, plurality, subsidiarity, reciprocity, and
sustainability) on firm’s use of legitimacy strategies (authorization, rationalization, moralization,
and mythopoesis) and the impact of legitimacy strategies on organizations’ verification strategies
between exchange partners. The created Likert scale surveys were sent out to key informants in
selected firms. The qualified firms had 100 or more employees, $10 million in sales. Larger and
older companies were selected for this study in order to have a better understanding of the effects
of organizational culture on the strategies and activities of the firm.
Measures
The decisions on which measures to use for this study are twofold: first, where possible,
the established scales were adapted based on the context of this study. Second, based on the key
words used for the frameworks this study adapts, new measurements were created. For a more
comprehensive review of the scales, the appendix includes the items used for each construct.
Measurement scales obtained for six types of purpose values of organizations (i.e.
dignity, solidarity, plurality, subsidiarity, reciprocity, and sustainability), are based on
frameworks of marketing and organizational culture (e.g. Webster 1993, 1994; Heide and John
1992; Desphande and Webster 1989), social values (e.g. Herche 1995), organizational
commitment (e.g. Meyer, Allen, and Smith 1993), and attributes of excellence (Sharma,
Netemeyer, and Mahajan 1990).

36

There are four legitimacy strategies in this study (i.e. authorization, rationalization,
moralization, and mythopoesis). Measurement scales for these strategies are based on the
frameworks of influence strategies in marketing channels (e.g. Boyle et al 1992), channel
leadership (e.g. Schul, Pride, and Little 1983), social power (e.g. Swasy 1979), organizational
buying (e.g. Bunn 1994), and buying influences (Kohli and Zaltman 1988).
Verification actions in exchange relationships are considered to include interfirm
monitoring and market monitoring. The measurement scales are adapted from the ‘buyer
behavior and output monitoring’ scales (e.g. Heide, Wathne, and Rokkan 2007) and monitoring
practices (e.g. Ittner et al 1999).
For performance measures, five different performance measures in order to capture how
purpose values and legitimacy strategies effect market verification actions and in the end, impact
firm performance. Using performance with referents (Short and Palmer 2003) is viewed as the
appropriate way to measure organizational outcomes and fits this study well due to the nature of
legitimacy strategies outlined. Expected market share change and sales growth will be asked to
the respondents based on the logic by Vorhies and Morgan (2005). Additionally, “return on”
measures (ROA, ROI, ROS) are included in the study because “return-on measures reflect the
efficiency with which profits are produced rather than the level of profits achieved” (Katsikeas et
al 2016, p. 10).
Control Variables
Age and size of the organization are included as control variables within this study. Size
of the firm is measured as the number of employees and the total sales of the firm. Size and age
are controlled because older firms may have established cultures and larger firms may inherently
have an organizational culture due to its size. Additionally, Covin and Covin (1990) find that
smaller and younger firms benefit from more aggressive strategic moves therefore it is important
37

to include age and size of the organizations as control variables, so that we account for these
differences.

Results
Measurement Results
Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations, correlation matrix, and shared variances
for the nine study constructs. Table 2 summarizes the measurement analysis (i.e., composite
reliabilities, average variances extracted, factor loadings, and fit statistics). All measures were
subjected to reliability and validity assessments.

38

TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations,
and Shared Variances
Mean

Std.
Dev.

DIG

SOL

PLU

SUB

REC

SUS

AUT

RAT

MOR

MYT

IM

MM

CH

CI

Dignity (DIG)

6.04

1.07

1.00

0.79

0.73

0.65

0.49

0.48

0.41

0.49

0.32

Solidarity (SOL)

5.96

1.03

0.53

0.24

0.25

0.10

0.14

0.89

1.00

0.75

0.72

0.55

0.51

0.45

0.52

Plurality (PLU)

5.86

1.17

Subsidiarity (SUB)
Reciprocity (REC)

5.87
5.51

1.06
1.36

0.86
0.81

0.86
0.85

1.00
0.85

0.72
1.00

0.56
0.52

0.47
0.47

0.47
0.51

0.54
0.51

0.36

0.60

0.23

0.22

0.12

0.16

0.37
0.38

0.60
0.54

0.21
0.24

0.25
0.24

0.14
0.18

0.20
0.21

0.70

0.74

0.75

0.72

1.00

0.54

0.42

Sustainability (SUS)

5.62

1.29

0.42

0.38

0.42

0.24

0.22

0.21

0.18

0.69

0.72

0.69

0.68

0.74

1.00

Authorization (AUT)

5.67

1.12

0.55

0.56

0.44

0.40

0.23

0.28

0.25

0.21

0.64

0.67

0.69

0.71

0.65

Rationalization (RAT)

5.83

0.95

0.74

1.00

0.64

0.55

0.43

0.22

0.27

0.27

0.25

0.70

0.72

0.73

0.71

Moralization (MOR)

5.74

1.01

0.65

0.75

0.80

1.00

0.63

0.55

0.21

0.33

0.25

0.26

Mythopoesis (MYT)
Interfirm Monitoring (IM)

5.92
5.86

0.96
1.06

0.56
0.73

0.60
0.78

0.61
0.77

0.62
0.73

0.62
0.64

0.66
0.63

0.74
0.66

0.79
0.74

1.00
0.66

0.44
1.00

0.16
0.21

0.23
0.25

0.30
0.21

0.27
0.25

0.49

0.48

Market Monitoring (MM)

6.00

1.04

0.46

0.49

0.49

0.48

0.47

0.46

0.41

0.46

1.00

0.47

0.13

0.12

0.50

0.46

Competitive Hostility (CH)

5.43

1.25

0.50

0.49

0.47

0.53

0.52

0.57

0.48

0.50

0.69

1.00

0.15

0.14

0.32
0.35
0.38
0.42
0.45
0.50
0.52
0.50
0.55
0.45
Competitive Intensity (CI)
5.55
1.16
0.37
0.40
0.44
0.45
0.43
0.45
0.50
0.51
0.52
0.50
Note: Correlations are included below the diagonal (each has p<.01). The shared variances are included above the diagonal.

0.36
0.35

0.39
0.38

1.00
0.81

0.65
1.00

39

Confirmatory Factor Analysis
We conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using the six purpose value scales.
We conducted a CFA using a one-factor “purpose value” model and then a six-factor model
including the six separate value constructs. In order to select between the one-factor “purpose
value” model and the six-factor model, we compared the overall fit between the two models. It is
noted that the six-factor model was a better fit (𝜒 2 =737.358, df=284, RMSEA=.090, CFI=.916)
as compared to the one-factor model (𝜒 2 =1440.280, df=299, RMSEA=.138, CFI=.788). The
difference in chi-square values between the two models was 702.922, favoring the six-factor
model. Table 2 shows the six-factor model including each individual item factor loading, in
addition to the correlation among the six purpose value constructs.
Next, we conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using the four legitimacy
strategy scales. We conducted a CFA using a one-factor “legitimacy strategy” model and then a
four-factor model including the four separate legitimacy strategy constructs. In order to select
between the one-factor “legitimacy strategy” model and the four-factor model, we compared the
overall fit between the two models. It is noted that the four-factor model was a better fit
(𝜒 2 =378.853, df=146, RMSEA=.090, CFI=.915) as compared to the one-factor model
(𝜒 2 =590.712, df=152, RMSEA=.120, CFI=.841). The difference in chi-square values between
the two models was 211.859, favoring the four-factor model.

40

TABLE 2
Composite Reliabilities, Average Variances Extracted,
Factor Loadings, and Fit Statistics
Construct – Purpose Value of
Organizations
Dignity (DIG)
Solidarity (SOL)
Plurality (PLU)
Subsidiarity (SUB)
Reciprocity (REC)
Sustainability (SUS)
Fit Statistics:
2 = 737.358
Degrees of Freedom = 284
CFI = .92
RMSEA = .09
Construct – Legitimacy Strategies
Authorization (AUT)
Rationalization (RAT)
Moralization (MOR)
Mythopoesis (MYT)
Fit Statistics:
2 = 378.853
Degrees of Freedom = 146
CFI = .92
RMSEA = .09
Construct – Market Verification Actions
Interfirm Monitoring (IM)
Market Monitoring (MM)
Fit Statistics:
2 = 80.559
Degrees of Freedom = 26
CFI = .941
RMSEA = .103
Construct – Competition
Competitive Hostility (CH)
Competitive Intensity (CI)
Fit Statistics:
2 = 127.056
Degrees of Freedom = 34
CFI = .94
RMSEA = .12

Composite
Reliability
.93
.88
.86
.83
.82
.86

Composite
Reliability
.89
.89
.87
.87

Composite
Reliability
.85
.87

Composite
Reliability
.92
.91

41

Average
Variance
Extracted
.72
.60
.68
.55
.53
.55

Factor
Loadings
Range
.83 - .87
.75 - .84
.79 - .89
.64 - .86
.66 - .83
.71 - .76

Cronbach’s
Alpha

Number
of Items

.95
.89
.87
.85
.90
.95

5
5
3
4
4
4

Average
Variance
Extracted
.67
.62
.58
.57

Factor
Loadings
Range
.71 - .89
.77 - .83
.72 - .82
.66 - .82

Cronbach’s
Alpha

Number
of Items

.89
.89
.87
.87

4
5
5
5

Average
Variance
Extracted
.54
.62

Factor
Loadings
Range
.68 - .78
.76 - .84

Cronbach’s
Alpha

Number
of Items

.84
.87

5
4

Average
Variance
Extracted
.68
.68

Factor
Loadings
Range
.82 - .85
.77 - .83

Cronbach’s
Alpha

Number
of Items

.91
.92

5
5

Structural Equation Modeling
To test the hypotheses, we used Stata software to run structural equation modeling,
controlling for company age, company size in employee number and sales, and controlling for
the market share this period. Controlling for market share in this period in order to create a more
objective-natured performance measure as with primary data, the actual performance scores
could not be obtained. All predictor variables were standardized by mean centering.
H1a-d state that the dignity value is positively associated with the legitimacy strategies.
Unfortunately, none of the relationships were significant. Thus, H1a-d are not supported. H2a-d
states that the solidarity value is positively associated with the legitimacy strategies. Solidarity
value has a significant positive relationship only with the mythopoesis strategy. (β2d= .49,
p<0.05). Thus, H2 is partially supported. Plurality value does not have a significant relationship
with any of the legitimacy strategies in any of the models, thus H3a-d is not supported.
H4 states that the subsidiarity value has a negative relationship with the authorization
strategy and have positive relationships with the rationalization, moralization, and mythopoesis
strategies. Subsidiarity value has significant positive relationships with all the legitimacy
strategies (β4a,b,c,d= .75, .83, .85, .60, p<0.001). H4 is partially supported. Reciprocity value has
no significant relationship with the legitimacy strategies, thus H5a-d are not supported.
Sustainability has positive significant relationships with authorization, rationalization, and
moralization strategies (β6a,b,c = .51, .50, .31, p-value<0.001) however it does not have a
significant relationship with the mythopoesis strategy. Thus, H6 is partially supported.
H7a states that the legitimacy strategies have a negative relationship with interfirm
monitoring. Authorization and mythopoesis strategies did not have a significant relationship with
the interfirm monitoring, however, rationalization strategy has a positive significant relationship
with the interfirm monitoring (β7ab= 2.04, p-value<0.001). On the other hand, moralization
42

strategy has a negative significant relationship with the interfirm monitoring as hypothesized
(β7ac= -1.3, p-value<0.05). Thus, H7a is partially supported. H7b states that there is a positive
relationship between legitimacy strategies and market monitoring. Only rationalization strategy
has a positive relationship with the market monitoring (β7bb= 2.27, p-value<0.001) and the rest of
the strategies have negative significant relationships (β7ba,c,d= -.63, -1.1, -.33 p-value<0.05,
respectively). Thus, H7b is partially supported.
H8a states that the negative relationship between legitimacy strategies and interfirm
monitoring will be strengthened by competitive intensity. Competitive intensity strengthens the
negative relationship between moralization (β8ac= -.47, p-value<0.05) but it also strengthens the
positive relationship between the rationalization and the interfirm monitoring (β8ab= .80, pvalue<0.05), thus H8a partially supported. Although there is not a direct relationship between
mythopoesis strategy and the interfirm monitoring, there is a crossover interaction when the
competitive intensity variable is included in the model. H8b states that the positive relationship
between the legitimacy strategies and market monitoring will be strengthened by the competitive
intensity. The relationship between authorization, moralization, and mythopoesis strategies and
the market monitoring is weakened by the competitive intensity (β8a,c,d= -.47, -.45, -.75 p-value
<0.05, p-value<.05, p-value<0.001, respectively) however, the relationship between
rationalization and the market monitoring is strengthened by the competitive intensity (β8bb=
1.02, p-value<0.001), thus H8b is partially supported.
H9a states that the negative relationship between legitimacy strategies and interfirm
monitoring will be weakened by the competitive hostility. The relationship between mythopoesis
strategy and the interfirm monitoring is weakened by the competitive hostility (β9ad=-.62, pvalue<0.001) Thus, H9a is partially supported. H9b states that the positive relationship between
43

legitimacy strategies and marketing monitoring will be strengthened by the competitive hostility.
The relationship between rationalization strategy and the market monitoring is weakened by the
competitive hostility (β9bb= -83, p-value<0.001). The relationship between moralization and
mythopoesis strategies and the market monitoring is strengthened by the competitive hostility
(β9bc= .43, p-value<0.05; (β9bd= .57, p-value<0.05). Thus, H9b is partially supported.
Lastly, H10 states that the verification actions will be positively associated with the firm
performance. There was a significant positive relationship between market monitoring and the
market share. Therefore, H10 is partially supported.
Path Analysis
Due to the small sample size, path analysis method has also been implemented to in order
to have a comprehensive understanding of the nature of these relationships. Table 3 shows the
results of the path analysis results for the hypothesized relationships between the purpose values
of the organizations and the legitimacy strategies.
TABLE 3
Path Analysis Results

Dignity
Solidarity
Plurality
Subsidiarity
Reciprocity
Sustainability

Authorization
-0.078
(-0.74)
-0.059
(-0.52)
0.161
(1.55)
0.331***
(3.61)
0.042
(0.56)
0.475***
(6.78)

Rationalization
-0.020
(-0.20)
0.107
(0.97)
0.236*
(2.36)
0.145
(1.64)
-0.015
(-0.21)
0.440***
(6.52)

Moralization
-0.107
(-0.86)
0.009
(0.07)
0.157
(1.29)
0.200
(1.86)
0.156
(1.79)
0.362***
(4.39)

Mythopoesis
-0.045
(-0.44)
0.360**
(3.21)
0.320**
(3.15)
0.099
(1.11)
0.031
(0.43)
0.100
(1.46)

The results of this analysis provided similar results but also provided different additional
significant relationships. In the SEM model, the effect of solidarity value on the mythopoesis
44

strategy was not significant within the model where ROI was the dependent variable. In the PLS
model, on the other hand, it provides a significant relationship between solidarity and
mythopoesis strategy. Although most tested significant relationships are the same, some of the
results differed when path analysis was conducted. In addition to what was found in the SEM
model, path analysis provided support for the plurality value and its relationship with
rationalization and mythopoesis (β3b,d= 0.24, 0.32, p<0.05, p<0.01 respectively). Thus, based on
the path analysis results, H3 is partially supported.
Additionally, in the SEM model, subsidiarity had all significant relationships with all the
legitimacy strategies. However, in the path analysis, subsidiarity only had a significant
relationship with the authorization strategy. Initial hypothesis was that subsidiarity would have a
negative effect on the authorization strategy, therefore H4a is still not supported.
Even after the path analysis, H5 did not have any significant results, thus not supported.
On the other hand, there was no difference between the results of H6 – sustainability has positive
significant relationships with authorization, rationalization, and moralization; but no significant
relationship with the mythopoesis strategy.
As for the verification actions, H7a states that the legitimacy strategies have a negative
relationship with interfirm monitoring and H7b states that there is a positive relationship between
legitimacy strategies and market monitoring. After the path analysis, H7a is not supported but
H7b is partially supported where the positive significant relationship between rationalization and
the market monitoring remained, but the rest of the relationships disappeared. The relationships
and effect sizes are summarized in Table 4.

45

TABLE 4
Path Analysis Results

Authorization
Rationalization
Moralization
Mythopoesis

Interfirm Monitoring
0.126
(1.06)
0.185
(1.34)
-0.180
(-1.58)
0.204
(1.86)

Market Monitoring
0.092
(0.84)
0.431***
(3.39)
-0.112
(-1.06)
0.069
(0.68)

When the interaction effects were added to the path analysis, the strengthening effect of
competitive intensity between the mythopoesis and interfirm monitoring remained however all
other significant results disappeared. Thus, H8a partially supported. As for H8b, the effect of
competitive intensity on the relationships between legitimacy strategies and market monitoring,
only the weakening effect on the relationship between mythopoesis and market monitoring and
the strengthening effect on the relationship between rationalization and the market monitoring
remained.
H9a hypothesized the moderating effect of competitive hostility on the relationship
between legitimacy strategies and the verification actions. Based on the results of the path
analysis, the effect of competitive hostility on the relationship between the moralization and the
market monitoring disappeared, but the remaining significant relationships results stayed the
same.
After the path analysis, the positive significant effect of market monitoring and the
market share has disappeared. Table 5 provides a summary of the results of the interaction
effects on the link between the legitimacy strategies and the interfirm monitoring and market
monitoring.
46

TABLE 5
Path Analysis Results for Interaction Effects

Authorization x Competitive Intensity

Interfirm Monitoring
-0.024
(-0.10)

Market Monitoring
-0.248
(-1.11)

Rationalization x Competitive Intensity

0.420
(1.66)

0.647**
(2.76)

Moralization x Competitive Intensity

-0.207
(-0.94)

-0.374
(-1.85)

Mythopoesis x Competitive Intensity

-0.356*
(-2.49)

-0.467***
(-3.54)

Authorization x Competitive Hostility

-0.219
(-0.92)

0.167
(0.76)

Rationalization x Competitive Hostility

-0.352
(-1.42)

-0.693**
(-3.03)

Moralization x Competitive Hostility

-0.073
(-0.36)

0.344
(1.84)

Mythopoesis x Competitive Hostility

0.549***
(3.69)

0.438**
(3.19)

Discussion and Implications
One of the main objectives of this paper is to study the legitimacy concept at the macrostrategy making level. Looking at what type of values a firm holds and how it relates to the
strategy creation can establish a firm’s success or failure in the marketplace. Drawing upon the
institutional theory, this essay provides a theoretical lens at legitimacy concept and how it may
be used within the research in marketing.
Identified legitimacy strategies are new to the marketing field and they provide fruitful
avenues to study competitive environments, monitoring activities, and market share of firms.
This empirical analysis is based on 324 observations with 200 usable responses from
47

management level respondents. The study investigated how the organizational purpose values
can lead to planning of different strategies and how these strategies may impact firms monitoring
activities in the marketplace. Inherent within the institutional theory, the firms must analyze their
environment, especially competitors to survive the shake-out period. Thus, this study also
considers the impact of competitive environment on the relations of legitimacy strategies and
firms’ monitoring activities; and in the end the firm performance.
This study creates a different and a comprehensive framework that provides a novel
perspective on how organizations evolve and survive within the institutional environments; as
the survival of organizations within a marketplace is an important concept that cannot be
overlooked. With that being said, organizational culture also plays an important role when it
comes to determining the path a firm wishes to choose (Jaworksi and Kohli 1993; Homburg and
Pflesser 2000; Kirca et al 2005). The strategy a firm chooses to pursue will signal the underlying
purpose of an organization and the inner-mechanisms within it. These inner workings are needed
so that firms can establish legitimacy and use the appropriate legitimacy strategies in the
marketplace. By using the framework suggested by Hollensbe et al (2014), this study
incorporates the six purpose values of organizations (dignity, solidarity, plurality, subsidiarity,
reciprocity, and sustainability) to uncover the linkages between organizational values and how
they lead to four distinct legitimacy strategies (authorization, rationalization, moralization, and
mythopoesis).
The results of this study uncover the importance of the solidarity value (being just and
fair) has a positive direct effect on mythopoesis strategy (reference to tacit knowledge/prior
experience). This study also finds support for the positive direct effects of subsidiarity value
(delegation of decision making/accountability) on all the legitimacy strategies. Furthermore,
48

sustainability value (stewardship of people) has positive direct effects on legitimacy strategies
with mythopoesis being one exception (no direct effects).
This study also investigates the links between legitimacy strategies and verification
actions (interfirm and market monitoring). Rationalization strategy (reference to specific
contexts/times) has a positive direct effect on the interfirm monitoring and the moralization
strategy (reference to norms and values) has a negative direct effect on the interfirm monitoring.
All four strategies have positive direct effects on the market monitoring activities. Additionally,
as mentioned, the study includes competitive environment as the boundary condition. The study
showed that the both competitive intensity (number of competitors) and hostility (aggressiveness
of the competitors) play a role on some of the linkages between the legitimacy strategies and the
interfirm monitoring but play a more major role on the relationship between the strategies and
the market monitoring. Specifically, competitive intensity strengthens the negative relationship
between the moralization strategy and the interfirm monitoring and strengthens the positive
relationship between the rationalization strategy and the interfirm monitoring. Also, including
competitive intensity results in a crossover interaction effect between the mythopoesis and
interfirm monitoring activities (meaning that there was not a significant effect of mythopoesis on
the interfirm monitoring, however there was a negative interaction effect when competitive
intensity was introduced). Additionally, competitive intensity strengthens the negative
relationships between authorization, moralization, and mythopoesis strategies and the market
monitoring, separately. It also strengthens the positive relationship between rationalization and
the market monitoring activities.
As for the competitive hostility, once included, the effect of authorization strategy on
market monitoring, the effect of rationalization on interfirm monitoring, and the effect of
49

moralization strategy on the interfirm monitoring activities have disappeared. The competitive
hostility has weakened the positive relationship between the rationalization strategy and the
market monitoring, has weakened the negative relationship between the moralization and the
market monitoring, and has weakened the negative relationship between the mythopoesis and the
market monitoring activities. As with the other moderator variable, competitive hostility had a
crossover interaction with the mythopoesis strategy. There was a negative interaction effect on
the relationship between the mythopoesis and the interfirm monitoring although there was not a
main effect between the mythopoesis and the interfirm monitoring. These findings have several
important implications for theory and managerial implications.
First, this study introduces a more defined and narrowed down version of the legitimacy
concept to the marketing research. It improves and adds to the existing research on
organizational culture (Jaworksi and Kohli 1993; Homburg and Pflesser 2000; Kirca et al 2005;
Boyd, Chandy, and Cunha Jr. 2010; Nath and Mahajan 2011) that leads to distinct strategy
creation. It brings a strategic marketing touch into the institutional theory as it brings market
share as the performance measure and shows how the distinct legitimacy strategies may affect
the firm performance in the end. Additionally, by adapting already established measures to study
the legitimacy strategies, it opens a new way to test these relationships and avenues to fine-tune
the concepts from a marketing research perspective.
This study distinguishes that if organizations were to instill a value system where the
justice and fairness are emphasized and that the firm clearly communicates the shared
understanding, ‘we are all in this together’ throughout, it increases the efficient use of tacit
knowledge and the experiences of managers. On the other hand, delegation of responsibility
reinforces the individuals to be more in-tune with the latest rules and regulations as, in the end
50

they would be held responsible. But this notion also supports the institutional theory view – as
the institutions grow, they become efficient and start leaving the work to professionals (Meyer
and Rowan 1983).
Delegation of responsibilities also help individuals to make more sense of the specific
contexts, norms, and experiences as they will be more involved with the task at hand as well as
more involved with the organization. Thus, it contributes to the organizational culture
perspective. Barney (1986) states that “the firms with sustained superior performance typically
are characterized by a strong set of core managerial values that they define the ways they
conduct business” (p. 656). These core values mostly include the treatment of employees and the
other stakeholders that are involved with the firm. However, this study provides a more holistic
and complete picture in terms of how the delegation of responsibilities can help the organization
move forward and create appropriate strategies.
This study also adds to the sustainability literature. Sustainability literature focuses on
triple bottom line (social, environmental, and financial). These studies include sustainable
products, ethical products, as well as social responsibility to stakeholders (Luo and Bhattacharya
2006; Sen and Bhattacharya 2001; Brown and Dacin 1997). Within the boundaries of this study,
sustainability value of organizations specifically focuses on the “stewardship of people”. Thus, it
refers to the notion that the sustainability value should be present and embedded within the
organizations which in turn will impact the successful creation of appropriate planning of
legitimacy strategies and their usage. This paper provides a different set of linkages for strategic
marketing to consider in the future. This is important because sustainability research has mixed
results (good or bad for the performance of the firm) (Luo and Bhattacharya 2006; Sen and
Bhattacharya 2001; Brown and Dacin 1997) thus, this study offers the outlook on the
51

sustainability value as a purpose value of the organization rather than using it to signal that the
“firm’s offerings are green or ethically produced/designed/marketed”. The finding of a nonexisting relationship of the sustainability value with the mythopoesis strategy is interesting as
stewardship of people value would need to be within an individual’s (in this case a manager’s
mind). It was interesting to see that the sustainability value had significant relationships with
regulatory, contextual, and normative strategies and not the experiential strategies.
This study incorporates the monitoring activities of firms and the relationship of these
activities with the legitimacy strategies. It provides evidence that the context-based strategies
increase the interfirm monitoring but normative strategies decrease the interfirm monitoring.
Additionally, contrary to expectations, regulatory, normative, and experiential strategy reduced
the need to level of market monitoring. Though as expected, the contextual strategies increased
the market monitoring activities. These findings add to the monitoring literature by showing that
with the right legitimacy strategies, the firms may be able to allocate their resources elsewhere
instead of continuous effort for the monitoring activities they engage in (e.g. finding new target
segments, investing in R&D, improving products or services, etc.). These efforts can then be
turned into gaining and expanding the existing market share that the firm holds.
Furthermore, this study offers a different way to approach competitive intensity. Barnett
(1997) argues that the competitive intensity becomes more experience-based as the number of
competitors increase. With that in mind, from the institutional theory perspective, institutions
favors stability for survival. As the organizations mature and gain more experiences in the
marketplace, the competitor numbers will increase. This increase will likely force companies to
pick and choose their battles. Therefore, this study gives another perspective to the competitive

52

environment research to consider rather than generalizing that as the intensity increases, the
effects of competition will increase.
On the other hand, this paper shows that when the competitive hostility is present,
organizations must be alert for any market movement and the actions of their counterparts. The
findings show that with the level of competitive hostility increases, it reduces the reliance on the
normative and experiential, (moralization and mythopoesis) strategies when it comes to market
monitoring. Plus, it reduces the use of contextual (rationalization) strategies as the contexts and
situational factors may be changing as the market becomes more hostile. The boundary condition
of the hostility also uncovers the link between mythopoesis and interfirm monitoring and how it
strengthens the negative relationship between the two, although there is no direct relationship
between the two variables. This carries important implications for managers as it shows the need
to be ready and prepared when they are operating in hostile institutions and marketplaces, since it
is very important if the firms want to stay in their market, if not expand their market.
These results are helpful for practitioners because being able to differentiate the strategies
for legitimizing themselves, organizations can plan the path they choose and communicate this
path clearly to their counterparts. Especially when it comes to creating and communicating the
organizational purpose to its own members, an organization will be able to take advantage of its
employees better due to the messages it will likely convey to them; such as the just and fair
characteristics of the organization, trusting the individuals by assigning and delegating
responsibilities, and communicating that the organization is the stewards of its people.
This study uncovers the positive effect of referencing specific contexts and past times on
the interfirm monitoring activities. One of the reasons for this relationship could be the fact that
managers will likely compare the past actions with the recent developments. Thus, the increase
53

in the verifying behavior. On the other hand, when managers plan to use the institutional norms,
the expected behavior of the firm’s counterparts should be already determined, which in turn
leads to lower levels of verifying behavior by the organizations. This implication is important
because the resources to monitor their customers/suppliers could be used towards achieving and
sustaining the competitive advantage more efficiently and effectively.
When it comes to market monitoring activities, this paper revealed that the plan to use
laws and rules of the marketplace, to use norms of the institutional environment, and to use the
personal experiences, reduces the need to monitor the market. One possible explanation to these
relationships is that the actors in the marketplace must work within the boundaries of the law and
regulations. This is also the case for the norms and values of the institutional environment as the
actors within an institution is expected to act a certain way to be accepted by the others (Meyer
and Rowan 1991). Additionally, as the experience levels of the managers increase, they are more
likely to be able to gauge the market forces thus foresee the actions that will be taken by the
other actors better than the managers with less experience. Therefore, the use of authorization,
moralization, and mythopoesis strategies may have played a part in reducing the level of market
monitoring activities. However, as hypothesized, rationalization strategy increase leads to an
increased level of market monitoring. Rationalization strategy refers to the referencing specific
time points, dealings, contexts to justify certain actions (van Dijk 1998; van Leeuwen and
Wodak 1999; Vaara and Monin 2010). Thus, to be updated and to be reminded of the actions of
their counterparts in specific situations and at specific times, managers must keep a close eye on
the market, which explains the increase in the market monitoring activities.
This study also shows that when organizations follow the norms of the institutional
environment they are in, having to focus on fewer major competitors reduce the need to
54

continuously monitor their competitors. This in turn can help the managers focus on different
tasks as well as giving them opportunities to improve the organizational performance. In the
same line of thinking, managers can also use their tacit knowledge and experiences in intense
markets to reduce the monitoring. However, in such intense markets, managers need to know
when organizations are involved in multiple dealings and take those as a basis for moving
forward (e.g. looking at past sales, referencing a past dealing), this may require more verifying
activities because the conditions of the previous actions and dealings may have changed. Basing
the judgments and planning strategies by looking at the past and specific contexts will likely
need more resources to be used, if not the same, for gauging the actions of their counterparts.
On the other hand, the aggressiveness of the marketplace and the competitors will require
more reliance on the managers’ expertise and experiences in researching and watching firms’
partners in business. The competitive hostility magnifies the link between strategies of using the
morals and norms of the institutions and the overall monitoring of the marketplace. This is useful
for firms because it allows managers the understand the importance of the keeping up to date
with the market changes when the competitive environment is hostile, even if the institutional
environment has specific norms and values to follow. On the contrary however, the results of this
study show that the boundaries of the competitive environment weaken the relationship between
the use strategies about past performances and the market monitoring. One plausible explanation
for this point could be the fact that, based on prior performances, the companies may already
have an idea on what other firms can accomplish. These reputations may help managers to
decipher the need to monitor one actor and not the other, depending on their work.
Future Research Directions and Limitations
As with every research study, this paper has its weakness. The nature of the data used in
this study is cross-sectional thus gives us only a snapshot of the current state of the market.
55

Especially with the legitimacy concept, this point is a drawback as the legitimacy of firms
increase throughout their life time. As the definition states as the firm “acting the way others
expect it to act,” or in other word, acting “appropriately,” or “in accordance with the societal
expectations”, it builds legitimacy (Meyer and Rowan 1983). Thus, future research should
consider collecting data in waves to empirically test the changes in firm’s legitimacies within the
institutional environments.
Secondly, this study uses variables and constructs that are new to the marketing field. The
four distinct legitimacy strategies as well as the six distinct purpose values of organizations are
rather new, thus there is no established scale to them. This study has adapted the already existing
measures to check the linkages. Although the survey items were diligently picked to reflect the
variable’s definition, creating a new scale and measurement for these constructs and re-analyzing
this study would be a better way to study the outlined relationships.
Third, the survey was sent to manager level individuals and the individuals remained
anonymous. Because of this reason, the performance measures had to be studied by controlling
for this year’s performance measures in order to alleviate some of the objective data limitations.
For future studies, the surveys could be sent out directly to companies that scholars work with
and merge the answers with the objective performance numbers. This way, the study can provide
more objective results based on the hypothesized relationships.
Lastly, the data was collected from key informants from firms. The data does not include
specific business partners of firms, although the managers were asked about their
customers/suppliers. Dyadic data and more preferably triangulation would be beneficial to
understand and look at the phenomena from multiple perspectives. This would be a great way to
study the legitimacy concept as per its definition, the actors in institutional environments act in
56

the expected and accepted way of institutions. The perspective of other actors within the
institutions might reveal very interesting results.

57

Figure 1 Conceptual Model Essay 1

58

REFERENCES

59

REFERENCES

Aiken, Michael and Jerald Hage (1966), “Organizational Alienation: A Comparative
Analysis,” American Sociological Review, 31 (4), 497-507.
Aldrich, Howard E. and C. Marlene Fiol (1994), “Fools Rush In? The Institutional Context of
Industry Creation,” Academy of Management Review, 19 (4), 645-70.
Anderson, Erin and Barton Weitz (1992), “The Use of Pledges to Build and Sustain Commitment
in Distribution Channels,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (1), 18-34.
Assmus, Gert, John U. Farley, and Donald R. Lehmann (1984), “How Advertising Affects Sales:
Meta-Analysis of Econometric Results,” Journal of Marketing Research, 21 (1), 65-74.
Baer, Michael D., Rashpal K. Dhensa-Kahlon, Jason A. Colquitt, Jessica B. Rodell, Ryan
Outlaw, and David M. Long (2015), “Uneasy Lies the Head that Bears the Trust: The
Effecs of Feeling Trusted on Emotional Exhaustion,” Academy of Management
Journal, 58 (6), 1637-57.
Bakos, J. Yannis and Michael E. Treacy (1986), “Information Technology and Corporate
Strategy: A Research Perspective,” MIS Quarterly, 10 (2), 107-19.
Bansal, Pratima and Iain Clelland (2004), “Talking Trash: Legitimacy, Impression Management,
and Unsystematic Risk in the Context of the Natural Environment,” Academy of
Management Journal, 47 (1), 93-103.
Barnett, William P. (1997), “The Dynamics of Competitive Intensity,” Administrative Science
Quarterly, 42 (1), 128-60.
Barney, Jay (1991)., “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage,” Journal of
Management, 17 (1), 99-120.
and Mark H. Hansen (1994), “Trustworthiness as a Source of Competitive Advantage,”
Strategic Management Journal, 15 (S1), 175-90.
Beckert, Jens (1999), “Agency, Entrepreneurs, and Institutional Change. The Role of Strategic
Choice and Institutionalized Practices in Organizations,” Organization Studies, 20 (5),
777-99.
Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann (1991), “The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise
in the Sociology of Knowledge,” No. 10, Penguin Books, UK.
Boiral, Olivier (2007), “Corporate Greening Through ISO 14001: A Rational Myth?,”
Organization Science, 18 (1), 127-46.

60

Bono, Joyce E. and Timothy A. Judge (2003), “Self-Concordance at Work: Toward
Understanding the Motivational Effects of Transformational Leaders,” Academy of
Management Journal, 46 (5), 554-71.
Boyd, Eric D., Rajesh K. Chandy, and Marcus Cunha Jr. (2010), “When do Chief Marketing
Officers Affect Firm Value? A Customer Power Explanation,” Journal of Marketing, 47
(6), 1162-76.
Boyle, Brett, F. Robert Dwyer, Robert A. Robicheaux, and James T. Simpson (1992), “Influence
Strategies in Marketing Channels: Measures and Use in Different Relationship
Structures,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (4), 462-73.
Buchanan, Lauranne (1992), “Vertical Trade Relationships: The Role of Dependence and
Symmetry in Attaining Organizational Goals,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (1),
65-75.
Bunn, Michele D. (1994), “Key Aspects of Organizational Buying: Conceptualization and
Measurement,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (2), 160-69.
Chabowski, Brian R., Jeannette A. Mena, and Tracy L. Gonzalez-Padron (2011), “The Structure
of Sustainability Research in Marketing, 1958–2008: A Basis for Future Research
Opportunities, “ Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (1), 55-70.
Chang, Jeanine, Xuan Bai, and Julie J. (2015), “The Influence of Institutional Forces on
International Joint Ventures' Foreign Parents' Opportunism and Relationship
Extendedness,” Journal of International Marketing, 23 (2), 73-93.
Connelly, Brian L., Toyah Miller, Cynthia E. Devers (2012), “Under a Cloud of Suspicion:
Trust, Distrust, and Their Interactive Effect in Interorganizational Contracting,” Strategic
Management Journal, 33 (7), 820-33.
Cook, Karen and Eric Rice (2003), Social Exchange Theory, Handbook of Social Psychology,
Edited by John Delamater, New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publisherws.
Cook, Karen S. and Joseph M. Whitmeyer (1992), “Two Approaches to Social Structure:
Exchange Theory and Network Analysis,” Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 109-27.
Covin, Jeffrey G. and Teresa Joyce Covin (1990), “Competitive Aggressiveness, Environmental
Context, and Small Firm Performance,” Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 14 (4),
35-50.
Cyert, Richard M. and James G. March (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. New Jersey:
Englewood Cliffs.
Davis, Keith (1973), “The Case for and Against Business Assumption of Social
Responsibilities,” Academy of Management Journal, 16 (2), 312-22.

61

Davis, Gerald F. and Christopher Marquis (2005), “Prospects for Organization Theory in the
Early Twenty-First Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms,” Organization Science,
16 (4), 332-43.
Davis, James H., F. David Schoorman, and Lex Donaldson (1997), “Toward a Stewardship
Theory of Management,” Academy of Management Review, 22 (1), 20-47.
Day, George S. (1994), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations,” Journal of
Marketing, 58 (4), 37-52.
Deephouse, David L. (1996), “Does Isomorphism Legitimate?,” Academy of Management
Journal, 39 (4), 1024-39.
(1999), “To Be Different or To Be the Same? It’s a Question (and Theory) of Strategic
Balance,” Strategic Management Journal, 20 (2), 147-66.
Deshpande, Rohit and Frederick E. Webster Jr (1989), “Organizational Culture and Marketing:
Defining the Research Agenda,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (1), 3-15.
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell (1983), “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional
Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” American
Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147-60
Dowling, John and Jeffrey Pfeffer (1975), “Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and
Organizational Behavior,” Pacific Sociological Review, 18 (1), 122-36.
Edvardsson, Bo, Bard Tronvoll, and Thorsten Gruber (2011), “Expanding Understanding of
Service Exchange and Value Co-Creation: A Social Construction Approach,” Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (2), 327-39.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1985), “Control: Organizational and Economic Approaches,”
Management Sciences, 31 2), 134-49.
Emerson, Richard M. (1976), “Social Exchange Theory,” Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 33562.
Emery, Fred E. and Eric L. Trist (1965), “The Casual Texture of Organizational Environments,”
Human Relations, 18 (1), 21-32.
Fligstein, Neil (1997), “Social Skill and Institutional Theory,” American Behavioral Scientist, 40
(4), 397-05.
Frazier, Gary L. (1999), “Organizing and Managing Channels of Distribution,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (2), 226-40.
Gould, Stephen J. (1993), “Assessing Self-Concept Discrepancy in Consumer Behavior: The
Joint Effect of Private Self-Consciousness and Self-Monitoring,” Advances in Consumer
Research, 20 (1), 419-24.
62

Graeff, Timothy R. (1996), “Image Congruence Effects on Product Evaluations: The Role of
Self-Monitoring and Public/Private Consumption,” Psychology & Marketing, 13 (5), 48199.
Granovetter, Mark (1985), “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of
Embeddedness,” American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3), 481-510.
Greenberg, Jerald (1990), “Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” Journal
of Management, 16 (2), 399-432.
Grewal, Rajdeep and Ravi Dharwadkar (2002), “The Role of the Institutional Environment in
Marketing Channels,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (3), 82-97.
Gundlach, Gregory T. and Joseph P. Cannon (2010), “Trust but Verify? The Performance
Implications of Verification Strategies in Trusting Relationships,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 38 (4), 399-417.
Haskins, William A. (1996), “Freedom of Speech: Construct for Creating a Culture Which
Empowers Organizational Members,” Journal of Business Communication, 33 (1), 85-97.
Heide, Jan B. and George John (1992), “Do Norms Matter in Marketing Relationships?,”
Journal of Marketing, 56 (2), 32-44.
, Kenneth H. Wathne, and Aksel I. Rokkan (2007), “Interfirm Monitoring, Social
Contracts, and Relationship Outcomes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (3), 425-33.
Herche, Joel (1995), “Measuring Social Values: A Multi-Item Adaptation to the List of Values
(MILOV),” Report-Marketing Science Institute Cambridge Massachusetts, 7-8.
Hitt, Michael A., M. Tina Dacin, Edward Levitas, Jean-Luc Arregle, and Anca Borza (2000),
“Partner Selection in Emerging and Developed Market Contexts: Resource-Based and
Organizational Learning Perspectives,” Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 44967.
Hoffman, Lynn (1990), “Constructing Realities: An Art of Lenses,” Family Processes, 29 (1), 112.
Hollensbe, Elaine, Charles Wookey, Loughlin Hickey, Gerard George, and Cardinal Vincent
Nichols (2014), “Organizations with Purpose,” Academy of Management Journal, 57 (5),
1227-34.
Homans, George C. (1974), “Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms,” New York: Harcourt,
Brace & World, Revised Ed.
Homburg, Christian and Christian Pflesser (2000), “A Multiple-Layer Model of Market-Oriented
Organizational Culture: Measurement Issues and Performance Outcomes,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 37 (4), 449-62.

63

Ittner, Christopher D., David F. Larcker, Venkatesh Nagar, and Madhav V. Rajan (1999),
“Supplier Selection, Monitoring Practices, and Firm Performace,” Journal of Accounting
and Public Policy, 18 (3), 253-81.
Jaworski, Bernard J. and Ajay K. Kohli (1993), “Market Orientation: Antecedents and
Consequences,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (3), 53-70.
Johnson, Jackie and Mark Holub (2003), “Corporate Flight: Moving “Offshore” to Avoid US
Taxes,” Journal of Financial Crime, 10 (3), 246-54.
Johnston, H. Russell and Michael R. Vitale (1988), “Creating Competitive Advantage with
Interorganizational Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly, 12 (2), 153-65.
Kelley, Harold H. and John L. Michela (1980), “Attribution Theory and Research,” Annual
Review of Psychology, 31 (1), 457-501.
(1987), “Attribution in Social Interaction,” In Preparation of This Paper Grew out of a
Workshop on Attribution Theory Held at University of California, Los Angeles:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Kirca, Ahmet H., Satish Jayachandran, and William O. Bearden (2005), “Market Orientation: A
Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of Its Antecedents and Impact on Performance,”
Journal of Marketing, 69 (2), 24-41.
Kohli, Ajay K. and Gerald Zaltman (1988), “Measuring Multiple Buying Influences,” Industrial
Marketing Management, 17 (3), 197-204.
Kotler, Phillip and Ravi Singh (1981), “Marketing Warfare in the 1980s,” Journal of Business
Strategy, 1 (3), 30-41.
Lee, Thomas W. and Richard T. Mowday (1987), “Voluntarily Leaving an Organization: An
Empirical Investigation of Steers and Mowday's Model of Turnover,” Academy of
Management Journal, 30 (4), 721-43.
Leonidou, Constantinos N., Constantine S. Katsikeas, and Neil A. Morgan (2013), “ “Greening”
the Marketing Mix: Do Firms Do It and Does It Pay Off?,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 41 (2), 151-70.
Levinson, Harry (1965), “Reciprocation: The Relationship Between Man and Organization,”
Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(4), 370-90.
Luchs, Michael G., Rebecca Walker Naylor, Julie R. Irwin, and Rajagopal Raghunathan (2010),
“The Sustainability Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product
Preference,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (5), 18-31.
MacMillan, Ian C. (1983), “Preemptive Strategies,” Journal of Business Strategy, 4(2), 16-26.

64

Maignan, Isabelle and O. C. Ferrell (2004), “Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing: An
Integrative Framework,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (1), 3-19.
Martin, Silvia L. and Rajshekhar G. Javalgi (2016), “Entrepreneurial Orientation, Marketing
Capabilities and Performance: The Moderating Role of Competitive Intensity on Latin
American International New Ventures,” Journal of Business Research, 69, 2040-51.
Mathieu, John E. and Dennis M. Zajac (1990), “A Review and Meta-Analysis of the
Antecedents, Correlates, and Consequences of Organizational Commitment,”
Psychological Bulletin, 108 (2), 171-94.
McWilliams, Abagail and Dennis L. Smart (1993), “Efficiency v. Structure-ConductPerformance: Implications for Strategy Research and Practice,” Journal of Management,
19 (1), 63-78.
Mela, Carl F., Sunil Gupta, and Donald R. Lehmann (1997), “The Long-Term Impact of
Promotion and Advertising on Consumer Brand Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research,
34 (2), 248-61.
Mesquita, Luiz F. (2007), “Starting Over When the Bickering Never Ends: Rebuilding
Aggregate Trust Among Clustered Firms Through Trust Facilitators,” Academy of
Management Review, 32 (1), 72-91.
Meyer, John P., Natalie J. Allen, and Catherine A. Smith (1993), “Commitment to Organizations
and Occupations: Extension and Test of a Three-Component Conceptualization,” Journal
of Applied Psychology, 78 (4), 538-51.
and
(1997), “Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research and
Application,” Thousand Oaks, London: Sage
Meyer, John W. and Brian Rowan (1977), “Institutional Organizations: Formal Structure as
Myth and Ceremony,” American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-63.
and
(1983), The Structure of Educational Organizations. In J. W. Meyer & W.
R. Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and Rationality, Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
,
, W. W. Powell, and P. J. DiMaggio (1991), The New Institutionalism in
Organizational Analysis. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Moorman, Robert H., Gerald L. Blakely, and & Brian P. Niehoff (1998), “Does Perceived
Organizational Support Mediate the Relationship Between Procedural Justice and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior?,” Academy of Management Journal, 41 (3), 35157.
Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship
Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 20-38.

65

Mowday, Richard T. (1991), “Equity Theory Predictions of Behavior in Organizations,”
Motivation and Work Behavior, 5, 111-31.
, Lyman W. Porter, and Richard M. Steers (1982), Employee – Organizational Linkages:
The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. New York: Academic
Press.
Nasution, Ade Parluangan, Ponco Bambang Mahargiono, and Yoyok Soesatyo (2016), “Effect of
Leadership Styles, Organizational Climate and Ethos of Work on Employee Productivity
(PT. HP Metals Indonesia the Powder Coating),” International Journal of Business and
Management, 11 (2), 262-73.
Nath, Pravin and Vijay Mahajan (2011), “Marketing in the C-Suite: A Study of Chief Marketing
Officer Power in Firms' Top Management Teams,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (1), 60-77.
Oliver, Christine (1991), “Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes,” Academy of
Management Review, 16 (1), 145-79.
Pacanowsky, Michael E. and Nick O’Donnell-Trujillo (1982), “Communication and
Organizational Cultures,” Western Journal of Communication, 46 (2), 115-30.
Peloza, John and Jingzhi Shang (2011), “How Can Corporate Social Responsibility Activities
Create Value for Stakeholders? A Systematic Review,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 39 (1), 117-35.
Perry-Smith, Jill E. (2006), “Social Yet Creative: The Role of Social Relationships in Facilitating
Individual Creativity,” Academy of Management Journal, 49 (1), 85-101.
Porter, Michael E. (1981), “The Contribution of Industrial Organization to Strategic
Management,” Academy of Management Review, 6 (4), 609-20.
(1985), Competitive Advantage. New York, NY: Free Press.
(1996), America’s Green Strategy. Business and the Environment. Earthscan, London,
33-35.
Prahalad, C. K. and Gary Hamel (1990), “The Core Competence of the Corporation,” Harvard
Business Review, 3, 75-91.
Rhoades, Linda and Robert Eisenberger (2002), “Perceived Organizational Support: A Review
of the Literature,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (4), 698-714.
Rindfleisch, Aric and John B. Heide (1997), “Transaction Cost Analysis: Past, Present, and
Future Applications,” Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30-54.
Ritter, Thomas and Hans Georg Gemunden (2003), “Network Competence: Its Impact on
Innovation Success and Its Antecedents,” Journal of Business Research, 56 (9), 745-55.

66

, Ian F. Wilkinson, and Wesley J. Johnston (2004), “Managing in Complex Business
Networks,” Industrial Marketing Management, 33 (3), 175-83.
Rojo, Luisa M. and Teun A. Van Dijk (1997), “There Was a Problem, and It Was Solved!
Legitimating the Expulsion of Illegal Migrants in Spanish Parliamentary
Discourse,” Discourse & Society, 8 (4), 523-66.
Romanelli, Elaine (1987), “New Venture Strategies in the Minicomputer Industry,” California
Management Review, 30 (1), 160-75.
Rothschild, William E. (1984), “Surprise and the Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Business
Strategy, 4 (3), 10-8.
Salancik, Gerald R. and Jeffrey Pfeffer (1978), “A Social Information Processing Approach to
Job Attitudes and Task Design,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 23 (2), 224-53.
Sharma, Subhash, Richard G. Netemeyer and Vijay Mahajan (1990). In Search of Excellence
Revisited: An Empirical Evaluation of Peters and Waterman’s Attributes of Excellence,
pp. 322–328 in Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing, William O. Bearden
and A. Parasuraman, (Eds.), Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Schaubroeck, John M., Ann Chunyan Peng, and Sean T. Hannah (2013), “Developing Trust with
Peers and Leaders: Impacts on Organizational Identification and Performance During
Entry,” Academy of Management Journal, 56 (4), 1148-68.
Schiller-Merkens, Simone (2007), “Towards a Practice-Based Approach to Institutional Change:
Institutional Change and Structuration Theory’s Neglected Praxeological Aspects,”
Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1-6.
Schul, Patrick L., William M. Pride, and Taylor L. Little (1983), “The Impact of Channel
Leadership Behavior on Intrachannel Conflict,” Journal of Marketing, 47 (3), 21-34.
Suchman, Mark C. (1995), “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches,”
Academy of Management, 3 (20), 571-610.
Scott, W. Richard (1987), “The Adolescence of Institutional Theory,” Administrative Science
Quarterly, 32 (4), 493-511.
(1995), Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(2005), “Institutional Theory: Contributing to a Theoretical Research Program,” Great
Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development, 460-85.
Sharma, Arun, Gopalkrishnan R. Iyer, Anuj Mehrotra, and R. Krishnan (2010), “Sustainability
and Business-to-Business Marketing: A Framework and Implications,” Industrial
Marketing Management, 39 (2), 330-41.

67

Slater, Stanley F. and John C. Narver (1994), “Does Competitive Environment Moderate the
Market Orientation – Performance Relationship?” Journal of Marketing, 58 (1), 46-55.
Sleeter, Christine E. (1991), Empowerment Through Multicultural Education. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Snyder, Mark (1974), “Self-Monitoring of Expressive Behavior,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 30 (4), 526-37.
Stafford, Edwin R. (1994), “Using Co-Operative Strategies to Make Alliances Work,” Long
Range Planning, 27 (3), 64-74.
Swasy, John L. (1979), “Measuring the Bases of Social Power,” Advances in Consumer
Research, 6 (1), 340-46.
Tenbrunsel, Ann E. and David M. Messick (1999), “Sanctioning Systems, Decision Frames, and
Cooperation,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (4), 684-707.
Terreberry, Shirley (1968), “The Evolution of Organizational Environments,” Administrative
Science Quarterly, 12 (4) 590-613.
Vaara, Eero and Philippe Monin (2010), “A Recursive Perspective on Discursive Legitimation
and Organizational Action in Mergers and Acquisitions,” Organization Science, 21 (1),
3-22.
and Janne Tienari (2011), “On the Narrative Construction of Multinational Corporations:
An Antenarrative Analysis of Legitimation and Resistance in a Cross-Border Merger,”
Organization Science, 22 (2), 370-90.
Van Dijk, Teun A. (1998), Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Van Leeuwen, Theo and Ruth Wodak (1999), “Legitimizing Immigration Control: A DiscourseHistorical Analysis,” Discourse Studies, 1 (1), 83-118.
Varadarajan, Rajan (2014), “Toward Sustainability: Public Policy, Global Social Innovations for
Base-of-the-Pyramid Markets, and Demarketing for a Better World,” Journal of
International Marketing, 22 (2), 1-20.
Venkatraman, N., Lawrence Loh, and Jeongsuk Koh (1994), “The Adoption of Corporate
Governance Mechanisms: A Test of Competing Diffusion Models,” Management
Science, 40 (4), 496-507.
Volberda, Henk W. (1997), “Building Flexible Organizations for Fast-Moving Markets,” Long
Range Planning, 30 (2), 169-83.

68

Volkoff, Olga, Yolande E. Chan, and E. F. Peter Newson (1999), “Leading the Development and
Implementation of Collaborative Interorganizational Systems,” Information &
Management, 35 (2), 63-75.
Vorhies, Douglas W. and Neil A. Morgan (2005), “Benchmarking Marketing Capabilities for
Sustainable Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (1), 80-94.
Walter, Gordon A. (1984), “Organizational Development and Individual Rights,” Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 20 (4), 423-39.
Webster, Cynthia (1993), “Refinement of the Marketing Culture Scale and the Relationship
Between Marketing Culture and Profitability of A Service Firm,” Journal of Business
Research, 26 (2), 111-31.
Wood, Donna J. (1991), “Corporate Social Performance Revisited,” Academy of Management
Review, 16 (4), 691-718.
Yilmaz, Cengiz and Ebru Tumer Kabadayi (2006), “The Role of Monitoring in Interfirm
Exchange: Effects on Partner Unilateral Cooperation,” Journal of Business Research, 59
(12), 1231-38.
Zucker, Lynne G. (1977), “The Role of Institutionalization in Cultural Persistence,” American
Sociological Review, 42(5), 726-43.
(1987), “Institutional Theories of Organization,” Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 44364.

69

Essay 2
The Moderating Effect of Interfirm Trust on Legitimacy and Performance
Introduction
Marketing strategy literature has paid a lot of attention to the role of trust between
organizational partners. Most of the time, marketing scholars studied trust within different
marketing exchanges (Moorman, Deshpande, Zaltman 1993; Morgan and Hunt 1994; Boulding
et al 1993). This is an important concept because the power of interfirm relationships can provide
firms with strategic advantages due to their intangible and ambiguous nature (Barney and
Hansen 1994). Interorganizational relationships can be complex and multi-faceted (Hitt et al
2000; Mesquita 2007) however within the marketing strategy literature, few studies use different
types of trust, within the same theoretical model, in order to uncover how it can impact the
actions of the firms within institutional environments. Although central, strategic marketing
needs to include multiple dimensions of trust in order to provide an in-depth analysis of
legitimating activities between firms.
This study integrates institutional and social exchange theories and identifies how
different types of legitimacy actions – authorization, rationalization, moralization, and
mythopoesis- impact a firm’s performance and how different types of trust provides more indepth analysis of the effects of legitimacy on firm performance. This is an important void in the
marketing strategy because legitimacy theory suggests that legitimacy exists in order to build
trust and trust is needed between exchange partners in order to run the operations smoothly
(Ashford and Gibbs 1990). But what is missing is that, legitimizing actions do not mean you are
being trusted. Thus, identification of five different trust types and studying the presence and
absence of trust will shed more light on the interplay between legitimacy and trust.

70

Legitimacy plays a key role within the institutional environments. Through establishing
legitimacy, firms can have access to resources, which can help them leverage this access into
better performance (Zimmerman and Zeitz 2002). In order to become legitimate, organizations
strive to act in accordance with the regulatory environments and with the norms and values of the
institutional environments (Suchman 1995). Marketing strategy literature has adopted the use of
‘legitimacy’ as a single construct, where in fact, legitimating actions could be based on different
reference points. It is important to identify the multifaceted nature of the legitimacy because it
would provide marketing strategists to delve deeper into the underlying mechanisms of how
firms decide on choosing one action over another in exchange relationships in order to create
legitimacy.
Trust has been defined and conceptualized through multiple definitions since it has a
prominent place in multiple disciplines. Rousseau et al (1998) posit that trust is a long-held belief
that the exchange partner will act in accordance to what is expected of it. Lioukas and Reuer
(2015) identify that five different types of trust – institutionalization-based trust, affect-based
trust, competence-based trust, intentional trust, and deterrence-based trust – are more common
and prominent in exchange relations within institutional environments. It is important to identify
the differences in trust within exchange partners because when coupled with legitimacy actions,
they will provide a better understanding of the dynamics within exchange partners that are
embedded within institutions.
Rest of the paper is as follows. First the different legitimating actions that firms may
implement are discussed. Then, five different trust types are explained and hypotheses are
presented. The paper discusses the method to de adopted and the intended data collection
procedures.

71

Theoretical Background
Legitimacy Actions
Within institutional environments, firms will likely need to “abide by certain “rules” of
exchange (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005, p. 875). By following the rules and norms of a given
context, firms engage in legitimating activities that help alleviate the potential problems that may
occur when establishing credibility with exchange partners. Implementing authorization,
rationalization, moralization, and mythopoesis strategies will allow firms to employ certain
actions and tactics that will accomplish the goals for the intended improved performance (Martin
and Javalgi 2016).
Authorization. Interfirm exchanges are likely to require certain actions to be taken in order to
help relationships between partners to be strengthened and flourish. The strengthened relations
will provide firms with inimitable benefits due to ambiguity of the nature of the exchange
(Palmatier et al 2006; Reed and DeFillipi 1990) When partners explain the obligations of the
exchange partner or communicate why certain actions are necessary, they may need to provide
arguments that have legal enforcements (Shimp and Dyer 1978). In order to establish legitimacy,
these legal enforcements may be grouped under the authorization behavior of the firms. Thus, for
the purposes of this study, authorization actions refer to tactics that are based on laws and
regulations within institutional environments that are used by firms in order to influence,
communicate, and impact the legitimacy of their actions and those of their partners.
Institutions are embedded within the boundaries of their legal and regulatory
environments. Firms need to follow a set of guidelines and rules that are established by
governmental and regulatory bodies (Bushman and Piotroski 2006). Such examples may include
emission laws, taxes to be charged, quotas of products, packaging requirements as well as
granting intellectual property rights (McGahan and Silverman 2006; Su et al 2013; Panwar et al
72

2014; Chaudhry and Walsh 1995). Authorization actions may be based on the existing laws and
regulations within the institutional environments as well as the actions listed on the contracts
between exchange partners (Chelariu, Bello, and Gilliland 2014). These actions could range from
establishing a set of guidelines that can be pursued by the partners. At the same time, these
guidelines may need to be revisited due to the certain changes that governments may impose on a
company’s actions (e.g advertising contents) (Davidson et al 1996). These actions could be a
form of safeguarding a firm’s intended goals, meaning regulatory environments could dictate
what partners can do or cannot do within a given transaction. Franchiser relations are a good
example in terms of how laws and regulations would provide very good base for franchisers and
franchisees relations and explaining why certain things require certain behaviors (Atwell and
Buchan 2014).
Rationalization. Firms in exchange relationships need to communicate the end results to their
partners. These arguments could include the positive and negative effects of the partners’ action
on the intended and needed end result. Chelariu, Bello, and Gilliland (2014) refer to the
communication of the effects of these actions as the recommendations and warnings.
Rationalization actions taken by a firm could include using situation/ context specific arguments
of choosing a certain action such as partner selections, employee selection (e.g. hiring based on
education or set of skills required). Thus, for the purposes of this study, rationalization actions
refer to tactics that are based on situation and context specific and are used by firms in order to
influence, communicate, and impact the legitimacy of their actions and those of their partners.
Gupta, Vaatanen, and Khaneja (2016) apply this concept to appropriate partner selection.
When a firm is looking for an exchange partner, whether it be one time transaction or a longer
term partnership, executives within a firm need to explain the choice of partner through

73

providing evidence that the partnership will likely benefit both parties (Du, Bhattacharya, and
Sen 2010; Panwar et al 2014). Once a partnership is created, firms may likely use incentive
mechanisms in order to motivate the partner to act in certain ways. These actions could be
communicated through providing evidence of how it impacted past performance and how it is
likely that the trend will continue into the future.
Moralization. When it comes to influencing the actions of partners within an exchange
relationships, firms may use tactics that are based on norms and values of the institutional
environments (e.g. showing evidence of how other firms do a given action). This point also
becomes critical when informal contracts between firms are present. Acting in accordance with
how others perform certain actions is a natural way of doing things within the concept of
legitimacy (Parsons 1960; Dowling and Pfeffer 1975). Firms are perceived legitimate when the
expected actions are taken by them because organizations within institutional environments
create their normative rules. These forces may limit the actions taken because through mimicking
the other similar firms (Panwar et al 2014), there would be a set of appropriate actions that align
with the norms of the institutional environments. Thus, for the purposes of this study,
moralization actions refer to tactics that are based on norms and values of the institutional
environments that are used by firms in order to influence, communicate, and impact the
legitimacy of their actions and those of their partners.
Moralization actions will need to reflect the societal perceptions of the organizations and
will likely provide evidence for how adequate the actions taken (Nasi et al 1997). This is
especially important because norms and values of the institutional environment will dictate how
firms in exchange relationships should act and these norms will influence how these firms
communicate the actions to be taken. For example, CSR literature have mixed results but firms

74

still engage in CSR actions in order to fit in with the group of firms in their institutional
environments, which help them provide evidence that their actions align with the sociocultural
norms (Du and Vieira 2012; Palazzo and Scherer 2006; Panwar et al 2014). Thus, acting in
accordance with the perceived norms and values will likely give firms a better ground for
arguing for the specific actions to be taken.
Mythopoesis. Within institutional environments, professionals also play a vital role. The larger
an organizations becomes, the more authority and responsibility need to be given to these
individuals. One of the arguments for this concept includes how unlikely it is to micro-manage
all aspects of an organization. Through the use of professionals, organizations benefit from their
experiences and know-how (Chelariu, Bello, and Gilliland 2014). Thus, for the purposes of this
study, mythopoesis actions refer to tactics that are based on narratives and unique experiences of
the managers and/or professionals that are used by firms in order to influence, communicate, and
impact the legitimacy of their actions and those of their partners.
Mythopoesis actions are embedded within the managers and their actions. The actions
that are taken by them could provide evidence that the actions taken are based on the judgment
and knowledge of the specific manager or professional. In addition to managers’ experiences,
hiring an employee with a specific skill set is also another example. People within a company
expect a certain level of knowledge when individuals are hired for certain positions and this
knowledge will likely help provide the necessary example to argue for a specific action be taken.
Payan and McFarland (2005) state that narratives and experiences help managers to
communicate the understanding of the obligations and that when managers verify, correct, or
clarify these obligations, use of mythopoesis actions are useful tactics in order to influence a
partner’s actions and/or reduce some of the resistance for certain actions.

75

Trust
Interorganizational relations, although helpful, consist of very complex interactions
(Mesquita 2007). Some scholars perceive legitimating actions as a concept that creates trust but
legitimacy actually creates an overall approval of the firm’s actions (Bitekine and Haack 2015).
Trust between exchange partners will likely amplify the effects of approval of a firm’s actions
thus leading to an easy flow of operations for the focal firm. Combination of institutional and
social exchange theories reveals five distinct trust types –institutionalization-based trust, affectbased trust, competence-based trust, intentional trust, and deterrence-based trust- (Lioukas and
Reuer 2015) that can impact the relationship between legitimacy actions and performance of a
firm.
Institutionalization-Based Trust. Institutionalization-based trust refers to the trust that is based on
institutional norms and values (Lioukas and Reuer 2015). This type of trust between exchange
partners provide the partners with a sense of security because it is expected that neither side will
engage in opportunistic behaviors. The lower risk of opportunistic behavior is assumed because
once firms are within an institutional environment, in which reciprocity is an important concept,
they will likely be morally obligated to give something in return for anything they may receive
(Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). Therefore, it allows every organization to give and get at
proportional levels (Molm 2003).
Institutionalization-based trust mechanisms can emerge from legal, social, and cultural
systems that companies are embedded within (Rousseau et al 1998; Zucker 1986). Institutions
arise in order to bring order to the marketplace and the environment that they operate in gives
shape to this order. Regulatory, normative, and cognitive forces impact the way firms operate
(Scott 2005) and the result is the creation of an institutional environment. One of the critical
points within the institutional environment is that every firm within this environment is expected
76

to behave a certain way. Therefore, firms within an institutional environment expect a certain
behavior or performance from their counterparts. This expectation provides the basis of the
institutionalization-based trust (Nooteboom, Berger, and Noorderhaven 1997).
Affect-Based Trust. Affect-based trust is the trust that is inherent in emotional bonds (Lioukas
and Reuer 2015). McAllister (1995) explains that emotional investments and genuine care for
one another leads to reciprocity between individuals, which in turn creates the emotional ties that
are the underlying basis of the trust. Affect-based trust also plays a role in the interorganizational
exchanges because it leads to the emergence of deeply embedded relationships (Ring and Van de
Ven 1994).
Affect-based trust is considered to have personal interaction, mutual respect, and personal
friendship elements (Lioukas and Reuer 2015). These intrinsic characteristics also provide
benefits to exchange partners through interpersonal care, which is a result of emotional
attachments. Lawler (2001) states that relationships between exchange partners elicit positive
emotions which are then attributed to the exchange partner. These attributions help build and
strengthen the interorganizational relationships, in turn allow firms to be able to execute the tasks
that they are responsible for easier; because the strengthen trust between partners will allow them
to focus on the task at hand, rather than monitoring one another (Dekker and Van den Abbeele
2010). Thus, it will be energy well-spent.
Competence-Based Trust. Interorganizational relationships are built on reciprocity and
reciprocity inherently deals with the concept of trust. Literature defines competence as technical
skills that allow entities to perform a given task (Ferrin et al 2006). Especially within the
trustworthiness literature, competence is thought to be one of the important dimensions that
organizations use to evaluate their exchange partners (Barber 1983; Butler and Contrell 1984).

77

McAllister (1995) suggest that professional institutions, such as educational institutions,
professional associations, and credentialing agencies, provide the organizations with the
necessary professional equipment in order to communicate their competence to their
counterparts. These could be in the form giving certifications or as well as providing credentials
for the competence of the partner. This is especially important and interesting in the case of
institutional environments, because organizations need to provide these guarantees and perform
at a certain level in order to protect their professional standing (Zucker 1986). Once the
professionalism and the competency is warranted, it will require less of an effort to build
successful relations with exchange partners when it is about competency.
Intentional Trust. Barber (1983) suggests that intentional trust primarily focuses on an exchange
partner’s intentions to engage in self-interested behaviors. On the other hand, Nooteboom,
Berger, and Noorderhaven (1997) argued that behavioral trust should be separated from
intentional trust by noting that the behavioral trust is “the willingness to increase one's
vulnerability to another whose behavior is not under one's control” (Zand 1972, p. 230) and the
intentional trust is “the subjective probability that one assigns to benevolent action by another
agent or group of agents” (p. 311). Thus, Nooteboom, Berger, and Noordehaven (1997) defined
intentional trust as “X trusts Y to the extent that X chooses to cooperate with Y on the basis of a
subjective probability that Y will choose not to employ opportunities for defection that X
considers damaging, even if it is in the interest of Y to do so.” (p. 315).
Intentional trust goes beyond the notion of formal and informal obligations. In other
words, intentional trust also entails the possible contingencies (Nooteboom, Berger, and
Noordehaven 1997). The extension of possible contingencies makes intentional trust critical for

78

exchange partners because it allows them to calculate for the self-interested behaviors, or lack
thereof.
Deterrence-Based Trust. Shapiro, Sheppard, and Cheraskin (1992) noted that “a primary
motivation for keeping one’s word is deterrence” (p. 366). Thus, deterrence-based trust exists
because the benefits of keeping the relationship between exchange partners outweigh the
negative consequences if one party were to act opportunistically or distrustfully. Furthermore,
Shapiro, Sheppard, Cheraskin (1992) identify three types of interactions that provide the basis
for deterrence-based trust: repeated and multifaceted interactions and reputation. Repeated
interactions and multifaceted interactions share the basis of, if one organization were to act
distrustfully, other interactions or business deals can be jeopardized due to repeat business deals
or more than one deal at the same time.
Reputation is self-explanatory, in a sense that, if an organization were to act distrustfully,
then it will be stigmatized; which can then lead to the potential loss of future relations with other
firms. However, reputation is also closely linked to the institutional environment because
institutional theory posits that organizations are embedded within the environments that they
operate in (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). These organizations adapt the rules and the structures of
their environment and this adaptation reduces the gap between actors and increases the efficiency
of the boundary spanning activities because it allows for organizations to understand what each
other is doing and what is expected (Meyer and Rowan 1991). If these firms do not act as they
are expected to act, their reputation will be shattered and the actions will not be tolerated by
other actors in the environment. Thus, deterrence based trust is and should be a critical
component for interorganizational relationships.

79

Hypotheses
Within institutional environments, legitimacy is a critical concept for an organization’s
success. Suchman (1995) defined legitimacy as ‘‘a general perception or assumption that the
actions of an entity are appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values,
beliefs, and definitions’’ (p. 547). Legitimacy has been predominantly studied in political
science, sociology, organizational population ecology as well as other organizational studies
(Palazzo and Scherer 2006). All these literature streams argue that legitimacy is important for the
survival of the organization because organizations need to act in socially acceptable ways within
the institutional environment. Johnson and Holub (2003) argue that legitimacy inherently has the
concept of social contract that exists between exchange partners.
Legitimacy has three distinct components – pragmatic, cognitive, and normative. These
different types allow organizations to influence the actions taken by the firm as well their
exchange partners. Palazzo and Scherer (2006) argue that the legitimacy actions will allow
organizations to communicate the need for certain actions more effectively, which in turn
reduces the resistance from other actors in the institutional environments (Hannan and Carroll
1992). Additionally, social exchange theory suggests that the partners in an exchange
relationships are expected to reciprocate and act in accordance with what the partner is expected
to do. Blau (1964) argues that norms of fair exchange regulate and eliminate continuous
negotiations or conflicts, which in turn allows for easy communication for actions and increased
effectiveness of the influential arguments. Basically, social exchange theory provides an
effective framework for the exchange partners in terms of explaining why certain actions and
reactions are needed in order to employ certain tactics within a given exchange relationship
(Meyer and Scott 1983, Cook and Rice 2003).

80

Legitimacy and Performance
Legitimacy literature has focused on the concept of legitimacy from the institutional
environment stand point, suggesting that the organizations need to engage in certain actions that
are compatible with the norms and values of the environment they are in (Oliver 1991). The
underlying causes of why these organizations employ specific actions in order to increase their
legitimacy could range from laws and regulations present in the environment to managerial
expertise. However, Chelariu, Bello, and Gilliland (2014) posit that the literature stream in
legitimacy mostly focus on the external legitimacy, which is a given because it is a concept
within institutional environments. What is problematic in this view is that organizations could
engage in legitimacy actions in order to create internal legitimacy between exchange partners as
well.
Legitimacy actions will most likely be based on already existing laws, contracts, norms,
as well as the examples of what has happened in the past but legitimacy actions can be employed
in order to trigger changes in behavior of the exchange partners. Panwar et al (2014) argue that
“strategic approach involves an organization’s manipulation of evocative symbols to gain public
support. Under this approach the organization deliberately and strategically seeks and creates
legitimacy (p. 484). In order to gain support of their counterparts as well as from the other actors
in the institutional environment, firms may strategically argue for certain actions through the use
of legitimacy actions.
Authorization approach allows firms to rely on the existing laws and specific clauses in
contracts in order to influence the partnering firm and to argue for right to exist to pursue
specific actions. Rationalization approach will likely increase the effectiveness of the influential
communication employed by the firm with proof that past actions have proven to increase the
performance. It can also communicate the incentives provided in order to lead to an expected
81

action taken by the firm (Boyle et al 1992). Moralization actions can reduced the resistance by
providing examples of actions of other firms and players within an environment and the link
between their actions and performance. Mythopoesis actions can help managers and firms
provide tacit knowledge and know-how through their experiences, which can help them
communicate why certain actions will lead to increased performance (Swasy 1979).
Overall, increased use of legitimacy actions will likely lead to increased performance
because it can help shape a partner’s behavior with ease, which then may allow firms to allocate
more time to competitive advantage building activities. Legitimacy actions may allow for
favorable policies to be created in order to receive higher levels of support from partners, which
in turn allows for better relationships between partners. The creation of higher quality
relationships will likely increase the performance (Palmatier et al 2006) because legitimacy of
the exchange partner will help partners perceive the action taken as intended since Zimmerman
and Zeitz (2002) imply that the legitimacy will be present only if the partner perceives it.
Increased responsiveness of the partner will likely help firms to be more responsive to the
changes in the market, which is a critical component when it comes to staying ahead of the
competition and not being outdated. Managerial actions will likely impact the level of resources
exchange between partners in order to accomplish shared goals and open communication will
likely improve coordination of actions as well as reducing conflict between partners.
H1: Increased use of legitimacy actions will positively affect a firm’s performance.
Moderating Role of Trust
Legitimacy actions taken by organizations and their direct influence on a firm’s
performance would be strengthened when there are high levels of institutionalization-based trust
between exchange partners. In general terms, trust influences the success of interfirm
relationships. Within institutionalization-based trust framework, firms are trusted to act within
82

the norms and values of the operating environment (Lioukas and Reuer 2015). It reduces the
opportunistic behavior and it provides further support for firms’ actions. Through identifying the
underlying mechanisms of why certain actions are taken on the road to increased performance,
institutionalization-based trust strengthens the link between the legitimacy actions and
performance because the firms’ actions are perceived to support and reinforce the actions
expected by the firm.
H2: Higher levels of institutionalization-based trust will strengthen the relationship between
legitimacy actions and firm performance.
Interfirm partnerships are strengthened when there are underlying emotional connections
that tie partners together. These emotional attachments provide the grounds for trust, which in
turn emphasize the importance of mutual respect and personal interactions between firms
(McAllister 1995; Lioukas and Reuer 2015). When firms engage in legitimacy actions, which are
based on the existing rules, past performances, norms, and experiences, the presence of the
affect-based trust between firms strengthens the connection between the legitimacy actions and
performance. This is in part due to ease of communication as to why certain actions are taken
and why these actions are supposed to be taken (McAllister 1995). Presence of affect-based trust
will likely allow interfirm partners to perceive each other’s actions more favorable and question
the actions taken less than if it is not present. This will allow firms to take timely action, which
in turn can lead to favorable outcomes.
H3: Higher levels of affect-based trust will strengthen the relationship between legitimacy
actions and firm performance.
When firms want to communicate the reasoning behind the actions taken, they will need
to provide convincing support in order to influence their counterparts. Within an exchange

83

relationship, presence of competence-based trust will likely benefit the link between legitimacy
actions taken and performance because the firm that engage in these actions will be perceived as
competent (Cook and Wall 1980). Ferrin et al (2006) defines competence as the skills necessary
to complete a certain task and when competence-based trust is high, the firm will be perceived as
capable of completing a certain task, which could be through providing evidence of past
performances or how it is done within an environment. Thus, presence of the competence-based
trust will likely strengthen the relationship between the legitimacy actions and performance
because the firms will face less resistance from their partners.
H4: Higher levels of competence-based trust will strengthen the relationship between legitimacy
actions and firm performance.
Legitimacy actions taken by firms try to convey the “legitimacy” of the intended actions
and why they are important for firms’ performances. Intentional trust inherently deals with the
intentions of the exchange partners. It allows firms to be able to calculate for the benevolent
action taken by the exchange partners (Noteboom et al 1997). Due to the nature of legitimacy
actions, presence of the high levels of intentional trust will likely strengthen the legitimacy
actions and performance linkage because if a firm trusts that the exchange partner will act in a
mutually beneficial way, the partner will be more likely to believe and be influenced by the other
partner’s legitimacy tactics. This is also in line with the legitimacy concept in which the actions
of the firm is expected therefore intentions should not deviate from the expectations. This in turn
will allow for a shared understanding and shared vision by both parties; thus leading to actions
taken in a timely manner and faster response times to potential changes in the environment.
H5: Higher levels of intentional trust will strengthen the relationship between legitimacy actions
and firm performance.

84

Within the deterrence-based trust literature, Shapiro, Sheppard, and Cheraskin (1992)
argue that reputation is one of the facets of the deterring mechanisms for firms. Engaging in
legitimacy action is a systematic way for firms engage in strategic manipulations in order to
create the sense collective understanding as well as communicating the need for certain actions.
Deterrence-based trust allows firms to focus on how their reputation is formed and how repeated
interactions can help firms accomplish shared goals. When deterrence-based trust is present
between firms, organizations will likely be more careful and emphasize the importance of their
actions (Meyer and Scott 1983). If the organizations do not act in accordance with what is
expected of them, then the level of deterrence-based trust decreases. Thus, when there are high
levels of deterrence-based trust, the link between the legitimacy actions and performance will
likely to be strengthened.
H6: Higher levels of deterrence-based trust will strengthen the relationship between legitimacy
actions and firm performance.

Methodology
Data Collection
An online survey was constructed, using Qualtrics to assess the organizational purpose
values and legitimacy strategies. The mailing list was provided through Qualtrics. Given the
paper’s focus on legitimacy activites and trust dimensions, participants were selected based on
their rank within the organizations (i.e. managers).
Qualifiers in the survey included the initial questions of employee number in the firm and
whether the respondent was in a managerial position. If no was selected to either of these
questions, the respondent could not continue to complete the survey. A total of 324 managers
have responded to the survey and 200 of these responses were usable, accounting for a 61.5%
response rate.
85

Study Measures
The decisions on which measures to use for this study are twofold: first, where possible,
the established scales were adapted based on the context of this study. Second, based on the key
words used for the frameworks this study adapts, new measurements were created. For a more
comprehensive review of the scales, the appendix includes the items used for each construct.
Authorization. The first legitimacy action, authorization, measure was created by adapting the
measures in Boyle et al (1992) influence strategies and Schul, Pride, and Little’s (1983) channel
leadership behavior; just as the first study. But, the items were re-worded to reflect the
legitimacy action rather than the strategy.
Rationalization. The second legitimacy action, rationalization, measure was created by adapting
the relevant items outlined in Boyle et al (1992) influence strategies in marketing channels as
well as some of the social power items that are in the Swasy’s (1979) research paper, just as the
first study. But, the items were re-worded to reflect the legitimacy action rather than the strategy.
Moralization. The third legitimacy action, moralization, measure was created by adapting a
combination of the Swasy’s (1979) social power items and Bunn’s (1994) organizational buying
items, just as the first study. But, the items were re-worded to reflect the legitimacy action rather
than the strategy.
Mythopoesis. The last legitimacy action, mythopoesis, measure was adapted from the Kohli and
Zaltman’s (1988) work on buying influences, just as the first study. But, the items were reworded to reflect the legitimacy action rather than the strategy.
Trust. Five different types of trust have been identified to be present in exchange relationships.
Five types of trust (i.e affect-based trust, competence-based trust, intentional trust, deterrencebased trust, and institutionalization-based trust). Measurement scales for the types of trust are
based on the frameworks of interpersonal cooperation (McAllister 1995), attitude measures of
86

trust (Cook and Wall 1980), organizational and managerial trust (Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman
1995; Zand 1972; Butler 1991), cooperative relationships and negotiations (Ring and Van de
Ven 1992; Shapiro, Sheppard, and Cheraskin 1992).

Results
Measurement Results
Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations, correlation matrix, and shared variances
for the nine study constructs. Table 2 summarizes the measurement analysis (i.e., composite
reliabilities, average variances extracted, factor loadings, and fit statistics). All measures were
subjected to reliability and validity assessments.

87

TABLE 6
Essay 2 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations,
and Shared Variances
Mean

Std.
Dev.

AUT

RAT

MOR

MYT

AFF

COMP

DET

INTENT

INST

Authorization (AUT)

5.56

1.26

1.00

0.40

0.34

0.37

0.16

0.25

0.30

0.21

0.22

Rationalization (RAT)

5.71

1.02

0.63

1.00

0.50

0.55

0.42

0.41

0.35

0.32

0.25

Moralization (MOR)

5.80

1.04

0.58

0.71

1.00

0.61

0.45

0.54

0.52

0.46

0.44

Mythopoesis (MYT)

5.87

1.00

0.60

0.74

0.78

1.00

0.44

0.53

0.49

0.45

0.39

Affect-Based Trust (AFF)

5.58

1.04

0.40

0.65

0.67

0.67

1.00

0.59

0.51

0.49

0.38

Competence-Based Trust (COMP)

5.78

.93

0.50

0.64

0.74

0.73

0.77

1.00

0.64

0.59

0.57

Deterrence-Based Trust (DET)

5.86

.96

0.54

0.59

0.72

0.70

0.72

0.80

1.00

0.54

0.54

5.84
.90
0.46
0.57
0.68
0.67
0.70
0.77
Institutionalization-Based Trust (INST)
6.05
.92
0.47
0.50
0.66
0.62
0.62
0.76
Note: Correlations are included below the diagonal (each has p<.01). The shared variances are included above the diagonal.

0.73

1.00

0.53

0.73

0.73

1.00

Intentional Trust (INTENT)

88

Confirmatory Factor Analysis
We conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using the four legitimacy action
scales. We conducted a CFA using a one-factor “legitimacy action” model and then a four-factor
model including the four separate legitimacy action constructs. In order to select between the
one-factor “legitimacy action” model and the four-factor model, we compared the overall fit
between the two models. It is noted that the four-factor model was a better fit (𝜒 2 =251.128,
df=98, RMSEA=.09, CFI=.93) as compared to the one-factor “legitimacy action” model
(𝜒 2 =515.894, df=104, RMSEA=.141, CFI=.806). The difference in chi-square values between
the two models was 264.766, favoring the four-factor model. Table 2 shows the four-factor
model including each individual item factor loading, in addition to the correlation among the
four legitimacy constructs.
Next, we conducted a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using the five interfirm trust
scales. We conducted a CFA using a one-factor “interfirm trust” model and then a five-factor
model including the five separate trust constructs. In order to select between the one-factor
“interfirm trust” model and the five-factor model, we compared the overall fit between the two
models. It is noted that the four-factor model was a better fit (𝜒 2 =298.733, df=142,
RMSEA=.074, CFI=.942) as compared to the one-factor “interfirm trust” model (𝜒 2 =475.610,
df=152, RMSEA=.103, CFI=.88). The difference in chi-square values between the two models
was 185.877, favoring the four-factor model. Table 2 shows the five-factor model including
each individual item factor loading, in addition to the correlation among the five interfirm
constructs.

89

TABLE 7
Composite Reliabilities, Average Variances Extracted,
Factor Loadings, and Fit Statistics
Composite
Reliability

Average
Variance
Extracted

Factor
Loadings
Range

Cronbach’s
Alpha

Number
of Items

Authorization (AUT)

.88

.65

.88

4

Rationalization (RAT)

.89

.61

.72 - .87
.71 - .82

.88

5

.61 - .83

.83

4

.80 - .82

.85

3

Construct – Legitimacy Actions

Moralization (MOR)
Mythopoesis (MYT)
Fit Statistics:
2 = 251.128
Degrees of Freedom = 98
CFI = .93
RMSEA = .09

.84
.85

.57
.66

Composite
Reliability

Average
Variance
Extracted

Factor
Loadings
Range

Cronbach’s
Alpha

Number
of Items

Affect-Based Trust (AFF)

.87

.56

.86

5

Competence-Based Trust (COMP)

.89

.62

.70 - .82
.72 - .87

.89

5

.84

3

Construct – Trust Dimensions

Deterrence-Based Trust (DET)

.81

.59

.76 - .79

Intentional Trust (INTENT)

.84
.88

.63
.70

.77 - .83

.83

3

.82 - .87

.87

3

Institutionalization-Based Trust (INST)
Fit Statistics:
2 = 737.358
Degrees of Freedom = 284
CFI = .92
RMSEA = .09

Structural Equation Modeling
To test the hypotheses, we used Stata software to run structural equation modeling,
controlling for the company age, company size in employee number and sales, and for the
market share for this period. Controlling for market share in this period is employed to create a
more objective-natured performance measure as with primary data, the actual performance
scores could not be obtained. All predictor variables were standardized by mean centering.
H1a-H1d state that the legitimacy actions have a positive relationship with the firm
performance. H2a -H2d states that the institutionalization-based trust strengthens the relationship

90

between the legitimacy actions and the performance of the firm. H3a -H3d states the affect-based
trust strengthens the relationship between legitimacy actions and the firm performance. H4a H4d states that the competence-based trust strengthens the relationship between the legitimacy
actions and the firm performance. H5a -H5d states that the intentional trust strengthens the
relationship between the legitimacy actions and the firm performance. H6a -H6d states that the
deterrence-based trust strengthens the relationship between the legitimacy actions and the firm
performance.
H1 states that the legitimacy actions are positively related to firm performance.
Authorization action has a significant positive relationship with the firm performance. (β1a= 0.14,
p<0.05). Thus, H1 is partially supported.
H2 states the higher levels of institutionalization-based trust will strengthen the
relationship between legitimacy actions and firm performance. None of the interaction effects
were significant thus, H2 is not supported.
H3 states that the higher levels of affect-based trust will strengthen the relationship
between legitimacy actions and firm performance. The affect-based trust moderates and
strengthens the relationship between the rationalization and the firm performance (β3b= .30,
p<0.05). Thus, H3 is partially supported.
H4 states that the higher levels of competence-based trust will strengthen the relationship
between legitimacy actions and firm performance. Competence-based trust strengthens the
relationship between moralization and the firm performance (β4c= .30, p<0.05), but weakens the
relationship between authorization and the firm performance (β4a= -.41, p<0.05). Thus, H4 is
partially supported.

91

H5 states that the higher levels of intentional trust will strengthen the relationship
between legitimacy actions and firm performance. Intentional trust strengthens the relationship
between rationalization and the firm performance as well as the relationship between
mythopoesis and the firm performance (β5b,d= .34, .35, p<0.05, respectively). However, it
weakens the relationship between the moralization and the firm performance (β5c= -.46,
p<0.001). Thus, H5 is partially supported.
H6 states that the higher levels of deterrence-based trust will strengthen the relationship
between legitimacy actions and the firm performance. Deterrence-based trust weakens the
relationship between the mythopoesis and the firm performance (β6d= -.43, p<0.05). Therefore,
H6 is not supported. A summary of the significant effects is provided in Table 3.

92

TABLE 8
Interaction Effects
Market Share
0.14**

Authorization
Authorization x Competence-Based Trust

-0.41**

Rationalization x Affect-Based Trust

0.30**

Rationalization x Intentional Trust

0.34**

Moralization x Competence-Based Trust

0.40**

Moralization x Intentional Trust

-0.46***

Mythopoesis x Deterrence-Based Trust

-0.43**

Mythopoesis x Institutionalization-Based Trust

0.32*

Mythopoesis x Intentional Trust

0.35**

Path Analysis
Model fit for the SEM model fell short of the expected values. (CFI=.518,
RMSEA=0.106, SRMR=0.307). In order to provide a more comprehensive and a thorough
model, and due to the small sample size, path analysis was also conducted. Table 4 summarizes
the hypothesized relationships between legitimacy actions and performance as well as the
interaction effects. Path analysis improved the fit a bit better although the values are still not
satisfactory (CFI=.0.683, RMSEA=.0.101, SRMR=.0280).
H1 is not supported, unlike the SEM model because the positive significant relationship
between authorization and the firm performance has disappeared and instead, a negative
significant relationship between rationalization and the firm performance appeared.
The results for H2 has not changed after our path analysis, this H2 is not supported.
Additionally, the significant effect of the affect-based trust on the relationship between

93

rationalization and the firm performance has disappeared. Thus, H3 is not supported under the
path analysis model.
The weakening effect of the competence-based trust on the relationship between
authorization and the firm performance is also present. However, the strengthening effect of
competence-based trust between moralization and the firm performance has disappeared. Thus,
H4 is not supported.
The negative moderating effect of intentional trust has remained significant on the
relationship between moralization and the firm performance, however its strengthening effects
on the relationship between rationalization and the firm performance and mythopoesis and the
firm performance has disappeared. Thus, H5 is not supported.
Lastly, H6 states that the higher the deterrence-based trust, the stronger the relationship
between legitimacy actions and the firm performance. After conducting the path analysis, the
weakening effect of the deterrence-based trust on the relationship between mythopoesis and the
firm performance has disappeared. Thus, H6 is not supported.

94

TABLE 9
Path Analysis Results
Market Share
Rationalization

-0.002***

Authorization x Competence-Based Trust

-0.003*

Moralization x Intentional Trust

-0.002*

Based on the results provided from the path analysis, there are less significant results and
none of the hypotheses are supported since the hypothesized relationships were positive in
nature.

Discussion and Implications
Main objective of this paper is to provide evidence that, unlike other studies in the
marketing field, legitimacy may not automatically lead to trust but instead, if the trust is present,
than it benefits the firms and their performance. This essay tries to provide support for the claim
that legitimacy actions will improve firm performance and that the performance will improve
further when trust is present. This essay also dissects the trust construct into different dimensions
and types to provide a more complete and detailed analysis of the linkage of legitimacy and trust.
Different types of legitimacy actions have been studied through qualitative studies as thee
concepts are recently identified. Although the legitimacy construct itself has been around for a
while, identifying the differences will help further the marketing strategy literature by providing
a deeper and a better understanding of the institutional environment. This empirical analysis is
based on 325 observations with 200 usable responses from management level respondents. The
paper mainly investigates the importance of trust as a moderating mechanism since trust is an
important concept when it comes to business partnerships and it is important to show that your

95

actions may not always lead to trust, thus increase in performance. But if trust is present, your
actions and the performance link will be magnified.
This study provides a simple yet important framework that provides different
perspectives of both the legitimacy concepts and the interaction of the legitimacy and trust. First
of all, it is important to study and understand the mechanisms of trust in the marketplace because
relationships in the institutional environments are complex (Mesquita 2007). The complex nature
of such relationships make it harder to decipher the instruments that lead to, maintain, and
nourish trust. This is especially important from an institutional theory stand-point because
organizations within an institutional market need to act within the identified norms (Cropanzano
and Mitchell 2005).
Although the norms of the institutions exist and known, the starting point is that when
institutions evolve, there will be certain rules and regulations put in places. The results of this
study provides evidence of the direct link between a legitimacy action and the firm performance;
specifically authorization action taken by firms in order to establish legitimacy. Authorization
action refers to the actions taken by the organizations that usually refer to laws, regulations, and
specific clauses from business contracts. Obviously, the rules are set in the beginning and as the
institutions live, they help guide firms and improve their performance by “keeping it short and to
the point’. It eliminates the need to think in-detail about what to do and how to do it. instead,
there are specific rules that firms follow and move on.
Although this paper argued for the strengthening effect of the competence-based trust on
the authorization and performance link, based on the end result, this link is actually weakened
when the competence-based trust becomes present. The initial argument was that competence
would require the knowledge of the rules, regulations, the presence of skill needed to complete

96

task, and doing it correctly (Ferrin et al 2006) will likely emphasize the positive link on the
authorizing activities and the performance. But probably, the presence of the competence-based
trust may be masking the presence of references to the rule but instead it embeds the knowledge
of the rules and regulations within itself.
This study has uncovered the strengthening effect of the affect-based trust on the
rationalization and the market share link. Rationalizing allows firms to show past evidences,
specific contexts which can then eliminate the “need to think a different way” aspect. Affectbased trust on the other hand, plays up on the emotions and the deeper, “softer” senses
(McAllister 1995). It could be the case that when firms have had a relationship long enough to
create these strong, emotional bonds, they may be able to use and rationalize their actions better.
There will be more instances to remember (because the assumption is that the affect-based trust
had been built over time) and show as an example.
In addition to the emotional bonds, this paper found evidence of a positive moderating
effect of the intentional trust on rationalizing and the performance. When the actors in the
marketplace act benevolently, they will likely have good reputation. Through the reputation, they
will be able to show evidence of their past records and behavior. This becomes very important
for the firms as there is that effect of the intentional trust, benevolence act, on their context and
performance relations.
Institutions create needs for professionals within the institutional environments so that the
organizations and firms can have efficient operations. These professionals are delegated to
specific tasks that they are good at. These individuals bring their experiences and know-how
with them and use this tacit knowledge to provide value to the organization. When the market
has the institutionalization-based trust present, these mythopoetic actions and their effects on the

97

firm performance becomes magnified as the expectations for the institutional environment and
for these professionals align. This is not only true for the institutionalization-based trust, but also
true for the trust in these professionals’ intentions.
Intentional trust allows firms to be able to calculate for the benevolent action taken by the
exchange partners (Noteboom et al 1997). Once the trust for the good intentions are present,
firms are likely to respond favorably, and in the end, return the favor. Thus, it will help the link
between the use of the managers’ tacit knowledge and the performance of the firm.
One thing to keep in mind is that, professionals and managers with high levels of knowhow may not be appreciative of those tactics in which firms signal others not to engage in certain
activities or tries to “prevent”. By doing so, most likely it creates unnecessary tension and noise,
which in turn is reflected on the mythopoetic actions and the firm performance.
Additionally, in this paper, it is hypothesized that the use of norms in the marketplace and
its effect on the performance would be strengthened when the firm is trusted to act benevolently.
However, based on the results, intentional trust negatively interacts with the moralization
activities and the firm performance. Moralization activities by themselves do not have an effect
on the firm performance, however this result shows us that when the intentional trust enters the
mix, the firms see a drop in their performance if they were to engage in referencing the
marketplace tactics. Therefore, when the benevolence of actors in the marketplace is established,
it may be better to use rationalizing or referencing the tacit knowledge, rather than the norms of
the institutional environment.
On the other hand, as hypothesized, the level of competence-based trust interacts with the
moralization and the firm performance link. Competence-based trust, as mentioned, is the ability
of the focal firm to complete a task. When the trust in these abilities is high, then the effect of the

98

use of norms and values of the marketplace on the firm performance becomes amplified. It is an
important point because, it provides the explanation as to why it is not enough to be able to
complete a task to perform better, but this ability should be recognized and be embedded within
the institutional environment. Basically, only referencing norms and values of the institutional
environment does not have an impact on the performance, but things change when there is a
belief that the firm is also capable of implementing its resources to the task at hand.
Future Research Directions and Limitations
Of course, as any other research paper, this study also has its weaknesses. Although
theoretically strong, the data used is not up to par with that this paper tries to accomplish.
Institutional and social exchange theories, inherently deal with the environment and the
organizations’ interactions with those environments. Collecting survey data from individuals at
different firms, weakens the ability to fully capture the trust between firms. Although our survey
questions were designed to capture the trust dimensions as comprehensive as possible, it will be
beneficial to collect objective and dyadic data to replicate this study.
Secondly, the legitimacy actions were adapted from multiple literatures since there are no
established measures for these variables. Although some of the trust dimensions had already
established measures, some of these trust dimensions did not have already established measures,
just like the legitimacy strategies. Future studies can work on creating measurement scales for
these concepts, which can then be used and tested in various settings.
Thirdly, due to the collection style of the dataset, the respondents were anonymous. This
study tried to capture the objective performance measures by asking the right questions but of
course it will not and cannot replace the real objective data. Thus, in the future, it would be great
to re-analyze these relationships with multiple objective performance measures. Of course in the
hopes that managers at these firms can be contacted and survey data can also be collected.
99

Figure 2 Conceptual Model Essay 2

100

Conclusion

Marketing research has tried to find the answer to one question “how to establish
legitimacy” through various different studies. These research streams either focused on the entire
marketing channels, or specific to either buying or selling organizations. Although these studies
have provide valuable implications for the field, scholars and managers alike, bringing the
findings and concepts under the umbrella of “legitimacy” may help clarify why organization may
need to opt in for specific actions.
Specifically, Essay 1 identified the organizational purpose values and four different types
of legitimacy strategies and their impact on exchange partner monitoring activities. It identifies
the six distinct purpose values in order to establish organizations not apart from the environment
but a part of the environment. Studying these six different values (dignity, solidarity, plurality,
subsidiarity, reciprocity, sustainability) provided depth to the strategy creation of firms.
Specifically in Essay 1, these strategies are the four legitimacy strategies (authorization,
rationalization, moralization, mythopoesis). By providing the evidence that these four strategies
are distinct and they are used by firms, depending on the circumstances allow Essay 1 to
contribute to meaningful findings for the marketing strategy field to pursue.
Essay 2 focused on the implementation of the legitimacy actions on firm performance
and the importance of interfirm trust between exchange partners within institutional
environments. It provides a clever way to include legitimacy actions in the study since
aforementioned legitimacy strategies do not have already established measures. By adapting
items to measure legitimacy strategies, Essay 2 benefited from Essay 1 measure creation.
However, more importantly, Essay 2 incroporated institutional and social exchange theories to

101

uncover the linkages between legitimacy and the trust. Its main focus was to provide evidence
that, contrary to the common assumption, the legitimacy actions of firms may not lead to trust
but the presence of trust may magnify their effects on performance measures.
Overall, these two essays borrowed the concept of legitimacy from the management
literature to show support for the conceptual models that the marketing strategy field aims to
study. What is most promising is that, breakdown of the legitimacy construct helps clarify
different links and thought processes. Instead of vaguely using the term in research studies, this
dissertation is the start of something unique for the marketing strategy literature.

102

REFERENCES

103

REFERENCES

Ashforth, Blake E. and Barrie W. Gibbs (1990), “The Double-Edge of Organizational
Legitimation,” Organization Science, 1 (2), 177-94.
Atwell, Courtenay and Jenny Buchan (2014), “The Franchise Fulcrum: The Legal System's
Contributions to Research about Power and Control in Business Format
Franchising,” Journal of Marketing Channels, 21 (3), 180-95.
Barber, Bernard (1983), The Logic and Limits of Trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Ruthers University
Press.
Barney, Jay and Mark H. Hansen (1994), “Trustworthiness as a Source of Competitive
Advantage,” Strategic Management Journal, 15 (S1), 175-90.
Bitekine, Alex and Patrick Haack (2015), “The Macro and the Micro of Legitimacy: Toward a
Multilevel Theory of the Legitimacy Process,” Academy of Management Review, 40 (1),
49-75.
Blau, Peter Michael (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Boulding, William, Ajay Kalra, Richard Staelin, and Valarie A. Zeithaml (1993), “A Dynamic
Process Model of Service Quality: From Expectations to Behavioral Intentions,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 30 (1), 7-27.
Boyle, Brett, F. Robert Dwyer, Robert A. Robicheaux, and James T. Simpson (1992), “Influence
Strategies in Marketing Channels: Measures and Use in Different Relationship
Structures,” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (4), 462-73.
Bunn, Michele D. (1994), “Key Aspects of Organizational Buying: Conceptualization and
Measurement,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (2), 160-69.
Bushman, Robert M. and Joseph D. Piotroski (2006), “Financial Reporting Incentives for
Conservative Accounting: The Influence of Legal and Political Institutions,” Journal of
Accounting and Economics, 42 (1), 107-48.
Butler Jr, John K. and R. Stephen Cantrell (1984), “A Behavioral Decision Theory Approach to
Modeling Dyadic Trust in Superiors and Subordinates,” Psychological Reports, 55 (1),
19-28.
Butler, John K. (1991), “Toward Understanding and Measuring Conditions of Trust: Evolution
of A Conditions of Trust Inventory,” Journal of Management, 17 (3), 643-63.
Chaudhry, Peggy E. and Michael G. Walsh (1995), “Gray Marketing of Pharmaceuticals,”
Marketing Health Services, 15(3), 18-22.

104

Chelariu, Cristian, Daniel C. Bello, and David I. Gilliland (2014), “Legitimacy Building
Strategies in Conditions of Discretionary Legal Enforcement: A Logic of Social Action
Approach,” Industrial Marketing Management, 43 (5), 850-61.
Cook, Karen and Eric Rice (2003), Social Exchange Theory, Handbook of Social Psychology,
Edited by John Delamater, New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Cook, John and Toby Wall (1980), “New Work Attitude Measures of Trust, Organizational
Commitment and Personal Need Non‐Fulfilment,” Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 53 (1), 39-52.
Cropanzano, Russell and Marie S. Mitchell (2005), “Social Exchange Theory: An
Interdisciplinary Review,” Journal of Management, 31 (6), 874-900.
Davidson, D. K. (1996), “Sure It's Legal But Is It Legitimate,” Marketing News, 30(13), 13-15.
Dekker, Henri C. and Alexandra Van den Abbeele (2010), “Organizational Learning and
Interfirm Control: The Effects of Partner Search and Prior Exchange
Experiences,” Organization Science, 21 (6), 1233-50.
DiMaggio, Paul J. and Walter W. Powell (1983), “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional
Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields,” American
Sociological Review, 48 (2), 147-60
Dowling, John and Jeffrey Pfeffer (1975), “Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and
Organizational Behavior,” Pacific Sociological Review, 18 (1), 122-36.
Du, Shuili and Edward T. Vieira Jr. (2012), “Striving for Legitimacy Through Corporate Social
Responsibility: Insights from Oil Companies,” Journal of Business Ethics,110 (4), 41327.
, Chitrabhan B. Bhattacharya, and Sankar Sen (2010), “Maximizing Business Returns to
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication,” International
Journal of Management Reviews, 12 (1), 8-19.
Ferrin, Donald L., Peter H. Kim, Cecily D. Cooper, and Kurt T. Dirks (2007), “Silence Speaks
Volumes: the Effectiveness of Reticence in Comparison to Apology and Denial for
Responding to Integrity-and Competence-Based Trust Violations,” Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92 (4), 893-908.
Gupta, Suraksha, Juha Vaatanen, and Suyash Khaneja (2016), “Value Added Reseller or Value
at Risk: The Dark Side of Relationships with VARs,” Industrial Marketing Management,
in press.
Hannan, Michael T. and Glenn Carroll (1992), “Dynamics of Organizational Populations:
Density, Legitimation, and Competition,” New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

105

Hitt, Michael A., M. Tina Dacin, Edward Levitas, Jean-Luc Arregle, and Anca Borza (2000),
“Partner Selection in Emerging and Developed Market Contexts: Resource-Based and
Organizational Learning Perspectives,” Academy of Management Journal, 43 (3), 44967.
Johnson, Jackie and Mark Holub (2003), “Corporate Flight: Moving “Offshore” to Avoid US
Taxes,” Journal of Financial Crime, 10 (3), 246-54.
Kohli, Ajay K. and Gerald Zaltman (1988), “Measuring Multiple Buying Influences,” Industrial
Marketing Management, 17 (3), 197-204.
Lawler, Edward J. (2001), “An Affect Theory of Social Exchange,” American Journal of
Sociology, 107 (2), 321-52.
Lioukas, Constantinos S. and Jeffrey J. Reuer (2015), “Isolating Trust Outcomes from Exchange
Relationships: Social Exchange and Learning Benefits of Prior Ties in
Alliances,” Academy of Management Journal, 58 (6), 1826-47.
Mayer, Roger C., James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman (1995), “An Integrative Model of
Organizational Trust,” Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 709-34.
McAllister, Daniel J. (1995), “Affect-and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for
Interpersonal Cooperation in Organizations,” Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1),
24-59.
McGahan, Anita M. and Brian S. Silverman (2006), “Profiting from Technological Innovation
by Others: The Effect of Competitor Patenting on Firm Value,” Research Policy, 35 (8),
1222-42.
Mesquita, Luiz F. (2007), “Starting Over When the Bickering Never Ends: Rebuilding
Aggregate Trust Among Clustered Firms Through Trust Facilitators,” Academy of
Management Review, 32 (1), 72-91.
Meyer, John W. and W. Richard Scott (1983). Centralization and the Legitimacy Problems of
Local Government. Organizational Environments: Ritual and rationality, Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Molm, Linda D. (2003), “Theoretical Comparisons of Forms of Exchange,” Sociological
Theory, 21 (1), 1-17.
Moorman, Christine, Rohit Deshpande, and Gerald Zaltman (1993), “Factors Affecting Trust in
Market Research Relationships,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 81-101.
Morgan, Robert M. and Shelby D. Hunt (1994), “The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship
Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 20-38.

106

Nasi, Juha, Salme Nasi, Nelson Phillips, and Stelios Zyglidopoulos (1997), “The Evolution of
Corporate Social Responsiveness An Exploratory Study of Finnish and Canadian
Forestry Companies,” Business & Society, 36 (3), 296-321.
Nooteboom, Bart, Hans Berger, and Niels G. Noorderhaven (1997), “Effects of Trust and
Governance on Relational Risk,” Academy of Management Journal, 40 (2), 308-38.
Palazzo, Guido and Andreas Georg Scherer (2006), “Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A
Communicative Framework,” Journal of Business Ethics, 66 (1), 71-88.
Palmatier, Robert W., Rajiv P. Dant, Dhruv Grewal, and Kenneth R. Evans (2006), “Factors
Influencing the Effectiveness of Relationship Marketing: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of
Marketing, 70 (4), 136-53.
Panwar, Rajat, Karen Paul, Erlend Nybakk, Eric Hansen, and Derek Thompson (2014), “The
Legitimacy of CSR Actions of Publicly Traded Companies versus Family-Owned
Companies,” Journal of Business Ethics, 125 (3), 481-96.
Parsons, Talcott (1960), “Pattern Variables Revisited: A Response to Robert Dubin,” American
Sociological Review, 25(4), 467-83.
Payan, Janice M. and Richard G. McFarland (2005), “Decomposing Influence Strategies:
Argument Structure and Dependence as Determinants of the Effectiveness of Influence
Strategies in Gaining Channel Member Compliance,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (3), 6679.
Reed, Richard and Robert J. DeFillippi (1990), “Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and
Sustainable Competitive Advantage,” Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 88-102.
Ring, Peter S. and Andrew H. Van de Ven (1994), “Developmental Processes of Cooperative
Interorganizational Relationships,” Academy of Management Review, 19 (1), 90-118.
Rousseau, Denise M., Sim B. Sitkin, Ronald S. Burt, and Colin Camerer (1998), “Not so
Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View of Trust,” Academy of Management
Review, 23 (3), 393-404.
Schul, Patrick L., William M. Pride, and Taylor L. Little (1983), “The Impact of Channel
Leadership Behavior on Intrachannel Conflict,” Journal of Marketing, 47 (3), 21-34.
Scott, W. Richard (2005), “Institutional Theory: Contributing to a Theoretical Research
Program,” Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development, 460-85.
Shapiro, Debra L., Blair H. Sheppard, and Lisa Cheraskin (1992), “Business on a
Handshake,” Negotiation Journal, 8 (4), 365-77.
Shimp, Terence A. and David C. Dyer (1978), “The Effects of Comparative Advertising
Mediated by Market Position of Sponsoring Brand,” Journal of Advertising, 7 (3), 13-19.

107

Su, Zhongfeng, En Xie, Hong Liu, and Wei Sun (2013), “Profiting from Product Innovation: The
Impact of Legal, Marketing, and Technological Capabilities in Different Environmental
Conditions,” Marketing Letters, 24 (3), 261-76.
Suchman, Mark C. (1995). “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches,”
Academy of Management, 3 (20), 571-610.
Swasy, John L. (1979), “Measuring the Bases of Social Power,” Advances in Consumer
Research, 6 (1), 340-46.
Zand, Dale E. (1972), “Trust and Managerial Problem Solving,” Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17 (2), 229-39.
Zimmerman, Monica A. and Gerald J. Zeitz (2002), “Beyond Survival: Achieving New Venture
Growth by Building Legitimacy,” Academy of Management Review, 27 (3), 414-31.
Zucker, Lynne G. (1986), “Production of Trust: Institutional Sources of Economic Structure,
1840–1920,” Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 53-111.

108