Organizations differ in the extent to which they emphasize the importance of status, yet most extant research on the role of status at work has utilized a limited view of status as merely a matter of a person’s status rank. In contrast, we examine people’s perceptions of the extent to which having status matters in their work context and explore the behavioral implications of such perceptions. We offer a new construct, perceived status importance, defined as employees’ subjective assessment of the degree to which people within their organization are preoccupied with status. Relying on social comparison theory, we propose that higher perceived status importance triggers envy, which leads to interpersonal deviance. Across three studies, using multiwave survey and experimental designs, we find support for these relationships. We also find support for the mitigating influence of core self-evaluations on the perceived status importance—envy relationship. Implications are discussed.

The literature on early modern credit markets emphasizes both the social embeddedness of credit relationships and the role of notaries. To enhance our understanding of how credit markets functioned in a “less-developed” economy, we investigate the local lending activities of a merchant-banker family that operated at the intersection of formal and informal credit. A combination of economic rationality and social motivations in lending decisions emerges. The credit network of this family firm provides a portrait of the social structure of the local community, where the central position of a few trusted notaries and members of the business and political elite highlights the prevalence of relationships of power and favor over impersonal market exchange. The predominance of informal credit reveals a preference for loans made outside of notarial circuits. Nonetheless, notaries were crucial in lending to borrowers of lower social status and with weak ties, thus helping the liquidity of these merchants to “trickle down” into local society.

How organizations utilize capabilities to achieve competitive advantage and improve performance has received an abundance of scholarly attention. Both ordinary and dynamic capabilities (DC) enable organizations to achieve higher performance when leveraged appropriately and under favorable conditions. The complexity of an organization's motives for why and how different capabilities are acquired drives us further to explore what complementarities organizations might achieve and under what contexts. Specifically, we explore how firms engaging in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) to acquire dynamic and/or ordinary capabilities experience different market reactions and levels of short- and long-run value creation given environmental uncertainty. Our results support the acquisition of ordinary capabilities for predicting positive short-term market reactions and of DC for longer-run firm performance post-M&A, with uncertainty factors moderating these relationships. We discuss both the theoretical and practical implications of uncertainty and acquisitions of these capabilities and offer suggestions for future research.

When a firm is accused of serious misconduct, its executives, even those who are nonculpable, are stigmatized by the firm's stakeholders, a phenomenon known as courtesy stigma. One research stream explores how executives’ social networks mitigate courtesy stigma, with an emphasis on the positive effect of social networks. From the perspective of a social network as an information pipe, we suggest that social networks are a double-edged sword in the context of courtesy stigma because of their distinctive insulation and exposure mechanisms. Our proposed hypotheses are supported via event history analysis using data collected from a Chinese sample of listed firms that demonstrated financial misconduct in the period 2007–2016. Our study contributes to the literature on social networks and courtesy stigma by revealing their complex links.