Content uploaded by Thomas Roulet
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas Roulet on Nov 12, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORGANIZATIONAL STIGM A:
TAKING STOCK AND OPENING NEW AREAS FOR RESEARCH
Brya nt Ashley Hudson
IESEG School of Management
b. hud son@ ies e g. fr
Karen D. W. Patterson
Univers it y of N ew Mexico
Thomas J. Roulet
Univers it y of C ambridge
Wesley S. Helms
Bro ck Univers ity
K imb erly Elsba c h
Unive r s i t y of Californ i a , Davis
Abstract:
Since its introduction as a concept, o rga niza t io na l stigma has become central to explaining
how organizat io ns or indus tr ie s become tainted, and how they overcome and manage such
taint. In this intro duct io n to the Sp ecial Issue o n organizatio na l stigma, we start by exploring
the origins of the concept, providing b asic d e finit io ns and reviewing the existing research on
stigmatization, stigma transfer and experienced stigma. The papers in this issue flesh out our
understanding of what causes organizational stigma and its implications at different levels.
The remainder of this introduction takes stock of this recent work to explore future research
opportunities around the micro- and macro-founda t ions of organizat io na l stigma, the links
with scandals, controversies and other negative social evaluations and research methods. As
the concept of organizational stigma reaches a new sta ge, we argue that its explanatory power
can be harnessed to explore new and increasingly relevant phenomena and contexts.
K e y words : O rga niza t io na l stigma ; s tig mat i za t io n , negative social evaluations.
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been
through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process which may lead to
differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi:
10.1111/joms.12875
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Int roduct io n
In announc ing this special issue, we cast a bro ad net invit ing authors to contribute to the
emerging literature o n o rganizat io na l stigma on top ics ranging from its antecedents and
consequences, its presence at multiple levels of analysis (whether organizatio na l, industry,
field, o r the micro - or meso-level), as well as addressing the multi- and cross-level processes
of stigma and its transfer. In keeping with our initial call, we were delighted to receive a
broad range of papers, which were discussed at a paper development workshop that took
place at IESEG School of Management in P a r is , France in September of 2019 (ah, such
halcyon days).
The articles chosen for this Special Issue provide new empirical and theoretical
insights, responses from a broad range of actors and settings, as well as methods for studying
stigma in organiza tio na l conte xts. While each article is unique in its own light, we found
several common themes. F irst, these studies generally provide more nuance to our
understandings of the reactions to stigma and processes through which stigma is de alt.
Second, two papers in this s p ecia l iss ue sho w how stigma is leveraged and used by actors as
an asset (Cowden et al. ; Campana, Duffy, and Micheli 2022). Such work diverges from
existing work on the benefits of stigma (Helms and Patterson 2014; Tracey and Phillips 2015;
T.J. Roulet 2020) by explicating agentic and strategic effort of appropriation. Another close ly
related work, (Kassinis et al. 2022, this issue) demonstrates that stigma can offset market
penalties for misconduct, without the need for firms to additional action. Third, the papers in
this issue paper grant insights into the resilience of actors in the face of stigma and
stigmati zing events. Three of the studies (Frandsen and Morsing 2021; Goodrick,
Bagdasarian, and Jarvis 2022; Kvåle and Murdoch 2021) unpack micro-leve l dynamics
caused by organizational stigma, but also unveiling core outcomes and reactions to stigma.
Finally, the papers connect organizationa l stigma with other core mechanisms and concepts
in and around the social evaluations literature, such as location (Cowden et al.), disapproval
(Piazza and Augustine), spectacularization and performativity (Campana, Duffy, and Micheli
2022), as well as managin g multip le sour c e s of stigma (Tsui‐Auch et al. 2021) and mult ip le
sources of support to manage stigma (Piazza a nd Augustine ). Those studies illuminate new
co ntexts that were often understud ied in organizat io n theory such as U.S. cities, o r te lev is io n
shows.
To loca te these studies in the still evo lving field of organizat io na l and industry –
including fields, categories and other collective forms of organization - stigma studie s , we
be gin this introductor y essay by tracing the beginnings and development of this fie ld. We
then go on to give an overview of some of the central constructs and definitio ns that have
be en refined during the recent growth in the field , and a brief sketch of the central findings of
resea rch into organiza t iona l and industry stigma. We next give a summary of the important
and insightful papers included in this special issue, and end with the hope that these studies
will lead to even greater development of the field of research on organizational and industry
stigma.
The Origins of Organizational Stigma and Core De finitions
In the 35 years since the first applicatio n of the concept of stigma to organizations
(Sutton and Callahan 1987), the field of organizational stigma research has blossomed,
slowly at first, b ut more e xpansivel y in the past five years. Drawing on the seminal work of
Go ffma n (1963), S utton and colleagues introduced the idea of stigma to the organizations
literature (Elsbach and Sutton 1992; Ginzel, Kramer, and Sutton 1992; Sutton and Callahan
1987), but then the idea lay dormant until the arrival of the pivotal Academy of Management
Review Special Topic Forum on stigma, edited by Paetzold, Dipboye, & Elsbach (2008).
That issue include d two articles o n o rganizat io na l stigma that would come to be highly
influe nt ia l : Wiese nfe ld , Wurthma nn, & Hamb r ic k ’s (2008) study of stigma transfer from
orga niza t io ns to individ ua ls, and Hudson’s (2008) conceptual piece on core stigma in
or ganiza t io ns. These insights were quickly followed by two key studies, one providing a
general theory o f orga niza t io na l stigma (Devers et al. 2009), one pr o vid in g an emp iric a l
illustra t io n o f c ore stigma and stigma transfer (Hudson and Okhuysen 2009), that appeared
side b y sid e in Organization Science. These early works were soon followed by a number of
emp iric a l papers (i.e., Vergne (2012), C arberry & K ing (2012), Hills, Voronov, & Hinings
(2013), Durand & Vergne (2014), Helms & Patterson (2014), Roulet (2015), Tracey &
Phill ip s (2015), Piazza & Perretti (2015), and Hampel & Tracey (2017)), that provided
signif ic a nt insight into various aspect of o rganizat io na l and industr y stigma.
To take stock of the current yet still evolving position of the field, and to facilitate
additional field flourishing, we review some of the definitio ns and refineme nt s of the basic
co nstructs in organizat io na l stigma research these earlier works have developed. Briefly,
scholars of o rganizat io na l and industr y stigma understa nd stigma as an outco me and
understand stigmatization as a process. Unfortunately, in the early days of the literature, the
concepts of stigma, stigmatized (both as a verb and an adjective), stigmatization, stigma
transfer, and experienced stigma were, and so me time s still are, used interchangeably. In the
following sections, we distinguish among these central constructs to help clarify core
assumptions, scope, and boundary conditions related to these concepts, and to highlight the
co ntributio ns made by the authors in this special issue.
Stigma and stigmatized. St igma is a social constructio n. Goffman (1963, 13) defines
stigma a s :
an attribute that is deeply discrediting, but it should be seen that a language of
relationships, not attributes, is really needed. An attribute that stigmatizes one type of
possessor can confirm the usualness of another, and therefore is neither creditable nor
discre d itab le as a t hing in itself.
He went on to note that the s tigma t iz ed person is “reduced in our minds from a whole a nd usual
person to a ta inted, discounte d one” (Goffman 1963, 12). Devers, Dewett, Mishina, and Belsito
(2009, 155), dra wing heavily on Goffman, d efine organiza tio na l stigma “as a labe l that
evokes a collective stakeholder group-specific perception that an organization possesses a
fundame nt a l, deep-seated flaw that deindividuates and discredits the organization.” Thus, the
stigma as s igne d to an organizat ion or industry results from the socio-cognitive processes of
evaluation by stakeholders and audiences intertwined with the normative expectations
defined by those so c ial audiences (Hudson 2008). In b oth these de finit io ns , stigma is a
perception held by those who make and hold the evaluation of the stigmatized entity,
irrespective of any effects of that stigma experienced by a focal firm or industry.
Stigma is not the o nly negative social evaluat ion (Mishina and Devers 2012). Further,
like all social constructions, stigma is culturally determined, and therefore its assessment can
vary widely across contexts. Devers, et al. (2009, 163) cla im tha t for stigma to “diff use and
persist, it must resonate with existing cultural frames, the situatio nal context, and social
actors”. Also, because sociocultural environments shift over time, many stigmatized
attributes experience differing levels of acceptance across time, with stigma waxing and
waning.
As with many social constructions, a theoretically clear definition within a given
context or cultural setting can be empirically elusive. This presents significant problems
when providing evidence for the construct’s existence in that specific setting. Furthermore, as
with any social evaluation, one or more of many possible audiences will d etermine whethe r
or not an attribute is actually discredited or tainted. Vergne (2012: 1029) states, “stigmatized
groups (collectives sharing a stigma) are not necessarily recognized as such by every o ther
group or at all times, yet they bear an enduring mark that signals a socially recognized
difference.” When the attribute is devalued to the point that audiences reflexively assign a
de valuing, tainted significa nce to it, and discriminate because of it, that defines stigma. This
does not, however, necessarily mean that the targets actually experience the negative effects
of that discrimination (Hudson 2008). Only some o rganizatio ns experience stigma, or
experience it to a greater or lesser degree (Hudson and Okhuysen 2009; see also Link and
Phelan 2001). Yet it is the shared negative evaluation, the perception by evaluating
audiences, along with the discrimination accompanying it, that defines stigma and being
stigmat i zed .
Stigmatization. Stigma as an outcome has been more or less well defined, yet the
process of stigmatization has not been as thoroughly defined. Stigma t i za t io n is a c o llective
and social process and act of stigmatizing, of socially enacting stigma, the social realization
(making real as a social fact) of stigma. Stigmatization seeks to vilify, devalue, and
deindivid uate (Devers et al., 2009) organizations or industries. As a process, stigmatization
has two “moments”, that of lab eling (Devers et al. 2009; see also Lashley and Pollock 2020;
and Galvin, Ventresca, and Hudson 2004), and that of enactments of stigmatization that seek
to induce conformity or have the organizatio n go away (Hudson and Okhuysen 2009;
Pescosolido and Martin 2015).
With regard to the first moment, Devers et al. (2009) demonstrate a two-stage labeling
model: (1) individual labeling processes including perceiving generalized value incongruence
with the target organization and transforming it as a dangerous deviate; (2) collective labeling
processes including aggregating the collective perceptions and vilification towards the target
organizat io n. An example of labeling can be seen in Wiesenfeld, Wurthmann, and Hambrick
(2008) and in Kvåle & Murdoch (2021, this issue). Wiesenfeld, Wurthmann, and Hambrick
(2008) demonstrated how stigmat iza t ion evolves after the announce me nt of a firm’s failure,
wit h arbiters targeting and blaming an entity as well as diffusing their negative evaluation of
it to a wider range of audiences.
The second moment of stigmatization is unveiled by Hampel and Tracey (2017). They
found that the establishment press of Victorian England conducted a sustained media
campaign stigmatizing the Cook Travel Agency that catered to working and lower middle-
class cliente le. Hudso n and Okhuysen (2009) describe pickets, police raids, lawsuits, and
other communit y and regulator y efforts to shut d own men’s bathhouses in the US, as well a s
attacks in the press from members of the gay community. Ongoing enactments of
stigmatization may take many forms a nd are largely determined by the specific context of the
stigmatized actions and attributes under consideration.
Thus, stigmatization includes both the labeling processes that facilitate stigma
emergence and also the subsequent processes and practices that seek to re-establish and
reenforce social norms and social order through o ngoing stigmati za t io n. To date, most studies
of the s e init ia l or ongo ing s t igma t iza t io n proc e s ses d o so fro m the lens o f stigma manageme nt
rather than that of audience stigmatization actions and enactments per se, though examples of
stigmatization actions and efforts have been examined (e.g., Vergne 2012; Durand and
Vergne 2014; Tracey and Phillips 2015; Helms and Patterson 2014).
Stigmatized. Unlike stigma, which is a perception held by an audience, and
stigmatization, which is a process engaged in by an audience, stigmatized is a property of the
o rg aniz a t io n, meaning that it was and is the target and recipient of those audience perceptions
and actions. This distinction between actors, audiences and the targeted organizations a nd
ind us tr ie s is important to maintain conceptual clarity between outcomes and processes, as
we ll to recognize the vagaries of the Englis h langua ge.
Stigma Transfer. Stigmatized organizations are vilified, devalued, and deindividuated
not only due to the strong so c ia l disapproval towards their attributes or practices, but also
when they interact with stigmatized organizations, thus becoming tainted and likely to
experience similar negative outcomes. In other words, stigma is contagious. The problem of
stigma transfer was first identified by Goffman (1963), who labeled it “courtesy stigma”.
From an outsider’s perspective, those bearing a courtesy stigma “share the taint of the
stigma… are all obliged to share some of the discredit of the stigmatized person to whom
they are related” (Goffman 1963, 43). For Goffman, those who bear courtesy stigma are not
stigmati zed for sharing the attributes of the stigmat ized, but by asso ciation with them. This
po llutio n thro ugh asso ciation (Douglas 2002), or contagion (Adut 2008), is not the result of
belonging to a stigmatized group, or of being discovered as belonging to one. However,
stigma can be transferred to others outside the stigmatized organization, or to non-me mb ers
of a stigma tized category or industry when an association is recognized, even if only in the
perceptions of stigmatizers. Interestingly, studies have not yet demonstrated how stigma
might transfer from individ ua ls - such as tainted CEOs, investors, or endorsers - to
organizat io ns. Yet two studies in this issue (Kvåle and Murdoch 2021; Goodrick,
Bagdasarian, and Jarvis 2022), demonstrate the need for organizations to manage stigma
transfer both to other organizations and individuals as well as from individ uals to the
or ganiza t io ns.
To manage stigma transfer, o rganizatio ns might terminate or hide the stigmatizing
associations (Jensen 2006; Hudson and Okhuysen 2009), or minimize the negative
consequences of it (Tracey and Phillips 2016). For example, Hudson and O khuysen (2009)
have sho wn that firms may attempt to hide the ir r e la tions h ip s with stigma t i ze d others in order
to maintain relationships with other stakeholders. Pozner (2008) examined how a desire to
avoid stigma transfer led to diminished opportunities for managers or directors associated
with organizatio n a l misconduc t. In an interesting counterexa mple, Piazza and Jourdan (2017)
found that while o rganizat io ns involved in scandals may suffer consequences, other
organizations may experience improved performance measures, such as increased
membership, when organizations are stigmatized.
Experienced stigma. Experienced organizational stigma, similar to felt stigma at the
individual level, focuses more on the internal process and results of organizations as they
perceive, interpret, and suffer directly from the stigma held by audiences or stigmatization
activities conducted by audiences. Examples might include sale decreases or internal
emplo yees suffering problems caused by organizational stigma. Alternat ive ly, the experience
of stigma might be unobservable, as for example the case of a privately held firm that does
not disclose financ ia l infor matio n, or even opportunity c osts such as inabilit y to expand.
Indeed, some stigmatized firms may either ignore the stigma or even embrace it, as in the
case of pornographers (Lane 2000; Voss 2012) o r mixed ma r t ia l a rts orga niza t io ns (Helms
and Patterson 2014; see also T.J. Roulet 2020). Yet, as stigma is a property of the audiences
of the organization, and as stigmatization is the audiences’ effort to isolate or induce
co nformity, the organizat io ns nonetheles s suffer stigma and are s tigma t i ze d. In other words,
an organization’s experience, negative or positive, of an audience perception of stigma does
not equate to it being or not be ing stigmatized . If audiences are stigmatizing the organization,
it is stigmat ize d . It is never the case that unobservable negative organization outcomes equate
to an absence of stigma. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish stigma, a perception held by
audiences, and experienced stigma, a perception held by the target organization.
As stated above, when experiencing stigma, the organization may decide to resist,
ignore, or embrace the stigma. This focus on experiences of stigma leads us to pay more
attention to how stigma impacts organizations’ internal dynamics such as how experienced
stigma might impa c t interna l s ta keholde r s ’ d aily practices, the organization’s overall strategy
or how it manages its stakeholders, particularly its employees. It is important to note that the
extent to which stigma is experienced by an organization is largely the result of the power the
stigmat i ze r s hold over the stigmatized (Hudson 2008). For example, when certain localities
banned the practice of Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) and its abilit y to be te le vised , it result e d in
bo th financ ia l sanctions, as fight organizers could no longer pursue profitable cable TV spots,
but also physical and moral sanctions, as practitioners and organizers alike were law-breakers
if they continued to engage in the sport (Helms and Patterson 2014). At the same time, some
organizations, such as waste management organizations, may experience stigma but because
they are necessary, financial sanctions are not levied even though the work is perceived as
“dirty”. F urthe r mo re, stigma may exist in the absence o f significa nt sanction and without
being internalized by major stakeholders but still be felt by an organization. As Hampel and
Tracey (2017) showed, when Cook’s travel agency was seen as a destabilizing force for
Victorian Britain’s social order, the organization experienced the stigma through negative
media and hostile reporting, despite appealing to a wide audience.
In this Vol ume
Having attempted to briefly summarize the state of the field of organizational and
industry stigma, and some of the central constructs of it, we now present a brief synopsis of
the articles included in this Special Issue.
In ‘Straight Outta Detroit: Embracing Locational Stigma among Organizat io ns’,
Cowden, Bendickson, Mathias, and Solomon (2022) draw from the single case study of
Detroit, Michigan to offer insights on location as a source of stigma. The authors found that,
despite its negative connotations as a “murder capital”, these negative external labels and
accounts had positive implications for entrepreneurs in Detroit. Because location was a no n
“core” stigma, entrepreneurs strategically drew from this identity to construct affir mi n g
narratives that inspired them and strengthened their collective identities to drive their work.
This article, a long with others in this issue, extends previous work on the use discursive
strategies to manage stigma.
Meanwhile in Campana, Duffy & Miche li’s paper ‘We're All Born Naked and the
Rest Is Drag’: Spectacularization of Core Stigma in RuPaul’s Drag Race’ (2022) the authors
adopt a performativity lens to examine RuPaul’s Drag Race. The authors find that these
actors strategically sought to “spectactularize” core stigma associated with drag by
performing and actively promoting public spectacles. This study further deve lops and adds to
the growing body of theo ry on the positive implica t io n of embracing stigma by delineating
how transgressive events can be utilized to normalize stigmatized practices. Importantly, it
po ses the question of stigma exhibit io n and visibility.
Examining t he ind ivid ua l leve l of analys is , Frandsen & Mo rsing’s ‘Behind the Stigma
Shield : F rontli ne Emplo ye e s ’ Emotiona l Response to Organizatio na l Event Stigma at Work
and at Home ’ (2021) extends work on how organizational actors (employees) are resilient in
the face of stigma (Tracey & Phillips, 2017). By examining those frontline workers of
Danske Bank that navigated the stigma of being associated with the firm’s money laundering
practices, the authors identify how employees emotionally detach on a personal and
professional level with those they interact with to mainta in a p o sitive o rganizat io na l ident it y.
This explores an important link between organiza tio na l stigma and the cop ing mechanisms o f
employees.
With a s imi la r focus o n mic ro -level dynamics, Kvåle & Murdoch’s paper, entitled
‘Shame On You! Unpac king the Individ ua l a nd Organizatio na l Implica t io ns o f Engagin g
wit h a Stigma t ized Orga nizat io n’ (2021), explored how individuals managed their
engageme nt with a stigmatized organization. By loo king at how an exhibit io n of the He lls
Angels Motorcycle Club (HAMC ) was dealt with, they showed how status can moderate the
risk of stigma transfer. They also uncover mechanisms of transferred stigma by unveilin g
shaming attempts and impression management processes that could fuel the transfer,
providing important insight into bo th the intera c tio n o f socia l eva luat io ns a s well as the
metho d s of stigma t i ze rs.
Vie win g this fr o m the o p po s ite a ngle , Goodrick, Bagdasarian, and Jarvis (2022)
assess the ways in which organizatio ns manage the stigma of the individ ua ls they serve in
order to encourage client engagement. In ‘N o t on S kid Ro w: S t igma Mana geme n t in
Addiction Treatment Organizations’ the authors illus tr a te the wa ys in which the organiza t io ns
use a variety of discursive tactics to manage their clients’ stigma but also provide new insight
into ho w these organizat io ns help their clients c onstruct new provisiona l selves and neutralize
negative provisio na l selve s. Treatment centers utilize outward facing tactics to decrease the
stigma their clients may face in order to encourage client engagement. The unique use of
discursive strategies, images and sto rytelli ng provides intere sting insight into how
organizat io ns manage stigma when it is not their own.
Leveraging the concept of organizational stigma for international business research,
Yang, Tsui-Auch, Huang and Ko’s (2022) study, ‘Double Tro uble : C o ntainin g Pub lic
Dis a pp r o val Arisin g from an Interplay of Stigmatized Categories’, explores the disapproval
faced by firms that may be stigmatized by certain audiences for multiple, even mutually
exclusive, reasons. The study brings in geo politica l arguments to the social evaluatio n
literature at the organizat io na l level by identifyi n g the co untry of origin and entry into
specific new strategic markets as potentially potent sources of stigma. Entry into new
strategic markets can create more sensitivity by audiences depending on existing affiliations
in ho me-countries and the specific type of market entry. The interactions of those two sources
of stigma ge nerated differe nt responses by those stigmat ized multina tio na ls, which the
authors documented in four case studies. This paper provides insight into a context that has
been largely underrepresented in the stigma literature at the organizational level by
addressing both geopolitical forces as well as organizational strategies.
Augustine and Piazza (2022) provide new insights from the highly provocative field
of female reproductive care in the United States. ‘Nevertheless, They Persisted: How
Patterns of Opposition and Support Shaped the Survival of U.S. Abortion Clinics’ provides
important findings about how the engagement of specific audiences across time, in
co njunctio n and sepa rately, can impact the surviva l of organizat io ns in a stigmatized industry.
Although data and writing were done well before the United States Supreme Court’s
co ntro versia l decision to overturn the longstand i ng right to abortion in the United States, the
authors insights are useful for understand in g how the right to ab ortion was stripped in the
United States and how organizations within the industr y may craft a path to survival.
Fina lly, in Stigma as mo r a l insuranc e : Ho w stigma buffe r s firms from the ma rket
consequences of greenwashing (Kassinis et al. 2022), Kassinis, Kay, Papagiannakis and
Vlachos show that stigma, rather than being a liability, can serve as a form quisi-insura nce
that buffers firms from market penalties due to organizational misconduct, in this case
greenwashing. Using a large data set and quantitative analysis, they demonstrate that social
expectations of “boys will be boys”, stigmatized firms are expected to lack integrity and are
thus granted greater leeway when exposed as participating in greenwashing. In an innovative
secondary analysis, the conduct an experiment testing subjects responses to greenwashing to
show the underlying psychological mechanism that sometimes have the effect of making
stigma an inherent asset.
The Future of Organizatio nal Stigma Studie s
We hope that the papers selected and shaped for this special issue provide an interest ing
panorama of the best of empirica lly driven studies of organizat io na l stigma. Yet, they open
up new perspectives on future areas of research on organizational stigma, and more broadly
on negative social evaluations, their nature, antecedents and outcomes. In this section, we
pave the way for further work in what we consider to be the most promising avenues to
develop this literature.
Opportunities for further theorizing (around) the concept of organizational stigma.
As sho wn b y this the stud ies in this spe c ial issue , there are still significant areas for
theo r e tic a l co ntribut io ns in organizational stigma research, and in the area of negative social
evaluations broadly constructed. Thereafter, we offer some suggestio ns of theoretical blind
spots, linking organizat io na l stigma with crucial trends in management and organiza tio n
theory and differentiating stigma from other types of social evaluations.
The role of audiences from antecedents to outcomes of organizational stigma.
Audiences play a crucial role in explaining both antecedents and outcomes of stigma (Helms,
Patterson, & Hudson, 2019; Roulet 2020). How audiences shape and react to organizational
stigma, and how audiences influence each other, partly explain positive outcomes of stigma
in p a r t ic ula r. Such results can be explained by the importance of audience judgements for
organizations’ performance, across a number of industries. Helms & Patterson (2014) show
how stigma was leveraged to gain acceptance from core audiences. Ro ulet (2019) shows how
adherence to deviant norms can generate negative evaluations from the media but po s itive
ones from more important audiences such as customers. Tracey & Phillips (2017) showed
how employees started identifying more with their organization when it faced stigma because
it highlighted values they could be proud of. This stream of work highlights the interactions
between audiences: when some audiences produce an evaluation, it might be interpreted in a
d iffe re nt , and even opposite, way by another more meaningful and important audience
(Roulet, 2020).
Studies in this special issue very much flesh out those links between interna l and
external audiences (Frandsen and Morsing 2021; Tsui-Auch et al. 2021; Campana et al. 2022)
in all the ir mult ip li c it y and comp le xit y. Their a pp r o ach r e lies on a n effo rt t o delimit
audiences and unpack the situational drivers of their reactions to explain the outcomes of
organizat io na l stigma. Future work could explore the boundaries of those interna l and
external audiences, especially as we can imagine how both stigma tize and stigmat izing actors
might engage in boundary wo rk to influenc e the stigmat i zed o rganizat io n and its destiny.
On the other end of the spectrum, audiences play a crucial role in the shaping and
emergence of organizational stigma, thus affecting the very nature of this evaluat io n (Ha mpel
and Tracey 2017). Processual perspectives on the emergence of organizational stigma have
the potential to establish how a “critical mass” of stakeholders come to agree on an
organizat io n or industry being tainted (Devers et al, 2009). A longer-term approach to
studying the concept could yield interest in g contribut io ns by unpacking how e vent-stigma
can accumulate to the point of stigma being a core attribute of the organization (Hudson
2008).
Micro and macro-foundations of organizational stigma. Although o rganizat io na l
stigma is a ma c r o -level concept (Hudson 2008), it found its roots in the literature on
ind ivid ua l -leve l stigma (Devers et al. 2009; Pescosolido and Martin 2015). The recent review
by Zhang and colleague s (2021) highlights the importance of approaching the process of
stigmati zat io n through multiple levels instead of limiti ng our study to a single level of
analysis. The authors point out the fact that we often focus on e ither individ ua l (the
traditional Goffmanian perspective), organizatio na l (what we explore in this special issue) or
field-le ve l stigma (such as in the work on contested industries (Galvin, Ventresca, and
Hudson 2004; Vergne 2012))1. Yet, we could benefit from more clearly connecting those
1 Work on contested industries is often rooted in organizational s tigma, and organizational stigma can
be seen as affecting entire indus tries (Vergne, 2012).
levels of analysis in the same studies, especially as the sources of stigma and taint are usually
non-specific to a level of analysis.
In the meantime, a broad literature has emerged around micro-foundations of
organizat io na l theo ry (Felin, Foss, and Ployhart 2015, 576), a movement aimed at unpacking
“how the interaction of individuals leads to emergent, collective, and organization-level
outcomes and performance, and how relations between macro variables are mediated by
micro actions and interactions”. Here, a full agenda can be offered to organizational stigma
scho la rs - for example by loo king at how the stigma faced by individua ls result in
organizat io na l or group level stigma. Hudson & O k huysen’s study of men’ s ’ bathhouses
(2009) very much focuses on how the stigma faced by a core stakeholder group (here, the
clients) of an organizat io n leads to this organizatio n be ing stigmat ized. But inversely, they
also show how those bathhouses work at protecting their stigmatized clients from the
negative consequences of this evaluation. At the next level, the mechanis ms through which
the stigmat iza tio n of organizatio ns in an industr y turns into the whole industr y being
contested (Gavin et al. 2005; Ro ulet 2015) could b enefit from further exploratio n. Such
effort could also lead to a better integration of the literatures on dirty work (Ashforth &
Kreiner 2007) and organizational stigma, and contested industries (Vergne 2012; Piazza and
Perretti 2015).
Build ing on the micro-foundational perspective, one could explore the presence of
thresholds or the effects of tipping points (Harmon, Haack, and Roulet 2019) in
stigmatization processes: once a certain number of actors within a population is stigmatized,
can we expect the collective to be stigmatized? The concept of a “critical mass” is commonly
used to understand the emergence of o rganiza t io na l stigma (Roulet 2015) since popularized
by Devers et al. (2009: 162): stigma emerges when “a critical mass of stakeholder group
members accepts a vilifying label.” In their work, critical mass is applied to the stigmatizing
audiences, but we could imagine this concept to be useful to understand stigmatized actors,
and how they become categorized as such (Piazza & Perretti 2015). We could also imagine
that a micro-foundational perspective would unpack the importance of dyadic interactions in
stigmat i za t io n pro c e sses: how muc h is stigma t i za t io n me d iated by inte rperso na l re la t io ns
rathe r than through structural realities?
The micro -foundational perspective on organizational stigma can also inform and be
informed by emotions (Zietsma et al. 2019). How much can shame (Creed et al. 2014), for
example, mediate the negative outcomes of stigma? In this issue, Frandsen and Morsing
(2021, this issue) have taken the route of unpacking emotiona l responses to stigma. S uch
reactions can indeed fuel our understanding of stigma management and stigma outcomes. But
at a more macro-level, collective emotions may depict the onset of an emerging
organizat io na l stigma when taint starts getting deeply rooted in aud ience s’ evaluat ions
(Roulet, 2015). The emotional nature of evaluatio n is in fact a useful pillar to disentangle
differe nt types of evaluat io ns (Pollock et al. 2019). Emotions can also be expected to be
crucial in how friendly and allied audiences might mobilize to support stigmatized
organizations (Tracey & Phillips 2017).
On the other end o f the spectrum, research in organizational theory has been
increasingly focused on macro-foundat io ns – understand ing how micro-lev e l beha vio r s
aggregate into more macro-level trends (Steele and Hannigan 2020). O rga nizat io na l st igma
already reflects the broad and consensual perspective of audiences (Hudson 2008; Devers et
al. 2009) and in this sense might convey societal trends. Roulet (2015; 2019), for example,
unpacks how the financial crisis shifted the societal perception of the invest me nt banking
industry, which in turn fueled institut io na l change as previously accepted behaviors became
negatively perceived. Such perspective can offer to bridge organizationa l stigma and other
forms of evaluatio ns with normative mechanisms d erive d from instit u t io na l ize d no r ms
(Gardberg et al. 2022). Another potential literature that a macro-foundational perspective
could help integrate with organizational stigma is social movement theory (Carberry & King,
2012): further research could expand on how different social movements may stigmatize
industr ies and organizat io ns in various ways depending on their tactics and rhetorical choices.
Connecting stigma with parallel literatures and similar constructs – social
evaluations, misconduct, scandals, controversies. Because of its central position in the
broader field of social evaluations, the concept of organizational stigma has fed (and been fed
by) other literatures. Scandals or controversies are usually understood as a form of event
stigma (Hudson 2008) where an o r ga niza t io n , relatively suddenly, receives negative social
evaluatio ns. The experience of taint is limited in time, and potentially in space. Scandals are
often seen as a dynamic process, rather than a state, by contrast with organizational stigma
(Roulet 2020). Misconduct – a deviance from established norms within an organization or a
field - is often seen as an antecedent of negative social evaluation (Muzio et al. 2016). The
concepts of scandals and misconducts are often intertwined as it is unde r s t o od tha t visib le
misconduct can lead to scandals, and that inversely s c and als migh t help uncover misconduc t
(Entman 2012; Dewan and Jensen 2020). There is p otent ia l in b etter inte gratin g those
phenomena in coherent theoretical frameworks including antecedents, processes and
outcomes of negative social evaluations.
Efforts to disentangle different types of social evaluations (Hudson 2008; Devers et
al., 2019; Pollock et al. 2019) have already considerably helped the field move forward.
Controversies over the links between different social evaluations concepts tend to remain: for
example to know whether o rganiza ti o ns can be both legitimate and stigmatized at the same
time (Helms, Patterson, and Hudson 2019), or if stigma is an extre me fo rm o f illeg i t i mac y
(Hampel & Tracey, 2017; 2019). Yet, more work can be done on connecting pragmatic forms
of eva luatio ns such a s reputation (Mishina & Devers 2009 ) with no rmative ones such as
stigma and legitimacy (Hampel & Tracey 2017), without conflating them (Helms et al. 2019).
New methods for organizational stigma research. The study of organizatio na l stigma
often brings researchers to explore taboo topics: Hudson & Okhuysen (2014), for example,
te lls of the issues they experienced in the review process of their men’s bathhouse paper
(2009) because of the context they studied. The appropriateness of that context was
challenged. Qualitative approaches to stigma, may involve the researcher to be embedded in a
field and experience taint him or herself. Yet, observation is a powerful tool for data
collectio n to observe the processes of stigmatization first-hand (Roulet 2020). Even for
quantitative work, gaining qualitat i ve insigh ts in fairs or o ther industry level events can be
crucial to developing a fuller understanding (cf Vergne 2012). Further work could detail the
modes of entry and data collection in typically stigmatized contexts. For example, how can
organizational stigma researchers manage courtesy stigma, or relationships with gatekeepers?
We have also already highlighted the potential contribution of processual, and lo ng-
term perspectives on organizational stigma, to understand its emergence and the nature of
taint. Or ganiza t io na l st igma could be empirically explored through the lens o f his t o rica l
methods to observe its development over long period of time (Hampel & Tracey 2017).
Easier access to large quantity of digitized archival data may open new opportunities.
On the other end of the methodological spectrum, new forms of media offer
opportunities for research. Qualitative researchers have already started drawing from those
sources (Frand sen and Morsing 2 021; Gümüsay et al. 2022; see also Piazza and Augustine,
this issue). While s ocia l me d ia has been brought into rep utation research (Etter, Ravasi, and
Colleoni 2019), there is great potential in considering it for stigma research, especially
because of the decentralized nature of interactions, and the potential richness and diversity of
voices that can be captured on those platforms. In this sense, social media data can help
stigma researchers better understand the dynamics of stigmatization and the reactions of the
stigmat i ze d in a mor e fine -gra ined way than t ra dit iona l media (see Campana, Duffy, and
Micheli 2022, this issue, for a creative use of social media data.).
New phenomena that could be conceptually rooted in organizational stigma. The
concept of organizational stigma can be a fruitful lens to research the “new normal” or the
current global context, characterized by climate change, large scale pandemics and
geo p olit ica l c o nflic t s . Ts ui-Auch and colleagues (2021 this issue), in this is sue , exa mine
geopolitical conflict as a source of stigma. O thers could study how firms wit h for example,
Russian t ie s , ma y b e suffering from transferred stigma, ultimate ly affecting their prospects
with partners and consumers. The pote ntial of organizat io na l stigma to unpac k the outco mes
of corporate political positioning is notable. Mobilizing the concept, Shymko, Roulet, and de
Melo P imente l (2022) show that cultura l organiza t ions politica l ly opposing the Putin
administration struggle to attract philanthropic partners. C rise s and discontinu ity can trigger
polarization and the stigmatization of collectives (Roulet and Bothello 2022), which
potentially delay the resolutio n of those events. Stigma research, in this context has the
potential to better explain the dynamics of disruption, and how consensus can be built for
collectives to move forward in addressing core societal challenges.
As new contested industries emerge, from medical cannabis (Lashley and Pollock
2020) to artific ia l mea t, and includi ng more bro adly some parts of the sharing eco nomy
(Phung et al. 2021), o r ganizat io na l s t igma could be mobilized to understand entrepreneurial
intent io n, entry and growth in tainted mark ets. In this sense, the stigma and social movements
literature can conjointly offer interesting perspectives on the development of industries
(August ine and Piazza 2 022). Further research in this area could uncover how social
move me nts stigma tize or are stigmatized.
Conclus ion
We hope this special issue and this editorial can help consolidate existing research on
orga niza t io na l stigma , and open new areas for contribution, both conceptually and
e mpir ic a ll y . Fro m mo r e traditio na l co ntexts - internatio na l business operations (Tsui-Auc h et
al. 2021, this issue) or banking (Frandsen & Morsing 2021, this issue; Roulet 2015) to less
traditional ones - te levis io n re a lit y shows on d rag queens (Campana et al. 2022, this issue),
martial arts (Helms & Patterson 2014) or kink associations (Coslor et al. 2020) – studies of
orga niza t io na l stigma have shown the polyvalence and theoretical usefulness of the concept.
While the literature is s t ill evolvin g, it is be ginn i n g to reach a maturation phase, with
stabilize d d ef init i o ns and links with other relevant areas of research and connate concepts
(Pollock et al. 2019). His t o rica l and mult i-level perspectives have the potential to further our
unde rstand ing of antecedents and outcomes of organizatio na l stigma. And in return,
organizat io na l stigma has the potential to enlighte n new pheno mena a nd contexts, from
entre preneurs h ip in contested industrie s (Lashley & Pollock 2021) to geopolitical (Tsui-Auc h
et al. 2021, this issue) and armed c o nflic ts.
References
Adut, A. (2008). On scandal: moral disturbances in society, politics, and art. Cambridge
University Press.
Augustine, G. L. and Piazza , A. (2022). ‘Category evo lut io n under conditions of stigma: The
segregation of ab o rtion p r o vis io n into s p ecia lis t c lin ics in the United S tates’.
Organization Science, 33, 624-49.
Campana, M., Duffy, K. and Micheli, M. R. (2022). ‘‘We're all Born Naked and the Rest is
Drag’: Spectacularization of Core Stigma in RuPaul's Drag Race’. Journal of
Management Studies.
Carberry, E. J. and K in g, B. G. (2012). ‘Defensive Practice Adoption in the Face of
Orga nizatio na l Stigma: Impression Ma nagement and the Diffus io n of Stock O ption
Expensing’. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1137-67.
Cowden, B. J., Bendickson, J. S., Mathias, B. S. and Solomon, S. J. (2022). ‘Straight Outta
De troit: Emb racin g Lo cational Stigma among Orga niza t io ns ’. Journal of
Management Studies.
Creed, W. E. D., Hudson, B. A., Okhuysen, G. A. and Smith-C rowe, K. (2014). ‘Swimming
in a Sea of Shame: Incorp o rating Emotion into Explanat io ns of Institut io na l
Reproduction and C hange ’. Academy of Management Review, 39, 275-301.
Devers, C. E., Dewett, T., M is hina , Y. a nd Belsito, C. A. (2009). ‘A General Theory of
Orga nizatio na l S tigma ’. Organization Science, 20, 154-71.
Dewan, Y. and Jensen, M. (2020). ‘Catching the big fish: The role of scandals in making
status a liability’. Academy of Management Journal, 63, 1652-78.
Douglas, M. (2002). Purity and Danger. Oxford and New York: Routledge.
Durand , R. and Vergne, J.-P. (2014). ‘Asset Divestme nt as a Response to Media Attacks in
Stigma t ize d Ind ustrie s ’. Strategic Management Journal, 36, 1205-23.
Elsbach, K. D. and Sutton, R. I. (1992). ‘Acquir ing organizat io na l legitimac y thro ugh
illeg it i ma t e actions: A marriage of instit ut io na l a nd imp r e ssio n ma na ge me nt theories ’.
Academy of Management Journal, 35, 699-738.
Entman, R. M. (2012). Scandal and silence: Media responses to presidential misconduct.
Po lity.
Etter, M., Ravasi, D. and C olle oni, E. (2019). ‘Social media and the formation of
organizat io na l rep utation’. Academy of management review, 44, 28-52.
Felin, T., Foss, N. J. and Ployhart, R. E. (2015). ‘The microfounda t ions movement in strategy
and organizatio n theory’. Academy of Management Annals, 9, 575-632.
Frandsen, S. and Morsing, M. (2021). ‘Behind the stigma s hield: fr o ntline e mp loye es’
emotional response to organizational event stigma at work and at home’. Journal of
Management Studies.
Galvin, T. L., Ventresca, M. J. and Hudson, B. A. (2004). ‘Contested industry dynamic s’.
International Studies of Management & Organization, 34, 56-82.
Gardberg, N. A., Newburry, W., Hudso n, B. A. and Viktora-Jones, M. (2022). ‘Adoption of
LGBT-Inc l us i ve P olicie s : S oc ia l Co nstruc t io n, Coercion, or Competition?’. Social
Forces. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soac033. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soac033.
Ginze l, L. E., Kramer, R. M. and Sutton, R. I. (1992). ‘O r ganizat io na l imp ressio n
management as a reciprocal influence process: The neglected role of the
organizat io na l audience’. Research in Organizational Behavior, 15, 227-67.
Go ffma n, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood
Cliffs , NJ: Prentic e-Hall.
Goodrick, E., Bagdasarian, J. L. and Jarvis, L. C. (2022). ‘Not on skid row: Stigma
management in addiction treatment organizations’. Journal of Management Studies.
Gümüsay, A. A., Raynard, M., Alb u, O., Etter, M. and Roulet, T. (2022). ‘Digit a l
Techno logy and Voice: How P latforms S hape Institutio na l P rocesses Through
Vis ib il i za t io n ’. In Digital Transformation and Institutional Theory, edited by Thomas
Gegenhuber, Danielle Logue, C. R. Hinings and Michael Barrett, In Research in the
Sociology of Organizations, 57-85. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Ha mpel, C . E. and Tracey, P. (2017). ‘Ho w O rga niza t io ns Mo ve fr o m S tigma to Legit ima c y :
The Case of Cook’s Travel Agency in Victorian Britain’. Academy of Management
Journal, 60, 2175-207.
Harmon, D. J., Haack, P. and Roulet, T. J. (2019). ‘Micro fo unda t io n s o f ins tit ut i o ns : A ma t te r
of structure versus agency or level of analys is?’. Academy of management review, 44,
464-67.
He lms, W. S., Patterson, K. D. W. and Hudson, B. A. (2019). ‘Let’s Not ‘Taint ’ S t igma
Research With Legitimac y, Please’. Journal of Management Inquiry, 28, 5-10.
He lms, W. S. and Patterson, K. D. W. (2014). ‘Eliciting acceptance for ‘illic it’ organizatio ns :
The po s it ive implic a t io ns o f stigma for MMA orga nizat io n s’. Academy of
Management Journal, 57, 1453-84.
Hills , S., Voronov, M. and Hinings, C. R. (2013). ‘Putting new wine in old bottles: Utilizing
rhetorical history to overcome stigma associated with a previously dominant logic’.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39, 99-137.
Hudson, B. A. (2008). ‘Against all odds: A consideration of core-st igmat ized o rga niza t io n s’.
Academy of Management Review, 33, 252-66.
Hudson, B. A. and Okhuysen, G. A. (2009). ‘Not with a Ten-Foot Pole: Co re S tigma, Stigma
Transfer, and Improbable Persistence of Men's Bathhouses’. Organization Science,
20, 134-53.
Jensen, M. (2006). ‘Should We Stay or Sho uld W e Go? Accountab ility, Status Anxiety, and
Client Defections’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 97-128.
Kassinis, G. I., Kay, A. A., Papagiannakis, G. and Vlachos, P. A. (2022). ‘Stigma as mo r a l
insura nce : How stigma buffers firms from the market consequences of greenwashing’.
Journal of Management Studies.
Kvåle, G. and Murdoch, Z. (2021). ‘Sha me O n You! Unpack ing the individ ua l and
orga niza t io na l implic a t io n s of e nga gin g wit h a st igmat i zed o rga niza t io n’. Journal of
Management Studies.
Lane, F. S. (2000). Obscene profits: The Entrepreneurs of pornography in the cyber age.
London: Routledge.
Lashley, K. and Pollock, T. G. (2020). ‘Waiting to inhale : Reducing s tigma in t he me d ical
cannabis industry ’. Administrative science quarterly, 65, 434-82.
Link, B. G. and Phelan, J. C. (2001). ‘Conceptualiz ing Stigma’. Annual Review of Sociology,
27, 363-85.
Mishina, Y. and Devers, C. E. (2012). ‘On being bad: Why stigma is not the same as a bad
reputation’. The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation, 201.
Muzio, D., Faulconbr id ge, J., Gabbioneta, C. and Greenwood, R. (2016). ‘Bad apples, bad
barrels and bad cellars: a ‘boundaries’ perspective on professional misconduct’.
Organizational wrongdoing: Key perspectives and new directions.
Paetzold, R. L., Dipboye, R. L. and Elsbach, K. D. (2008). ‘A ne w lo ok a t stigmat i za t io n in
and of organizations’. Academy of Management Review, 33, 186-93.
Pescosolido, B. A. and Martin, J. K. (2015). ‘The stigma c o mplex’. Annual review of
sociology, 41, 87-116.
Phung, K ., Buchanan, S., Toubiana, M., Ruebottom, T. and Turchick‐Hakak, L. (2021).
‘When stigma doesn’t transfer: Stigma deflectio n and occupational stratification in the
sharing economy’. Journal of Management Studies, 58, 1107-39.
Piazza, A. and August ine, G. L. (2022). ‘Nevertheless, They Persisted: How Patterns of
Opposition and Support Shaped the Survival of U.S. Abortion Clinics’. Journal of
Management Studies.
Piazza, A. and Jourdan, J. (2017). ‘When the Dust Settles: The Consequences of Scandals for
O r ganizat io na l C omp etitio n’. Academy of Management Journal.
Piazza, A. and Perretti, F. (2015). ‘Categorical stigma and firm disengagement: Nuclear
power generatio n in the United States, 1970–2000’. Organization Science, 26, 724-
42.
Pollock, T. G., Lashley, K., Rindova, V. P. and Han, J.-H. (2019). ‘Which of These Things
Are Not Like the Others? Comparing the Rational, Emotional, and Moral Aspects of
Reputation, Status, Celebrity, and Stigma’. Academy of Management Annals, 13, 444-
78.
Pozner, J.-E. (2008). ‘Stigma and settling up: An integrated approach to the consequences of
organizat io na l misconduct for o r ganiza t io na l e lite s ’. Journal of Business Ethics, 80,
141-50.
Roulet, T. (2015). ‘‘What Good is Wall Street?’ I nstitut io n a l C o ntrad ic tio n a nd the Diffus io n
of the S tigma ove r the Finance Industry’. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 389–402.
Roulet, T. J. (2019). ‘Sins for some, virtues for others: Media coverage of investment banks’
misconduc t and adherence to professiona l norms during the financ ia l crisis’. Human
Relations, 72, 1436-63.
Roulet, T. J. (2020). The power of being divisive: Understanding negative social evaluations.
Stanford Univers it y Press.
Roulet, T. J. a nd Bothe llo, J. (2022). ‘An event-system perspective on disruption: theorizing
the pandemic and other discontinuities through historical and fictional accounts of the
plague’. Academy of Management Review.
Shymko, Y., Roulet, T. J. and de Melo Pimentel, B. (2022). ‘The façade, the face, and the
sympathies: opening the black box of symbolic capital as a source of philanthropic
attractiveness’. Organization Science.
Steele, C. W. J. and Ha nniga n, T. R. (2020). ‘Integrating and complicating the micro and
macro ‘found at io ns’ of ins t it ut io ns : To wa rd a more op t o metric instit ut io na l is m a nd an
institutionalist optometry’. In Macrofoundations: Exploring the institutionally
situated nature of activity. Emerald P ublish i n g Limite d, 19-46.
Sutton, R. I. and Callahan, A. L. (1987). ‘The stigma of bankruptcy: Spoiled organizational
image a nd its mana ge me nt’. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 405-36.
Tracey, P. and P hillips, N. (2015). ‘Managing the C onsequences of Organizatio na l
Stigma t iza tio n : Ide ntity Work in a S ocia l Ente r p rise’. Academy of Management
Journal.
Tracey, P. and Phillips, N. (2016). ‘Managing the C onsequences o f Organizat io na l
Stigma t iza tio n : Ide ntity Work in a S ocia l Ente r p rise’. Academy of Management
Journal, 59, 740-65.
Tsui‐Auc h, L. S., Huang, D., Yang, J. J. and Koh, S. Z. (2021). ‘Double Trouble: Containing
Pub lic Disap p rova l Ar is in g fr o m an Interp la y o f S tigma t ize d C a tego r ie s’. Journal of
Management Studies.
Vergne, J.-P. (2012). ‘Stigmatized categories and public disapproval of organizations: A
mixed -methods study of the global arms industry, 1996–2007’. Academy of
Management Journal, 55, 1027-52.
Voss, G. (2012). ‘‘Treating it as a normal business’: Researching the pornography industr y’.
Sex ualit ies, 15, 391-410.
Wiesenfeld, B. M., Wurthmann, K. A. and Hambrick, D. C. (2008). ‘The Stigmat iza t io n a nd
Devaluation of Elites Associated with Corporate Failures: A Process Model’.
Academy of Management Review, 33, 231-51.
Zhang, R., Wang, M. S., Toubiana, M. and Greenwood, R. (2021). ‘S tigma beyond leve ls :
Advancing research on stigmatization’. Academy of Management Annals, 15, 188-
222.
Zie t s ma , C ., Toubiana, M., Voronov, M. and Roberts, A. (2019). Emotions in Organization
Theory. Camb r id ge : C amb r id ge Univers it y P ress.
