Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Status Granted to Organizational Identity Characteristics: An Application of the Best-Worst Method and Regression Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Perspectives in Operations Research and Management Science

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 326))

Abstract

According to the traditional conceptualization in management literature, organizations gain status through demonstrations of superior performance. Criticizing this narrow focus on “achieved” status, this study identifies the status value ascribed to organizations within socially constructed systems of norms and values. Utilizing concepts offered by institutional research in organization theory, we propose historical legacy, endorsement, and prominence in the field as sources of ascribed status for organizational identity characteristics. The Turkish higher education field constitutes the empirical setting of our research. We conducted interviews with key stakeholders in this field (i.e., students, academicians, managers in industry, and high school counselors) to elicit the organizational characteristics they perceive as relevant for defining university identity. The status value ascribed to these identity characteristics was documented via surveys with separate samples of these four stakeholder groups using a relatively new but widely recognized MCDM method, the best-worst method (BWM). Our findings provide evidence for the view that institutions have a broad influence on social hierarchy systems, yet with some nuances. We discuss theoretical implications for the research on status in markets and practical implications for higher education institutions.

Authors are equal contributors; their names are listed in alphabetical order.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Selectivity in admissions is recognized as a proxy for prestige in many other contexts of higher education (Askin & Bothner, 2016; Davies & Zarifa, 2012; Holland & Ford, 2020; Kraatz et al., 2010; Massey et al., 2003).

  2. 2.

    This set is randomly selected among the whole set of universities in the Turkish higher education field. It is available from the first author upon request.

  3. 3.

    Available from the first author upon request.

References

  • Altbach, P. G., & Salmi, J. (Eds.). (2011). The road to academic excellence: The making of world-class research universities. The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Askin, N., & Bothner, M. S. (2016). Status-aspirational pricing: The “Chivas Regal” strategy in US higher education, 2006–2012. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(2), 217–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barblan, A., Ergüder, Ü., & Gürüz, K. (2008). Higher education in Turkey: Institutional autonomy and responsibility in a modernising society. Bononia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, D. N., & Rolfe, M. (2012). It ain’t what you do, it’s who you do it with: Distinguishing reputation and status. In M. L. Barnett & T. G. Pollock (Eds.), Oxford handbook of corporate reputation (pp. 160–178). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. (2000). Don't go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 267–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, B. A., & Podolny, J. M. (1999). Status, quality and social order in the California wine industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 563–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, R., & Mitterle, A. (2017). On stratification in changing higher education: The "analysis of status" revisited. Higher Education, 73(6), 929–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (2013). Symbolic capital and social classes. Journal of Classical Sociology, 13(2), 292–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breznik, K., & Law, K. M. (2019). What do mission statements reveal about the values of top universities in the world? International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27(5), 1362–1375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budhwar, P. (2000). The use of visual card sorting technique to study managers’ belief structure–An international comparative study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15(5), 440–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, R., Galache, T., Gómez, T., Molina, J., & Torrico, A. (2004). Budgetary allocations and efficiency in the human resources policy of a university following multiple criteria. Economics of Education Review, 23(1), 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C. M., Jimenez, M., & Arrozal, C. A. N. (2019). Prestige or education: College teaching and rigor of courses in prestigious and non-prestigious institutions in the US. Higher Education, 77(4), 717–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chae, H., Song, J., & Lange, D. (2020). Basking in reflected glory: Reverse status transfer from foreign to home markets. Strategic Management Journal, 42, 802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, T., Lee, G. Y., & Jung, H. (2021). Anchored differentiation: The role of temporal distance in the comparison and evaluation of new product designs. Organization Science, 32, 1523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. R., Peterson, R. S., Phillips, D. J., Podolny, J. M., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2012). Introduction to the special issue: Bringing status to the table—Attaining, maintaining, and experiencing status in organizations and markets. Organization Science, 23, 299–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, F. L., & Park, G. S. (2016). Ranking and the multiplication of reputation: Reflections from the frontier of globalizing higher education. Higher Education, 72(1), 115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Correll, S. J., & Ridgeway, C. (2003). Expectation states theory. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 29–51). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Higher Education. (2014). Annual Higher Education Statistics (Yükseköğretim İstatistikleri). Available at: www.istatistik.yok.gov.tr

  • Curran, P. J., Lee, T., Howard, A. L., Lane, S., & MacCallum, R. A. (2012). Disaggregating within-person and between-person effects in multilevel and structural equation growth models. In J. R. Harring & G. R. Hancock (Eds.), Advances in longitudinal methods in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 217–253). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, K., Johnson, G., & De Chernatony, L. (2002). Task and institutional influences on managers' mental models of competition. Organization Studies, 23, 31–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S., & Zarifa, D. (2012). The stratification of universities: Structural inequality in Canada and the United States. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30, 143–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dearden, J. A., Grewal, R., & Lilien, G. L. (2019). Strategic manipulation of university rankings, the prestige effect, and student university choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(4), 691–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D., & Cable, D. M. (2019). Explaining stakeholder identification with moderate prestige collectives: A study of Nascar fans. Organization Studies, 40(9), 1279–1305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertug, G., & Castellucci, F. (2013). Getting what you need: How reputation and status affect team performance, hiring, and salaries in the NBA. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 407–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espeland, W. N., Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. (2016). Engines of anxiety: Academic rankings, reputation, and accountability. Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foladare, I. S. (1969). A clarification of “ascribed status” and “achieved status”. The Sociological Quarterly, 10(1), 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, S., Cintra, Y., Rita de Cássia, S. R., & Lima, F. G. (2016). Corporate sustainability management: A proposed multi-criteria model to support balanced decision-making. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 181–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goode, W. J. (1978). The celebration of heroes: Prestige as a control system. University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Understanding strategic change: The contribution of archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1052–1081.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. R. (2008). A behavioral theory of firm growth: Sequential attention to size and performance goals. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 476–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gürüz, K. (2008). Yirmi Birinci Yüzyılın Başında Türk Milli Eğitim Sistemi. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haack, P., Pfarrer, M. D., & Scherer, A. G. (2014). Legitimacy-as-feeling: How affect leads to vertical legitimacy spillovers in transnational governance. Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 634–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. R. (2007). Logics of organization theory: Audiences, codes, and ecologies. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haunschild, P. R., & Miner, A. S. (1997). Modes of interorganizational imitation: The effects of outcome salience and uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 472–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein, N., Kroenke, A., & Júnior, M. M. R. (2015). Professor assessment using multi-criteria decision analysis. Procedia Computer Science, 55, 539–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heugens, P. P., & Lander, M. W. (2009). Structure! Agency!(and other quarrels): A meta-analysis of institutional theories of organization. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 61–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, W., Dey, P. K., & Higson, H. E. (2006). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 20, 319–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, M. M., & Ford, K. S. (2020). Legitimating prestige through diversity: How higher education institutions represent ethno-racial diversity across levels of selectivity. The Journal of Higher Education, 92(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horta, H. (2009). Global and national prominent universities: Internationalization, competitiveness and the role of the state. Higher Education, 58, 387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, G., & Hannan, M. T. (2005). Identities, genres, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 16(5), 474–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G. (2001). Studying status: An integrated framework. American Sociological Review, 66(1), 96–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakkar, H., Sivanathan, N., & Gobel, M. S. (2020). Fall from grace: The role of dominance and prestige in the punishment of high-status actors. Academy of Management Journal, 63(2), 530–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, B. G., Clemens, E. S., & Fry, M. (2011). Identity realization and organizational forms: Differentiation and consolidation of identities among Arizona's charter schools. Organization Science, 22(3), 554–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M. S. (1998). Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 621–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M. S., Ventresca, M. J., & Deng, L. (2010). Precarious values and mundane innovations: Enrollment management in American liberal arts colleges. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1521–1545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, K., & Lin, C. Y. (2017). Internationalization of higher education and language policy: The case of a bilingual university in Taiwan. Higher Education, 74(3), 437–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B. H., Hiatt, S. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2017). Market mediators and the trade-offs of legitimacy-seeking behaviors in a nascent category. Organization Science, 28(3), 447–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(2), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision. Higher Education, 53(3), 307–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., & Tilcsik, A. (2013). Imprinting: Toward a multilevel theory. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 195–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D., Charles, C., Lundy, G., & Fischer, M. (2003). The source of the river: The social origins of freshmen at America's Selective Colleges and Universities. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. D. (2002). Knowledge inventories and managerial myopia. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 689–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammadi, M., & Rezaei, J. (2020). Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model. Omega, 96, 102075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustafa, A., & Goh, M. (1996). Multi-criterion models for higher education administration. Omega, 24(2), 167–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Brien, J. A. M. E. S., & Dietz, J. O. E. R. G. (2011). Maintaining but also changing hierarchies: What social dominance theory has to say. Status in management and organizations, 55–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okyar, O. (1967). Universities in Turkey. Minerva, 6(2), 213–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, D. Y., & Podolny, J. M. (2000). The competitive dynamics of status and niche width: US investment banking, 1920–1949. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(3), 377–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., Yang, D., Cha, H., & Pyeon, S. (2020). The halo effect and social evaluation: How organizational status shapes audience perceptions on corporate environmental reputation. Organization & Environment, 33(3), 464–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. L. (2011). Introduction: The power of status. In J. L. Pearce (Ed.), Status in management and organizations (pp. 1–22). Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M., & Shanley, M. (1997). Getting to know you: A theory of strategic group identity. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 165–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfarrer, M. D., Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. (2010). A tale of two assets: The effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors' reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1131–1152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Middle-status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 379–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, D., & Podolny, J. M. (1996). The dynamics of organizational status. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5, 453–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piazza, A., & Castellucci, F. (2014). Status in organization and management theory. Journal of Management, 40(1), 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 829–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, T. G., Lashley, K., Rindova, V. P., & 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(2), 444–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, T. G., Lee, P. M., Jin, K., & Lashley, K. (2015). (Un) tangled: Exploring the asymmetric coevolution of new venture capital firms' reputation and status. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(3), 482–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pólos, L., Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (2002). Foundations of a theory of social forms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(1), 85–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., Wilson, F., Paton, D., & Kanfer, A. (1995). Rivalry and the industry model of Scottish knitwear producers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 203–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prato, M., Kypraios, E., Ertug, G., & Lee, Y. G. (2019). Middle-status conformity revisited: The interplay between achieved and ascribed status. Academy of Management Journal, 62(4), 1003–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 271–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15(1), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2005). Border crossing: Bricolage and the erosion of categorical boundaries in French gastronomy. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 968–991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega, 64, 126–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rider, C. I., & Negro, G. (2015). Organizational failure and intraprofessional status loss. Organization Science, 26, 633–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, C. L. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal characteristics. Social Forces, 70(2), 367–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V. P., Martins, L. L., Srinivas, S. B., & Chandler, D. (2018). The good, the bad, and the ugly of organizational rankings: A multidisciplinary review of the literature and directions for future research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2175–2208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, J. A., Porac, J. F., Runser-Spanjol, J., & Saxon, M. S. (1999). Sociocognitive dynamics in a product market. Journal of Marketing, 63, 64–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, E. D., & Easton, G. S. (2010). Trade-offs in manufacturing? A meta-analysis and critique of the literature. Production and Operations Management, 19(2), 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmi, J. & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauder, M. (2006). Third parties and status systems: How the structures of status systems matter. Theory and Society, 35, 299–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74, 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauder, M., Lynn, F., & Podolny, J. M. (2012). Status: Insights from organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 267–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J., Ho, W., Dey, P. K., & Talluri, S. (2015). A decision support system for supplier selection and order allocation in stochastic, multi-stakeholder and multi-criteria environments. International Journal of Production Economics, 166, 226–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, A. J. (2014). Categories and organizational status: The role of industry status in the response to organizational deviance. American Journal of Sociology, 119(5), 1380–1433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soltani, A., Hewage, K., Reza, B., & Sadiq, R. (2015). Multiple stakeholders in multi-criteria decision-making in the context of municipal solid waste management: A review. Waste Management, 35, 318–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. C. (1999). Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 315–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Student Selection and Placement Center. (2014). Annual Central University Examination Manuals (Yükseköğretim Programları ve Kontenjanları Kılavuzu). Available at: https://www.osym.gov.tr/TR,851/2014.html

  • Tekeli, İ. (2010). Tarihsel Bağlamı içinde Türkiye’de Yükseköğretimin ve YÖK’ün Tarihi. Tarih Vakfı Yurt Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Phillips, K. W. (2011). The malleability of race in organizational teams: A theory of racial status activation. In J. L. Pearce (Ed.), Status in management and organizations (pp. 238–266). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres-Olave, B., Brown, A. M., Franco Carrera, L., & Ballinas, C. (2020). Not waving but striving: Research collaboration in the context of stratification, segmentation, and the quest for prestige. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(2), 275–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topaler, B., Koçak, Ö., & Üsdiken, B. (2021). Positioning new identities for appeal: Configurations of optimal distinctiveness amid ancestral identities. Strategic Organization. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127021999966

  • Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods. In Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study (pp. 5–21). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Üsdiken, B., Topaler, B., & Koçak, Ö. (2013). Yasa, Piyasa ve Örgüt Tiplerinde Çeşitlilik: 1981 Sonrasında Türkiye’de Üniversiteler. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 68(3), 187–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigneron, F., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). A review and a conceptual framework of prestige-seeking consumer behavior. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 1(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., & Maxwell, S. (2015). On disaggregating between-person and within-person effects with longitudinal data using multilevel models. Psychological Methods 20(1), 63–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 282–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1978). In G. Roth & G. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. II: 956–975, pp. 980–989). University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamparini, A., & Lurati, F. (2017). Being different and being the same: Multimodal image projection strategies for a legitimate distinctive identity. Strategic Organization, 15(1), 6–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, E. W., & Kim, T. Y. (2003). The critical trade-off: Identity assignment and box-office success in the feature film industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(1), 27–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kadir Has University Department of Business Administration, Cibali Fatih İstanbul,, Turkey

    Başak Topaler & Nur Ayvaz Çavdaroğlu

Authors
  1. Başak Topaler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nur Ayvaz Çavdaroğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Başak Topaler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Macka, Turkey

    Y. Ilker Topcu

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Avcılar, Turkey

    Şule Önsel Ekici

  3. Department of Industrial Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Macka, Turkey

    Özgür Kabak

  4. School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK

    Emel Aktas

  5. Department of Industrial Engineering, Doğuş University, Dudullu, Turkey

    Özay Özaydın

Appendix

Appendix

Table S1 Sample statistics for interview participants
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Topaler, B., Çavdaroğlu, N.A. (2022). The Status Granted to Organizational Identity Characteristics: An Application of the Best-Worst Method and Regression Analysis. In: Topcu, Y.I., Önsel Ekici, Ş., Kabak, Ö., Aktas, E., Özaydın, Ö. (eds) New Perspectives in Operations Research and Management Science. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 326. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91851-4_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation