My research examines how multiple evaluative systems shape organizational behavior and market dynamics. Rankings, ratings, awards, certifications, and reviews influence how organizations allocate attention, invest resources, and position themselves competitively. At the same time, evaluative systems do not operate independently: evaluators influence one another, new evaluations emerge, and evaluative criteria evolve over time. Across my work, I investigate how firms, audiences, and evaluators navigate these increasingly complex evaluative environments and how evaluations shape strategic adaptation and competitive dynamics.
The Experts and the Crowd: The interplay between expert evaluations and consumer reviews
Clara Depalma, Giada Di Stefano, Saverio Favaron
[Resubmitted after first round Revise & Resubmit at Administrative Science Quarterly]
I investigate how consumer evaluations are affected by the presence of expert evaluations. I build on literature discussing status dynamics and processes of convergence and divergence among evaluators to ground the prediction that, when exposed to professional evaluations, high-status amateur reviewers will issue evaluations that are convergent in form but divergent in substance, so as to signal both evaluative independence and evaluative competence. I test the emerging theory in the restaurant industry, where a partnership between Michelin and TripAdvisor allows us to implement a difference-in-differences design. By exploring influence processes across evaluative systems, this study contributes to our understanding of how multiple evaluators shape one another's behavior.
Star-stacking: The strategic choice to engage with multiple evaluations
Clara Depalma, Giada Di Stefano
[In preparation for submission]
I examine why some organizations choose to engage with an additional evaluation while others refrain, arguing that engagement with an evaluation represents a strategic choice shaped by trade-offs among competing evaluative criteria and by organizations' expectations regarding the benefits and costs of additional recognition. To investigate this question, I exploit the introduction of the Michelin Green Star—an award recognizing sustainability. Using a mixed-method, full-cycle approach, By highlighting non-engagement as an active strategic response, this study contributes to research on evaluations and producer reactivity, and advances understanding of how organizations navigate multiple, externally imposed performance criteria.
Echoes or Clashes: How consistency across multiple evaluations shapes action
Clara Depalma
[Working paper]
I investigate how organizations respond when different evaluators provide inconsistent assessments. I propose that organizations interpret evaluative signals in relation to one another and that consistency across evaluations affects the credibility of feedback and the likelihood of organizational adaptation. Using a quantitative analysis of longitudinal data on organizational reactions to the assessments issued by different evaluators, I examine how disagreement across evaluators shapes organizational responses to feedback and connect the performance feedback literature with emerging work on multiple evaluations.
Seen or Safe: Interorganizational battle for saliency with multiple rankings
Clara Depalma
[Work in progress]
In this paper, I examine how evaluative environments characterized by multiple evaluators and multiple criteria emerge and evolve. I am particularly interested in understanding how evaluators strategically differentiate their coverage decisions while balancing visibility and legitimacy concerns in competitive evaluative markets.
Learning how to work together
Di Stefano Giada, Grohsjean Thorsten, Gutierrez Cédric, Depalma Clara
[Work in progress]
In this paper, based on a large-scale group experiment involving hundreds of groups and ands of individuals, we examine how team members self-organize to work with one another when assigned a joint task to work on.