Have you ever wondered what recreational marijuana, whaling and abortion may have in common? Our paper “Theorizing the Grey Area between Legitimacy and Illegitimacy” recently published in the Journal of Management Studies provides interesting insights for answering that question.

            The above business activities, like so many others, lie in the grey area between legitimacy and illegitimacy. Legitimacy reflects the extent to which evaluators consider a legitimacy subject acceptable, desirable, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions. If a legitimacy subject is neither legitimate nor illegitimate, it means that there is no general agreement about its appropriateness. This is problematic: A lack of approval does not equate to outright disapproval. Rather, it could also mean partial approval, partial disapproval, or the evaluators’ inability to cast a judgment. Yet, like physicians who need to know the exact state of a patient’s wellbeing before they can establish a correct diagnosis and prescribe the most appropriate treatment, a legitimacy subjects need clarity about their state of legitimacy so that informed decisions can be taken towards improving their legitimacy.

Novel states of legitimacy

            To clarify the concept of legitimacy, we propose three novel states of legitimacy that lie in the grey area between legitimacy and illegitimacy, each with distinct implications that go well beyond a mere difference in degrees of legitimacy on a continuum: conditional legitimacy, conditional illegitimacy, and unknown legitimacy.

            Conditional legitimacy is the state in which evaluators cast a positive legitimacy judgment but explicitly impose one or more constraints. For example, the use of GMOs in food products may be perceived legitimate as long as their presence is clearly indicated on the packaging. Conditional illegitimacy, in turn, means that the legitimacy subject is deemed illegitimate but gains a certain level of acceptance in light of some mitigating factors. While the consumption of cannabis is still considered illegitimate in many parts of the world, the increasing scientific evidence about its potential health benefits motivates a growing number of evaluators to endorse its controlled use for medical purposes.

            Lastly, unknown legitimacy refers to situations where legitimacy cannot be determined. This happens when evaluators are not interested in casting a judgment (undetermined) or are unable to do so due to a shortage or excess of information (undecided) or, when there are as many opponents as proponents such that they cannot reach a generalized agreement (polarization).

The dynamics of legitimacy state change and legitimation strategies

            With a better insight into the five states of legitimacy, we explain the dynamics that lead to legitimacy change as illustrated in the figure below.

The implications of the distinctions between different legitimacy states are profound.

            Strategizing for legitimacy or illegitimacy when a subject of legitimacy is, in fact, conditionally (il)legitimate or in a state of unknown legitimacy may lead to anger, confusion or disappointment on the part of evaluators, resulting in the legitimacy subject losing legitimacy rather than gaining it. Conversely, when evaluators do not recognize the nuances between legitimacy states, they may cast an incongruent judgment and risk damaging their credibility as legitimacy-conferring actors. For example, by overturning Roe vs Wade in 2022, the US Supreme Court may have insufficiently recognized that abortion is perceived as normatively conditionally legitimate by a majority of Americans. Consequently, it destabilizes the reference framework and risks causing the judiciary institution to face a crisis of legitimacy itself. Clarifying the legitimacy-illegitimacy continuum and acknowledging that the intricacies of the grey area are more complex and nuanced is fundamental for all actors in the institutional environment.

By incorporating the important roles of conditional (il)legitimacy and unknown legitimacy, our paper contributes to the efforts of organizational scholars to clarify the legitimacy state and the legitimation processes of controversial business activities, such as gambling, some pharmaceuticals, or fracking, that otherwise were considered illegitimate, or having debated legitimacy at best. The conceptual clarity provided by our five legitimacy states facilitates a more structured discussion about legitimacy judgment change and legitimation strategies.

A blueprint for managers and public policy makers

By clarifying the legitimacy-illegitimacy continuum, we provide a blueprint for managers and public policy makers to better understand legitimacy perceptions and their implications. This allows them to effectively implement suitable legitimation strategies and mitigate the risks of adopting misguided decisions that could harm the legitimacy subject’s survival and growth. Even when the legitimacy subject is congruent with what most evaluators perceive, claims by opponents should not be ignored. Monitoring them gives a legitimacy subject the chance to take preemptive measures to counter or integrate their demands while giving policymakers an opportunity to adapt regulations to societal changes, as in the cases of the cannabis trade or same-sex marriage. For example, in Canada, the parliament legalized cannabis in 2018 at federal level, whereas in the US, cannabis is still illegal under federal law even if some States have legalized it. Hence, an enhanced understanding of the different legitimacy states and of the effects that determinants of stability have on the reference framework will allow both managers and public policymakers to engage more effectively with their stakeholders or constituents. Moreover, this would allow a better allocation of resources to preserve/change the legitimacy subject’s legitimacy state and more accurately assess the degree to which this is achieved. It can also help opponents of the legitimacy subject (e.g., competitors, pressure groups) develop discourses aimed at delegitimating it by convincing evaluators of the validity of their claims or by stimulating silent evaluators holding similar perceptions to speak up.

            We invite you to read our paper “Theorizing the Grey Area between Legitimacy and Illegitimacy” and consider the states of legitimacy of entities that are relevant to you, and the dynamics involved in their (de)legitimation, as well as suitable strategies.