We’re surrounded by rankings. There’s the one for the best companies to work for, the most trusted brands, the high schools with the best exam scores, the most prestigious universities. These rankings work like compasses: they help us decide where to work, what products to buy, or where to study. In more technical language, they are information intermediaries that collect, organize, and transmit data to reduce uncertainty and support decision-making.
But rankings don’t just serve to inform the public. They also shape the behavior of organizations, and sometimes in unexpected ways. A recent study, published in the academic journal Strategic Management Journal, looked at exactly this: what happens when a company or institution is included in a ranking? The authors analyzed the behavior of large law firms in the United States, focusing on a particularly influential ranking, the Vault Law 100, which lists the one hundred most reputable firms for job seekers in the legal field.
The study focused on firms that landed right on the “cutoff line,” meaning firms that just barely made the list. The question was simple: does being included change how these firms behave?
The answer is yes, but not in the way one might expect.
The authors found that firms that made the ranking by a narrow margin immediately began adopting more corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies than those that just missed the cut. Specifically, they implemented formal measures such as pro bono programs or public commitments to social causes. This behavior seems driven by a kind of “status anxiety”: now under the spotlight, these organizations try to consolidate their new standing and shield themselves from criticism. They want to show they belong there.
However, there’s an important detail: despite adopting more policies, these firms didn’t actually increase the number of hours devoted to pro bono work. In other words, they made more promises than real changes. This suggests that part of the response to being ranked may be symbolic, a way of signaling commitment without fundamentally changing how the organization operates.
This phenomenon is known as decoupling: aligning with public norms and expectations without necessarily turning them into substantial action. At the core, it’s a matter of perception. A ranking brings visibility, and visibility demands a response that protects reputation.
There’s more. This effect was especially visible in firms that had shown greater ranking instability over the years. The more volatile their position had been in the past, the greater their anxiety, and the stronger the temptation to reinforce their commitment to popular causes in symbolic terms.
This study helps us better understand the impact of rankings not only in the legal world, but in any context where reputation plays a central role: schools, universities, hospitals, corporations. Climbing a ranking can be a source of pride, but also a source of constant pressure. And that pressure can lead to decisions focused more on appearance than on meaningful change.
It’s worth asking: are high schools that want to keep their place in national exam rankings beginning to teach to the test instead of preparing students for life? Are universities changing course to rise in international rankings, even if that means leaving behind fields that are less “marketable” but potentially more important to society?
None of this means rankings don’t matter. They do, a great deal. But they also show us that measuring something almost always interferes with it.
In times of near-constant visibility, maybe we need to remember that not everything that counts can be counted, and that sometimes what matters most doesn’t fit into a spreadsheet.
João Cotter Salvado, Professor da CATÓLICA-LISBON