This extract from Strategic Reputation Management by Amanda Coleman © 2024 is reproduced with permission from Kogan Page Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Being talked about, being written about and being recognised in a crowded marketplace have been seen by many to underpin reputation. But where it comes from, what it is and importantly how it can be managed is more complex. Reputation has also been placed at the centre of many definitions of public relations and remains the driving force behind much of the work that takes place. In a world that is increasingly driven by technological developments and where there is instability and uncertainty, is our understanding of reputation management still appropriate? Is reputation still what we thought it was? Does the definition require changing and updating? In the post-Covid world have views and attitudes moved on and are they leaving the PR and communication profession behind?
Reputation management needs to change and adapt to the developments in society and the world of communication. External factors have created the need to update the approach to reputation management for it to be effective. The challenge is to understand whether the elements that comprise a positive reputation have also changed over the years. If this change has happened, then what elements are involved in creating a positive reputation for any business or organisation? How much is it influenced by the experiences that people have and how much is it driven by perceptions? And importantly has this changed in a world where technological advances have given people the ability to share any thoughts, views and opinions instantly?
For those outside of the PR and communication profession there is a misunderstanding about what reputation and reputation management is. It is often equated to manipulation and the attempt to present a positive image regardless of whether it matches the reality. This is a position that is often propagated by the mainstream media who depict reputation management and public relations as the ‘art of spin’. For some, the word reputation has been dropped to break the connection to this commonly held view of PR. It appears that reputation and reputation management have themselves developed a bad reputation. To understand what it is and how relevant it is to modern day communication, it is important to dissect the constituent parts of reputation. This should be followed by looking at what a positive reputation means and whether there is a need to establish an updated definition of reputation and reputation management.
WHAT IS REPUTATION?
It is helpful to start with some dictionary definitions of both reputation and reputation management with a consideration of what they mean for the world of public relations and communication. The Oxford English Dictionary defines reputation as: “The general opinion or estimate of a person’s character or other qualities”¹ and with a little further detail the Cambridge Definition is “the opinion that people in general have about someone or something, or how much respect or admiration someone or something receives, based on past behaviour or character:”² The elements within these definitions that are important are: opinion and perception, qualities, behaviours and characters. If organisations are going to be able to effectively manage their reputation it is important to understand each of these elements in the context of the business.
Some views of reputation are that it is intangible, based on levels of trust in the organisation, or that it is about actions and behaviour. However, there are ways that it can be quantified by taking account of a range of variables some of which may be normative but others that will be defined by the business. This will be explored in future chapters. Noted public relations theorist James E. Grunig and academic Chun-ju Flora Hung highlight that reputation, image, brand, perception and impression are often used interchangeably to define reputation.³ So it is important to consider what is bound up in reputation to make it tangible and quantifiable for organisations and businesses. Grunig and Hung offered an updated definition of reputation in a 2002 paper. In it they said, “We defined reputation as a distribution of cognitive representations, which may or may not include an attitudinal or evaluative component, held by members of a collectivity—such as the general population or a specific public of an organization.”4
In Grunig and Hung’s definition, reputation can be shaped by both attitudes and facts and is how we internalise the external perception of something or someone. This roots reputation in the cognitive processes of the individual which is critical to understand when considering how to manage and evaluate it, as well as respond when it is under pressure.
A final definition that needs to be considered comes from John Doorley and Helio Fred Garcia in their book, Reputation Management. Doorley had established a process known as ‘Comprehensive Reputation Management’5 which ‘defined reputation as the sum of perceptions of the stakeholder groups and was based on the proposition that to manage the parts is to manage the whole’.6 It included the formula for reputation management which brought performance, behaviour and communication together adding a multiplier of the authenticity factor at a later date. This includes a number of the constituent parts that influence or impact on reputation, but it lacks the human interpretation that was postulated by Grunig in his work. The role of people within the definition of reputation and reputation management is a critical element that needs to be reflected in the modern era. It is when views of reputation are shared and made public that they have the most impact. The position goes from influencing one person’s decisions and actions to potentially influencing multiple people including family, friends and unknown individuals through social media and other technology. This was highlighted by Diermeier who stated that ‘reputations are public by nature’.7
The reputation of a business is comprised of both good and bad experiences, of the moments when things work well and when things have gone wrong. This means it can change and develop over time, either with those views becoming more entrenched or changing in light of new experiences, actions or perceptions. Reputation is not a static thing that defines a business or organisation continuously in the same way. It is therefore something that is transient and is tied to a point in time, so action can be taken to move it further up or down the scale. It is that action that will be detailed in Chapter 4 which looks at how to rescue a bad reputation.
MULTIPLE REPUTATIONS
The situation is further complicated with the potential for multiple reputations to be in place depending on who is assessing the situation, and at what point in time it happens. This can also be seen with multi-national organisations where reputations may vary due to geographical differences. Actions and behaviour of companies will be perceived differently due to a range of external factors and the community values and norms. For example, the approach to censoring the media that exists in China would not be accepted in other parts of the world. This in turn will influence views and perceptions of the way authorities, organisations and businesses operate.
The definition of what reputation is will be different from within the company or business and from those outside the business whether customers or consumers. Internal and external groups will apply different weightings to what is seen as most important to establishing a good reputation and where they place value will be subject to change. Where the business will put a lot of focus on the financial viability, investment and innovation to secure a positive reputation, people will look to the behaviours, attitudes and product or service quality. In Chapter 3 the impact of this difference will be seen when looking at how to measure reputation and quantify any risk or challenge to the reputation of a business. It is also important to identify how reputation may change and develop over time due to external factors. This includes the impact of societal and organisational norms on what is acceptable and what is prioritised.
Personal reputation does have an impact in certain cases on the reputation of the organisation or business. In those situations where the founder, CEO or C-suite are very vocal, publicly recognised and connected to the business their actions and behaviour will affect that of the whole organisation. Even when the CEO may be low key their behaviour will still have an impact once it is recognised and scrutinised. Corporate reputation, which this book is concerned with, is made up of a number of elements which will be discussed later in this chapter. It is developed from the past, present and future operation and behaviour of the business. It can be affected by myths and legends related to the history of the business. Organisations essentially cannot unilaterally own their reputation as it is owned by those whose views shape it. Online reputation may also be highlighted as a separate element to the business’ reputation, but it does not stand alone. Whether online or offline the reputation will be comprised of a number of critical factors.
© 2024 Strategic. Registered in Ireland: 659272