Changing Contexts for Reputation Management

Abstract

This note surveys some of the shifting considerations in play as chief communications officers (CCOs) have come to see reputation as a useful umbrella concept for managing the many activities that form perceptions of their large organizations. Primary among these is the alignment of internal and external communications to achieve a coherent and consistent message. Excerpt UVA-BC-0249 Rev. Apr. 7, 2014 CHANGING CONTEXTS FOR Reputation MANAGEMENT In a letter to his son, Lord Chesterfield once advised that “the possession of all the moral virtues…is not sufficient…you must have the reputation of them also.” For corporate philanthropy as a means of good will, a corollary of this sentiment might be “Do good—and find a way to let others know about it.” As recently as 20 years ago, charitable giving, through company-sponsored foundations or employee donation campaigns, was perhaps the most direct, measurable way to influence a company's reputation. Reputation management as we know it—as a sort of cottage industry—got its start in the optimistic 1990s, as the first Reagan recession began to recede but before the dot-com bubble burst, with Charles Fombrun's groundbreaking book, Reputation. Soon after, Harris Interactive, the PR firm, began offering its reputation quotient; if companies were unsure of this intangible asset, common wisdom was that you dare not allow competitors to gain advantage in a new arena. These developments coincided with the increased promotion of annual rankings (most admired, best managed, best to work for, best for the environment) by business magazines—U.S. News & World Report initially, then Fortune in particular. As had venerable universities under similar scrutiny, corporations initially saw such rankings as stunts to sell magazines, only to turn around and dedicate resources to managing for the polls. The polls themselves have tended to be based on proprietary algorithms weighted, sometimes in unexpected ways, in several categories. As did college rankings, corporate rankings proliferated to other well-known publications. Unlike brand, reputation had no direct association with marketing nor any other business function. . . .