tomtoronto.ca

The following is an excerpt from a paper entitled “Reputation Management, Measurement and Monitoring.” It was written as part of the PR program at Ryerson University. If you would like to read the rest of it, you can find it here. Please feel free to comment and discuss below.

The impact of reputation

In order to understand the interactions that surround an organization, it is fundamentally important to understand the impact that reputation has on an organization, and how it can be measured. Reputation has a direct influence on an organization in many ways, both internally and externally. This influence will be prevalent whether the public relations practitioner is managing the reputation or not. Remaining cognizant of its impact will emphasize the importance of reputation while providing tangible targets for monitoring and measurement.

The internal effects of reputation are considerable. The reputation of an organization is essentially who that organization is, perception is reality. Employees will not work for something they do not believe in, the goals of the organization must be shared by each of its members. Employee engagement is a factor that is often overlooked by organizations, but it can have a massive impact on how successful that organization will be. Reputation and engagement can affect productivity, employee retention and turnover rates, attracting new hires or clients, even workplace safety. Furthermore, the employees of an organization are its reputation ambassadors to nearly all other stakeholders. How they perceive the organization will impact all interactions with stakeholders, thus influencing external reputation as well.

Luckily, internal reputation and its effects can be easier to measure. Employee surveys and one-on-one meetings are direct ways to gauge engagement and perception. Retention and turnover rates are easily quantifiable, and also provide a way to measure actions and perceptions directly, rather than rely upon how employees may respond when asked directly. As mentioned earlier, core values and strong leadership can be effective tools to improve internal reputation.

External reputation can also have a massive impact on an organization’s ability to function. Among stakeholders, a poor reputation gives cause for doubts about quality and commitment to end users and future viability. A positive reputation can build trust and confidence among external audiences, which can cause stakeholders to recommend and refer others to the organization. In this way, a good reputation can grow exponentially, with external stakeholders propagating the reputation through interactions. A negative reputation can have the opposite effect in many ways. It can propagate itself the same way a positive reputation can have, but it will have damaging effects on the organization.

Measuring reputation externally can be done in a number of ways, but the most common are opinion surveys, top of mind surveys, focus groups, or other ways to collect and measure public and stakeholder opinion (Paine, Draper & Jeffrey, 2008, p. 13). Paine et al. recommend using these tactics to measure the six factors considered by Grunig (1999), which are control mutuality, satisfaction, trust, commitment, exchange relationship and communal relationship. By focusing on these six elements when phrasing the questions of the opinion surveys or focus groups, the PR practitioner can evaluate and understand the types of interactions surrounding the organization and how strong the organization’s reputation is among stakeholders.

Issues management

In addition to understanding and evaluating the impact of reputation, monitoring enables an organization to employ effective issues management. Issues management should be taken seriously by every organization. Though not as palpable as crisis management, the consequences of improper issues management can be just as dire. Issues management is crucial to handling and protecting against the perpetual fluctuations of the reputation of an organization. Without monitoring ongoing stakeholder opinions and concerns, issues management is simply not possible.

Monitoring allows issues management to become effective as what Griffin (2008) calls “agenda control.” Monitoring first enables the practitioner to discover and understand the interactions that are surrounding an organization, even if these interactions are not related to the organization directly. Through understanding and identifying potential issues, the practitioner can influence interactions and communications to control the issue and the agenda. Proactive communications will define and shape the issue to terms that are beneficial to both the organization and its stakeholders. Ineffective issues management will leave the prevalent discourse to be dictated by whichever stakeholder group yells the loudest. A small minority of discontent stakeholders can cause global problems for an organization if they are the only voice on the issue (Griffin, 2008). Through effective monitoring, organizations can ensure that all issues are addressed in terms that enhance a positive reputation, rather than drag it through the mud.