Reputation: Soft on the outside, hard on the inside
Reputation: Soft on the outside, hard on the inside Peggy Simcic Brønn, Professor BI Leder, Senter for Virksomhetskommunikasjon 3 years in the making, and this is why…… 1 Extremely Complicated • • • • • • • • • • • Visuell identitet Organisasjonsidentitet Virksomhetsidentitet Organisasjonsidentifikasjon Image Omdømme Omdømme risiko Kommunikasjon og omdømme Harmonisere kommunikasjon Organisasjon som merkevare Samfunnsansvar og omdømme 2012: 8601 articles Norwegian media mentions of reputation from 2000 to today. 2 2012: 1221 articles 1990: 31 articles Bad reputation – ca 15-17% of all stories 2012: 3588 articles 1990: 54 articles Good reputation 3 2012: 2530 articles 1990: 40 articles Important and reputation Jarle Aabø – 100 Trond Blindheim – 84 Peggy Brønn – 11 Apeland -3 4 10% of all articles on omdømme in 2012 23% of all articles on omdømme in 2015 5 6 Lær av Norges omdømmevinnere, eksperter og kommunikasjonssjefer Lær hva som må til for å styrke omdømme i bedrifter, offentlige organisasjoner eller for byer, steder og regioner. Hvordan kan omdømme måles og hvordan bør man jobbe systematisk med å styrke sitt omdømme gjennom atferd, relasjonsbygging og kommunikasjon? Men hva kan gå galt dersom man ikke har full kontroll på målgruppeinnsikten, språket og perspektivene? Question: • How do you build reputation? 7 Where does reputation come from? • It is a core component of human behavior. • It helps us measure the risk of interacting with another person. • We all have our reputation to protect. • And so do businesses, political parties, politicians, kommuner, football teams, celebrities, towns, government agencies, non‐profit organizations, and countries Reputation From Latin reputātiō a reckoning, from reputāre to calculate, meditate 1. the estimation in which a person or thing is generally held; opinion 2. a high opinion generally held about a person or thing; esteem 3. notoriety or fame, esp. for some specified characteristic have a reputation to be known or notorious, esp for promiscuity, excessive drinking, or the like 8 Corporate image can be created, but corporate reputation must be earned. • Reputation must be seen in a historical context – the track record of the person or organization • Models of reputation are based on the decisiontheory vision of a world of imperfect information. • Actors rely on proxies or signals to make rational assumptions about the intentions and future behaviors of other actors Organizational Identity, who we are Who we say we are How others see us 9 Reputation is the most important commercial mechanism for conveying information to consumers. It is a distinctive capability that accrues competitive advantage to an organization. John Kay Foundations of Corporate Success Peggy Simcic Brønn 19 Intangible resources such as reputation significantly contribute to performance differences among organizations because they are rare, socially complex, and difficult to trade and imitate VRIN • • • • Valuable Rare In‐imitable Non‐substitutable 10 Organisasjonsidentitet Hvem er vi? • Sentralt ‐‐ organisasjonens essens – det organisasjonen selv utpeker som sitt viktigste særtrekk. • Varig ‐‐ en organisasjon må skape sammenheng eller kontinuitet over tid • Unik ‐‐ Det som skiller en organisasjon fra en annen. Organisasjonen skal vite hvem den er, og hvem den ikke er We Know How Perceptions are Created What people experience when dealing with you What you say about yourself Reputation What other people say about you 11 The Basic Model Attitudes Philosophy/ values Culture Management systems Leadership style Personal abilities Organizational structure Strategic processes Communication models used Effective Org. Communica‐ tion Relationships w/stakeholders •Customers •Employees •Finance •Community •Etc Reputation Supportive Behaviour VALUE 12 Reputation presumes a tight coupling between past actions and future expectations, and organizational attributes and the evaluation of organizations. We Know that Reputation Risk is the Same for Any Organization • Gap mellom atferd og forventning – hva en organisasjonen mener og gjør, og det en organisajsonens viktigiste interessenter mener at den bør mene og gjøre. Peggy Simcic Brønn 13 Word of mouth communication Personal Needs Past experience Makes or breaks reputation Expected Behavior Gap 5 Stakeholders Perceived Behavior Firm Behavior Delivery Gap 1 Gap 3 Gap 4 Stakeholder‐driven designs and standards Gap 2 Organization’s perceptions of stakeholder expectations Starts here External Communications to Stakeholders Where decisions are made that can cascade to either build up or build down reputation PZB Model adapted by Brønn (2012) 14 Action Decision Making Piping and Waterflow The ”Strategic” Goal The dynamics of taking a shower (adapted from Morecroft et al., 1995) Proposition • Organizations need to be more aware of the implications of organizational learning with an emphasis on a systems approach as a means for creating a mindset where considering reputation is part of an ingrained part of daily practices. • Decisions, Evaluated, Against the Reputation. – “Would my actions be in line with the company’s good/bad reputation?” 15 Reputation building without a systems approach is like these blind men trying to describe an elephant. • Reputation is an implicit contract between an organization and its stakeholders. • But the capacity to influence and shape reputation is available to all. 16 Question: • Should YOU be doing it? ØDELEGGER: Kommunenes omdømmebygging ødelegger for norsk skole, mener lederen for Norges Lektorlag. Heidi Marie LindekLeiv [email protected] – Omdømmebyggingen har ført til at en del kommuneadministrasjoner er blitt autoritære. De ønsker ikke at det kommer frem negative ting om kommunens gjøren og laden, sier Gro Elisabeth Paulsen, leder i Norsk lektorlag. 17 Finn Holmer Hoven, Fædrelandsvennen, 7 Nov. 2009 omdømme‐onanistene Keiserens nye klær «omdømmeekspertene» innholdsløst, betydningsløst – og meningsløst Hvilken verdi ser politikere i å bruke penger på omdømme‐fjas? • Det går ut over politikernes omdømme. • • • • • If local government was an animal “By the way they shove their head in the sand” “I thought of a sloth. It’s just that they go about things very slowly” MORI 18 • Very little research on reputation and the public sector Private Sector measurements not always applicable to Public Sector Public sector organizations serve as legislators, officials, regulators, educators, development and research centers, and as such cannot always please all stakeholders. 19 • Public sector organizations cannot afford to differ too much from each other • Their products and services are dictated to a large extent by legislation • This limits the amount of uniqueness that is possible • There is the need to do better than other public sector organizations to create a reputational advantage • But there is the need to maintain stability • Reputation risk has an enormous impact on value. • In the public sector value is expressed in terms of trust and confidence in the service provider. • Reputation matters because a bad one is an indictment of leadership quality and inevitably a precursor of change. • A poor reputation among citizens and tax payers will reduce trust in government so that ultimately the incumbent political party will be ejected by the voters. 20 For public sector organizations, reputation is typically linked with high expertise and trustworthiness along with rather poor service and bureaucratic functions, often a mixture of the good and the bad • The public expect more openness, better quality service delivery and solutions to more complex problems, but without losing any of their existing social entitlements 21 Objectives of Public Sector Activity • Access – – available to all regardless of location or income • Quality – – high quality services that do not cut corners • Affordability – – services offered at prices that are cheaper than private sector or free at the point of use • Equity – – available to anyone whatever their background, status, income, class, race, religion, etc. Reputation of local government based on: • • • • • Visibility Accountability Listening Telling Efficiency 22 Relationship Building Constructs determining strength of relationships Knowing Trusting Consistent Accessible Responsive Affinity Likeable Committed 45 Best Practices How are they generated Who gets to pick them Why do they pick them and how How are they implemented How are they transferred across organizations and sectors. (public, private, professional, industrial, services, etc) 23 Develop a Scorecard • What are we trying to achieve? • Community Priorities • What key things do we need to get right to achieve them? • Strategic Objectives • How do we know if we are getting there? • Measures and Targets Most research is based on Reputation Institute dimensions Tjenester • Service‐innstilt • Tilfredsstiller publikums behov • Holder høy kvalitet • Tilbyr effektive tjenester Fornyelse • Har en klar visjon • Er en nyskapende virksomhet • Bidrar positivt til samfunnets utvikling • Tilpasser seg forandring Arbeidsmiljø • Belønner sine ansatte rettferdig • Tilbyr gode utviklingsmuligheter • Er et godt sted å jobbe Forvaltning • Tar miljøansvar • Bruker samfunnets ressurser ansvarlig • Er åpen om hvordan de driver sin virksomhet Samfunnsrolle • • • • Behandler publikum rettferdig Opptrer etisk Er til å stole på Viser god dømmekraft Ledelse • • • • • Kan vise til gode resultater Er profesjonell i måten å drive på Har dyktige medarbeidere Er godt organisert Har dyktige ledere 24 Most Important Dimensions: RepTrak Offentlig Sektor 2009 Samfunnsrolle Tjenester Ledelse 21.9% 16.3% 16.6% Forvaltning Arbeidsmiljø Fornyelse 15.4% 15.0% 14.7% Most Important Attributes of the Samfunnsrolle Dimension Samfunnsrolle Er til å stole på Opptrer etisk Behandler publikum rettferdig Viser god dømmekraft Samfunnsrolle 79,1 76,8 73,3 72,0 Stole på • Trust is a result of organizations fulfilling expectations; expectations that come from society but also expectations that are built up by the organization itself through promises it makes through, among other things, its own communication. 25 Stole på • Norwegians in general have no great trust in their public institutions. They are in general not negative, they are simply neutral; an average of 50 percent of organizations rated in the 3‐5 range and only 28 percent in the very positive 6‐7 range. Stole på organisasjonen (Scale 1‐7) Very Positive (percent 6‐7) • • • • • Forbrukerrådet Forbrukerombudet Risksrevisjon Barneombudet Politiet (68.0) (60.6) (60.4) (58.4) (54.4) • Very Negative (percent 1‐2 ) • • • • NAV Samferdseledepartmentet Jernbaneverket Utlendingsdirektoratet (48.7) (36.9 ) (36.8 ) (36.0) 26 • Flere steder i Europa lider den offentlige sektor under dårligt image og manglende evne til at tiltrække og fastholde yngre medarbejdere. Økonomisk fremgang og en generel mistillid til den offentlige sektor er nogle af forklaringerne, mener eksperter. Af Peter G. H. Madsen, [email protected] 14. januar 2008 /nr. 2 BUT, according to Finnish Researcher Luomä‐aho • An excellent reputation is risky for the public sector • The better the reputation, the further the fall if something unexpected should occur • For public sector organizations, this risk may often be too high to take, as their functions require stakeholder trust no matter what the situation 27 Luomä‐aho, cont’d. • Excellent reputations require constant cultivation • Public funds are often scarce and the cultivation of reputation is rarely at the top of the agenda, no matter how great the need Luomä‐aho’s proposition: • Public sector should have a neutral reputation – not good, not bad • Ryan (2007)would define this as a mediocre reputation 28 Using resources to achieve excellent or superior repuation might not be possible or wise. Reputation is like a piece of chocolate – soft on the outside, hard on the inside Posit ive (rein forci ng) feed back loop Other actions: advertising, sales effort, word of mouth, media Positive (reinforcing) feedback loop + Negative (goal‐seeking) feedback loop External influences on Positive Reputation Growing action + + R1 Demand for Firm's + offerings Demand Performance‐ Standards + R2 R5 Firm's value Secondary effect of B4 + performance, Reputation creating activities ‐ Positive Internal pressure for influences demand Performance Reputation performance relief + + + ‐ Pressure to lower Forming + Performance Gap B3 Positive + Standards Reputation Capacity to perform Reputation affects Firm's Ability of the Firm to + + ability to perform by + meet demands for influencing access to performance Perceived need R6 Reputation affects resources to invest the tendency to + Effect of Reputation on lower performance Investment in R7 + standards capacity capability to perform Causal loop diagram of reputation effect on performance <Positive Reputation> 29 My opinion? Ridiculous Reputation management in public sector organizations need not require huge resources of money and time Concentrate on maintaining stakeholder trust and making sure that stakeholder experiences of the everyday practices of the organization are positive • ”Når offentlige ansatte vet at de blir satt pris på, vil de kunne utføre oppgavene sine på en bedre måte. Og når de utfører dem bedre, forbedres oppfatningen av deres prestasjoner. Dette er en god sirkel” (Brønn, 2011:50). • Omdømmet skaper derfor en positiv spiral. 30 Bromley (2002), som undres om omdømme er et biprodukt av organisasjonens aktiviteter, eller om det er mulig at omdømme kan være et kommunikasjonsmål. «Ja takk, begge deler!» Virksomhetsidentitet Hvem og hva vi si at vi er. Behavior The way in which an organization presents itself • Symbols • Communication • Behavior Corporate Identity Mix van Riel 31 32 • • • • • • • Trøgstad kommune: «Trivelige Trøgstad» Rakkestad kommune: «Den trivelige kommunen» Rømskog kommune: «Østfolds perle» Gjerdrum kommune: «Nærmere enn du tror» Aurskog‐Høland: «Den romslige kommunen» Eigersund kommune: «Eg vett en liden home udføre Eigerøy» Randaberg kommune: «Vår grønne landsby» • • • • • • Hurum kommune: «Trivsel gjennom mangfold og flott natur» Sigdal kommune: «Kunstnerdalen» Svelvik kommune: «Liten og god» Horten kommune: «Et regionalt senter for kunnskap og opplevelser.» Høylandet kommune: «Fly så høyt du vil, med begge beina på jorda» Namdalseid kommune: «For trivsel, miljø og velvære» 33 34 Organizational identity. Very factoriented, rational. This is who we are. Emotional connection. 35 36 37 • Overall, Norwegians seem to be only marginally aware of the function of most public sector organizations. In 90 percent of the cases 20 percent or more of the respondents were either unfamiliar with the organization or only knew it by name. • ‐ Det er et demokratisk problem at mange ikke har kjennskap til etater eller institusjoner. Har man ikke kjennskap til dem og hva de driver med, kan man heller ikke bruke dem fullt ut, sier Kristin R. Pran, direktør for Synovate Politikk og Samfunn. 38 Egenart Konsistens Ekthet Omdømme Synlighet Most Important Communication Drivers of Reputation Mottakelighet Åpenhet Ekthet • ’The organization’s beating heart’ • Genuine, honest, truthful Mottakelighet • The core of dialogue Åpenhet • Transparent 39 What Impacts ’Word of Mouth’ 1. Ekthet 2. Mottakelighet 3. Åpenhet Identity, Image & Reputation Corporate Identity Names, Brands, Symbols, Self-presentations is perceived by… Business Image Community Image Citizen Image Employee Image Sum of perceptions equals… Corporate Reputation 40 ”Reputational Bliss” When all externally held reputations of the organization are positive, and the organization’s choice for reputation is driven by moral directives. Who’s in Charge? • The ordfører? 41 Who’s in Charge? • Everyone! 42 Takk for meg! 43
© Copyright 2024