Reputation: Soft on the outside, hard on the inside

Transkript

1 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

2 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

3 2012: 1221 articles 1990: 31 articles Bad reputation ca 15-17% of all stories 2012: 3588 articles 1990: 54 articles Good reputation 3

4 2012: 2530 articles 1990: 40 articles Important and reputation Jarle Aabø 100 Trond Blindheim 84 Peggy Brønn 11 Apeland

5 10% of all articles on omdømme in % of all articles on omdømme in

6 6

7 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

8 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

9 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

10 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 performancedifferences among organizations because they are rare, socially complex, and difficult to trade and imitate VRIN Valuable Rare In imitable Non substitutable 10

11 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

12 Attitudes Philosophy/ values Culture Management systems Leadership style Personal abilities Organizational structure Strategic processes Communication models used The Basic Model Effective Org. Communication Relationships w/stakeholders Customers Employees Finance Community Etc Reputation Supportive Behaviour VALUE 12

13 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

14 Word of mouth communication Personal Needs Past experience Stakeholders Gap 5 Expected Behavior Perceived Behavior Makes or breaks reputation Firm Gap 1 Gap 2 Behavior Delivery Gap 3 Gap 4 Stakeholder driven designs and standards Organization s perceptions of stakeholder expectations External Communications to Stakeholders Where decisions are made that can cascade to either build up or build down reputation Starts here PZB Model adapted by Brønn (2012) 14

15 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

16 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

17 Question: Should YOU be doing it? ØDELEGGER: Kommunenes omdømmebygging ødelegger for norsk skole, mener lederen for Norges Lektorlag. Heidi Marie LindekLeiv 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

18 Finn Holmer Hoven, Fædrelandsvennen, 7 Nov 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

19 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

20 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

21 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

22 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

23 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

24 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 Fornyelse Forvaltning Service innstilt Tar miljøansvar Tilfredsstiller publikums behov Bruker samfunnets ressurser ansvarlig Er åpen om hvordan de driver sin Holder høy kvalitet virksomhet Tilbyr effektive tjenester Samfunnsrolle Behandler publikum rettferdig Har en klar visjon Opptrer etisk Er en nyskapende virksomhet Er til å stole på Bidrar positivttilsamfunnetsutvikling Viser god dømmekraft Tilpasser seg forandring Ledelse Kan vise til gode resultater Belønner sine ansatte rettferdig Er profesjonell i måten å drive på Tilbyr gode utviklingsmuligheter Har dyktige medarbeidere Er et godt sted å jobbe Er godt organisert Har dyktige ledere Arbeidsmiljø 24

25 Most Important Dimensions: RepTrak Offentlig Sektor 2009 Samfunnsrolle 21.9% Tjenester 16.3% Ledelse 16.6% Forvaltning 15.4% Arbeidsmiljø 15.0% Fornyelse 14.7% Most Important Attributes of the Samfunnsrolle Dimension Samfunnsrolle Samfunnsrolle Er til å stole på 79,1 Opptrer etisk 76,8 Behandler publikum rettferdig 73,3 Viser god dømmekraft 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

26 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 (68.0) Forbrukerombudet (60.6) Risksrevisjon (60.4) Barneombudet (58.4) Politiet (54.4) Very Negative (percent 1 2 ) NAV (48.7) Samferdseledepartmentet (36.9 ) Jernbaneverket (36.8 ) Utlendingsdirektoratet (36.0) 26

27 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, phm@lo.dk 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

28 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

29 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 back Posit loop (rein forci feed ng) ive Positive (reinforcing) feedback loop Other actions: advertising, sales effort, word of mouth, media Negative (goal seeking) feedback loop External influences on Positive Reputation + + Growing action + Demand for Firm's + offerings Demand R5 + R2 Secondary effect of Firm's value + performance, Reputation creating activities Positive influences demand Reputation Performance + + Forming + B3 Positive Reputation R6 + R1 Reputation affects Firm's ability to perform by influencing access to resources Effect of Reputation on capability to perform Capacity to perform + Ability of the Firm to + meet demands for performance Investment in capacity + Performance Standards + Performance Gap + Perceived need to invest Causal loop diagram of reputation effect on performance B4 Internal pressure for performance relief Pressure to lower + Standards - R7 <Positive Reputation> Reputation affects the tendency to lower performance standards 29

30 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

31 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. The way in which an organization presents itself Symbols Communication Behavior Behavior Corporate Identity Mix van Riel 31

32 32

33 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 34

35 Organizational identity. Very factoriented, rational. This is who we are. Emotional connection. 35

36 36

37 37

38 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

39 Egenart Konsistens Ekthet Omdømme Most Important Communication Drivers of Reputation Synlighet Mottakelighet Åpenhet Ekthet Mottakelighet The organization s beating heart Genuine, honest, truthful The core of dialogue Åpenhet Transparent 39

40 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

41 Reputational Bliss When all externally held reputations of the organization are positive, and the organization s choice for reputation is driven by moral directives. The ordfører? Who s in Charge? 41

42 Everyone! Who s in Charge? 42

43 Takk for meg! 43