Articles

Why are some employees adept at getting the information they need while others struggle to locate the right in-house experts?

Media coverage is a key factor in creating a company's reputation, which has been shown to influence both operational and financial performance. Scorecard rankings are a popular form of determining corporate reputations vis-_-vis competitors, yet many executives justifiably consider opinion-poll-style scorecards to be little more than beauty contests. This article discusses two techniques for assessing media coverage in a way that can inform management action: profiling media communication about a company's actions and its products and services, and then examining the various facets of an organization's media reputation profile. Media profiling is an analysis of the specific words and phrases that people and journalists use to describe and evaluate a company. The authors illustrate the use of media profiling results in three exhibits that visually reflect important aspects of corporate reputation at a glance: "media salience," which shows the prominence of a company's media image, and "media tone" and "coverage breakout," which outline different aspects of company reputation. Using the example of Apple Inc., the authors show how media profiling immediately creates a discussion that informs management action. It does so by unpacking "message macrothemes," such as profitability or service, into microthemes that a journalist uses to discuss them. Focusing on microthemes quickly moves the discussion to an expansive language about corporate reputation. Executives and public relations managers can then prioritize their responses to various reputation scenarios. First, they should try to protect and enhance the company's good message themes, then address negative message themes head-on. For mixed message themes, managers should seek to understand both sides of the story.

Scholars of various kinds long have documented the great degree to which people are influenced by similar others. Indeed, the opinions, experiences and behaviors of friends, neighbors and coworkers can provide an invaluable gold mine of persuasive resources. But even savvy executives can fail to appreciate the full power of peer influence -- or they might neglect to anticipate its unintended consequences. Consider, for example, managers who are responsible for shaping or enforcing policy within an organization. They will frequently call attention to a problem behavior, such as supply room theft, by depicting it as regrettably frequent. Although such admonitions might be well-intentioned, the communicators have missed something critically important: Within the lament of "Look at all the people who are doing this undesirable thing" lurks the powerful and undercutting disclosure "Look at all the people who are doing it." And in trying to alert people to the growing occurrence of a problem -- which could be anything from expense account padding to safety violations -- managers can inadvertently make it worse. After the Internal Revenue Service announced that it was going to strengthen the penalties for tax evasion because so many citizens were cheating on their returns, tax fraud actually increased in the following year. But that's not the only type of mistake that managers regularly make. Indeed, a more subtle problem occurs when they fail to recognize how peer influence is affecting their own decisions. Such situations can be particularly dangerous, leading people to do exactly what they shouldn't, all because they inadvertently have listened to the wrong voices. Thus, when trying to solve a problem, managers should resist the tendency (and the conventional wisdom) to start by casting the widest net possible and then later discounting information that isn't relevant. The potential pitfall of that approach is that it inserts the filtering process too late, after any irrelevant data might have already had a subconscious impact on a person's decision making.

Why do some subsidiaries become isolated — and does it matter?

International arrangements require more formal mechanisms.

Higher quality and niche marketing are not always the answer.

There comes a time when corporate governance has little influence over performance, because competitive forces cut away at management fat.

Many executives speak about corporate reputation and brand as if they are one and the same. They are not, and confusing the two can be costly -- a lesson which companies like Nike Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. have learned the hard way. Focusing on reputation at the expense of brand can lead to product offerings that languish in the market. However, concentrating on brand and neglecting reputation can be equally dangerous, resulting in a lower stock price, difficulties in attracting top talent and even product boycotts. Brand is a "customercentric" concept that focuses on what a product, service or company has promised to its customers and what that commitment means to them. Reputation is a "companycentric" concept that focuses on the credibility and respect that an organization has among a broad set of constituencies, including employees, investors, regulators, journalists and local communities -- as well as customers. In other words, brand is about relevancy and differentiation (with respect to the customer), and reputation is about legitimacy of the organization (with respect to a wide range of stakeholder groups, including but not limited to customers). For most companies, even an outstanding reputation almost never comprises any unique characteristics that an organization can own and be known for. In short, reputation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for excellence because companies also need strong brands, which are characterized by high customer loyalty, pricing power and the ability to drive growth. Ultimately what drives customer preference and revenue is the ability of a company to create relevant products, services and brands and communicate and deliver them in a way that customers want to buy. Thus, executives need to do more than just keep their company's reputation on track. They need to differentiate their offerings in ways that win the hearts, minds and wallets of customers, and what helps make a company and its products special and preferred is its brand, not its reputation.

The authors offer a framework that executives can use to ensure that their new visions for their businesses become more than just pipe dreams.

Under the right circumstances, companies of any size can grow to become platform leaders.