Tài liệu Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management 10 ppt

We will discuss this link between identification in Chapters 3 and 4, when we look more closely at engagement. Their cause-and-effect model is set out more formally in Figure 2.8, which shows how reputation building, personalized communications, the quality of communications and the EQ (or emotional appeal) are linked through increased levels of organizational identification with behaviours that are supportive of corporate reputation. The model also highlights the questions used to assess the levels of organizational identification. Plural reputations are lead indicators of brands Though Fombrun and his colleagues have certainly advanced our understanding of corporate reputation, there are two criti- cisms we can make. The first is that it is not quite clear enough in setting out the relationship between reputation and branding, which are sometimes treated synonymously. Grahame Dowling’s (2001) work is particularly helpful in this regard by making clear links between reputations and what he calls ‘super-brands’. In 74 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management The degree of fit or alignment among the beliefs and feelings held about an organization by people and groups and what they personally or collectively value, e.g. ‘chicness’, professionalism and social responsibility are values which are held to be important by potential employees, so the organization maintains a reputation for these characteristics Reputation Brand The levels of trust and confidence that an individual or group has in the organization’s ability to deliver continuously high levels of what they value about the organization’s image and the support they give to its products and services, e.g. the organization develops an external brand as a provider of chic, professional and socially responsible products and services and an employer brand as a chic, professional and socially responsible, and customers/employees continue to buy the products and recommend them to others Figure 2.8 The relationship between reputations and brands (based on Dowling, 2001). line with our earlier discussion on the importance of corporate brands, he sees the valued outcomes of reputations as follows: ■ building trust among customers, employees and other stakeholders that the organization will act in their best interests or that of the community ■ building confidence among customers, employees and other stakeholder that the organization will con- tinue to value their contributions and their trust ■ lending support to the organization by continuing to use its products and services and to recommend others to use them. It is from high levels of such confidence, trust and support for organizational reputations (for valued characteristics such as superior performance, fairness, honesty, social responsibility and professionalism) that super-brands result. The second criticism is of the unitary approach of Fombrun and his colleagues, which culminates in the global measure of reputation. Again, Dowling’s work is helpful in this regard in pointing out the plural nature of reputations. His argument, like some of the writers on organizational culture and identity, is that we cannot sensibly talk about a corporate reputation in a unitary sense because reputations will be judged differently according to who is doing the judging, when and why they are judging, and the criteria they use to judge. Reputations, he argues, arise from the degree of fit or alignment between two key elements: ■ the beliefs and feelings of different groups of stake- holders about an organization (which he defines as image but we see as part of reputations) ■ their individual or collective values (personal values) (see Figure 2.1). Since, as he contends, brands flow from the levels of trust, confidence and support that stakeholders have in the ability of the organization to deliver what they value about the organiza- tion’s image/reputation, by definition perceptions of brands will also be different, e.g. among different customer segments, different groups of employees, potential employees, etc. Dowling is not alone in emphasizing the plural nature of reputations. For example, Hatch and Schultz (2001) point to Chapter 2 Managing corporate brands and reputations 75 the interaction between the objective and subjective evalu- ations of four distinct groups as the source of reputational pluralism. These groups are: ■ Functional groups – for example, through informal interactions at sales meetings, employee storytelling or accounts from satisfied or dissatisfied service pro- viders. These incidents strongly influence an organi- zation’s reputation but are largely uncontrollable. ■ Different customer segments – for example, young, old, educated, urban, suburban, class, etc. ■ The business press and special interest groups – such as the rankings of the best places to work and industry press ratings of organizations, as outlined above. ■ Normative and potential stakeholders – such as pos- sible recruits, shareholders and other funders, trade associations, government regulatory agencies, profes- sional organizations and the community at large. So it follows that no organization in reality has a single rep- utation since different stakeholders are likely to value different images of an organization. Indeed, what you see is likely to depend on where you stand; if you place high value on profes- sionalism, you are likely to look for that element in an organi- zation’s projected image, say from a business school that is research-led with well-known teachers. On the other hand, if you place a high value on friendliness or leading-edge enter- prise, you would probably look for a different kind of school. As a result, the ‘designers’ of corporate reputations need to be clear about who they are aiming to influence and the best methods of influencing different groups of stakeholder. However, at a practical level, the debate between the singular and global view of reputations and brands may be a false one, since Fombrun has always acknowledged the problems of an aggregated notion of corporate reputation. He points, instead, to its practical value in helping organizations identify their relative standing, understand the factors that have contributed to it and highlight the kinds of actions that might be needed to improve it. In effect, he has gone for simplicity and practicality in moving the conversation along on reputations rather than overcomplicating the story before readers begin to understand 76 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management it. At the time of writing Fombrun and Van Riel are working on a development of the RQ to address the problems of using aggregate measures with different stakeholders and to address one of the key problems of understanding, what they acknow- ledge to be a key driver of reputations – human resource man- agement and employee communications (Fombrun, 2005). Conclusions In this chapter we have examined, in more depth, the notions of branding and reputations, showing how these are distinctive but related ideas. Whilst branding is the better-known concept, espe- cially among practitioners in the for-profit sector, our argument is that we have to work with both notions. In our model, we have described reputations, which are best thought of as plural, as lead indicators of corporate brands. Brands flow from good or poor reputations held by different groups of people about the organi- zation’s image. These evaluations are quite specific to the particu- lar values of different groups, so are more usually associated with a wider range of stakeholder and agendas, including good govern- ance, CSR, diversity and human resource management. Reputa- tion is also a more intuitive idea, takes longer to build and is a more acceptable term to organizations in the not-for-profit sec- tor. Moreover, there is an increasing volume of material on repu- tation management, which is very well researched and is shown to have strong links to performance. At the heart of the reputation management approach is the link between external image and internal identity, to which we now turn in Chapter 3. References Aker, D. A. (2004) Brand portfolio strategy: creating relevance, differenti- ation, energy, leverage and clarity. New York: Free Press. Apéria, T., Brønn, P. S. and Schultz, M. (2004) A reputation analysis of the most visible companies in the Scandinavian countries, Corporate Reputation Review, 7, 218–230. Argyres, N. and McGahan, A. M. (2002) An interview with Michael Porter, Academy of Management Executive, 16 (2), 43–45. Chapter 2 Managing corporate brands and reputations 77 Arkin, A. (2005) Is it possible for a tobacco company to act respon- sibly?, People Management, 1 September, pp. 28–31. Barney, J. (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advan- tage, Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120. Barney, J. (2002) Strategic management: from informed conversa- tion to academic discipline, Academy of Management Executive, 16 (2), 53–58. Barrow, S. and Mosley, R. (2005) The Employer Brand ® : bringing the best of brand management to people at work. London: Wiley. Belanger, J., Berggren, C., Bjorkman, T. and Kohler, C. (eds) (1999) Being local worldwide: ABB and the challenge of global management. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Berthon, P., Hulbert, J. M. and Pitt, L. F. (1999) Brand management prognostications, Sloan Management Review, 40 (Winter), pp. 53–65. Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2003) Strategy and human resource manage- ment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brymer, C. (2003) What makes brands great?, in R. Clifton and J. Simmons (eds), Brands and Branding. Princeton, NJ: Bloomberg Press, pp. 65–76. Buckley, E. (2005) Internal branding, in A. M. Tybout and T. Calkins (eds), Kellogg on branding: the marketing faculty of the Kellogg School of Management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, pp. 320–327. Davies, G. with Chun, R., Da Silva, R. V. and Roper, S. (2003) Corporate reputation and competitiveness. London: Routledge. de Chernatony, L. (2001a) From brand vision to brand evaluation. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann. de Chernatony, L. (2001b) The diverse interpretations of brands, The Marketing Review, 1, 283–301. Dowling, G. R. (2001) Creating corporate reputations: identity, image and performance. New York: Oxford University Press. Du Gay, P. (1996) Consumption and identity at work. London: Sage. Economist (2005a) Moving on: manufacturing is out; knowledge- based industries are in, Economist, 13 January. Economist (2005b) Face value: the man with two daggers, Economist, 27 August, p. 60. Economist (2005c) Fast food’s yummy secrets, Special Report, Yum! Brands, Economist, 27 August, pp. 61–62. Ewing, M. T., Pitt, L. F., de Bussy, N. M. and Berthon, P. (2002) Employment branding in the knowledge economy, Inter- national Journal of Advertising, 21 (1), 3–23. Fombrun, C. J. (1996) Corporate reputation: realizing value from the cor- porate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 78 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management Fombrun, C. J. (2005) Keynote address to the annual conference of the Reputation Institute, Madrid, 23 June. Fombrun, C. J. and Rindova, V. P. (2000) The road to transparency: reputation management at Royal Dutch/Shell, in Majken Schulz, Mary Jo Hatch and Mogens Holten Larsen (eds), The expressive organization: linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fombrun, C. J. and Van Riel, C. B. M. (2003) Fame and fortune: how successful companies build winning reputations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Gelade, G. and Young, S. (2005) Test of a service profit chain model in the retail banking sector, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 1–22. Goffee, R. E. and Jones, G. (2003) Character of a corporation. London: Profile Books. Grant, R. (1991) The resource-based view of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation, California Management Review, 33 (2), 114–135. Haig, M. (2004) Brand Royalty: how the world’s top 100 brands thrive and survive. London: Kogan-Page. Hamel, G. (1998) Leading the revolution. Boston, MA: Harvard University School Press. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1994) Competing for the future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001) Corporate branding and corporate brand performance, European Marketing Journal, 35 (3/4), 441–456. Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2001) Are the strategic starts aligned for your corporate brand?, Harvard Business Review, Jan–Feb, pp. 129–134. Hemmington, N. and Watson, S. (2003) Managing customer expect- ations – the marketing communications vs service delivery conundrum, International Journal of Customer Relationship Manage- ment, 5 (3), 271–283. Heskett, J. L., Earl, W. and Schlesinger, L. (1997) The service profit chain. New York: Free Press. Hilton, S. (2003) The social value of brands, in R. Clifton and J. Simmons (eds), Brands and branding. Princeton, NJ: Bloomberg Press, pp. 47–64. Interbrand (2002) Bank on the brand, Business Papers, No. 1. Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1996) The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Chapter 2 Managing corporate brands and reputations 79 Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (2001) The strategy-focused organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kay, J. (2004) The truth about markets: why some nations are rich but most remain poor. London: Penguin Books. Kirn, S. P., Rucci, A. J., Huselid, M. and Becker, B. (1999) Strategic human resource management at Sears, Human Resource Management, 38 (4), 329–335. Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. C., Wright, P. and Kroll, M. (2006) Paradox and theorizing within the resource-based view, Academy of Manage- ment Review, 31, 115–131. Lindeman, J. (2003) The financial value of brands, in R. Clifton and J. Simmons (eds), Brands and branding. Princeton, NJ: Bloom- berg Press, pp. 27–47. McEwen, B. and Buckingham, G. (2001) Make a marque, People Management, 17 May, pp. 40–44. Martin, G. and Beaumont, P. B. (2003) Branding and people manage- ment: what’s in a name? Wimbledon: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Martin, G., Beaumont, P. B., Doig, R. M. and Pate, J. M. (2005) Branding: a new discourse for HR?, European Management Journal, 23 (1), 76–88. Miller, J. and Muir, D. (2004) The business of brands. Chichester: Wiley. Pfeffer, J. (1998) The human equation: building profits by putting people first. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Pfeffer, J. (2005) Creating a performance culture. Presentation at University of Strathclyde, 23 September. Porter, M. E. (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining super- ior performance. New York: Free Press. Porter, M. P. (1996) What is strategy?, Harvard Business Review, Nov–Dec, pp. 61–71. Sartain, L. (2005) Branding from the inside out at Yahoo!: HR’s role as a brand builder, Human Resource Management, 44 (1), 89–93. Sherry Jr, J. F. (2005) Brand meaning, in A. M. Tybout and T. Calkins (eds), Kellogg on branding: the marketing faculty of the Kellogg School of Management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley, pp. 40–72. Whetten, D. and Mackey, A. (2002) A social actor conception of organ- izational identity and its implications for the study of organiza- tional reputations, Business and Society, 41, 393–414. World Economic Forum (2005) The global competitiveness report, 2005– 2006. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Zhang, H. and Martin, G. (2003) Human resource management practices in Sino-foreign joint ventures. Nanhchang: Jiangxi Science and Technology Press. 80 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management CHAPTER Organizational identity, action and image: the linchpin 3 Introduction We now turn to an examination of the core relationship between what Ed Schein (1985) described as the external adaptation/ internal integration problem. This relationship is at the heart of our model linking HR, reputations and corporate branding; it also presents organizations seeking to create new identities and images with enormous challenges. Consider an advertisement placed by GE, one of the world’s largest companies, in The Economist during September 2005. In this advertisement, they portrayed an image of the company as an ecologically friendly and innovative organization, summed up in the strapline, ‘eco- magination at work’, and pointed out how they could produce quieter and more energy-efficient aircraft engines, energy- efficient wind turbines, advanced water desalination, advanced plastics for cars, which reduce the needs for paint, and energy- efficient light bulbs (see Chapter 9 for a further discussion of this case). Recapping on our basic storyline in Chapter 1, there are four key processes at work that have to be addressed in meeting such challenges, which the GE example illustrates well (see Figure 3.1). First, organizational image is what senior people in the company want different groups of stakeholders to believe and feel about it in terms of its most enduring and distinctive fea- tures, e.g. a traditional engineering conglomerate wishes to pro- ject a socially responsible and technically professional image. Second, whether GE can secure a reputation for ecomagination will depend on what different people and groups expect from, perceive and value about its image, e.g. do they expect to see this image, do they value these characteristics of professional- ism and eco-friendliness, and do they see GE acting out their image? Third, this image and reputation, in turn, will depend on GE’s organizational identity (‘Who are we?’) and its collect- ive actions, including its governance and senior leadership behaviours, e.g. leaders collectively identify with the agenda, understand their relevance to the business context and act with high regard for professionalism and eco-friendliness in their decisions and dealings with stakeholders. Fourth, the quality of individual employment relationships and employee behaviour in GE will shape the projected image, the organizational iden- tity and organizational actions. In turn, these factors feed back into the quality of individual employment relationships through a process of identification. In this chapter, we will explore these ideas in more depth, focusing on the organizational identity, actions and image rela- tionship, though we cannot discuss these in isolation from how they shape individual employment relationships, an issue covered in depth in Chapter 4. The core relationship As we have become all too aware in writing this book, there is a great deal of confusion among practitioners and academics over terms such as identity, image, reputation and culture. So, it is extremely important for readers that we attempt to clear up the confusion and make our position clear on these issues for sound practical reasons. If you cannot define your concepts and 82 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management show how they are related, you are unlikely to be able to meas- ure them, explain how one may cause the other (account for them) or justify them (why they matter). As a result, you will never be able to manage them in the proper sense of that term. Chapter 3 Organizational identity, action and image: the linchpin 83 Organizational action Image The quality of individual employment relationships Organizational identity Engagement Identification Reputation(s) Figure 3.1 Linking reputation, image, actions and identity. Dave Whetten and Alison Mackey (2002) illustrate this prob- lem well when discussing the field of reputation management (see Figure 3.2). They point out that most models of reputation management that build on the notion of identity fail to make a distinction between identity as a cause and identification as an effect. As we shall see, identity has come to be seen as a property of the organization as a whole, and not just the sum of its parts (e.g. individual attributes, opinions and personalities). Thus organi- zations have to create and manage these identities (cause) to influence their reputation(s) (effect). However, the manage- ment of reputations is also justified because it helps create greater identification among individuals (the justification), e.g. customers with the brand, employees who internalize the values of the product or service and investors with the mission of the organization. The most important practical point here is that measuring and managing organizational identity is not the same as measuring and managing individual identification and the quality of individual employment relationships; though these may be closely related ideas, again as we shall see later in this . reputations and what he calls ‘super-brands’. In 74 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management The degree of fit or alignment among the beliefs and. makes brands great?, in R. Clifton and J. Simmons (eds), Brands and Branding. Princeton, NJ: Bloomberg Press, pp. 65–76. Buckley, E. (2005) Internal branding,