Through Andy Beal,the Marketing Pilgrim, I saw this interesting visual presentation (embedded at the end of this post) on the importance of online reputation management. The presentation is interesting in its design (more dense and active than your regular power-point presentation) but more importantly in its content. And, the presentation simple and complete enough to inform your average, busy manager.
Maybe you’d want to show this presentation to someone you know— or even check it out just for yourself.
Here’s why you should care:
* Many managers and management scholars are unaware of how important an organization’sonline reputation management is to the organization’s overall corporate identity, the organization’s corporate social responsibility efforts, and the organization’s employer branding.
* Managers who remain ignorant of blogs, or twitter, or whatever online tool is being used to discuss an organization, do so at their organization’s peril.
Although online reputation management seems to be taken seriously only by those in social media and marketing circles, an organization’s online reputation can influence everything about how an organization is perceived. When you consider how perceptions of an organization affect how every stakeholder in the organization’s circle responds to the organization, you can begin to imagine the power of an organization’s online reputation.
And, if that is not enough to get you to pay attention, think more selfishly about your own ‘brand’. Online reputation management is also critical to individuals— as any teenager on Facebook can tell you.
Four points made nicely in this presentation — That we all should use online reputation management tactics to:
Offset negative content by promoting what is good, and true
Take ownership of your reputation in (yet) another medium,
Address negative feedback in a constructive way, and
Be open and transparent — and authentic — in your communication and self-presentation.
If you're interested in this issue, please subscribe to my RSS feed. Or, use the blue box (upper right) to get an emailed update. Join the conversation below...
Collateral Reputation Damage® is damage done to an organization’s reputation when advocacy by individuals or groups who may or may not be associated with the organization is interpreted by stakeholders as being actions by the organization itself.
Using the term "collateral damage" emphasizes that the impact on the organization’s reputation is not the focus of the individuals who are taking action. Rather, the damage is an epiphenomenon, an incidental byproduct of some other activity, where the organization’s reputation is damaged through "guilt by association."
Stakeholders, who assume that the organization is guilty of something they reject, diminish the reputation of the organization in their own estimation. Sometimes, these stakeholders work actively to tarnish the organization’s reputation in the estimation of others, through PR campaigns, boycotts, and other practices.
I got this idea from the phrase "Collateral Damage" which is used to describe unintentional damage to non-military people or property. (All those Iraqi civilians ? Collateral Damage.)
Collateral damage refers to: "[the] unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment, or personnel, occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities. Such damage can occur to friendly, neutral, and even enemy forces. "
Collateral Reputation Damage® vs. Reputation squatting ®
Collateral Reputation Damage® is in a way the opposite of Reputation Squatting® . Reputation squatting® occurs when an organization takes on some or all of the name of a better-known organization that has a positive reputation, when there is no actual relationship between the organizations. The intent is to use the organization’s name to imply a relationship, and thus free-ride on the benefits of the famous organization’s reputation. (The Princeton Review college-preparation business squats on the reputation of the prestigious Princeton University.)
Collateral Reputation Damage is often unfair.
Although there are some ways that damage to an organization can be unintentional and also appropriate, the term "Collateral Reputation Damage" should be reserved for times when the organization is most likely innocent, and thus undeserving of the damage.
Why do I have a ® symbol next to the term Collateral Reputation Damage®?
Hey, I’m still an academic. When I coin and develop a new, useful construct, I still want to have the idea linked to my name. So, go ahead- use the idea; just link back to the source.
What are for-profit organizations to do, if they want to pursue social purposes and be authentic?
Up until this point, organizations facing this authenticity dilemma had three options. They could:
Attempt to manage the incongruence between their actions and their identity, and forgo authenticity,
Resolve the inconsistency by giving up for-purpose actions and become an authentic [...]
I am an organizational identity and reputation scholar with a PhD in leadership & organizations. I research, write, teach and consult with organizations about the relationships between organizational identity, actions, and purpose. See the About page for my bio.
At the Academy of Management Meetings we ran a day-long workshop on blogging for management professors and consultants. See what we're up to at the www.InsightsToActions.com blog.
Creative Commons License
Authentic Organizations Blog by CV Harquail is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.