The two flavours of Reputation Management

In the realm of Reputation Management (RM), there appear to be two distinct approaches.

The first, which we’ll refer to as “RM1,” primarily concerns itself with the outward face of the organization as it interacts with the public (or, more accurately, its various stakeholders). This approach is often synonymous with projecting a carefully curated image, akin to “putting on a front.” Proponents of RM1 believe that an organization’s reputation, essentially defined by public perception, can be shaped by meticulously controlling this facade. According to this theory, managing what the public sees and hears about the organization directly influences its reputation, offering a sense of control or at least influence over it.

In contrast, the second form of RM, dubbed “RM2,” operates on a different premise. RM2 is rooted in the notion that the public’s perception of an organization is more a reflection of its true essence rather than the facade it presents. Under RM2, the public-facing image is seen as a truer reflection of the organization’s underlying reality, rather than merely a construct separate from it.

In practice, most large organizations incorporate elements of both RM1 and RM2, often intertwining them. Public Relations (PR) predominantly focuses on RM1, crafting narratives that align with the organization’s idealized self-image. However, PR also seeks authentic stories grounded in the organization’s reality, bridging the gap between RM1 and RM2.

Organizations sometimes find themselves compelled to safeguard their reputation from external or internal narratives that may tarnish it. This could involve refuting misinformation or countering damaging stories, whether they expose hidden truths or propagate baseless accusations. If the public perceives an organization as concealing a less-than-flattering reality behind a polished facade, it can breed cynicism and erode trust.

Instances where an organization’s public-facing claims, such as those regarding Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), are contradicted by its actual practices illustrate the pitfalls of an RM1-centric approach. The phenomenon often termed “greenwashing” occurs when an organization portrays itself as environmentally conscious despite evidence suggesting otherwise.

Even organizations prioritizing RM1 acknowledge the importance of RM2 interventions aimed at aligning actions with values. Employees understand that their conduct directly impacts the organization’s reputation, prompting initiatives to foster a culture conducive to exemplary behavior. While RM2 may entail addressing root causes and nurturing a healthy organizational culture—a seemingly more arduous path—it ultimately yields a more sustainable and authentic reputation.

In essence, while managing the external image (RM1) may offer immediate gratification, investing in the underlying reality (RM2) proves to be the cornerstone of enduring reputation management.

My article, above, was re-written by ChatGPT, just for fun. The original by me alone follows:

There are, it seems to me, two flavours of ‘Reputation Management’ (RM).

The first, “RM1” focuses mainly or solely on the external interface of the organisation with the public (or, with its publics, perhaps we should say). It’s about what we might call “putting on a front”. The theory appears to be that what the public thinks about an organisation – which is really what its reputation is – is a reflection of this “front”. Reputation can be “managed” by carefully controlling this “front”. If reputation is what the public thinks about the organisation is directly related to what the organisation choses to show them and tell them about itself, then it can be controlled or at least influenced by this strategy.

The second flavour of RM, “RM2”, is based on a different theory. It’s grounded more in the idea that what the public thinks about an organisation is more a reflection of what it really is than merely what it choses to show or tell about itself. Under RM2 the public “front” is much more a reflection of this underlying reality than whatever the organisation might, separately from the reality, try to create.

Large organisations usually have elements of both kinds of RM, and they’re often related to each other as well. Public Relations (PR) is focused on RM1, the managed “front”. Of course, PR is looking for real stories to tell about the organisation, stories based in the reality and from RM2. Then, RM1’s instinct is to tell the kind of public narrative that fits the organisation’s idealised best self.

Sometimes the organisation has protect itself from stories and information that influence what the public thinks about it – its reputation – that come either from outside or from inside itself. It may have to rebut incorrect information – information that doesn’t reflect its reality, or to counter damaging stories about itself which may or may not reflect the reality: stories that are exposes of hidden, damaging truths, or simple slurs on the organisation. The public may become cynical if they suspect or detect that the organisation is managing a “front” that masks a shameful reality it would rather hide than address. We’ve seen this many times and in many guises. When organisations’ public Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) claims were exposed as being at odds with their reality an RM1-led strategy was exposed. Bring that up-to-date and we have the concept of greenwashing – when an organisation creates an artifice of following a sustainable policy not supported by the real-life facts of how it does business.

Even organisations that focus on the RM1 strategy – managing the external “front” – will usually also have interventions in the RM2 camp – aligning the reality with the story. Employees understand that their real-life conduct will affect the organisation’s reputation, and anything done to emphasise or support the desired, “best-self” conduct is an RM2 (focus on the actual reality) -aligned intervention. An RM2 strategy may seem like a harder path. It involves dealing with problems at the root. It involves nurturing a culture as the healthy medium in which the best conduct will out. It may seem easier to focus instead on an RM1 approach – managing the “front” rather than dealing with the underlying causes. But, in the end, a healthy culture will prove a better investment and the source of the better, more sustainable reputation.