Measuring a Business School s Reputation: Perspectives, Problems and Prospects

Transcription

1 Pergamon PII: S (02) European Management Journal Vol. 20, No. 2, pp , Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain /02 $ Measuring a Business School s Reputation: Perspectives, Problems and Prospects JOEP CORNELISSEN, University of Amsterdam RICHARD THORPE, Manchester Metropolitan University In recent years, there has been an unprecedented movement in many industries towards establishing explicit, transparent accounts of the performance and assets of institutions. The many industry monitors and league tables (e.g. Fortune 500) that are the most evident embodiments of this trend have, ever since their inception, been under the close scrutiny of industry commentators and academic observers alike (e.g. Fryxell and Wang, 1994). A recent area of academic debate and controversy involves the measurement of the reputations of business schools, where academics are vying with industry monitors and media in developing useful measures and establishing valid accounts of a business school s reputation. Given the ongoing debate on the subject and the limited progress made so far in this respect, this commentary article presents four principles of reputation research and measurement that may be used on a predictive basis to guide, frame and model future research into this area Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Reputation, Assets and capabilities, Business education Introduction The astronomical growth in writings and the significance attributed by many to institutional reputations in recent years can arguably be traced back to a single, seemingly innocuous idea: that favourable images and reputations are precursors to sets of actions and behaviour of individuals and publics favourable to an institution. When looking at busi- ness schools, for instance, it is evident that these institutions are dependent upon a number of stakeholder groups such as government and research councils, academic researchers (as employees or collaborators), and under-graduate, post-graduate and MBA students to obtain the necessary financial and educational resources. Accordingly, these individuals and groups need to be induced towards engaging in the relationship and towards transactions: a process that is generally understood as culminating with the formation of favourable images and reputations of institutions. Crudely speaking, this means that a favourable image or reputation creates a propensity for members of the community appreciating the business school in its environs (Williams and Moffitt, 1997), funding bodies and research councils granting financial resources (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990), employees (academic and administrative staff) wanting to work for the institution (Gatewood et al., 1993), as well as prospective students signing up to use the services (courses and facilities) of the business school (Weigelt and Cammerer, 1988). From the vantage point of US and European business schools especially, where reputational capital (as measured through league tables) has been a subject of discussion throughout many academic corridors, it is perhaps disheartening that the development of systematic measures and valid accounts of business school reputation have been slow in coming (Armstrong and Sperry, 1994; Tracy and Waldvogel, 1997; Martins, 1998; Dichev, 1999; Baden-Fuller et al., 2000). The relative silence upon the subject is also so resounding because of the needs, which are not being met, and the opportunities (e.g. a far better explanation of the dimensionality of the reputation con- 172

2 struct, Fombrun and Shanley, 1990: 225), which risk being missed. In this sense, the four principles of reputation research presented in this article point to the future direction, which research upon reputation, particularly business school reputation, may take. The purpose of this article is primarily conjectural and expositional, to point out the flaws and errors in previous research on the subject, as well as constructive, to expose and establish a comparatively more valid conceptualisation of the business school reputation construct, aiding understanding and further research into this area. To this end, and as mentioned above, the article puts forward four principles of reputation measurement, which, although central to sound theorising and solid research on the subject, have not been sufficiently heeded in prior research. The four principles can be considered as cumulative: taken together, these principles provide, in an heuristic sense, a roadmap for researchers when examining business school reputation. Principle 1: Distinguish External Perceptions from Internal Assets Currently, the authors observe, a drift has set in on the subject of reputation amidst writings in the management, communication, and economics literatures. The essence of the problem, which in fact has not come to full gestation yet, comes down to the divergent views on the nature of reputation: as an organisational construct referring to a set of assets (e.g. Barney, 1991; Shapiro and Varian, 1999), or as a psychological construct relating to the perceptions and evaluations of an institution by a subject (e.g. Wartick, 1992). From the first organisational perspective, reputation, due to its effect on market behaviour, is seen as a valuable asset or resource that can give institutions sustainable competitive advantage (e.g. Barney, 1991; Fombrun, 1996). The psychological view, in contrast, considers reputation as quintessentially residing in the perceptions and evaluative assessment of institutions by third parties who receive signals and messages about them (Bromley, 1993; Wartick, 1992). It is not hard to imagine that both conceptualisations promulgate a different set of assumptions about the nature of the objects (institutions, communication, stakeholders) with which it deals; and, accordingly, differ on the locus of reputation inquiry (i.e. organisational assets versus stakeholder perceptions) and the measures brought to bear upon it. The sparse commentary so far on the obvious differences for research and understanding that both conceptualisations of reputation imply can perhaps be explained by the fact that both constructs share the dimension of the effect on market and stakeholder behaviour, yet their diverging accounts of the nature of reputation are bound to unsettle the field. For one, undifferentiated use and discussion of the reputation construct, concealing its diffuse meanings, has already led to circularity and ambiguity in theory and research. Such ambiguity or openness of meaning of the construct has, in turn, expanded the variety of operationalisations that have been included within the theory s encompassing frame of reference (Fombrun and Van Riel, 1997). The problem from an academic stance is then that this flexibility of meaning has permitted researchers to apply the concept to qualitatively different types of organisational and psychological phenomena and processes located at different levels of analysis, in turn increasing the potential number of empirical tests conducted on the theory, but effectively reducing the chance that those tests can amount to a refutation of the theory. In effect, the reputation construct is, through its undifferentiated use, so general in scope, and so ambiguous in meaning, that it is almost unbounded in its potential range of applications, and therefore virtually impossible to refute. It follows that there is an apparent need for a further specification of the reputation construct through an examination of the social construction of the term reputation and its derivatives. It is, however, not an objective of the present section to provide for a fullfledged account and definitive etymology of the genesis and mutation of the term reputation. Rather, the section has set out to demonstrate, firstly, the previously implicit multiple constructions of the term as a vital means of deciphering the varieties of academic use that have arisen as a result. Seen in this light, prior research on business school reputation has also been subject to the diffuse meaning and use of reputation. To illustrate, Armstrong and Sperry (1994) measured business school reputation by collating the perceptions of business schools with three stakeholder groups (academics, firms and prospective students), while Baden-Fuller et al. (2000) considered a business school s research reputation as residing in the asset of the capabilities of its academic staff (who publish their research in mainstream academic journals). Secondly, to reduce the undifferentiated use of the term reputation and to establish an explicit denotation of the construct, which in turn will enable an operationalisation of the construct into measurable variables (see below), the present section makes a first attempt at deconstructing reputation. Looking at the treatment of reputation in the literature, it becomes clear that the term also became associated with organisational assets (e.g. distinctive capabilities, brand equity), as these were seen to be directly linked with reputation as lying in perceptions and evaluations of the institution by third parties (Fombrun, 1996). One of the central ideas here is that perceptions of stakeholders in the aggregate are relatively stable (e.g. customer evaluations of brands like Coca-Cola), and that the associated market value (e.g. when customers actually purchase Coca-Cola) can therefore be treated as a company s intangible asset 173

3 (brand equity and reputation), which, in turn, through communications and product performance is destined to lead to a similar level of sales and market share as perceptions in the aggregate remain stable (e.g. Barney, 1991). Because of this notion of a certain stability or inertia in the process of reputation formation, it has been presumed (Cramer and Ruefli, 1994) that the aspects of the process (organisational assets, perceptions, market behaviour) are closely linked and need not be set apart, nor, for that matter, need the construct of reputation be refined to one of these aspects, perceptions in particular. As a result, both perceptions and organisational assets were labelled reputation. Although it is at least possible to understand why such reasoning has been taken on in the literature, the extension of the term reputation based upon it is, however, the authors argue, unwarranted. The observed circular reasoning, denoting both stakeholder perceptions and organisational assets and the processes and relationships between them with reputation, errs in a number of respects; but most importantly in its undue attention to the sequence of and links between perceptions, market behaviour and associated value, and organisational assets. In particular, informed by the presumption of an inherent stability or inertia in the process, the bulk of reputation research has intimately linked, yet equalled, perceptions with assets (assets=perceptions) and by doing so has ignored the dynamism and variation that may occur in the process (e.g. when favourable perceptions of brands do not lead to purchase-related behaviour, resulting in a lower market value and a consequently lower value being placed upon the intangible asset of a company s brands). Deconstructing the term in this manner, it thus becomes clear that while both labelled reputation, the tangible (e.g. distinctive capabilities and performance) and intangible (e.g. company and brand name) assets of an institution either precede or result from the value placed upon them by individuals and stakeholders in the market place. The first principle and contribution to reputation research, including business school reputation research, presented here is thus for theorists and researchers to consider reputation as referring to the perceptions of individuals and stakeholders in regard to an institution, while the market value and the organisational assets linked to the company name and its brands that become recognised as a result are derivative concepts. A business school s assets, however broadly defined,% represent different values to different communities or stakeholder groups Principle 2: Acknowledge the Role of Individuals and Stakeholder Groups in Reputation Formation The undifferentiated use of the reputation construct also stands out in the rendition in many writings on the topic where reputation is imbued with a single, corporeal and monolithic quality (e.g. Weigelt and Cammerer, 1988), without accounting for the diffuse ways in which an institution and its assets come to be valued by various stakeholder groups over time. Such a discourse, upholding a singular, reified and inanimate view of reputation (as often residing in a stable and fixed set of assets), is essentially reductive and, the authors argue, not true to the diffuse, psychological nature of stakeholder perceptions and the complexity of image and reputation formation. Informed by the presumed inertia and stability in reputation formation referred to above, this reification has led here to a view of reputation as persisting over an extended period of time, and as existing to a large degree independent of stakeholders, who subjectively value the institution and its assets at different points in time. In sum, reification appears to have produced a form of reputation discourse here, which in explaining away individual agency is not true to the real characteristics of reputation formation and the perceptions and actions of individuals and stakeholder groups therein. The reification of reputation suggests that the concept has been given a metaphysical status presuming a facticity with which this social phenomenon confronts individual actors in such a way as to ignore how it is produced and reproduced through individual perceptions and actions (Bromley, 1993). The authors posit that, rather than reifying the existence of a reputation, there is (or should be) a more rock-bottom explanation of this social phenomenon, which explains it by referring to the (changeable) beliefs, dispositions and actions of actual or typical individuals and stakeholder groups, and the situations (e.g. a crisis for an institution) to which they respond, in accordance with their beliefs and dispositions. Rather than reifying reputation, where the concept is treated as though it were the objects to which it refers (the verbal trap here is that through reification speech invites us to see the term as having existential import), the principle suggested here is that theorists and researchers need to acknowledge that reputation actually has no primordial atomic or spatio-temporal existence, but gains existence through inference from perceptions and actions by individuals and stakeholder groups. 174

4 One of the primary motives for proposing the above view of reputation formation is the understanding and insight from stakeholder theory that, rather than presuming a monolithic reputation, different constituencies and stakeholder groups of an institution such as a business school are exposed to and look for different signals or messages, and as a result form a reputation, which in its properties or attributes is likely to be distinct from images and impressions held by other stakeholder groups (e.g. Woodward et al., 1996). A business school s assets, however broadly defined, thus represent different values to different communities or stakeholder groups (e.g. MBA students, research councils, academics, government), in turn guarding us from the hasty conclusion that the Business Week (2000) and Financial Times (2001) rankings of business schools MBA programmes, for instance, which are only premised on the evaluation of a business school amongst MBA students, unequivocally represent the reputation of business schools (Baden-Fuller et al., 2000). Principle 3: Distinguish the Reputation and Image Constructs In the preceding sections, the authors have started to articulate the specifics of the reputation formation process. To further specify the reputation construct, the present section will address and tackle the confusion regarding the psychological constructs of image and reputation. This is done as, at times, the difference between the image and reputation constructs has given academics some difficulty, with work reporting on the confusion between the properties of the image construct in relation to other psychological effects such as attitudes and reputations (Poiesz, 1989). The reported confusion between the constructs has apparent rhetorical grounds i.e. the terms image and reputation have often been used generally, loosely and interchangeably across a number of disparate academic disciplines (Fombrun and Van Riel, 1997) but has also a more substantial component. That is, both images and reputations are formed through a continuous and multi-faceted process and are the products of a multiple-variable impression formation process located at the interaction among an institution s issued signals or texts, as well as contextual and personal factors (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; bib:williams and Moffitt, 1997). However, despite the similar process through which both images and reputations are formed, the constructs differ in one theoretically important respect. As writers such as Grunig (1993) and Williams and Moffitt (1997) have already pointed out: images concern the immediate impressions of individuals when confronted by a signal or message emanating from an institution, while reputations are more endurable general estimations established over time. Following this theoretical line of reasoning, the authors propose the following definitions of the image and reputation constructs that will aid in the development of valid construct specifications and that may be used to guide, frame and model future research. An image is the immediate set of meanings inferred by a subject in confrontation/response to one or more signals from or about a particular institution. Put simply, it is the net result of the interaction of a subject s beliefs, ideas, feelings and impressions about an institution at a single point in time. A reputation is a subject s collective representation of past images of an institution (induced through either communication or past experiences) established over time. The logical implication following from the above definitions is that, whilst images might vary in time due to differing perceptions, reputations are more likely to be relatively inert or constant, as individuals and stakeholder groups retain their assessment of an institution built in over time (Wartick, 1992; Fombrun and Van Riel, 1997; Cramer and Ruefli, 1994). Gray and Balmer (1998: 687) illustrated this distinction in the image and reputation constructs by commenting that: corporate image is the immediate mental picture that audiences have of an organisation. Corporate reputations, on the other hand, typically evolve over time as a result of consistent performance, reinforced by effective communication, whereas corporate images can be fashioned more quickly through well-conceived communication programmes. The properties of the reputation construct (i.e. a subject s collective representation of past images of an institution established over time) thus provide the groundwork for theorists and researchers examining reputation, including business school reputation, in developing operational measures and in arriving at a valid account of the construct. The following section may be instructive for both illustrating the properties and measures of the general reputation construct and yet indicating lines of future development and inquiry upon the subject of business school reputation. Principle 4: Select Measures and Methodologies Corresponding with the Reputation Construct Insofar as the process of reputation formation has been outlined and specified in the preceding sections, attention is alerted to the choice and development of measures appropriate to the reputation construct. Acutely sensitive to the perspectives and problems of reputation research outlined above, this section elaborates on the different types of reputation measurement in prior research, and, following this discussion, suggests approaches and designs for further reputation research, with particular reference to business school reputation research. 175

5 The aforementioned prescription, considering reputation as a perceptual construct, gives rise to a number of practical methodological issues and dilemmas. Understanding these is important in order to respond to the errors within the research approaches that have dominated the field so far. For the most part, reputation research has either measured organisational assets or used proxy measures to appropriate the perceptions and evaluations of social groups (e.g. Weigelt and Cammerer, 1988; Kotha et al., 2001). The use of such proxy measures, while capturing the assets and outputs of a particular institution (or sector), is problematic, as these fail to account for the subjective, perceptual nature of reputation and the longer period involved in its formation. To illustrate, examining a business school s reputation for research, Baden- Fuller et al. (2000) used the frequency of publication in selected journals by academics of a particular business school in a particular period ( ) as a surrogate indicator for the research reputation of that business school. Similarly, the Financial Times (2001) ranking of business school MBAs included items corresponding with three areas: career progression accrued from an MBA, the research qualities of staff, and the diversity of staff and recruited students. Both these proxy measures, as snapshot accounts of a business school s capabilities, assets and outputs, sidestep the fact that reputation is a perceptual construct involving the assessment of subjects, i.e. individuals and stakeholders (e.g. academics and MBA students), and that reputation, in contrast to image, is formed and established in a subject s mind over time. For that matter, both measures simply do not qualify as valid measures of reputation. The simple procedure of calculating outputs, however convenient and pragmatic 1, is insufficient to identify a business school s reputation as conceptualised in the reputation literature (Armstrong and Sperry, 1994). A comparatively better measure of business school reputation involves Business Week (2000) ranking of business schools in that it accounts for the perceptions, evaluations and experiences of a business school amongst (current and graduated) students and recruiters. However, similar to other popular reputation (e.g. Dowling, 1993; Fombrun, 1998) and business school reputation rankings, Business Week (2000) used a composite measure of reputation aggregating the scores provided by students and recruiters on a selected set of 10 points scales. Such stratification, the authors argue in line with the first three principles, is however bound to only scratch the surface because reputation does not lend itself to discrete measurement (Cole and Cole, 1979). Quantitative survey methods may fail to capture the complex meaning and construction of reputation at the level of the individual. Scales can only measure Word-of-mouth is hypothesised to have an influence on the reputation that an individual forms of an institution quantity (or strength) of reputation on a select set of attributes, answering the question: how do you rate this institution on the following attributes? They cannot measure the more open question of quality: in what way is reputation formed; and what does it consist of in its entirety? To understand the cultural context and the variability in the construction of reputation among individuals and stakeholder groups, researchers therefore need to expand their methodologies to include qualitative and ethnographic approaches. Ethnographic approaches, in particular, allow researchers to study (a smaller group of) stakeholders and the processes of reputation formation in situ, attending to the complexity and holistic nature of reputation, the psychological processes (including haloeffects) involved, and its subtle and social accomplishment. Related to the measurement of reputation (and to principle 2 outlined above) is how to account for inter- and intragroup differences of reputation formation. As mentioned, we cannot simply assume sameness of reputation within or across stakeholder groups (e.g. government, academics, MBA students). Not all members of a stakeholder group may construct or respond to an institution s assets and signals in the same way. Instead of assuming homogeneity in reputation, research designs must explicitly test for inter- and withingroup differences in reputation. To date, the question of how to treat multiple reputations within a particular group remains relatively under-explored. Although academic writers such as Williams and Moffitt (1997) have echoed, the need to examine the interactions in relation to image and reputation formation between different individuals within a particular stakeholder group (e.g. word-of-mouth is hypothesised to have an influence on the reputation that an individual forms of an institution), there are few empirical studies which demonstrate how this might be achieved. Discussion and Conclusion The injection of the suggested four principles into the study of reputation, and particularly business school reputation, has great potential for the field. Drawing upon the errors and flaws in prior reputation research, including business school reputation research, the highlighting of these four principles has enabled a far better specification of the reputation construct, and entails clear recommendations for further research in this emergent area. The first principle dealt with the undifferentiated use of reputation in relation to the construct of organisational assets (e.g. Barney, 1991; Shapiro and Varian, 176

6 1999) and the psychological construct of perceptions and evaluations of an institution by a subject (e.g. Wartick, 1992). The research and measurement problems associated with such diffuse use of reputation have been highlighted, and an attempt was made at deconstructing the term. From this deconstruction, the authors have posited that rather than equalling perceptions with organisational assets under a common label of reputation, the term should be restricted to the psychological construct of perceptions and evaluations of an institution by third parties as this precedes market value and the appreciation of an institution s intangible assets (company and brand name). Closely related with the undifferentiated use of the reputation construct is the appearance in many reputation articles of the view that reputation is imbued with a single, corporeal and monolithic quality (e.g. Weigelt and Cammerer, 1988), without accounting for the diffuse ways in which an institution and its assets come to be valued by various stakeholder groups over time. Principle two emphasised a view of reputation formation where, rather than presuming a monolithic reputation, different constituencies and stakeholder groups of an institution such as a business school are exposed to, and also actively look for, different signals or messages, and as a result form a reputation, which in its properties or attributes is likely to be distinct from images and impressions held by other stakeholder groups. Principle three has given further shape to a conceptualisation of the reputation formation process, tackling the confusion regarding the psychological constructs of image and reputation. In the section accompanying principle three, it was argued that, although both are the products of a multiple-variable impression formation process located at the interaction among an institution s issued signals or texts, as well as contextual and personal factors, the constructs differ in one theoretically important respect. Images concern the immediate impressions of individuals when confronted by a signal or message emanating from an institution, while reputations are more enduring, general estimations established over time. The section subsequently provided definitions of both the image and reputation constructs that will aid in the development of valid construct specifications and that may be used to guide, frame and model future research. The fourth and final principle concerned the choice and development of measures appropriate to the reputation construct. The section critiqued measuring organisational assets or using proxy measures to appropriate the perceptions and evaluations of social groups, as such measures fall short in capturing the subjective, perceptual nature of reputation and the longer period involved in its formation. As an alternative to discrete measurement approaches through quantitative survey methods, the section rec- ommended that researchers expand their methodologies to include qualitative and ethnographic approaches, thereby allowing researchers to study the complexity and holistic nature of reputation, the psychological processes involved, and its subtle and social accomplishment. Throughout the discussion and analysis accompanying these four principles, particular reference has been made to research on business school reputation, as a means of evaluating prior research upon the subject and tying research into this area into the existing reputation theory base. Research on business school reputation is still in its infancy and much further work is needed, where the four principles suggested here outline how such further work and thinking might systematically be carried out. Note 1. Apart from pragmatic considerations, the motivation to use proxy measures of organisational assets and outputs is also based more substantially on the aforementioned reasoning that external perceptions are intimately linked with, yet can be represented by, internal organisational assets (Barney, 1991). References Armstrong, J.S. and Sperry, T. (1994) Business school prestige research versus teaching. Interfaces 24(2), Baden-Fuller, C., Ravazzolo, F. and Schweizer, T. (2000) Making and measuring reputations: the research ranking of European business schools. Long Range Planning 33, Barney, J. (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17, Bromley, D.B. (1993) Reputation, Image and Impression Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Business Week (2000) Business School Rankings: The Best Business Schools, Business Week, October 2. Cole, J.R. and Cole, S. (1979) Social Stratification in Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Cramer, S., Ruefli, T. (1994) Corporate reputation dynamics: Reputation inertia, reputation risk, and reputation prospect. Paper presented at the National Academy of Management Meeting, Dallas. Dichev, I.D. (1999) How good are business school rankings? Journal of Business 72(2), Dowling, G.R. (1993) Developing your company image into a corporate asset. Long Range Planning 26(2), Financial Times (2001) MBA 2001 Rankings: Under Pressure but still the Flagship Brand, Financial Times, July 19. Fombrun, C. (1996) Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Fombrun, C. (1998) Indices of corporate reputation: an analysis of media rankings and social monitors ratings. Corporate Reputation Review 1(4), Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990) What s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal 33(2), Fombrun, C. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (1997) The reputational landscape. Corporate Reputation Review 1(1/2), Fryxell, G.E. and Wang, J. (1994) The fortune corporate reputation index: reputation for what? Journal of Management 20, Gatewood, R.D., Gowan, M.A. and Lautneschlager, G.J. (1993) 177

7 Corporate image, recruitment image, and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal 36, Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1998) Managing image and corporate reputation. Long Range Planning 31(5), Grunig, J.E. (1993) Image and substance: from symbolic to behavioral relationships. Public Relations Review 19(2), Kotha, S., Rajgopal, S., and Rindova, V. (2001). Reputation building and performance: an empirical analysis of the top-50 pure internet firms, European Management Journal 19:6, Martins, L.L. (1998) The very invisible hand of reputational rankings in US business schools. Corporate Reputation Review 1(3), Poiesz, T.B.C. (1989) The image concept: its place in consumer psychology. Journal of Economic Psychology 10, Shapiro, C. and Varian, H. (1999) Information Rules. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Tracy, J. and Waldvogel, J. (1997) The best business schools: a market based approach. Journal of Business 70(1), Wartick, S.L. (1992) The relationship between intense media exposure and change in corporate reputation. Business & Society 31, Weigelt, K. and Cammerer, C. (1988) Reputation and corporate strategy: a review of recent theories and applications. Strategic Management Journal 9(5), Williams, S.L. and Moffitt, M. (1997) Corporate image as an impression formation process: prioritizing personal, organizational, and environmental audience factors. Journal of Public Relations Research 9(4), Woodward, D.G., Edwards, P. and Birkin, F. (1996) Organizational legitimacy and stakeholder information provision. British Journal of Management 7, JOEP CORNELISSEN, RICHARD THORPE, University of Amsterdam, Manchester Metropolitan Department of Communi- University, Aytoun Street, cation Studies, Kloveni- Manchester M1 3GH. E- ersburgwal 48, 1012 CX mail: r.thorpe@mmu.ac.uk Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Dr Richard Thorpe is Pro- Cornelissen@pscw.uva.nl fessor of Management and Director of the Graduate Dr. Joep Cornelissen is School of Business at Associate Professor at the Manchester Metropolitan University of Amsterdam. University. His research and consultancy interests lie in management learning, busi- ness education and performance management. A recent book is: Management Research: An Introduction, 2nd edition (Sage, 2000). His current research and consultancy interests are in corporate and marketing communications strategy, corporate image and reputation measurement. 178