The interactions of corporate reputation within a management consulting firm Will Harvey Tim Morris Milena Mueller
Importance of reputation interactions Most studies focus on the consequences and benefits. A small number of studies link the multidimensionality of reputation to reputation building (Rindova et al., 2005, 2007). Lange et al. (2011) argue that an organization s reputation is dependent on where it is located within the boundaries of the three dimensions of: Being known (prominence) Being known for something (quality) Generalized favorability (favorability)
Quality, Prominence and Favorability Some studies have explicitly linked the multidimensionality of reputation to the process of reputation-building (Deephouse and Carter, 2005; Rindova et al., 2005, 2007). What is less clear is whether: Organizations benefit from particular interactions Some or all dimensions of reputation have common or separate antecedents there are interesting and untapped opportunities to explore interactions, as the context of one organizational reputation dimension might affect how another dimension of organizational reputation responds to its antecedents (Lange et al., 2011, 177-178).
Three dimensions of reputation Source: Lange et al. (2011: 163)
Interactions Quality, Favorability and Prominence Interactions Argument References Quality to Favorability Quality to Prominence Firms who have demonstrated high quality generally, although not always, improve their favorability. Positive impressions of quality arguably increase prominence because of a cascade effect. Rhee and Haunschild (2006); Doh et al. (2009); Pfarrer et al. (2010); Lange et al. (2011) Rindova et al. (2005); Lange et al. (2011) Favorability to Quality No interaction identified No references Favorability to No interaction identified No references Prominence Prominence to Quality Prominence to Favorability Greater prominence either means that stakeholders assume firms deliver quality products and services, or they scrutinise these firms more. Greater prominence can lead to ambivalence or negativity towards favorability. Wade et al. (2006); Lange et al. (2011) Milgrom and Roberts, 1986; Brooks et al. (2003); Rindova et al. (2007)
Interaction terminology
Summarising interactions Research Question: To what extent and in what ways do firms seek to link quality, favorability and prominence to build reputation?
Methods Single, embedded case study design, studying its core geographic practice in Germany. Research site: a global management consulting company Bespoke Solutions. Wholly owned by several hundred international partners and in operation for around 50 years. We were interested in PSFs because reputation seems to play an important role, but not wellunderstood.
Data Collection We used a range of data sources: semi-structured interviews, focus groups, archival data and informal observations. We interviewed 23 consultants and 24 others (clients and competitors): People across different levels of the organization. Predominantly face-to-face interviews. Two focus groups were held at the end of the fieldwork. 3 x one-day meetings with 24 partners from different practices concluded the data collection in 2011-2013.
Data Analysis
Germany phase one (late 1960s early 2000s)
Germany phase one
Germany phase one
Germany phase two (early 2000s 2013)
Germany phase two
Discussion starting mechanism Starting point: in both phases it was quality rather than favorability or prominence specific rather than general. Quality is a first important stepping-stone for building reputation (Rindova et al., 2007). A base level of quality was necessary before any other type of reputation-building could occur link to technical efficacy (Love and Kraatz, 2009).
Discussion celebrity and stickiness In phase one, there is little evidence of the firm building prominence from qualities until the late 1980s: A small number of iconic projects and clients. In phase two, the firm struggled to build prominence from favorability because of a lack of relevant networks as well as ineffective marketing: This in turn meant it struggled to build quality from prominence. In short, the firm s reputation had become sticky (see Schultz et al., 2001).
Discussion linking mechanisms The presence of certain linking mechanisms are important for completing the interaction: Phase one: celebrity CEO, clients and projects; positive referrals; tangible results and close relationships with clients Phase two: over-delivery and thought leadership; relevant networks and effective marketing; experience and high profile tenders and projects
Contributions celebrity and stickiness The literature refers to celebrity CEOs (Hayward et al., 2004; Pfarrer et al., 2010) and celebrity firms (Rindova et al., 2006, 2007): We find celebrity founders and partners, clients, projects and tenders are important for building reputation We found that reputation can be sticky and problematize particular interactions from prominence and favorability: Experienced client buyers When the company was in its infancy, the celebrity founder s reputation was more important for building reputation than when the company was more established.
Contributions starting, connecting and direction Existing work has suggested that the dimensions of quality, prominence and favorability have different antecedents but may overlap to some degree, permitting one type of reputation to build another (Rindova et al., 2005, 2007). However, the routes and processes by which interactions occur remains unclear (Lange et al. 2011). We have contributed to this literature by illustrating empirically how the starting and connecting mechanisms as well as the direction of the interaction affects the nature of that interaction and therefore the effectiveness of the building of reputation.