![\"\"](\"http:\/\/therapytoronto.ca\/images\/blogpics\/Businessman.jpg\" "\\"businessman\\"")
When facing a scandal, an organization must first consider what\u2019s under attack. Is it the firm\u2019s character or the quality of its product?<\/p>\n
A new study by University of Notre Dame management professors Emily Block and Michael Mannor is the first to explicitly compare and contrast character and quality (capability) reputation, and shows the best approach to impression management is completely different for each.<\/p>\n
In sociology and social psychology, impression management is a goal-directed process in which people attempt to influence perceptions about a person or organization by regulating and controlling information in social interaction<\/strong>.<\/p>\n In their study, \u201cThe Path Dependence of Organizational Reputation: How Social Judgment Influences Assessments of Capability and Character,\u201d published in the May issue of the Strategic Management Journal<\/em>, Block and Mannor emphasize how difficult organizational reputation is to win back once it\u2019s lost, and which impression management approach is best.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you\u2019re trying to protect your reputation of capability, you want to play up the positive<\/strong>,\u201d says Block, who specializes in organizational change and industry self-regulation. \u201cUnderscore your history of success.\u201d<\/p>\n A good example is Toyota. The automaker has recalled millions of vehicles in the last few years due to problems with accelerator pedals.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a case of the durability of a quality reputation,\u201d says Mannor, an expert on powerful CEOs, organizational learning and radical innovation. \u201cNo one believed that Toyota was no longer capable of making high quality cars. They kept the public conversation focused on their long history of quality, which is hard to lose. If the conversation had devolved more into a character discussion, it would have been very difficult for Toyota to have recovered as well as it has.\u201d<\/p>\n On the flip side, if a person or organization\u2019s character has taken a hit, the researchers say the best thing to do is downplay or discredit the negative<\/strong>.<\/p>\n \u201cPopular belief used to be that strong positive displays of reputation were really effective at protecting against a bad reputation,\u201d Block says. \u201cOur research shows that, when your character is under the microscope, you don\u2019t want to divert attention by pointing out the positive things you\u2019re doing<\/strong>. People just don\u2019t believe it. Any attempts at self-aggrandizing are viewed through the lens of the negative issue, and it appears manipulative<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n The researchers point to Benedict Arnold as an example of what can happen if you don\u2019t discredit a character attack.<\/p>\n \u201cHe was a war hero,\u201d Mannor says. \u201cAnd his whole history was revised from being a war hero to this treasonous person who was trying to trick America all along, when there\u2019s a good case to be made that he didn\u2019t become treasonous until the very end. Now his name is used as a verb.\u201d<\/p>\n The research also examines Wal-Mart, which Block says is actually a leader in sustainability efforts. Something you probably don\u2019t recall hearing about the company.<\/p>\n \u201cNobody talks about that,\u201d she says. \u201cPeople still view Wal-Mart in terms of employment lawsuits. All of the good things they\u2019re doing are being viewed through the lens of all the negative press.\u201d<\/p>\n Before this study, says Block, there has been no breakdown of the target of scrutiny, in terms of whether it\u2019s about capability or character.<\/p>\n \u201cWith capability, your record is your record and nobody can revise it,\u201d Block says. \u201cIt\u2019s more durable. With character, all bets are off. A good reputation takes time to build, and one thing can ruin it. All of your prior good deeds can be forgotten when your character is on the line.\u201d<\/p>\n A prime example is one of the most successful golfers of all time, Tiger Woods, whose numerous extramarital affairs dominated news headlines for months in 2009 and 2010. Shortly thereafter, Woods lost his No. 1 world ranking and suffered a career long winless streak.<\/p>\n \u201cHis character rating dropped to zero, he lost millions in endorsements and no one wanted to be associated with him,\u201d Mannor says. \u201cBut, people have never stopped believing he can win.\u201d<\/p>\n Recently, James Murdoch stepped down from the helm of News International \u2014 the best thing that could happen to the scandal-plagued company, according to Mannor.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen an organization is dogged with allegations of fraud, bribes and deceit, its leadership becomes intent on protecting what it has built,\u201d Mannor says. \u201cThis paradoxically runs counter to what we know about how organizations can best move forward and succeed. Whether or not allegations are true, an organization will be held back significantly if it doesn\u2019t have the public\u2019s trust, and continued involvement of \u2018tainted\u2019 executives makes trust very difficult, if not impossible, to win back.\u201d<\/p>\n In perhaps the clearest link to the research, Internet search giant Google has been criticized over privacy issues, including possible misuse and manipulation of search results.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s really important for Google executives to construe the privacy issue as \u2018not evil,\u2019\u201d Mannor says. \u201cThey could choose to say, \u2018We\u2019re Google and we\u2019ve been great forever,\u2019 or they could say the issue is \u2018not evil.\u2019 And that\u2019s what they\u2019re doing \u2014 diffusing the negative.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" From the University of Notre Dame press release: When facing a scandal, an organization must first consider what\u2019s under attack. Is it the firm\u2019s character or the quality of its… Read more »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[8],"tags":[97,59,364,363,12],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/therapytoronto.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2231"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/therapytoronto.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/therapytoronto.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/therapytoronto.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/therapytoronto.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2231"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/therapytoronto.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2231\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2233,"href":"https:\/\/therapytoronto.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2231\/revisions\/2233"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/therapytoronto.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2231"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/therapytoronto.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2231"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/therapytoronto.ca\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2231"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}