Is this a true statement? …companies will be at risk until executives actively manage perceptions.

Manage perceptions? How about manage reality?

The statement comes from this very well-written, well-meaning, and well-intended item today from Ernie Landante of Novita Issue Communications. Mr. Landante's overview is in reference to a piece written by Jeffrey T. Resnick, Executive Vice President and Managing Director of Opinion Research Corporation.

This statement gets to the heart of my complaint: Resnick argues that companies need an “early warning system” that monitors reputation and provides the intelligence for managers to take corrective action.  They key is to identify and fix reputational weaknesses before they distract the company from its core mission.

Now hang on a minute. Rather than 'fix reputational weaknesses,' wouldn't it be best to fix the real-time behaviors that create a rotten rep before hand? In a way, this statement by Resnick could be interpreted to mean that corporate decision makers don't know, or don't have to know, right from wrong, or ethical from unethical when making business decisions. They can find out later when they stick a thermometer someplace in the body of public or constituency opinion. In fact, you could argue this says business decision makers could make known unethical decisions but that as long as the perception of the company remains good, well… score one for the bad guys.

Reputational management reminds me a bit like Investor Relations. Sure, there are some constituencies that haven't heard about a company or are not up to speed on the latest developments that would affect a company's stock or reputational standing. But in the end, a good, well-run, highly profitable company doesn't need a huge 24×7x365 apparatus for the constant propping up of its stock or its reputation. The market isn't stupid. A good, well-run company that does the right things across the board, that operates ethically, will have a good reputation. No amount of after-the-fact 'reputational management,' is going to fix anything bad until or unless the reputational managers walk into the CEO's office and tell him or her to cut the baloney.

Reputational temperature taking for retroactive re-decision-making is no way to run a company. Running a great company is, however, a great way to establish a good reputation. See the difference? Am I the only one who understands this in this way?

Share This