Reputation is the opinion (more technically, a social evaluation) of the group of entities toward

a person, a group of people, or an organization on a certain criterion. It is an important factor in

many fields, such as education, business, online communities or social status.

Reputation can be considered as a component of the identity as defined by others.

Reputation is known to be a ubiquitous, spontaneous and highly efficient mechanism of social

control in natural societies. It is a subject of study in social, management and technological
sciences. Its influence ranges from competitive settings, like markets, to cooperative ones, like
firms, organisations, institutions and communities. Furthermore, reputation acts on different
levels of agency, individual and supra-individual. At the supra-individual level, it concerns
groups, communities, collectives and abstract social entities (such as firms, corporations,
organizations, countries, cultures and even civilizations). It affects phenomena of different scale,
from everyday life to relationships between nations. Reputation is a fundamental instrument of
social order, based upon distributed, spontaneous social control.

A cognitive view of reputation

Until very recently, the cognitive nature of reputation was substantially ignored. This has caused
a misunderstanding of the effective role of reputation in a number of real-life domains and the
related scientific fields. In the study of cooperation and social dilemmas, the role of reputation as
a partner selection mechanism started to be appreciated in the early 1980s.

An interdisciplinary integrated approach to reputation, accounting for both evolutionary grounds

and cognitive mechanisms and processes, is still missing. Only such an integrated approach can
point to guidelines for managing reputation and for designing technologies of reputation.

Working toward such a definition, reputation as a socially transmitted (meta-) belief (i.e., belief
about belief) concerns properties of agents, namely their attitudes toward some socially desirable
behaviour, be it cooperation, reciprocity, or norm-compliance. Reputation plays a crucial role in
the evolution of these behaviours: reputation transmission allows socially desirable behaviour to
spread. Rather than concentrating on the property only, the cognitive model of reputation
accounts also for the transmissibility and therefore for the propagation of reputation.

To model this aspect, it is necessary to specify and understand a more refined

classification [disambiguation needed] of reputation.

A recommendation can be extremely precise (think for example of the stock market, where your
advisor, when discussing the reputation of a bond, can supplement his informed opinion with
both historical series and current events. On the contrary, in informal settings, gossip, although
vague, may contain precious hints both to actual facts ("I've been told this physician has shown
questionable behavior") and to conflicts taking place at the information level (if a candidate for a
role spreads defamatory about another candidate, who should you trust?).

Moreover, the expression "it is said that (John Smith is a cheater)" is intrinsically a reputation
spreading act, because on the one hand it refers to a (possibly fake) common opinion, and on the
other the very act of saying "it is said" is self-assessing, since it provides at least one factual
occasion when that something is said, exactly for the fact the person who says so (the gossiper),
while appearing to spread the saying a bit further, may actually be in the phase of initiating it.

Gossip can also be used as a tag [disambiguation needed] only - as when gossipping about unreachable
icons, like royalty or showbiz celebrities - useful only to show the gossiper belongs to the group
of the informed ones. While most cases seem to share the characteristic of being primarily used
to predict future behaviour, they can have, for example, manipulative subgoals, even more
important than the forecast.

Considering, for example, the case of a communication between two parties, one (the advisee)
that is requesting advice about the potential for danger in a financial transaction with another
party (the potential partner, target), and the other (the advisor, evaluator) that is giving advice.

Roughly speaking, the advice could fall under one of the following three categories:

1. the adviser declares it believes the potential partner is (is not) good for the transaction in
object;
2. the adviser declares it believes another (named or otherwise defined) agent or set of
agents believes the potential partner is (is not) good for the transaction in object;
3. the adviser declares it believes in an undefined set of agents, there is a belief the potential
partner is (is not) good for the transaction in object;

Note the care to maintain the possible levels of truth (the adviser declares - but could be lying - it
believes - but could be wrong - etc..). The cases are listed, as it is evident, in decreasing order of
responsibility. While one could feel most actual examples fall under the first case, the other two
are not unnecessarily complicated neither actually infrequent. Indeed, most of the common
gossip falls under the third category, and, except for electronic interaction, this is the most
frequent form of referral. All examples concern the evaluation of a given object (target), a social
agent (which may be either individual or supraindividual, and in the latter case, either a group or
a collective), held by another social agent, the evaluator.

The examples above can be turned in more precise definitions using the concept of social
evaluation defined above. At this point, we can propose to coin a new lexical item, image, whose
character should be immediately evident from the following:

[edit] Image

Image is a global or averaged evaluation of a given target on the part of an agent. It consists of
(a set of) social evaluations about the characteristics of the target. Image as an object of
communication is what is exchanged in examples 1 and 2, above. In the second case, we call it
third-party image. It may concern a subset of the target's characteristics, i.e., its willingness to
comply with socially accepted norms and customs, or its skills. ways), nor its definition as
pertaining to a precise agent. Indeed, we can define special cases of image, including third-party
image, the evaluation that an agent believes a third party has of the target, or even shared image,
that is, an evaluation shared by a group. Not even this last is reputation, since it tries to define in
a too precisely the mental status of the group.

[edit] Reputation

Reputation is 'the result of what you do, what you say, and what other people say about you'.

Reputation, as distinct from image, is the process and the effect of transmission [disambiguation needed]
of a target image. To be more precise, we call reputation transmission a communication of an
evaluation without the specification of the evaluator, if not for a group attribution, and only in
the default sense discussed before. This covers the case of example 3 above. More precisely,
reputation is a believed, social, meta-evaluation; it is built upon three distinct but interrelated
objects: (1) a cognitive representation, or more precisely a believed evaluation - this could be
somebody's image, but is enough that this consist of a communicated evaluation; 2) a population
object, i.e., a propagating believed evaluation; and (3) an objective emergent property at the
agent level, i.e., what the agent is believed to be. In fact, reputation is a highly dynamic
phenomenon in two distinct senses: it is subject to change, especially as an effect of corruption,
errors, deception, etc.; and it emerges as an effect of a multi-level bidirectional process.
Reputation is also how others know and perceive you as an individual.

While image only moves (when transmitted and accepted) from an individual cognition to
another, the anonymous character of reputation makes it a more complex phenomenon.
Reputation proceeds from the level of individual cognition (when is born, possible as an image,
but not always) to the level of social propagation (at this level, it not necessarily believed from
any agent) and from this level back to individual cognition again (when it is accepted).

Moreover, once it gets to the population level, reputation gives rise to a further property at the
agent level. It is both what people think about targets and what targets are in the eyes of others.

From the very moment an agent is targeted by the community, his or her life will change whether
he or she wants it or not or believes it or not. Reputation has become the immaterial, more
powerful equivalent of a scarlet letter sewed to one's clothes. It is more powerful because it may
not even be perceived by the individual to whom it sticks, and consequently it is out of the
individual's power to control and manipulate.

More simply speaking for those who want a working definition of reputation, reputation is the
sum of impressions held by a company's stakeholders. In other words, reputation is in the "eyes
of the beholder". It need not be just a company's reputation but could be the reputation of an
individual, country, brand, political party, industry. But the key point in reputation is not what
the leadership insists but what others perceive it to be. For a company, its reputation is how
esteemed it is in the eyes of its employees, customers, investors, talent, prospective candidates,
competitors, analysts, alumni, regulator [disambiguation needed]s and the list goes on.

[edit] Reputation-based decisions

Image and reputation are distinct objects. Both are social in two senses: they concern properties
of another agent (the target's presumed attitude toward socially desirable behaviour), and they
may be shared by a multitude of agents. However, the two notions operate at different levels.
Image is a belief, namely, an evaluation. Reputation is a meta-belief, i.e., a belief about others'
evaluations of the target with regard to a socially desirable behaviour. To better understand the
difference between image and reputation, the mental decisions based upon them must be
analysed at the following three levels:

Epistemic
accept the beliefs that form either a given image or acknowledge a given reputation. This
implies a believed evaluation gives rise to one's direct evaluation. Suppose I know the
friend I mostly admire has a good opinion of Mr. Berlusconi. However puzzled I may be
by this dissonance-inducing news, I may be convinced due to my friendship to accept this
evaluation and share it.
Pragmatic-strategic 
use image to decide whether and how to interact with the target. Once I have my own
opinion (perhaps resulting from acceptance of others' evaluations) about a target, I will
use it to make decisions about my future actions concerning that target. Perhaps, I may
abstain from participating in political activity against Mr. Berlusconi.
Memetic 
transmit my (or others') evaluative beliefs about a given target to others. Whether or not I
act in conformity with a propagating evaluation, I may decide to spread the news to
others.

[edit] Reputation as Capital

Joachim Klewes and Robert Wreschniok focus more on corporate aspects. According to the
authors reputation can be managed, accumulated and traded in for trust, legitimisation of a
position of power and social recognition, a premium price for goods and services offered, a
stronger willingness among shareholders to hold on to shares in times of crisis, or a stronger
readiness to invest in the company’s stock. Therefore, reputation is one of the most valuable
"Capital" of a company.

“Delivering functional and social expectations of the public on the one hand and manage
to build a unique identity on the other hand creates trust and this trust builds the informal
framework of a company. This framework provides „return in cooperation“ and produces
Reputation Capital. A positive reputation will secure a company or organisation long-
term competitive advantages. The higher the Reputation Capital, the less the costs for
supervising and exercising control.”[1]

[edit] Firm reputation

Many businesses have public relations departments dedicated to managing their reputation. In
addition, many public relations firms describe their expertise in terms of reputation management.
The public relations industry is growing due to the demand for companies to build corporate
credibility and hence reputation.[citation needed] Incidents which damage a company's reputation for
honesty or safety may cause serious damage to finances. For example, in 1999 Coca-Cola lost
$60 million (by its own estimate) after schoolchildren reported suffering from symptoms like
headaches, nausea and shivering after drinking its products.[1]

[edit] Building reputation through stakeholder management

kierstenstakeholder theory says corporations should be run for the benefit of all “stakeholders,”
not just the shareholders. Stakeholders of a company include any individual or group that can
influence or is influenced from a companies practices. The stakeholders of a company can be
supplier [disambiguation needed]s, consumers, employees, shareholders, financial community,
government, and media. Companies must properly manage the relationships between stakeholder
groups and they must consider interest of each stakeholder group carefully. Therefore, it
becomes essential to integrate public relations into corporate governance to manage the
relationships between these stakeholders which will enhance the organization’s reputation.
Corporations or institutions which behave ethically and governed in a good manner builds a
reputational capital which is a competitive advantage. According to Fombrun, a good reputation
enhances profitability because it attracts customers to products, investors to securities and
employees to its jobs. Company’s reputation is an asset and wealth that gives that company a
competitive advantage because this kind of a company will be regarded as a reliable, credible,
trustworthy and responsible for employees, customers, shareholders and financial markets. In
addition, according to MORI’s survey of about 200 managers in the private sector, 99%
responded the management of corporate reputation is very (83%) or fairly (16%) important.
Reputation is a reflection of companies’ culture and identity. Also, it is the outcome of managers'
efforts to prove their success and excellence. It is sustained through acting reliable, credible,
trustworthy and responsible in the market. It can be sustained through consistent communication
activities both internally and externally with key stakeholder groups. This directly influences a
public company's stock prices in the financial market. Therefore, this reputation makes a
reputational capital as a strategic asset and advantage for that company. As a consequence,
public relations must be used in order to establish long lasting relationships with the
stakeholders, which will enhance the reputation of the company.[2]

[edit] CEO reputation

Research has shown the reputation of the CEO is inextricably linked to the reputation of the
company. CEOs set the tone, define company direction, attract talent, and are the human face of
the organization. Increasingly, CEOs are building their brands on credibility, not celebrity. In
times of uncertainty, the CEO is called upon to speak on behalf of the organization. Books on
building CEO reputation and company reputation include Reputation by Charles Fombrun,
"Building Reputational Capital" by Kevin T. Jackson, The 18 Immutable Laws of Corporate
Reputation by Ron Alsop, and CEO Capital: A Guide to Building CEO Reputation and
Company Success by Leslie Gaines-Ross.

[edit] Causes - corporate reputation - consequences

There are many different and often conflicting models of reputation. Terminology such as
reputation, branding, image and identity is often used interchangeably, or to distinguish
differences between related constructs. Much of this confusion has been alleviated by recent
work integrates reputation models in terms of underlying psychological theory. According to
Money and Hillenbrand reputation models can be placed in a framework that relates to
reputation, its causes and its consequences. In this approach it is important not only to
understand reputation, but also identify the causes of reputation and its consequences.

Causes of reputation are seen to reside in stakeholder experiences. Stakeholder experiences

relate to a company’s day-to-day business operations, its branding and marketing and noise in
the system, such as the media and word of mouth.

Reputation is seen to reside in the beliefs that stakeholders hold about a company (the cognitive
element)and the feelings that stakeholders have about a company (the affective element). While
the cognitive element of reputation can reflect the uniqueness of a company or products in terms
characteristics such as brand attributes (whether an organisation is delivering high quality
products, is international, friendly etc), the affective element is always evaluative. In other
words, it gives an indication of whether stakeholders like, admire or trust a company and its
attributes. A unique and distinctive cognitive evaluation of a company only has value if this
results in a positive affective evaluation and positive consequences of reputation

The consequences of reputation reside in the behaviors (supportive or otherwise) that

stakeholders demonstrate towards a company. Behaviors such as advocacy, commitment and
cooperation are key positive outcomes of a positive reputation.

[edit] Online Reputation

see also : Reputation system and Online identity

Online reputation is a factor in any online community where trust is important. It affects a
pseudonym rather than a person. Examples include eBay, an auction service which uses a system
of customer feedback to publicly rate each member's reputation. Amazon.com has a similar
reputation mechanism in place and merchants develop their reputations across different
dimensions[3]. One study found that a good reputation added 7.6% to the price received.[4] In
addition, building and maintaining a good reputation can be a significant motivation for
contributing to online communities. See Motivations for contributing to online communities for
more information.

To begin developing an online reputation, consider how your personal or company brand should
be perceived.[5] What is your brand identity / what is your value proposition / selling point /
unique voice? Once you have developed the image you would like your constituencies to
perceive, develop a strategy to build your brand. Are you seeking credibility in the marketplace
(consider blogging, answering questions on LinkedIn), gain market leadership (create innovative
tools for your industry) or connection (build a network of contacts in professional and/or social
sites).

Another way to look at online reputation is how well it's being managed.[6] This form of
reputation is usually called web or digital reputation to distinguish it from the online reputation.
Indeed, Digital of Web reputation does not concern the virtual on-line reputation only, but the
whole real reputation of a person or a company as it is affected by the Web. Nearly seven out of
10 global business executives see their reputations online as vulnerable. This high estimate
reflects executive anxiety over reputation erosion in a fiercely competitive and unpredictable
business environment. [2]

An online reputation is the perception that one has on the Internet based on their digital footprint.
Digital footprints accumulate through all of the content shared, feedback provided and
information that created online. People aspire to have a positive online reputation. If someone
has a bad online reputation, he can easily change his pseudonym. This is why new accounts on
ebay or amazon are usually untrusted. If a person or a company want to manage his web
reputation, he will have many more difficulties. This is why a merchant on the web having a
physical shop (with real name, real address) is usually more trusted.[citation needed]

The greatest reputation threat online to companies is negative media coverage (84% say so). The
next two greatest threats are customer complaints in the media or on grievance sites online
(71%)and negative word of mouth (54%). This negative word of mouth could be from
dissatisfied customers but from employees as well. Leaders also worry about confidential leaks
which seem to be growing at a rapid pace online. [3]

[edit] Reputation as extension of ego

Concern over reputation is sometimes considered a human fault, exaggerated in importance due
to the fragile nature of the human ego. William Shakespeare provides the following insight from
Othello:

Cassio: Reputation, reputation, reputation! O! I have lost my reputation. I have lost the immortal
part of myself, and what remains is bestial. My reputation, Iago, my reputation!
Iago: As I am an honest man, I thought you had received some bodily wound; there is more
offence in that than in reputation. Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without
merit, and lost without deserving: you have lost no reputation at all, unless you repute yourself
such a loser.

-Shakespeare, Othello, the Moor of Venice Act II. Scene III, 225-226.

[edit] Reputation Officers

Despite the rising interest in reputation, few companies have reputation officers. Although many
companies will say company reputation is the job of the CEO, managing reputation is a daily
function and can best be given to an individual in the organization. There are only a handful of
people in the business world with the word "reputation" in their titles -- Dow Chemical,
SABMiller, Coca-Cola, Allstate, Repsol YPF, Weber Shandwick, and GlaxoSmithKline
(although no longer). Hoover's has a list of officers with the term "reputation" in their titles. Foro
de Reputación Corporativa is a group of 11 companies in Spain that has reputation officers.
Despite the great interest in reputation, there only remains 25 or fewer people as reputation
officers. Some would argue reputation-building and protection is the job of the CEO and not any
direct report. Others would say that the CEO has too many responsibilities to focus on
reputation.

[edit] Reputation Recovery

The convergence of globalization, instantaneous news and online citizen journalism magnifies
any corporate wrongdoing or misstep. Barely a day goes by without some company facing new
assaults on its reputation. Reputation recovery is the long and arduous path to rebuilding
equity [disambiguation needed] in a company's good name. Research has found it takes approximately 3.5
years to fully recover reputation (Safeguarding Reputation [4]). James C. Collins of Good to
Great fame says it takes a company seven years to go from good to great. The path is clearly
long. The reason reputation recovery has risen in importance is that the "stumble rate [5]" among
companies has risen exponentially over the past five years. In fact, 79% of the world's most
admired companies have lost their number one positions in industries in that time period.
Companies which were once heralded as invincible, no longer ar

When you were a teenager, your reputation was one of your most valuable assets. But how long
has it been since you've thought about your company's reputation?

You probably know of a number of businesses that slowly declined before finally giving up. I he
whispers here and there of poor quality or service escalated until "everyone knew" not to
patronize a company, and eventually the doors closed. Could those companies have been saved?
The answer is an emphatic yes, says Brent Gooden, CEO of I he Gooden Group Inc., a marketing
service and public relations firm in Oklahoma City.

"Most bad reputations are caused by neglect," says Gooden. "A lot of business owners are expert
at seeing the big picture, but they don't manage the details, and that leaves a very poor
impression on their customers. "

To prevent a bad reputation from sounding the death knell for your business, Gooden says you
first have to find out if you have a problem. Start by surveying existing and, if possible, former
customers. For existing customers, ask specifically if they are dissatisfied in any way and how
you can improve; for former customers, find out why they left and what it would take to bring
them back. Also ask your colleagues to tell you candidly what they hear about you on the street.

Once you have identified the problems, take the necessary steps to correct them. Then--and only
then--should you attempt to recapture your lost market.

"People are forgiving and willing to give you another chance, but you have to do it right this
time, or you will lose them forever," Gooden says. "A business only gets two chances. If you ask
for a second chance and don't deliver, customers will feel they've been lied to, and they won't be
forgiving again."
Getting that second chance requires more than simply admitting your mistakes and asking for
another opportunity. "You have to do something bold to prove that you have changed," says
Gooden.

Not sure what to do? Simple: Ask your customers what it will take to win them back--then do it.
It may cost a considerable amount of money, but calculate the potential rewards.

The bottom line: Recovering from a bad reputation can be painful and lengthy, but the process
will strengthen your company and may even take you to levels of prosperity you never before
imagined.

RELATED ARTICLE: Success By Design

IF BUSINESS isn't going as well as it might, consider taking a second look at your physical
environment. An increasing number of Westerners are discovering feng shui (pronounced fung
schway), the ancient art of arranging your personal space to create balance and harmony with the
forces of nature. It's a technique Asians have been practicing for centuries.

"Over the last decade, Pacific Rim companies have had an increasing impact on the global
marketplace," says William Spear, a consultant and author of Fen Shui Made Easy: Designing
Your Life With the Ancient Art of Placement (Harper Collins). "When you investigate the way
in which Asian corporations conduct business, it begins with their traditional philosophy of their
relationship to their immediate environment."

In other words, how your desk is positioned,the orientation of the door and the type of art you
have can have a significant impact on your business. The idea is to keep positive energy flowing
and deflect the negative energy. Clearing clutter, rearranging furniture, and adding or removing
specific elements can have a dramatic impact on your creativity and success. Some of Spear's
tips: