Reputation Management for Scientific Organisations – Framework Development and Exemplification

• Authors: Morschheuser Petra , Redler Joern

Title variants

PL

Zarządzanie reputacją w organizacjach naukowych – rozwój struktury wraz z przykładami

• Languages of publication: EN PL

Abstracts

EN

Reputation Management deals with establishing, maintaining and strengthening a positive reputation for an object in order to build trust, commitment and lasting relationships. Positive reputation is considered a major intangible asset of companies as it contributes to their value creation. Reputation and reputation management, therefore, are well-established perspectives in marketing theory. This paper examines reputation in matters of scientific organisations. Drawing on conventional (commercial marketing) models of reputation management and derived characteristics of scientific organisations, a modified framework is deduced, named the Scientific Organisations Reputation Model (SORM). As this model widely fits the specific requirements of this type of organisation it will be useful for the complex task of marketing scientific organisations. Using the SORM framework, scientific organisations will be able to understand the formation of their own reputation in a more comprehensive way and will be able to improve their reputation-relevant management processes. The framework is exemplified and examined more closely using the case of DHBW, the unique German cooperate state university as the interplay of stakeholder patterns and the integration of multi-level marketing activities are carved out and main effects on reputation are demonstrated.

PL

Zarządzanie reputacją zajmuje się ustanawianiem, podtrzymywaniem i wzmacnianiem pozytywnej reputacji przedmiotu w celu budowania zaufania, zaangażowania i trwałych powiązań. Pozytywna reputacja jest uznawana za znaczącą część niematerialnych aktywów firm, w związku z tym, że wnosi wkład do budowania ich wartości. Reputacja i zarządzanie reputacją są zatem dobrze ugruntowanymi perspektywami w teorii marketingu. Niniejsza praca bada reputację w odniesieniu do spraw organizacji naukowych. W oparciu o konwencjonalne (marketing komercyjny) modele zarządzania reputacją i ustalone cechy organizacji naukowych, stworzona została zmodyfikowana struktura nazwie Model Reputacji Organizacji Naukowych (MRON). W związku z tym, że ten model w szerokim zakresie spełnia specyficzne wymogi tego rodzaju organizacji, będzie on przydatny do prowadzenia złożonego marketing organizacji naukowych. Używając struktury MRON organizacje naukowe będą w stanie zrozumieć tworzenie własnej reputacji w bardziej wszechstronny sposób i będą w stanie ulepszyć swoje procesy zarządzania związane z reputacją. Struktura ta została bliżej zilustrowana i zbadana na przykładzie DHBW, unikalnego niemieckiego państwowego uniwersytetu kooperacyjnego – nakreślono zależności między zachowaniami interesariuszy, oraz integrację wielopoziomowych działań marketingowych, zademonstrowano główne wpływy na reputację.

Keywords

EN

Reputation management, typology of organisation, brand, image, university marketing, scientific organisation, marketing, minib

PL

Zarządzanie reputacją, typologia organizacji, marka, wizerunek, marketing uniwersytecki, organizacja naukowa, marketing, minib

• Publisher: Sieć Badawcza Łukasiewicz - Instytut Lotnictwa
• Journal: Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych
• Year: 2015
• Issue: 4(18)
• Pages: 1-36

Dates

online

2015-12

Contributors

author

Morschheuser Petra

• Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University

author

Redler Joern

• Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University

References

• Alessandri, S. W.; Yang, S.-U.; Kinsey, D. F. (2006). An Integrative Approach to University Visual Identity and Reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(4), 258-270.
• Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: what of it, why the confusion, and what´s next? Corporate Reputation Review, 1 (1/2), 183-188.
• Barnett, M., L.; Jermier, J. M.; Lafferty, B. A. (2006), Corporate reputation: the definitional landscape, Corporate Reputation Review, 9(1), 26-38.
• Bromley, D. B. (1993). Reputation, Image and Impression Management. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
• Brown, B.; Perry, S. (1994). Removing the financial performance halo from Fortune´s ´most admired´ companies, Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1347-1360.
• Calas, M.; Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 649-671.
• Callon, M. (1991). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility? In: Law. J. (Ed.). A Sociology of Monsters? (132-161), London: Routledge.
• Chen, C.-C.; Otubanjo, O. (2013). A functional perspective to the meaning of corporate reputation. The Marketing Review, 13(4), 329-345.
• Chun, R. (2005). Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 91-109.
• Courtney, J.; Croasdell, D.; Paradice, D. (1998). Inquiring Organisations. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 6(1), 3-14.
• Davies, G.; Chun, R.; da Silva, R.; Roper, S. (2002). Corporate reputation and competiveness. London: Routledge.
• Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource, Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091-1112.
• Devine, I.; Halpern, P. (2001). Implicit Claims: the Role of Corporate Reputation in Value Creation. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(1), 42-49.
• Dowling, G.; Moran, P. (2012). Corporate Reputations: Built In or Bolted On? California Management Review, 54(2), 25-42.
• Duton, J. E.; Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517-554.
• Eichhorn, P. (1991). Konstitutive Merkmale von Non Profit Unternehmen. In: D. Witt et al. (red.). Non-Profit-Unternehmen im Aufwind? (45-52). Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
• Erhardt, D. (2011). Hochschulen im strategischen Wettbewerb - Empirische Analyse der horizontalen Differenzierung deutscher Hochschulen. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
• Finholt, T. A. (2003). Collaboratories as a new form of scientific organization, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12(1), 5-25.
• Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Fombrun, C. J.; van Riel, C. B. (2003). Reputation und Unternehmensergebnis - zentrale Resultate einer empirischen Studie. In: Wiedmann, K.-P.: Heckemüller, C. (red.). Ganzheitliches Corporate Finance Management (pp. 291-298). Wiesbaden: Gabler.
• Fombrun, C. J.; Shanley, M. (1990). What´s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), pp. 233-258.
• Fombrun, C.; Wiedmann, K. P. (2001). Reputation quotient (RQ). Analyse und Gestaltung der Unternehmensreputation auf der Basis fundierter Erkenntnisse. Hannover: Schriftenreihe Marketing Management.
• Formbrun, C.; Gardberg, N. A.; Sever, J. W. (2000). The Reputation Quotient: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. The Journal of Brand Management, 7(4), pp. 241-255.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management. A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
• Fryxell, G. F.; Wang, J. (1994). The Fortune corporate reputation index: Reputation for what? Journal of Management, 20(1), 1-14.
• Gibbons, M.; Limoges, C.; Nowotny, H.; Schwartzmann, S.; Scott, P.; Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. The dynamic of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
• Gibson, D.; Gonzales, J. L.; Castanon, J. (2006). The importance of reputation and the role of public relations. Public Relations Quarterly, 51(3), 15-18.
• Gotsi, M.; Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition. Corporate Communications, 6(1), 24-30.
• Gray, E. R. (1986). Managing the Corporate Image. Westport: Quorum.
• Gray, E. R.; Balmer, J. M. R. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation, Long Range Planning, 31(5), 695-702.
• Grochla, E. (1972). Unternehmensorganisation, Neue Ansätze und Konzeptionen. Reinbek: Rowohlt Verlag.
• Grunig, J. E.; Hung, C. F. (2002). The effect of relationships on reputation and reputation on relationships: A cognitive, behavioural study. Paper presented at the PRSA Educator´s Academy 5th Annual International, Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference. Miami.
• Gutenberg, A. (1983). Grundlagen der Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Band 1: Die Produktion. 24. Ed. Berlin: Springer.
• Hoyle, E. (1982). Micropolitics of Educational Organisations, Educational Management and Administration, 10, 87-98.
• Institute of Directors (IOD) (1999). Reputation Management: Strategies for Protecting Companies, their Brands and their Directors. London: Directors Publications.
• Kehm, B. (2012). Hochschulen als besondere und unvollständige Organisation? Neue Theorien zur “Organisation Hochschule”. In: U. Wilkesmann, C. J. Schmid (Ed.) (2012). Hochschule als Organisation (17-25). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
• Kieser, A.; Kubicek, H. Organisationstheorien I + II. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel-Verlag.
• Kieser, A.; Walgenbach, P. (2010). Organisation. 6. Ed., Stuttgart: Schäffer Poeschel-Verlag.
• Kosiol, E. (1962). Organisation der Unternehmung. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
• Kotler, P.; Fox, K. F. (1985). Strategic marketing for educational institutions. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.
• Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
• Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 54, 379-393.
• Luhmann, N. (1987). Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. 1. Ed. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.
• Mayntz, R. (1963). Soziologie der Organisation. Reinbek: Rowohlt Verlag.
• Middleton, S.; Hanson, D. (2003). Corporate Reputation and Scientific Reputation: The Mysterious Case of Girad and Agassiz. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(2), 147-160.
• Müller-Jentsch, W. (2003). Organisationssoziologie. Frankfurt: Campus-Verlag.
• Musselin, C. (2006). Are Universities Specific Organisations? In: Krücken, G.; Kosmützky, A., Torka, M. (Ed.), Towards a Multiversity. Universities between Global Trends and National Traditions (pp. 63-84), Bielefeld: Transcript Publishers.
• Musselin, C. (2006). Are Universities specific organisations?. In: G. Krücken, A. Kosmützky, M. Torka (Eds.). Towards a Multiversity? Universities between Globoal Trends and national Traditions (63-84). Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.
• Nickel, S. (2012). Engere Kopplung von Wissenschaft und Verwaltung und ihre Folgen für die Ausübung professioneller Rollen in Hochschulen (279-292). In: U. Wilkesmann, C. J. Schmid. (2012). Hochschule als Organisation. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
• Rao, H. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 29-44.
• Redler, J. (2013). Grundzüge des Marketings [Fundamentals of Marketing]. Berlin: BWV.
• Ressler, J.; Abratt, R. (2009). Assessing the impact of university reputation on stakeholder intentions. Journal of General Management 35(1), 35-45.
• Schimank, U. (2000). Handeln und Strukturen. Einführung in die akteurstheoretische Soziologie. 2. Ed. Weinheim: Juventa.
• Schimank, U. (2001). Organisationsgesellschaft. In: G. Kneer, A. Nassehi, M. Schroer (Ed.). Klassische Gesellschaftsbegriffe der Soziologie (278-307). München: UTB.
• Schimank, U. (2002). Organisationen: Akteurskonstellationen - korporative Akteure – Sozialsysteme. In: J. Allmendinger; T. Hinz, (red.). Organisationssoziologie. Sonderheft 42 der Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie (29-54). Wiesbaden: WV.
• Schimank, U. (2003). Handeln in Institutionen und handelnde Institutionen (293-307). In: F. Jaeger; F., J. Straub (red.). Handbuch der Kulturwissenschaften, Bd. 2. Stuttgart: Metzler.
• Schimank, U. (2007). Organisationstheorien (200-211). In: A. Benz, U. Schimank, U., S. Lütz, (Ed.): Handbuch Governance. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
• Schreyögg, G. (2008). Organisation. Grundlagen moderner Organisationsgestaltung. 5. Ed. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.
• Schultz, M.; Mouritsen, J.; Gabrielsen, G. (2001). Sticky reputation: analyzing a ranking system. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(1), 24-41.
• Smith, E. R. (1998). Mental representation and memory (391). In: D. Gilbert; S. Fiske; G. Lindzey (Ed.). The handbook of social psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Sojkin, B. (2015). Determinant factors of the marketing activity of scientific and research institutions, MINIB Marketing of Science and Research Organizations, 15(1), 19–32, online on: http://minib.pl/category/no-1-2015.
• Terblance, N. S. (2009). Customer experiences, interactions, relationships and corporate reputation: a conceptual approach. Journal of General Management, 35(1), 5-17.
• Theus, K. T. (1993). Academic reputations: The process of formation and decay. Public Relations Review, 19(3), 277-291.
• Vahs, D. (2012). Organisation. 8. Ed. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel-Verlag.
• Walker, K. (2010). A systematic Review of the Corporate Reputation Literature: Definition, Measurement, and Theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(4), 357-387.
• Walsh, G.; Mitchell, V.-W.; Jackson, P. R.; Beatty, S. E. (2008). Examining the Antecedents and Consequences of Corporate Reputation: A Customer Perspective. British Academy of Management, 20, 187-203.
• Walsh, G.; Wiedmann K.-P. (2004). A Conceptualization of Corporate Reputation in Germany: An Evaluation and Extension of the RQ. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(4), 304-312.
• Wiedmann K.-P. (2014). Erkenntnisse des Reputationmanagement als Basis für ein Controlling des Corporate Brand Management nutzen. In: F.-R. Esch; T. Tomczak; J. Kernstock; T. Langner; J. Redler (Eds.). Corporate Brand Management, Wiesbaden: SpringerGabler, 607-629.
• Wiedmann, K.-P.; Prauschke, C. (2005). The Relationship between Corporate Reputation and Intangible Assets. Hannover: Schriftenreihe Marketing Management.
• Yang, S.-U.; Grunig, J. E. (2005). Decomposing organisational reputation: The effects of organisation-public relationship outcomes on cognitive representations of organisations and evaluations of organisational performance. Journal of Communication Management, 9(4), 305-325.
• Zechlin, L. (2012). Zwischen Interessenorganisation und Arbeitsorganisation? Wissenschaftsfreiheit, Hierarchie und Partizipation in der „unternehmerischen Hochschule“ (41-60). In: U. Wilkesmann; C. J. Schmid (red.) (2012). Hochschule als Organisation. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

Notes

EN

Available in Open Access.

PL

Publikacja w otwartym dostępie (Open Access).

Identifiers

DOI

10.14611/minib.18.04.2015.08

DOI

10.14611/minib.18.04.2015.01