Academic journal article Review of Contemporary Philosophy

Bureaucratic Reputation Management in the Public Sector

Academic journal article Review of Contemporary Philosophy

Bureaucratic Reputation Management in the Public Sector

Article excerpt

1. Introduction

Reputation is permanently under negotiation and thus challenged regularly in various forums. A manager aiming to consolidate reputation should bear in mind that communication can fortify the present reputation (Kets de Vries, 2015), but it can weaken or damage meaning around reputation. Grasping the communicative practices that shape, restructure or distort reputational capital is indispensable for novel and appealing value production processes in organizations. (Aula and Mantere, 2013) The stock of social capital and repositor y of benevolence ar e processes that bring about the a dva nta ges related to a significant reputation succeeding a negative event. The latter may be connected with a more relevant breach of requirements in comparison with an event with a comparable amount of misconduct in other entities. As low-identification stakeholders perceive less of a link between their individualities and the entity than high-identification stakeholders, how organizational identification impacts the function of organizational reputation (Bratu, 2015) succeeding a negative event differs. For the former, the more relevant consideration and breach of requirements related to a negative event in a significant reputation organization are more effective processes than the stock of social capital and benevolence the entity has consolidated with them. (Zavyalova et al., 2016)

2. The Character of Organizational Reputations in the Public Sector

Public entities are not greatly different from their private equivalents, and it may be feasible to implement reputation management in public entities as effortlessly as in private-sphere ones. Public entities require the self-determination needed to function as autonomous organizational participants (Constantin, 2015) and can be correlated with subsidiaries of important companies. The framework in which they identify themselves brings about hurdles to reputation management that differ from those that usually are experienced by for-profit entities. Reputation-seeking public entities that do not consider purposefully the specific difficult tasks confronting them as a consequence of their public spher e sta tus ma y under go unpla nned outcomes, consume resources, and weaken the confidence connections they have set up with the audience. (Wæraas and Byrkjeflot, 2012) A significant reputation may constitute a responsibility for an entity and it may undergo less succeeding backing from low-identification stakeholders, in comparison with entities without a significant reputation. For high-identification stakeholders, a significant reputation entity's more significant stock of social capital and repository of benevolence are more effective processes (Nica and Potcovaru, 2015a, b, c) than stakeholder consideration and br each of requirements related to a negative event. A significant reputation is an advantage for an entity, and it undergoes more succeeding backing from high-identification stakeholders in comparison with entities without a significant reputation. The more relevant consideration and breach of requirements brought about by a negative event in a significant reputation entity may not cause the abandonment of backing from all stakeholders. (Zavyalova et al., 2016)

The matter of external views (the kind of claims) should influence the agency's evaluation of the menace to its reputation and its subsequent option of feedback. Allegations of underregulation present a more relevant menace to regulatory reputation as they entail agency nonperformance to attain its different essential mandate for preserving a particular public value. In reply- ing to allegations of underregulation, agencies tend to additionally assess the effects of accepting an issue and admitting accountability for their long-run operational expenses and harm to reputation in the event of subsequent non-performance. Communication is essential for agencies' handling of menaces (Petcu, 2015) to their individual reputation. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.