All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Exploring the Link Between the Concepts of Organization-Public Relationships and Organizational Reputations
Unformatted Document Text:  Tracking Number: ICA-15-10266 12 image—is given more attention than ever before in the history of organized business activity … Their concern is with the images they receive of corporate behavior and results” (p. 50). To measure the concept of reputation accurately, the operational definition of the concept should be valid. However, the definition of reputation, used for the popular measurement systems such as Fortune index or Reputation Quotient (i.e., Fombrun’s own measure), has significant problems in “averaging” individuals’ perceptions, based on the assumption that there exists only one aggregated reputation. However, an organization would have more than one aggregate reputation as supported by empirical research (Bromley, 1993, 2000; J. Grunig & Hung, 2002), so the definition 8 used for the current measurement systems (e.g., Fombrun & Rindova, 1996) has a fallacy in its regarding reputations as a single “composite” concept that can be statistically “averaged.” Bromley (1993, 2000), as Fombrun and Rindova (1996) did, pointed out “collective representations” (2000, p. 244) as the key characteristic of reputation; he asserted, on the contrary, that reputations should not be averaged since “many impressions will be idiosyncratic, reflecting each individual respondent’s unique experience of an organization” (2000, p. 245). Hence, he suggested that, rather than averaging the responses of a single composite as reputation, reputation can be measured in a way that the collective phenomenon, forming a reputation, would be represented in tables and figures as the distribution of individual impressions. According to Bromley (2000, p. 245), throughout social networks, an individual’s impression (i.e., first-order representations) is pooled so that the collective representations (i.e., second-order representations) are formed in either “distributed” or “undistributed” ways. There is the lack of the overall consensus in distributed representations, whereas the degree of conformity between individuals is emphasized in undistributed representations (Bromley, 2000, p. 246). Based on Bromley’s (1993) insights on reputation, J. Grunig and Hung (2002) defined a reputation as “the distribution of cognitive representations that members of a collectivity hold about an organization, representations that may, but do not always, include evaluative components” (p. 20). J. Grunig and Hung (2002) named cognitive representations based on individual’s direct experience as “experiential” cognitive representations. In the same way, they considered reputation based on hearsay as “reputational” cognitive representations. According to them, “the word reputational is an adjective that can be used to describe

Authors: Yang, SungUn. and Mallabo, Jose.
first   previous   Page 12 of 35   next   last



background image
Tracking Number: ICA-15-10266
12
image—is given more attention than ever before in the history of organized business activity
… Their concern is with the images they receive of corporate behavior and results” (p. 50).
To measure the concept of reputation accurately, the operational definition of the
concept should be valid. However, the definition of reputation, used for the popular
measurement systems such as Fortune index or Reputation Quotient (i.e., Fombrun’s own
measure), has significant problems in “averaging” individuals’ perceptions, based on the
assumption that there exists only one aggregated reputation.
However, an organization would have more than one aggregate reputation as
supported by empirical research (Bromley, 1993, 2000; J. Grunig & Hung, 2002), so the
definition
8
used for the current measurement systems (e.g., Fombrun & Rindova, 1996) has a
fallacy in its regarding reputations as a single “composite” concept that can be statistically
“averaged.”
Bromley (1993, 2000), as Fombrun and Rindova (1996) did, pointed out “collective
representations” (2000, p. 244) as the key characteristic of reputation; he asserted, on the
contrary, that reputations should not be averaged since “many impressions will be
idiosyncratic, reflecting each individual respondent’s unique experience of an organization”
(2000, p. 245). Hence, he suggested that, rather than averaging the responses of a single
composite as reputation, reputation can be measured in a way that the collective
phenomenon, forming a reputation, would be represented in tables and figures as the
distribution of individual impressions. According to Bromley (2000, p. 245), throughout
social networks, an individual’s impression (i.e., first-order representations) is pooled so that
the collective representations (i.e., second-order representations) are formed in either
“distributed” or “undistributed” ways. There is the lack of the overall consensus in distributed
representations, whereas the degree of conformity between individuals is emphasized in
undistributed representations (Bromley, 2000, p. 246).
Based on Bromley’s (1993) insights on reputation, J. Grunig and Hung (2002)
defined a reputation as “the distribution of cognitive representations that members of a
collectivity hold about an organization, representations that may, but do not always, include
evaluative components” (p. 20).
J. Grunig and Hung (2002) named cognitive representations based on individual’s
direct experience as “experiential” cognitive representations. In the same way, they
considered reputation based on hearsay as “reputational” cognitive representations.
According to them, “the word reputational is an adjective that can be used to describe


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 12 of 35   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.