形象管理對于企業的重要性

摘要:一個企業的成功必須奠定于一個正面的企業形象. 社會大眾長期的信任及支持是所有企業成功的關鍵. 2009年， 美國通用汽車在宣告破產的窘境下重整了它的企業文化及形象. 通過了通用的的公關部門， 它在美國人民面前展現了全新的企業形象. 利用廣大傳媒的力量， 它成功的告知了社會大眾美國通用汽車公司將如何改變經營方式以及為美國的社會和經濟帶來嶄新的未來.

關鍵詞:企業形象 企業名聲 品牌價值 品牌管理 消費者信任

Introduction

This paper examines intrinsic values of corporate reputation and its roles within the context of strategic management in the 21st century. For the purpose of this paper， emphasis will be placed on the importance of reputation management in delivering corporate value and competitiveness within General Motors (GM)， Inc. Particular emphasis will be placed on the declared bankruptcy of GM in June 2009. This report will identify the challenges facing General Motors and the changes within the American automotive industry in today’s global economy. With the United States being General Motors’ largest market， this paper will focus solely on GM’s American market. This paper will also delineate the necessary strategic tools and tactics for the effective management of corporate reputation in various scenarios. Due to the length of this report， this paper will not attempt to cover trust， ethics and crisis management in great detail， even though these topics are deeply intertwined with the concept of reputation

The Financial Value of Reputation

Until reputation is threatened， scholars and practitioners have traditionally overlooked it as an important financial indicator for businesses (Fombrun Van Riel， 2006). However， in today’s world， high demands for corporate accountability no longer allow organizations to ignore the importance of reputation management (Oliver， 2007， p.56). Reputation is the most important asset that allows the company to better manage the expectations and needs of its stakeholders， creating differentiation and barriers against its competitors. Reputation is the intellectual， emotional and behavioral response of stakeholders when judging if the performance and actions of an organization fulfill with their personal needs and interests (Schreiber， 2008).

The concept of reputation is fluid and abstract， yet very powerful. People will have certain opinions about a company without actually having direct interactions with it. An organization’s reputation is derived from its behaviors， experiences， and relationships with others. Most of this reputation is formed outside of the organization on the basis of “subjective impressions” (L’Etang， 2008， p.49). Since reputation is externally perceived， it is usually not directly controlled by the company itself (Fombrun Van Riel， 2006). Reputation is not static. It is constantly affected by the organization’s actions and the actions of others around it.

Brown (1998) notes “poor reputation signals to investors that disaster lurks and that when it strikes， those companies will not have the necessary public support they need to weather the storm” (p.279， cited in Schreiber， 2008). Reputation is often difficult to imitate because， though received externally， it “derives from unique internal features” of a company. Usually built on history， reputation is usually developed over time. More than half of the British population believes that “old established companies make the best products and all the evidence suggests this is a universal truth” while 40% report to “never buy products made by companies of which they have not heard” (Haywood， 2002: 176). Because of the often asymmetric of exchange of information between organizations and their stakeholders， potential investors and consumers often look to a company’s reputation when deciding to engage with a certain company. “A strong corporate reputation suggests that the products and service being offered by the firm are of higher quality and that the firm is responsible and will treat its customers well” (Schreiber， 2008). Therefore game theorists conclude that reputation is functionally important， since it generates stakeholder perceptions of the company that provide stabilization between a company and its publics (Dowling， 2006).

“Organizational market value has been moving from tangible to intangible assets. According to a study by Ernst Young (2003)， between 80-85% of the market value of the S P 500 was comprised of intangible assets versus only 15% from tangible asset.” “Intangible assets are very important for achieving a competitive advantage because they are valuable， rare， difficult or costly to imitate， substitute and transfer” (Schreiber， 2008). The 4-Part Model of Sharemarket Valuation shows that not only do corporate reputations affect corporate value， but it can also “impact the drivers of corporate value” (Dowling， 2006， p.135).

Companies with better reputation tend to have longer profitability periods than their competitors with less established reputations. When handled correctly， a good corporate reputation will become a vital part of the company’s intrinsic value， which will be factored into its share price” (Dowling， 2006， p.141.)Fombrun and Van Riel (2004) concluded that companies with solid reputation tend to outperform companies with poor reputation on various financial measures.

The Rise and Fall of General Motors

Since its initial establishment in 1908， General Motors has established itself as the world’s leader in automobile sales. However， since the 1980s， the company’s success started to decline quickly. This was partly due to the increasing number of competitors in the global car industry， with the rising powers of European and especially Japanese automakers. But mainly， the fall of General Motors is due to internal issues mismanagement. As of June 1st 2009， General Motors officially filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This action protects GM from creditors' demands for payments and from any type of lawsuits while it restructures its finances. GM’s bankruptcy is the largest manufacturing filing in U.S. history. The new GM is 60% owned by U.S. taxpayers and 40% owned by the American government.

Why is Reputation Important to GM

GM’s Advantages

As previously mentioned， history plays a substantial role in the creation of reputation (Mahon， 2002 cited in Schreiber， 2009). It is a result of interaction and experiences of company and its stakeholders over time. Similar to Coombs and Holladay’s concept of the Halo Effect， Wartick (1992) concludes from his empirical research that even when presented with conflicting information about a company， it is difficult to alter the reputational perceptions of stakeholders (cited in Fombrun Van Riel， 2004; Schreiber， 2008).

In the case of General Motors， the public may have lost some of their trust and respect for the top management at GM， but they are empathetic to the overall situation of GM and its workers. Fortunately， with the support of the American government， many remain optimistic about the strength of General Motors as a company. This is partly due to the history of GM. As one of the earliest pioneers of modern day automobile， General Motors is not only an American company， but also a part of the American history.

One of the major strengths GM hold over its other financially struggling American competitors is its history and reputation of making quality American cars. Srivastava et al. (1997) find that when dealing with companies with similar financial statuses， stakeholders perceive a company’s reputation to be the deciding factor in its overall performance (cited in Schreiber， 2008). Though GM should have managed its issues decades ago and prevented its bankruptcy， this is a chance for the company to switch gear and restructure itself. Just like the companies new PR campaign states， GM must “reinvent” itself and emerge again as the industry’s innovator and leader.

GM’s Organizational Value and Reputation during Change Management

Reputation often holds particular value in circumstances such as mergers and acquisitions (Schreiber， 2008). During times of change， reputation management is even more crucial.

A company’s culture can affect employee motivation and behavior while corporate identity can influence how employees interpret and react in different situations (Fombrun Van Riel， 2004). Organization identities can be affected by its history and culture (L’Etang， 2008). An organization’s identity (Albert and Whetten， 1985) and behaviors (Jonker and Schumaker， 2005) are shaped foremost by its values (Schreiber， 2008). Organizations with unified corporate cultures and identities are more likely to engage in effective stakeholder management.

Corporate reputation derives from “the sense-making experiences” of its employees (Fombrun Van Riel， 2004， p.8). Its corporate culture and identity shape its business practices， stakeholder relationships， and numerous other aspects (Fombrun Van Riel， 2004). From owning nearly twenty brands globally， General Motors is in the process of downsizing to keeping only four of its best selling makes. With the closing of a tremendous number of plants and dealerships， GM is looking to cut 20，000 more jobs than the hundreds of thousands it has already laid off over the past decade.

Good leadership not only drives company success， it also inspires its employees to reach its goals (Schreiber， 2008). During the turmoil of GM’s massive structural change， the CEO and managing board must provide its key stakeholders with clear directions， visions， and complete transparency.

Rebuilding GM’s Reputation

“Mechanisms for raising capital based on intangibles already exist， including securitization， lending， licensing and outright sale” (Schreiber， 2008). Several studies (McGuire et al.， 1988; Solomon Hansen， 1985) show a positive relationship between CSR， reputation， and a company’s overall financial performance. In order to fulfill its first and foremost CSR objective， General Motors must become profitable again. Therefore a sales and promotional route of discounting automobiles to drive short-term sales， though maybe be used as a tactic， is deemed to be shortsighted.

When judging the performance of a company， stakeholders collect information about what a company stands for (Schreiber， 2008). In order to optimize corporate value and rebuild its reputation， General Motors’ CEO and managing board must have a clear establishment of what GM stands for. Analogous to the previously mentioned case study， like Shell， GM is also a powerful company with a strong sense of national identity and history. Through the nature of the two crises are different， GM and Shell does share some similarities.

GM has made the correct choice in utilizing a PR-led campaign that sends strong message of heritage and innovation to rebuild it reputation. Through its brand new website and television advertisements， GM has humanize itself by sincerely apologizing for its past mistakes and demonstrating its desire to restart and its willingness to serve its customers.

Trust

Companies must achieve sustained financial performance by being profitable and also being perceived as good by its stakeholders (Dowling， 2006). L’Etang writes that good reputation comes from trust， reliability， sincerity， and authenticity (2008: 50). Another perspective would be that good reputation breeds reliability and trustworthiness. According to an industry study conducted in the UK by MORI， seven out of ten people in the general public believe that “a company that has a good reputation would not sell poor quality products” (Haywood， 2002， p.175-176).

Summary

“Not everything that can be counted counts， and not everything that counts can be counted” (Albert Einstein， cited in Dowling， 2006， p.142). As president and CEO of APCO Worldwide， Margery Kraus (2003) stated that: “non-financial factors such as management quality， governance， brand equity， ethical leadership， corporate citizenship， and responsible marketing have become increasingly vital. These non-financial factors， taken as a whole and blended with business performance， constitute ‘corporate reputation’ (Schreiber， 2008).

Not all companies are capable of maintain good reputation over time. Once an organization’s reputation is damaged， it must rebuild itself. The recovery period often requires more effort. “It takes time for a reputation to coalesce in observers’ minds” (Fombrun Van Riel， 2004， p.5). In the case of General Motors， with its current PR campaign， new CEO and business strategy， it is on its way to rebuilding its reputation. It will not be easy and not much can be done to alleviate the time and energy required for this great task. But GM should prevail， with the correct CSR plan， keeping in mind that the fundamental business of GM is to make cars: safe and efficient cars that are sustainable and reliable. GM’s new message， according to CFO Ray Young: \"We will fix GM once and for all\".

Bibliography

Fombrun， C. and Van Riel， C. (2004) The Reputational Landscape. Journal of Reputation Review， 1(1，2)， pp.5-12.

Haywood， R. (2002). Manage your reputation. 2nd edition. London: Kogan Page.

Henderson， T. and Williams， J. (2002) “Shell”. In Moss， D. and DeSanto， B. (eds)， Public relations cases-international perspective， London: Routledge. Pp. 10-26.

Kitchen P. and Daly F. (2002) Internal communication during change management. Corporate Communications: An Internal Journal， 7(1)， pp. 46-53.

L’Etang， J. (2008). Public relations: concept， practice， and critique. London: Sage.

Oliver， S. (2007). Public Relations Strategy， 2nd Edition. London: Kogan Page.

Roscoe， A. (2002) “Racism- condemn it or condone it”. In Moss， D. and DeSanto， B. (eds)， Public relations cases-international perspective， London: Routledge. pp. 27-38.

Schreiber， E. (2008) Reputation. Institute for Public Relations.

（責任編輯：羅亦成）