How TalkTalk did the walk-walk: strategic reputational repair in a cyber-attack

Abstract

PurposeCyber-attacks that generate technical disruptions in organisational operations and damage the reputation of organisations have become all too common in the contemporary organisation. This paper explores the reputation repair strategies undertaken by organisations in the event of becoming victims of cyber-attacks.Design/methodology/approachFor developing the authors’ contribution in the context of the Internet service providers' industry, the authors draw on a qualitative case study of TalkTalk, a British telecommunications company providing business to business (B2B) and business to customer (B2C) Internet services, which was a victim of a “significant and sustained” cyber-attack in October 2015. Data for the enquiry is sourced from publicly available archival documents such as newspaper articles, press releases, podcasts and parliamentary hearings on the TalkTalk cyber-attack.FindingsThe findings suggest a dynamic interplay of technical and rhetorical responses in dealing with cyber-attacks. This plays out in the form of marshalling communication and mortification techniques, bolstering image and riding on leader reputation, which serially combine to strategically orchestrate reputational repair and stigma erasure in the event of a cyber-attack.Originality/valueAnalysing a prototypical case of an organisation in dire straits following a cyber-attack, the paper provides a systematic characterisation of the setting-in-motion of strategic responses to manage, revamp and ameliorate damaged reputation during cyber-attacks, which tend to negatively shape the evaluative perceptions of the organisation's salient audience.

In Defence of the Indefensible: Exploring Justification Narratives of Corporate Elites Accused of Corruption

“…Consequently, the literature has sought to shed more light on how the accused frame their defence, not only to safeguard their honour and reputation but to regain public trust and even at times to escape from the legal consequences (Benoit, 2006). Other studies have also paid attention to the evolution of accounts developed by corporations (Gottschalk & Benson, 2020;Schoultz & Flyghed, 2020) and their modus operandi in constructing defensive accounts (Boakye et al, 2023;Jacobsson, 2012) as well as on the presentation of defences by CEOs, executives, and other 'known faces' of organizations (Neville, 2022;Joshi & McKendall, 2018).…”

“…Consequently, management research has become increasingly interested in understanding how explanations of wrongdoing are routinely devised and disseminated by organisations to avoid or at the very least mitigate the ramifications of such a reputation-threatening crisis (Piazza & Jourdan, 2018;Solas, 2019;Gómez-Alatorre et al, 2022;Ouriemmi, 2023). Research in this area to date has focussed largely on such organisational responses to reputational threats (Adim & Ekpa, 2020;Boakye et al, 2023;Egbon & Mgbame, 2020;Zavyalova et al, 2012) explicating the devices, strategies, and processes deployed to manage reputations. However, the issue of less visible responses by organisational actors during a corporate scandal remains understudied (Frandsen et al, 2023).…”