Reputation and identity conflict in management consulting

British J of Management

Beaverstock

2018

This paper provides important insights into how executive search firms can successfully manage their reputations to overcome major threats to their organizations. The paper focuses on three threats faced by executive search firms: the global financial crisis; questions around the sector's professional status; and the proliferation of social media for recruitment. Our data show that there was not a single coherent response from firms, but a piecemeal approach that focused on three forms of reputation management. First, diversifying service offerings; second, highlighting their symbolic capital; and third, connecting their firms to clients and candidates through partners. Building on our data and the theoretical literature, we provide a framework for understanding how professional service firms can manage their reputations in response to common threats, based on three categories from the English idiom 'keep up with the Joneses'. First, moving away from the Joneses; second, fencing out the Joneses; third, networking more than the Joneses. We provide theoretical and practical insights around how organizations can manage their reputations in response to threats which are common across sectors.

Section: Managing Reputationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Threats and Managing Reputation in Executive Search Firms

British J of Management

Beaverstock

2018

“…It emphasises what is central, enduring and distinctive to an organisation or its key units of analysis. (Albert and Whetten, 1995;Schultz, 1997, 2002;Cornelissen et al, 2007;Nag et al, 2007;Gioia et al, 2013;Harvey et al, 2016) …”

Section: Organisational Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are based on significant and varied relationships and experiences of stakeholders with the organisation. (Whetten, 1997;Ferguson et al, 2000;Davies et al, 2004;Harvey et al, 2016) …”

Section: Reputation As a Prismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lens or prism? How organisations sustain multiple and competing reputations

Tourky

Knight

et al. 2017

EJM

Purpose This paper aims to challenge singular definitions, measurements and applications of corporate reputation which tend to be reductionist. The authors rebuff such narrow representations of reputation by showing the multiplicity of reputation in the case of a global management consulting firm and demonstrate how it has sustained such reputations. Design/methodology/approach Using a large cross-country qualitative case study based on interviews, focus groups, non-participant observations, workshops and a fieldwork diary, dimensions of reputation are highlighted by drawing on perceptions from multiple stakeholder groups in different geographies. Findings The authors find significant differences in perceptions of reputation between and within stakeholder groups, with perceptions changing across dimensions and geographies. Originality/value The theoretical implications of the research indicate a plurality of extant reputations, suggesting that a prism is more suited to representing corporate reputation than a singular, lens-like focus which is too narrow to constitute reputation. This paper offers theoretical and practical suggestions for how global firms can build and sustain multiple and competing corporate reputations.

“…When organizations face external threats, this can cause a reevaluation of an organization's identity among its members (Dutton and Dukerich, 1991) and new attempts to impact external perceptions, particularly when there is a significant reputation and identity dissonance (Harvey et al, 2017). In some cases, this leads to reevaluations among members about 'what their organization is really about', as Ravasi and Schultz (2006: 455) found in the context of Bang & Olufsen.…”

Section: Defining Building and Repairing Reputationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Management consulting is an example of a professional service in which reputation plays a central role in client and labour markets (Boussebaa et al, 2012;Greenwood et al, 2005;Kipping and Clark, 2012;Sturdy and Wright, 2011;Bidwell et al, 2014;Harvey et al, 2017).…”

Section: Rationale and Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing Organizational Reputation in Management Consulting

Morris

2017

Proceedings

Despite a growth of work on building, managing and rehabilitating organizational reputation, we know relatively little about how organizations can effectively change their reputations.Through studying the case of a global management consulting firm, we show how firms with positive reputations can change their reputations despite resistance from different stakeholders. We find that particular organizational factors comprising of legitimated expertise, relevant celebrity and strong relationships as well as institutional conditions such as the knowledge of clients, competition environment and firm history can enable organizations to change their reputations. A significant contribution of this paper is to show how firms with established reputations can overcome the burden of reputation stickiness through satisfying certain organizational factors and institutional conditions.