The role of reputation in the organizational sciences: A multilevel review, construct assessment, and research directions

Abstract

Scholarship on reputation in and of organizations has been going on for decades, and it always has separated along level of analysis issues, whereby the separate literatures on individual, group/team/unit, and organization reputation fail to acknowledge each other. This sends the implicit message that reputation is a fundamentally different phenomenon at the three different levels of analysis. We tested the validity of this implicit assumption by conducting a multilevel review of the reputation literature, and drawing conclusions about the "level-specific" or "level-generic" nature of the reputation construct. The review results permitted the conclusion that reputation phenomena are essentially the same at all levels of analysis. Based on this, we frame a future agenda for theory and research on reputation. No less attention has been devoted to reputation in and of organizations over the years. For many years, Fortune magazine has published the results of its reputation index, and companies all over carefully monitor how they are perceived by their various constituencies, which include customers, financial investors, and the labor market. Unfortunately, there has been no systematic attempt to critically review and organize the vast literature on reputation in and of organizations to date, despite its recognized importance to the fundamental understanding of organizational behavior.In 2003, Ferris and his colleagues addressed the need for research in reputation, but they focused only at the individual level of analysis, specifically on "personal reputation in organizations." In the present paper, we argue that reputation phenomena are essentially the same across levels of analysis, and we conduct a comprehensive critical analysis of the literature, organized by several key issues in this area of inquiry. Although the work of Ferris, Blass, Douglas, Kolodinsky, and Treadway (2003) serves as a foundation for our review, we also draw upon the work of numerous reputation scholars at the individual, unit/team, and organizational levels of analysis. From this broad perspective, we extract the common and defining characteristics of reputation, and then we draw conclusions about what we know and don't know, and present these conclusions as a basis for developing important directions for future research. 242 GERALD R. FERRIS ET AL.

Do they know how hard I work? Investigating how implicit/explicit achievement orientation, reputation, and political skill affect occupational status

“…In regards to occupational status, it has been argued that those with a favourable reputation are viewed as more competent and often gain higher status (Tsui, 1984). One study found that reputation mediated the influence of individual differences on career success (Zinko, Ferris, Humphrey, Meyer, & Aime, 2012), and it has been argued that personality identity is an antecedent of reputation and that career success is a consequence of reputation (Ferris et al, 2014;Hogan & Shelton, 1998). We believe that targets having a higher reputation for achievement orientation (i.e., persons that are viewed as ambitious, efficient, competent, and successful) are more likely to gain a prestigious position with higher status, as groups use their perceptions of individuals' desired attributes to award higher and lower status (Anderson & Cowan, 2014).…”

“…In the present study, we utilize political skill (Ferris et al, 2014) as a moderator of the personality identityreputation relationship. Politically skilled individuals are adept at understanding and interpreting others and social situations, and they portray themselves and their desires in ways that influence coworkers (Ferris et al, 2005).…”

Una Aproximación Teórica Al Constructo De Reputación

“…De acuerdo con Ferris et al (2014) no existe una teoría de la reputación. Sugieren que su análisis se plantea desde diversos postulados como: 1. teoría de señales (signalling theory); 2. teoría de la comparación social (social comparison theory); y 3. teoría de la influencia social y gestión de impresiones (social influence and impression management theory).…”

“…Ellos sostienen que está íntimamente ligado con la naturaleza de la reputación porque las acciones del individuo se sujetan a un período y acontecen en uno o varios momentos de su historia personal (Zinko, 2012). Por lo tanto, la reputación no es estática sino dinámica porque aparece, crece y cambia con el tiempo (Ferris, 2014).…”

How preference markets assist new product idea screening

“…Reputation is a mechanism that reduces complexity in decision making (Ferris et al 2014;Ching et al 1992), so evaluators will direct their limited attention and cognitive resources to ideas submitted by employees who signal better innovation capabilities. Specifically, inventors' experience in patenting, scientific publishing, and idea generation is an objective indicator of innovation capabilities (Subramanian et al 2013).…”