Typical Tools for Assessment of Communicative Performance

Abstract

Concepts like reputation, recognition, legitimacy, visibility, image, popularity and others are frequently used in describing how successful an organization or its activity has been. In this paper we seek to address some of the concepts used for assessment of political communication and examine what underlying qualities and criteria these concepts refer to. By way of situating our discussion into a broader context of how neo-institutional perspective understands organizational performance we use a two-dimensional framework to identify and illustrate the essential qualities of the most popular concepts. We combine then the different qualities these concepts invoke and suggest a model that can be used in more accurate evaluation of not only (political) communication but also other types of organizational activities.

Supply chain involvement in business continuity management: effects on reputational and operational damage containment from supply chain disruptions

“…To make sure that respondents are attuned to our definition of major SCD, we offered a number of examples that explained the type of major SCDs experienced by a typical manufacturer. We measured reputational containment , by asking how the response and recovery efforts influenced the reputation, stature, popularity and public image damage of the disruption (Gatzert, 2015; Pallas and Svensson, 2016; Rose, 2004). To measure operational containment, we combined commonly applied dimensions used in measuring operational performance regarding on-time delivery, product quality, manufacturing cost, order fulfillment, and cash-to-cash cycle (Bode et al , 2011; Klassen and Whybark, 1999).…”

Creating business value through corporate communication

“…Instead, communication is a cross-sectional function that aims to fulfill the organization’s mission in many different ways (Christensen and Cornelissen, 2011; Holtzhausen and Zerfass, 2015; Nothhaft, 2010). In this respect it is necessary to understand the different facets of value creation in corporations, as well as the multitude of concepts on the contribution of communication to organizational goals (Pallas and Svensson, 2016). Both strands must be aligned to develop a comprehensive framework of corporate communication value.…”

The Reputational Landscape of Medical Device Companies: A Hospital Procurement Manager's Persepective.

“…Unlike corporate identity, definitions of corporate image are inconsistent and indistinct in the academic literature. There is an ongoing discussion about whether corporate image is a synonym of corporate reputation or needs to be replaced by corporate reputation due to increasingly negative associations (Chun, 2005;Gotsi & Wilson, 2001;Pallas & Svensson, 2016).…”

“…A company's actions, behaviour and communications either fit with or violate the perceived social, institutional, regulative or cognitive norms (Bitektine, 2011;Pallas & Svensson, 2016). These norms can be influenced by a range of factors, such as legal requirements enforced by a government, economic rules and agreements as well as social and moral expectations from the general public (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008;Fombrun, 2012).…”