This article introduces reputational support: when individuals who are not part of a public organization publicly explain or promote that organization. Whereas existing research focuses on organizations’ reputation management, reputational support highlights the relevance of unassociated actors’ behavior in organizations’ environment. Relying on social psychology insights, I explore an extreme case of the motivations behind reputational support and its perception and evaluation from the organization. Combining media content analysis and semi-structured interviews, I show that although helping the organization was not a primary motivation, employees perceived and appreciated reputational support. Thus, reputational support constitutes a valuable resource for organizations.
AschwandenE. (2017). Volk sagt Ja zur KESB. Knappes Nein zu Initiative im Kanton Schwyz. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 238, 11.
2.
BatsonC. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 65–122). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60412-8
3.
BatsonC. D. (1994). Why act for the public good? Four answers. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 603–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205016
4.
BatsonC. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford University Press.
5.
BolgerN.AmarelD. (2007). Effects of social support visibility on adjustment to stress: Experimental evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(3), 458–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.458
6.
BoonJ.SalomonsenH. H.VerhoestK. (2021). A reputation for what, to whom, and in which task environment: A commentary. Regulation & Governance, 15(2), 428–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12290
BustosE. O. (2021). Organizational reputation in the public administration: A systematic literature review. Public Administration Review, 81(4), 731–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13363
9.
BusuiocE. M.LodgeM. (2016). The reputational basis of public accountability. Governance, 29(2), 247–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12161
10.
CarpenterD. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton University Press.
EisenbergN.VanSchyndelS. K.SpinradT. L. (2016). Prosocial motivation: Inferences from an opaque body of work. Child Development, 87(6), 1668–1678. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12638
18.
EsteveM.UrbigD.van WitteloostuijnA.BoyneG. (2016). Prosocial behavior and public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12480
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
22.
GerringJ. (2008). Case selection for case-study analysis: Qualitative and quantitative techniques. In Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.BradyH. E.CollierD. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 645–684). Oxford University Press.
23.
HabashiM. M.GrazianoW. G.HooverA. E. (2016). Searching for the prosocial personality: A big five approach to linking personality and prosocial behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(9), 1177–1192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216652859
24.
HalabiS.DovidioJ. F.NadlerA. (2016). Help that hurts? Perceptions of intergroup assistance. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 53, 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.05.007
25.
HalabiS.NadlerA. (2009). Receiving help: Consequences for the recipient. In StürmerS.SnyderM. (Eds.), The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping (pp. 121–138). Wiley-Blackwell.
26.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
27.
HerrmannU. (2020, April11). 500 Milliarden Euro für Europa. Taz. Die Tageszeitung, p. 7.
28.
HildbrandL.StaufferB.SagerF.KuenzlerJ. (2020). Erzählungen des Kindes- und Erwachsenenschutzes: Eine Anwendung und Erweiterung des Narrative Policy Frameworks. Swiss Political Science Review, 26(2), 181–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12401
29.
HinterleitnerM.SagerF. (2019). Blame, reputation and organizational responses to a politicized climate. In BachT.WegrichK. (Eds.), The blind spots of public bureaucracy and the politics of non-coordination (pp. 133–150). Springer International Publishing.
30.
KuenzlerJ. (2021). From zero to villain: Applying narrative analysis in research on organizational reputation. European Policy Analysis, 7(S2), 405–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1123
31.
KuenzlerJ.StaufferB. (2023). Policy dimension: A new concept to distinguish substance from process in the Narrative Policy Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 51(1), 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12482
32.
KuenzlerJ.StaufferB.SagerF. (2022). How to manage organizational reputation when under attack: Learnings from the child and adult protection authorities. Yearbook of Swiss Administrative Sciences, 13(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.5334/ssas.169
33.
MalayJ.FairholmM. (2020). Agency legitimacy: A reputational power analysis of the bureau of land management. Administration & Society, 52(3), 343–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399719843660
MaorM. (2020). Strategic communication by regulatory agencies as a form of reputation management: A strategic agenda. Public Administration, 98(4), 1044–1055. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12667
36.
MaorM.Sulitzeanu-KenanR. (2016). Responsive change: Agency output response to reputational threats. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv001
37.
Martí-VilarM.Serrano-PastorL.SalaF. G. (2019). Emotional, cultural and cognitive variables of prosocial behaviour. Current Psychology, 38(4), 912–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-0168-9
38.
MayringP. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Beltz Verlagsgruppe.
39.
McKinstryL. (2020, March27). Comment. Daily Express, p. 2.
40.
MeleV.BelardinelliP. (2019). Mixed methods in public administration research: Selecting, sequencing, and connecting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(2), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy046
41.
MuddeC.Rovira KaltwasserC. (2018). Studying populism in comparative perspective: Reflections on the contemporary and future research agenda. Comparative Political Studies, 51(13), 1667–1693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018789490
42.
NadlerA. (2002). Inter-group helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00272
43.
NadlerA. (2015). The other side of helping: Seeking and receiving help. In SchroederD. A.GrazianoW. G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 307–328). Oxford University Press.
44.
NadlerA. (2019). From help giving to helping relations. In DeauxK.SnyderM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 464–488). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190224837.013.17
45.
NadlerA.FisherJ. D. (1986). The role of threat to self-esteem and perceived control in recipient reaction to help: Theory development and empirical validation. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 81–122). Academic Press.
46.
OvermanS.BusuiocE. M.WoodM. (2020). A multidimensional reputation barometer for public agencies: A validated instrument. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13158
47.
PattonM. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage.
RimkutėD. (2018). Organizational reputation and risk regulation: The effect of reputational threats on agency scientific outputs. Public Administration, 96(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12389
50.
RimkutėD. (2020a). Building organizational reputation in the European Regulatory State: An analysis of EU agencies’ communications. Governance, 33(2), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12438
51.
RimkutėD. (2020b). Strategic silence or regulatory talk? Regulatory agency responses to public allegations amidst the glyphosate controversy. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(11), 1636–1656. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1817130
52.
SataøenH. L.WæraasA. (2013). Branding without unique brands: Managing similarity and difference in a public sector context. Public Management Review, 17(3), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841976
53.
SchroederD. A.GrazianoW. G. (2015). The field of prosocial behavior: An introduction and overview. In SchroederD. A.GrazianoW. G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 3–34). Oxford University Press.
54.
SchroederD. A.GrazianoW. G. (2018). Prosocial behavior. In NelsonT. D. (Ed.), Getting grounded in social psychology: The essential literature for beginning researchers (pp. 245–285). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
55.
ShaneJ.NiwaE. Y.HeckhausenJ. (2021). Prosociality across adulthood: A developmental and motivational perspective. Psychology and Aging, 36(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000514
56.
StaufferB. (2023). What’s the grand story? A macro-narrative analytical model and the case of Swiss child and adult protection policy. Policy Studies Journal, 51(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12465
57.
StaufferB.SagerF.KuenzlerJ. (2023). Public agency resilience in times of democratic backsliding: Structure, collaboration and professional standards. Governance. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12802
StürmerS.SnyderM. (2009). Helping “us” versus “them”: Towards a group-level theory of helping and altruism within and across group boundaries. In StürmerS.SnyderM. (Eds.), The psychology of prosocial behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping (pp. 33–58). Wiley-Blackwell.
60.
TeodoroM. P.AnS.-H. (2018). Citizen-based brand equity: A model and experimental evaluation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(3), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux044
61.
TylerT. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.
62.
van der VeerR. A. (2021). Audience heterogeneity, costly signaling, and threat prioritization: Bureaucratic reputation-building in the EU. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa030
63.
WæraasA.SataøenH. L. (2015). Being all things to all customers: Building reputation in an institutionalized field. British Journal of Management, 26(2), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12044
64.
WeinsteinN.RyanR. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016984
65.
WestphalJ. D.ParkS. H.McDonaldM. L.HaywardM. L. A. (2012). Helping other CEOs avoid bad press. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2), 217–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212453267
66.
WhettenD. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492606291200
67.
ZeeK. S.BolgerN. (2019). Visible and invisible social support: How, why, and when. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3), 314–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419835214
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
