Daniel Carpenter defined organizational reputation as “a set of beliefs about an organization’s capacities, intentions, history, and mission that are embedded in a network of multiple audiences” (Carpenter 2010, 33).
Organizational reputations are impressions of organizations that stakeholders share based on their capacity, roles, policies, and obligations (Fombrun and Shanley 1990; Carpenter 2010). Organizations’ accumulative pasts and prospective behaviors influence diverse affiliations to evaluate how attractive the organizations are (Carpenter 2001, 2010; Fombrun 1996, 2012; Post and Griffin 1997). It is important for organizations to maintain good reputations with multiple audiences, including politicians, interest groups, citizens, community, employees, and customers (Carpenter 2001; Post and Griffin 1997). It means that the audiences are willing to support the organization physically and emotionally.
Public agencies could...
KeywordsPolitical Power Good Reputation Executive Branch Independent Decision Network Governance
- Barber B (1983) The logic and limits of trust. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
- Behn RD (2001) Rethinking democratic accountability. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Carpenter DP (2001) The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Carpenter DP (2010) Reputation and power. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Damon W (1995) Greater expectations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Fombrun CJ (1996) Reputation: realizing value from the corporate image. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Fombrun CJ (2012) The building blocks of corporate reputation: definitions, antecedents, consequences. In: Barnet M, Pollock T (eds) The oxford handbook of corporate reputation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 94–113Google Scholar
- Friedrich CJ (1940) Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility. Public:3–24Google Scholar
- Hosmer LT (1995) Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Acad Manag Rev 20(2):379–403Google Scholar
- Jurie J (1988) Bureaucracy and higher education: the redefinition of relevance. Scholar Educator 12:80–91Google Scholar
- Lowery D (1993) A bureaucratic-centered image of governance: the founders’ thought in modern perspective. J Public Adm Res Theory 3(2):182–208Google Scholar
- Merton RK (1957) Social theory and social structure. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Ostrom E (2003) Toward a behavioral theory linking trust, reciprocity, and reputation. In: Ostrom E, Walker J (eds) Trust and reciprocity: interdisciplinary lessons from experimental research. Sage, New York, pp 9–79Google Scholar
- Powell WW (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. In: Staw B, Cummings LL (eds) Research in organizational behavior. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 295–336Google Scholar
- Starobin P (1995) A generation of vipers: journalists and the new cynicism. Columbia Journalism Rev 33(6):25Google Scholar
- Swift T (2001) Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders. Business Ethics: A Eur Rev 10(1): 16–26. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8608.00208