Category: Decisionmaking

Executives Need to Learn a New Style of Decision-making


Reputation Risk has been described as elusive and difficult to manage. Some have even called it “Soft issues, tangible impacts”.

Why? Why is it difficult to manage? Well, for one few know how an issue or crisis can erupt. It may or may not. An issue may be material or not.

To understand reputation risk you need to understand some basic tenets of risk and reputation. Risk is something that causes a sudden and unforeseen event leading to loss of expected income, damage to property or harm to individuals. It is the possibility that a future event may cause harm.

Pure risk – a Risk that results only in loss, damage, disruption or injury whilst speculative risk – is a risk which carries the potential of either a loss or a gain. Risk is also a combination of probability and consequences.

In my own consulting work I define, Reputational Risk as the loss of earnings that occur in a situation of negative public opinion. It normally results when the reasonable expectations of stakeholders are not met and culminates in loss of sales, share value decreases and breakdown of relationships. It is the adverse operational and financial impact to business performance when the company’s good name gets tarnished.

In the case of many of the corporate disasters a decision was taken without due thought, to its implications, and hence it backfired. It is thus important to realise that a decision has reputational implications if it has the potential to affect the relationship between the company and any of its stakeholders. In other words, it is difficult to think of a decision that does not have reputational implications. I believe that we can go a long way to minimise corporate disasters if we teach directors and senior executives the value of perception management, stakeholder reputation and good ethics.

By exposing them to these concepts the likelihood of reputation damage can be minimized since they will factor reputation earlier into the decision making mix. My reasoning is that in most of the Corporate Disasters currently there is a pattern of limited and distorted decision making. Many decisions are made not considering all the angles and potential impact zones.

Every decision that an organisation must make has four broad sets of implications. The obvious three sets of implications are operational, financial and legal.

The fourth set of implications is generally ignored, delegated or included in the process only on the basis of the “gut instinct” of one of the participants. This fourth set of implications is reputational.

The reputational implications of a business decision can be defined as those that impact the way in which an organization is regarded by those with whom it interacts, including shareholders, customers and employees, as well as suppliers, government regulators, the media and even competitors (and any other stakeholder). This fits in well with the ecology model of organisational effectiveness. The New Collins Concise English Dictionary defines ecology as:”The study of the relationships between living organisms and their environment, the set of relationships of a particular organism with its environment.”

This means that the ecology model is concerned with the organisation’s ability to deal with internal and external contingencies, and its ability to manage interrelationships between stakeholders in the context of its environment. Any organisation is dependent on its stakeholders for support and the strategic importance of any stakeholder depends on how dependent the organisation is upon it. And this relationship can change over a period of time or due to indiscretions.

Reputation, most managers today would agree, is an asset, even if only a perceptual asset (or, if mismanaged, a liability). It certainly is not optional. Every corporation, organization, institution, individual has a reputation. The only option is whether to manage it or allow it to be inferred. If reputation is a strategic resource and if it is to add value, it should be managed with the same care and attention as any asset. It should be obvious that if a decision has four broad sets of implications, and only three are formally and routinely considered, the potential exists for flawed decision making. After all, the role of a manager is to manage all the assets under his or her control effectively.

Most Directors, leaders and managers have never received training in managing an organisation’s reputation, yet some studies now show that reputation can make up as much as 55% of an organisation’s share price. They receive training in Corporate Governance, but companies tend to forget why governance is important. The end purpose of governance is to be perceived in an excellent manner by your stakeholders. Thus the end purpose of governance is to have an excellent reputation.

A large proportion of intangible assets is thus not being adequately managed and may be at risk in today’s knowledge based economy.

By getting directors and senior managers to interact and learn about the link between reputation and effective decision making you will raise the ante, improve their competences and minimise the likelihood of reputation damage. Davis Young, in “Building your company’s good name” wrote:

“Every employee needs training to understand the impact their actions have on your company’s good name and its business success. This training needs to start the day they are hired, with daily reinforcement thereafter, if only through leadership modelling. Every employee must understand the importance of his or her actions in terms of what those will mean to the organisation’s reputation”

Companies, who do not provide reputation management training to their directors, and senior executives, are at RISK.

 

Creative Problem solving – Lips on the Mirror


939974270_f29aa25d9a_mSometimes we get so technical in trying to effect change in a company. Sometimes a simple small change, (those things that system thinking experts call leverage points – those small, well-focused actions that can, when used at the right time and in the right place, produce significant, lasting benefits exponentially beyond the effort required to take the action step itself), can make all the difference.

A principal of a small middle school had a problem with a few of the older girls starting to use lipstick. When applying it in the bathroom they would then press their lips to the mirror and leave lip prints.

Before it got out of hand he thought of a way to stop it. He gathered all the girls together that wore lipstick and told them he wanted to meet with them in the ladies room at 2pm.

They gathered at 2pm and found the principal and the school cleaner waiting for them. The principal explained that it was becoming a problem for the cleaner to clean the mirror every night. He said he felt the ladies did not fully understand just how much of a problem it was and he wanted them to witness just how hard it was to clean.

The cleaner then demonstrated. He took a long brush on a handle out of a box. He then dipped the brush in the nearest toilet, moved to the mirror and proceeded to remove the lipstick.

That was the last day the girls pressed their lips on the mirror.

Discuss. Dissect. Decide!


162622550_f297656deb_m Reputation is a company’s biggest asset and most dangerous risk. This fact has been corroborated by more than five international surveys.

Many CEO’s know this. Yet I am still astounded when senior executives come to me after a presentation and say – I never knew that reputation was this important.

Do they not get enough messages about this asset and potential risk?

Surely if some studies show that between 55 – 73% of a company’s share price can be attributed to its reputation, then this is serious.

Surely it is that important that it should be discussed and feature as an agenda item at every single meeting in the organisation?

Surely if it is that important, it should be dissected into those parts that can be managed – tangible aspects and strategies derived to address the intangible aspects?

The parts that are referred by authors and researchers as drivers of reputation – broadly defined categories such as Emotional Appeal, Products and Services, Financial Performance, Workplace Environment, Innovation, CSR and Leadership.

I am still intrigued that this asset only deserves 45 minutes  to 60 minutes at a management conference. As a professional speaker, I have to get the message across in this allotted time, yet I run two day Master Classes on aspects of reputation.

I sometimes feel like someone who has to explain a religious text like the Bible or Koran to a layman in 45 minutes. a Virtually impossible task.

Surely the time has come for organisations to discuss this asset, dissect it and decide how they are going to build, sustain and protect this fine yet hard – earned asset that is always at risk.

Managing reputation is a mission-critical task. You cannot leave it up to chance.

Tip - Make it part of every management meeting agenda in the organisation.

Tip - Include it on your Leadership Development & Learning calendar. This makes vital sense as not only is Leadership a reputation driver but it influences very other drivers as well.

Tip – Define Reputation as an asset and as a risk in your organisation. Make sure that you have strategies in place to address both the asset building and the reputation protection definitions.

Discuss. Dissect. You decide. Reputation is not an optional choice.

Digg This

Questions are Powerful Tools for Effective Communication


j0382674 Questions are powerful tools for effective communication. The questioning technique(s) you select can be critical to achieving your desired outcome.

Your choice should depend on the situation, whether you are exchanging information, seeking the solution to a problem, interviewing or counselling.

But before we speak about questions, we need to take a step backward. I believe that we need to first understand the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PROBLEM AND A DECISION.

A problem is a "train off a track". Something has not gone the way it was planned or expected to. Problem solving is finding out the reasons why and the possibility of getting things back on track. Decisions are about deciding which alternative is best.

To become adept at solving problems you need to master both analytical and creative problem solving techniques, so that you can ask the relevant questions. For instance there are times when you need to ask objective questions – these are to ask for specific information. "What evidence do you have for that conclusion?" "How have you been handling this process?" "What factors are necessary to raise your Customer Satisfaction Index?"

Problem Solving questions – ask these when you want action ideas. "What should you do next?" "How would you implement the steps we just discussed?"

"Why are we so much better at answering questions than at answering the right questions? Is it because we are trained at school and university to answer questions that others have asked? If so, should we be trained to ask questions?" [Or trained to ask the complete set of right questions in the right way?] Trevor Kletz (Analog Science Fiction, January 1994, p195)

One of the problems with looking for solutions to problems is that we always come to a problem with our years of experience behind us. This can sometimes direct our thinking down certain familiar paths, and we can miss other paths which might lead to better solutions.

When people do this, always tell them this quote – In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s mind there are few — Shunryu Suzuki

One way to help overcome this tendency is to force yourself to approach a problem from a completely different point of view. Alex Osborn in his pioneering book Applied Imagination talks about "Questions as spurs to ideation", and outlines about 75 idea-spurring questions in his book.

The simplest set of questions comes from the six basic questions:

  1. Why is it necessary?
  2. Where should it be done?
  3. When should it be done?
  4. Who should do it?
  5. What should be done?
  6. How should it be done?

Osborn went on with the following questions:

Adapt? Modify? Substitute? Magnify/Maximise? Minimise/Eliminate? Rearrange? Reversal? Combine?

Start applying these questions to your problems and see what ideas come forth.

In your quest for learning to ask different questions, you should read Michael Michalko’s book Thinkertoys in which he describes the rearrangement of the above questions into the mnemonic SCAMPER (Substitute, Combine Adapt, Modify, Put to other uses, Eliminate, Reverse)

You should also consider the 7s Mckinsey Framework. My own perspective is that the type of decision isn’t as important, as knowing the questions to consider, or having a good model which shows different considerations to explore.

Example:

  • What’s the impact on people?
  • What’s the impact on process?
  • Impact on Technology?
  • Impact on the marketplace?
  • Impact on the business?
  • Impact on Reputation, Trust & Integrity?

The best I believe is a combination of a systematic and creative approach to problem solving and decision-making. Understanding different models of thinking will enable you to look different at every situation or to apply the right question to the right problem.

As someone once said: "Solutions often lies in the question not asked".

Announcement: The Crisis Manager Toolkit


They say that when a crisis strikes, how you act in the first few minutes determines the final outcome. With more companies developing crisis or disaster recovery plans they can turn to if the unthinkable ever happens, service providers are not far behind, hoping to offer them the right solutions for the job.

Numerous crises ranging from product Recalls to Oil spills to Social Media crises have again highlighted the importance for companies to be prepared. REPUCOMM has launched a crisis management toolkit that can assist companies to create a workable crisis management and crisis communication response plan for the business.

‘If you have an emergency situation that needs to be dealt with, the last thing you want to be doing is worrying about how to deal with it or worry how to keep all your stakeholders informed.’ said Deon Binneman. ‘Being prepared is an ethical responsibility to stakeholders’.

The Toolkit

The Crisis Manager Toolkit is a highly effective, low cost solution to assist any company to develop workable crisis management action and communication response plans and is a useful resource that can assist any manager in this phase and during a crisis, and can serve as a benchmarking instrument. It consists of a ZIPPED file format that contains useful information such as the following:

  • Detailed questionnaires, articles and checklists to prompt thinking processes whilst planning and preparing response plans;
  • Various guidelines and tip sheets ranging from stakeholder communication templates to dealing with the Media tips sheets;
  • Handy templates and forms;
  • A Copy of a 2 – day course consisting of a PowerPoint presentation that can be customised for internal training and information sharing use with the Board, executives and staff;
  • A 40 page Crisis Management & Communication Response Plan Template as well as a copy of an Emergency Response plan template;
  • Guidelines on how to respond to Internet Reputation Crises, including Social Media Guidelines on Twitter, Facebook and Blogging crises.

The Benefits

The benefits of the toolkit are numerous including:

j04022261. It allows for preplanning and development of a plan instead of employing outside professionals at the outset of such a project. Whilst having independent input is essential, it can save a lot of costs if the groundwork have been completed.

2. Many organisations do not have the capacity to have a fulltime Crisis Manager position but that does not absolve them of the necessity of planning for dealing with the hand of fate. Today stakeholders of an organisation expect an organisation to be ready to deal with all calamities as well as the unique communication challenges that these situations bring. But in many organisations plans exist in various forms and guises. Plans exist as Disaster Recovery (IT related), Business Continuity, Occupational Health & Safety & Emergency Response plans, and Communication Response plans (PR/Communication). Sometimes these plans are coordinated, sometimes they are not. I believe that all of these plans should be integrated in an overall crisis management response plan for the organisation.

3. Self- Study. The toolkit is a tremendous aid for those who want to bring themselves up to speed with the latest development in crisis management thinking & crisis communication response. The kit contains a complete PowerPoint presentation with leaders guide notes prepared and facilitated by Deon Binneman the past 14 years.

4. Benchmarking – What works? What does not? What does international best practice and experience teach us? The CM Toolkit is a useful product that you can use to see if your plans stand up against best practice. Are you ready?

Why

The rationale behind the toolkit is as follows:

Recent media reports and other business and natural disasters have again just illustrated the need for companies to plan for all eventualities including the communication challenges that is created during these eventualities. The actual process of emergency planning and crises communication management is a vital one if companies want to safeguard their assets, minimise their risks and uphold their hard-earned reputation.

Two thoughts can guide us in this process, the words stated by Benjamin Disraeli “What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least, generally happens”, and the fact that Noah built the Ark days before it rained.

Years and years of experience have proven that the companies who copes the best with crises of all kinds are those who are prepared to deal with the hand of fate. Those companies who have set in motion processes to minimise potential crises. Companies who cope successfully with crises are normally companies who have a predetermined plan of action including communication response plans.

Crises management is defined as the ability of an organisation to deal quickly, efficiently, and effectively with contingency operations with the goal of reducing the threat to human health and safety, the loss of public or corporate property, adverse impact on normal Business continuance, and damage to it’s good name – it’s Reputation.

The toolkit is a useful resource that can assist any manager in this phase and during a crisis, and can serve as a benchmarking instrument.

Here is a quick questionnaire (Based on a very detailed 11 page plus one in the toolkit) that can guide your decision to purchase the toolkit – See my blog post How up to date is your Crisis Management Plan? as well as the post How Reputation Event/ Crisis-Ready is your Organization?

Pricing

POA – The toolkit is in a PDF and PowerPoint Format can be e-mailed to customers.

To find out more about the Toolkit, contact Deon Binneman.

del.icio.us Tags:

No organization can state that they have no stakeholders!


Last week I sent out my Powerlines newsletter Number 90 – a newsletter for Reputation Managers and those involved in stakeholder management.

Like any newsletter it always gets its own fair amount of subscriptions and unsubscriptions. However what got me this time was an e-mail from someone that stated the following:’’Your newsletter would be inappropriate for us as our business is not affected by your content”.

Now I don’t mind unsubscriptions and would rather have a targeted list of readers, but if ever I needed to take an exception over a statement it was that one.

The statement that any business would not be affected by the content is wrong. Knowledge, awareness and understanding of stakeholders and the reputation management process can only be beneficial for any organisation, no matter its size or stature.

No organization can state that they have no stakeholders. In fact it is useful to revisit the definition. Stakeholders are anyone, group or individual that can affect or is affected by an organisation’s behaviour, actions and performance. There is thus a fine interplay of factors to manage if an organisation wants an excellent reputation.

An organisation derives its reputation from the way it is perceived by its stakeholders. They will evaluate your actions, performance and behavior, and will in turn act reciprocally by either buying your products, recommending you, using your services or acting towards you in a favourable manner.

It is these actions that are important. You want stakeholders to say good things about you and your organisation, you want them to work for you and be loyal if they are an internal stakeholder, you want to be able to source funding when you need it because you have a good image and reputation in the eyes and minds of the shareholders and financial institutions.

In the world of the interconnected economy, the reputation of an organisation has become its biggest asset and risk. Research clearly shows that these days that reputation is a function of the communication with stakeholders, the understanding and perceptions they have about your business and the levels of relationships that have been fostered.

It makes the management of the stakeholder interface a strategic and vital one for any organisation. In fact, it has become so important that the new King Code 3 of Corporate Governance makes specific reference to it in Section 8. Although the Code is not enforceable it sets forth standards of good practice and provides guidance that will shape dealings with stakeholders in years to come.

Section 8: The Governing of Stakeholder Relationships spells out certain practices, as follows and I quote:

  • Section 8.2. 1 Management should develop a strategy and formulate policies for the management of relationships with each stakeholder grouping. This implies that an organisation has a formalised stakeholder management model or system in place and that due thought has been given to dealing with each relevant stakeholder. A Good example of this is the difference between working with the Government stakeholder versus the Media Stakeholder. Deadlines for these two stakeholders differ. The Media stakeholder is always on deadline, whilst in Government, decisions go through a consultative process that includes strict use of protocol. Thus you cannot manage these different stakeholders appropriately unless you understand the different rules and nuances of the stakeholder game. It is these types of issues that I also address in my Stakeholder Reputation courses.
  • Section 8..2.2. The board should consider whether it is appropriate to publish its stakeholder policies. Some companies like BHP Billiton have this information in their HSE reports and on their websites. They thus demonstrate their commitment to positive relationships based on trust, openness and transparency.
  • Section 8.2.3. The board should oversee the establishment of mechanisms and processes that support stakeholders in constructive engagement with the company. There are many ways to engage. These methods are influenced by timing, decisionmaking resources and other issues. Again, due thought needs to go into deciding which engagement tools are appropriate and under what circumstances. The use of Facebook and other social media technologies are not by the way just a communication or an IT bandwidth or security issue, but falls right into the domain of engagement.
  • Section 8.2.4. The board should encourage shareholders to attend AGM’s and Section 8.2.5. The board should consider not only formal, but also informal, processes for interaction with the company’s stakeholders are dealt with above.
  • 8.2.6. The board should disclose in its integrated report the nature of the company’s dealings with stakeholders and the outcomes of these dealings.

All these specifications implies that a company will need a formalised stakeholder management system*** in place, in order to comply and adhere to these recommended practices. The Code also goes on to say that the board should take account of the legitimate interests and expectations of its stakeholders in its decision-making in the best interests of the company.

This means having a different set of criteria when making decisions – see my blog post called Which Decision-making Model are you using?.

However adhering to these recommended practices will be far from easy. Traditional company models rely on functional layering, whilst the skills and approach needed to manage a Stakeholder system will necessitate a systemic model, one in which a person will be required to work across departmental boundaries.

Company processes and practices will also offer their own set of restrictions. In my blog posting of 26 March 2008 I asked the question: ‘‘How much are you spending on Stakeholder Relations?.

I had few responses, and those who did, could not tell me how much they were spending on each stakeholder group, nor what the ROI was. This will be a problem in the future, because what we try and do in stakeholder reputation work is to influence perceptions and ultimately affect stakeholder behaviour. Spending money on these relationships are not wasted. Spending money on learning how to maximise these relationships will not be a not a waste.

Planning and managing the Stakeholder function will need to be done systematically and with great strategic insight.

So to conclude to the reader who unsubscribed. In my newsletter I try and raise awareness of these type of issues and topics. Whether you like it or not you will affect your stakeholders and they will in turn affect your reputation.

*** Here is a quick test for you. Can your management team answer the following strategic questions:

  • Who are our stakeholders?
  • What are our stakeholders’ stakes?
  • What opportunities and challenges do stakeholders present?
  • What economic, legal, ethical, and social responsibilities does our organisation have towards our various stakeholders?
  • What strategies or actions should we take to best manage stakeholder challenges and opportunities?
  • Do you have a system for managing relationships with stakeholders?
  • How do you measure results? What metrics do you use to assess and gauge stakeholder relationships?
  • In a crisis how quickly can you communicate with your relevant stakeholders?
  • Do you know the various methods to engage with stakeholders and when not to use it?
  • Can you state how much you are spending on each stakeholder group and what your ROI is?
  • Have you developed a set of rules and practices on how best to manage the process of building stakeholder reputation with each stakeholder group?

If you need more help to understand this, take a look at this site: http://stakeholderreputation.invite43.com

Which Decision-making Model are you using?


When I entered the business world, the flavor of the month decision-making model was the Kepner Tregoe problem solving & decision-making model.

Soon that was replaced by a model from a book, that is if I can remember its name– something like the 1001 things I did not learn at Harvard Business School. And, just when I got my breath back, De Bono came along with his 6 Hats.

And so it went on…De Bono…..to various techniques involving linear and creative thinking methods. Just read Michalko’s Thinkertoys as an example.

In my own consulting experience in reputation management I have found that the MISTRUST that is created in companies or by companies today is a direct cause from a lack of stakeholder understanding and misperceptions that is created when decisions are made. (For more information on this, read this blog’s archives)

Perhaps the following information can add to your decision-making model that you wish to develop. Perhaps you could even develop a model that will grace the charts worldwide (Please quote me…)

This is my theory.

Every decision that an organisation must make has four broad sets of implications. The obvious three sets of implications are operational, financial and legal.

The fourth set of implications is generally ignored, delegated or included in the process only on the basis of the "gut instinct" of one of the participants. This fourth set of implications is reputational.

The reputational implications of a business decision can be defined as those that impact the way in which an organization is regarded by those with whom it interacts, including shareholders, customers and employees, as well as suppliers, government regulators, the media and even competitors (and any other stakeholder).

This fits in well with the ecology model of organisational effectiveness.

The New Collins Concise English Dictionary defines ecology as: "The study of the relationships between living organisms and their environment, the set of relationships of a particular organism with its environment."

This means that the ecology model is concerned with the organisation’s ability to deal with internal and external contingencies, and its ability to manage interrelationships between stakeholders in the context of its environment.

Any organisation is dependent on its stakeholders for support and the strategic importance of any stakeholder depends on how dependent the organisation is upon it. And this relationship can change over a period of time or due to indiscretions. It is thus important to realise that any decision has reputational implications if it has the potential to affect the relationship between the company and any of these stakeholders. In other words, it is difficult to think of a decision that does not have reputational implications.

Reputation, most managers today would agree, is an asset, even if only a perceptual asset (or, if mismanaged, a liability). It certainly is not optional. Every corporation, organization, institution, individual has a reputation. The only option is whether to manage it or allow it to be inferred.

If it is to add value, it should be managed with the same care and attention as any asset. It should be obvious that if a decision has four broad sets of implications, and only three are formally and routinely considered, the potential exists for flawed decision making. After all, the role of a manager is to manage all the assets under his or her control effectively.

It is certainly conceivable that financial considerations are often deemed more important than reputational impact, but even that is not to say that they should not be considered and factored into the process. There is mounting evidence though that as general rule reputational implications is important to sustained corporate success. The scrutiny under which business operates today (Witness the success of investigative TV programs), the amount of information in the hands of consumers and other publics, make reputation a vital asset, and in some industries the most important.

And, interestingly if this was not important, how come it is specifically included in the new recommended King Code 3 of Corporate Governance (Section 8). For more information, go to the website of the Institute of Directors and check it out for yourself.

Unless decisions are scrutinised through a stakeholder lens, problems are due to erupt.

Flawed Decisionmaking is Dangerous


Every decision that an organisation must make has four broad sets of implications. The obvious three sets of implications are operational, financial and legal.

Namely:

  • Is it legal?
  • How much will it cost?
  • Can we implement it?

The fourth set of implications is generally either ignored, delegated or included in the process only on the basis of the "gut instinct" of one of the participants.

This fourth set of implications is reputational.

The reputational implications of a business decision can be defined as those that impact the way in which an organization is regarded by those with whom it interacts, including shareholders, customers and employees, as well as suppliers, government regulators, the media and even competitors (and any other stakeholder).

Any organisation is dependent on its stakeholders for support and the strategic importance of any stakeholder depends on how dependent the organisation is upon it. And this relationship can change over a period of time or due to indiscretions.

It is important to realise that a decision has reputational implications if it has the potential to affect the relationship between the company and any of these stakeholders. In other words, it is difficult to think of a decision that does not have reputational implications.

Reputation, most managers today would agree, is an asset, even if only a perceptual asset (or, if mismanaged, a liability). It certainly is not optional. Every corporation, organization, institution, individual has a reputation. The only option is whether to manage it or allow it to be inferred.

If it is to add value, it should be managed with the same care and attention as any asset. It should be obvious that if a decision has four broad sets of implications, and only three are formally and routinely considered, the potential exists for flawed decision making.

After all, the role of a manager is to manage all the assets under his or her control effectively. Tangibles and Intangibles.

Research has clearly shown that risk increases in patterns of decisionmaking. Those patterns can often easily observed in a boardroom situation. This risk increases when there is a lack of asking these types of questions:

  • Who are our stakeholders? (This is not a given. Stakeholders change position based on interest or need)j0426621
  • What are our stakeholders’ stakes? (Is it legal, moral, economic, public interest or self – interest?)
  • What opportunities and challenges do stakeholders present?
  • What economic, legal, ethical, and social responsibilities does our organisation have?
  • What strategies or actions should we take to best manage stakeholder challenges and opportunities?
  • Do we have a system for managing relationships with stakeholders?
  • How do we measure results? What metrics do we use to assess and gauge stakeholder relationships?
  • In a crisis how quickly can we communicate with our relevant stakeholders?
  • Do we know the various methods to engage with stakeholders and when not to use it?
  • Do we know how much we are spending on each stakeholder group and what the ROI is?
  • Have we developed a set of rules and guidelines on how best to manage the process of building stakeholder reputation with each stakeholder group?

Unless you can answer these questions, you cannot assess the fourth set of implication of a decision, and your decisions will at best remain skewed.

The question I want to ask is whether managers will make certain decisions if they have been sensitised to the answers to these questions?

(To learn the answers to these questions and many more, attend the Stakeholder Reputation Master Class at the Hotel Apollo in Randburg from the 20th – 21st January 2010. Go to http://stakeholderreputation.invite43.com/ or e-mail reputationeducation@icon.co.za for a brochure and registration form)