Managing the Reputation of Communication in Global Corporations and
Business Communication Programs
Christine Uber Grosse
Thunderbird, The Garvin School of International Management
Glendale, AZ
Summer Address:
Christine Uber Grosse
283 Mountain View Rd.
Tinmouth, VT 05773
Mobile: 602-684-6497
Academic Year Address:
5220 E. Cortez St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Mobile: 602-684-6497
Date Sent: June 4, 2005
1
Abstract
This research investigates perceptions of reputation, trust, respect and
autonomy of communication departments within international organizations and
universities. The study focuses on attitudes toward communication within global
businesses with offices in Phoenix, Arizona and business communication
programs in the U.S. and Canada. It compares reputation management
practices among communication professionals in international business and
academia. In the process, the research also looks at how communication
officers and business communication faculty evaluate the reputation of
communication in global corporations and academic institutions. The findings will
provide insight into ways to better manage the reputation of communication in
both communities.
The objectives of the study included: 1) understand how communication is
perceived at corporations and universities; 2) gauge the status of communication
through the reporting system; 3) learn how communication adds value to the
organization; 4) discover how business and academia evaluate the effectiveness
of the communication unit; and 5) find ways to communicate its impact to the
internal and external communities.
2
Introduction
This paper investigates how communications professionals in business
and academia manage the reputation of communication in their organizations.
Clearly they come from two different worlds. The first group consists of
communications professionals in companies who work in communications,
marketing, public relations or related fields, while the second group is comprised
of academics who teach business communication at universities. Both worlds
have something meaningful to teach. How business people manage the
reputation of communication in their organizations informs their colleagues who
teach business communication at universities, and vice versa. This study gives
some insight into best practices in reputation management for communication in
global corporations and MBA programs.
Purpose of the study
For decades one of the most pressing questions in the communication
field was how to raise awareness of the value of communications work. In other
words, how could the communication community make others in their
organization appreciate what they did? How could they add value, measure their
contribution, justify their worth, and improve their reputation in the organization
and the business world? It was a topic of great debate at professional
conferences such as the International Association of Business Communicators
(IABC). When it came time to make cuts in companies, frequently the
communications office came under the budgetary ax.
3
In the other world of academia, business communication faculty in MBA
programs often discussed at professional meetings such as the Association of
Business Communication their lower status, pay, lack of recognition, and low
awareness of what they contributed to MBA programs or the university.
Reputation management has long been an issue of importance to that
constituency as well.
The purpose of this study was to look at how the two groups dealt with
reputation management in order to gain ideas from each about strategies to
tackle the problem. Ultimately, the information might help communications
professionals to better manage their reputation at companies and business
schools.
Reputation Management
According to Bennett and Kottasz (2000), corporate reputation theory had
its origins in the 1950’s when the concept of corporate image emerged. In the
1970’s and 1980’s, it evolved to focus more on corporate identity. A decade
later, the theory developed into its modern form with the increased interest in
brand management and corporate reputation. Argenti (1997) attributes the
growth of interest in reputation management partially to the success in crisis
management.
Bennett and Rentschler (2003) define reputation as “a concept related to
image, but one that refers to value judgments among the public about an
organization’s qualities, formed over a long period, regarding its consistency,
trustworthiness and reliability.” A company’s image can affect its credibility and
4
effectiveness in reaching key internal and external audiences such as clients,
employees, and the media. According to Jacobs (1999), “career success may
depend as much on how others perceive you as on your abilities.” Internal
factors that affect a company’s reputation include its ability to communicate,
transparency, human values, treatment of employees, ability to innovate, CEO’s
reputation, adaptability to change, and handling of social and environmental
issues. Among the external forces that impact corporate reputation are
customers, print and broadcast media, financial analysts, shareholders, industry
analysts, regulators and government (Lines, 2003). Marken (2002) defined
reputation as assets that included “quality of products and services, ability to
innovate, value as long-term investment, financial stability, ability to attract,
develop, retain talent; use of corporate assets, and quality of management.”
Marken (2004) believed that reputation was built and managed on small
daily actions. He explained, “ a reputation is built with each phone call, each
email, each release, each decision and each action.” Genasi (2001) also warned
against seeing reputation management as anything but day-to-day business and
insisted that “quality of communication has to be supported by quality of action.”
In other words, reputation cannot be spun.
Since the 1990’s research has shown how reputation can be a strategic
resource for a company that can affect its financial performance (Deephouse,
2002). The importance of reputation is also highlighted by the results of a survey
conducted in 2000 by the Association of Insurance and Risk Managers of 250
5
leading companies in the United Kingdom. The participants identified damage to
reputation as the biggest risk to their business (Smith, 2003).
Methodology
To learn how each group managed their reputation, I conducted e-mail
surveys of business communication faculty and communication professionals in
companies. First, I selected target groups in business and academia to survey,
and then developed a questionnaire to administer via e-mail. The corporate
participants in the survey came from the Thunderbird Corporate Communication
Council (TCCC), an advisory board to the business communication program.
The 21 members came from global companies with offices in the Phoenix, AZ
area. The group worked in large, medium-sized and small companies such as
Brodeur International, Cox Communications, Honeywell, Intel, Petsmart, Phelps
Dodge, and USAA.
The university participants were drawn from the ranks of the Managerial
Communication Association. They worked in business schools and MBA
programs at Arizona State University, Florida Atlantic University, New York
University, Thunderbird, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of
Southern California, University of Washington, Western Ontario University, and
Wharton.
The survey itself consisted of five questions, designed to elicit information
related to the five objectives of the survey. These were:

To understand perceptions of communication within the organization

To gauge the reality of communication’s reputation
6

To learn how to add value to the organization

To discover evaluation techniques to measure value added

To find ways to communicate it
The survey instrument was developed with the help of Susan Coffroth,
director of communications and marketing at Thunderbird, The Garvin School of
International Management and past president of the International Association of
Business Communicators (IABC) Phoenix chapter. The survey was first sent by
e-mail to the twenty members of the Thunderbird Corporate Communication
Council, and later to twenty business communication faculty from MBA programs
around the U.S. and Canada. The Thunderbird Corporate Communication
Council (TCCC) consisted of communications officers and business owners from
the Phoenix area. TCCC members advised the Thunderbird business
communication and modern language faculty and shared their expertise at biannual meetings held at Thunderbird. Several served as guest speakers in the
business communications classes.
Eight corporate communications professionals and eleven business
communication faculty responded to the survey. Respondents came from the
following organizations: Brodeur Worldwide, City of Glendale, Honeywell, The
KurCarr Group, Petsmart, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Topete/Stonefield, and
USAA Phoenix Operations.
The business communication faculty who responded to the survey worked
in MBA programs across the U.S. and in Canada. Most faculty were members of
the Management Communication Association. They came from the following
7
institutions: Arizona State University, Florida Atlantic University, New York
University, Thunderbird, The Garvin School of International Management, Tulane
University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of
Pennsylvania-Wharton School, University of Southern California, University of
Washington, and the University of Western Ontario. The survey instrument
appears in Appendix A.
The survey was first developed for the corporate side. When the eight
responses were received, the results were compiled anonymously and sent to
the respondents for review. Preliminary results of the survey were presented at
the MCA meeting in spring 2004 in New Orleans. After that, a parallel
questionnaire was prepared for the academic group. Nine people responded.
Again the results were compiled and sent out to participants for their information
and review. Subsequently, survey results were presented at the ABC Conference
in Cambridge, MA in fall, 2004.
Research Questions
The five research questions for each survey are shown below. The first in each
group appeared in the business survey, while the second went in the academic
questionnaire.
1) Perception


How are communication and marketing professionals perceived in
your company by your clients?
How are business writing/communication professors perceived at
your university? What reputation do they have?
2) Reality
8


Whom does marketing & communication report to in your
organization?
To whom do you report at your university
3) Value Added


How does your department add value to the company? If you
own your own business, how does your company add value to
the client?
How does the business writing/ communication program add
value to the university and students?
4) Evaluation


How do you measure the value of your
communication/marketing efforts?
How do you measure the value of your teaching to your
students and university?
5) Communication


How do you convey the importance of your work to your associates
and clients?
How do you convey the importance of teaching business
communication to your colleagues and students?
Results
Perception


How are communication and marketing professionals perceived in
your company by your clients?
How are business writing/communication professors perceived at
your university? What reputation do they have?
The responses from the corporate side varied greatly and showed the wide range
of perceptions of communication within an organization. Generally speaking,
respondents acknowledged the belief that during hard times, marketing and
communications often faced the budget ax. Many also believed that the
President or Chief Executive Officer’s attitude toward communications generally
9
set the tone for the company. However, individual attitudes could vary. Within a
company, some people might be very receptive of communications professionals
and their work. Others think that the communications people are not needed,
and that their work adds no real value. Still others within an organization think
that they have the skills themselves, and that they can do the work of the
communications people.
Perceptions also depended on the type of organization. At a progressive,
high tech organization communication would typically be held in high regard and
receive executive level attention. In contrast, old school companies tended to
view communications professionals as glorified administrative assistants or low
level marketing support.
Others replied that communications was perceived as necessary within
the company, even though people did not always fully understand its role or how
it could provide value. Communications was usually seen as helping to avoid
negatives and keeping audiences from being dissatisfied with the company.
However, it was not usually seen as helping the company to seek positive
positioning and greater visibility.
In academia, the same broad range of perceptions existed. Most reported
the perceptions to be mixed. For example, one explained, “the perception varies
widely. Some professors view us as nothing more than a remedial service
function. They think we should drill students on grammar. Others fully
understand, appreciate and support our role. They understand the role of
communication as the means through which knowledge is transmitted and
10
influence is exerted. They appreciate that clear, concise strategically structured
written documents achieve a business objective.”
Several commented that their reputation depended largely on the quality
of the teaching and the faculty themselves. They reported that damage had
been done to the reputation of communication from poor quality instructors. One
explained, “Our department is struggling to overcome a poor reputation caused
by some adjunct faculty members who were not well-received. Our team of
four clinical professors (full-time but not tenure track) is solid and we are
generally well-regarded by our peers and students. But there is a
great deal of variance among our adjunct staff.” This sentiment was reflected in
the comments of another professor, “Our reputation is only as good as our
teaching. In the past, the area group had a rather mixed reputation. We had two
good teachers -- and always two that never worked out. [Teachers A and B] had
very successful careers with good compensation and good reputations. The
other two positions turned over every two or three years.”
Others commented that communications faculty were valued as respected
members of the business school. One reported, “I'm talking from the business
school perspective, not from the Department of Communication Studies. We are
valued as full members of the b-school faculty. Our reputation is excellent and is
based on our teaching successes in the undergraduate, MBA, eMBA, wMBA,
and executive education.” Another wrote, “most faculty recognize we provide an
important service to students.”
11
At the other end of the spectrum, some colleagues reported that their
function was viewed as just remedial. They said that other faculty had little or no
opinion of their work. One said, “I don't know that on the university level anyone
really knows we exist, but at the B school the perceptions vary. I think in general
we aren't considered real faculty—we are clinicals at best, some staff instructors,
and most adjuncts. Some professors value our skills more than others.”
Furthermore, they felt that they were at the bottom of the faculty totem pole with
the lowest salaries. One faculty member reported, “Within our business school,
the business communication lecturers (there are no tenure track positions in that
field) are at the very bottom of the faculty totem pole. We make the lowest
salaries, and have little influence on policy. I'm really not sure of our reputation in
the rest of the university; frankly, I'm guessing we're so low profile no one outside
the business school really is aware of our existence.”
They had little influence on policy. Business communication faculty who
were part of a much larger English department felt that they were perceived as
being on a lower level and secondary to other professors. In their opinion, they
were viewed as “just writing teachers,” rather than real faculty. They were
needed but not highly valued by their institutions. One faculty member wrote, “I
don’t think we are on the radar screen.”
For some the perception is mixed. One wrote “Reputations with our
quantitative colleagues vary, some seek opportunities to link courses and others
having little or no opinion of our work.” Another said, “I don’t think that we are
very highly respected. We are second-class citizens. We get paid well so I can’t
12
complain there. The administration uses us when it’s convenient, like for
accreditation. Otherwise I don’t think they think much about us period.” Still
another faculty member observed, “at the university level, I don't think we are on
the radar screen. However, I think we have a pretty good reputation within the
business school. Although, we are not given the status and respect (or pay) of
tenure-track faculty, I think most faculty recognize that we provide an important
service to the students.”
Reality

Whom does marketing & communication report to in your
organization?
To whom do you report at your university?
To measure the reality of communication’s stature within an organization,
business people look at who they report to. The corporate report varied by the
size of the organization in this survey. These figures may not reflect wider
practice. In a large corporation, typically the communications unit reports to the
senior communication director, the Vice President of sales and marketing, or the
Senior Vice President of Human Resources. In smaller companies or nonprofits, the communications professionals report to the President or senior officer.
One respondent from a large corporation commented, “although not unheard of,
it’s very rare that the communication function reports directly to the president or
CEO.”
To improve reputation, Jacobs (1999) quotes Socrates: “the way to gain a
good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.” She also
recommends that people take the initiative, network outside the immediate area,
13
create opportunities, find a mentor, become more visible in the organization, and
volunteer to help in high-profile projects.
Academics reported to the Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at
the business school, the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies, Writing Program
Director in the English Department, Graduate Division Vice Dean, or Faculty
Director of the MBA program.
Value Added


How does your department add value to the company? If you
own your own business, how does your company add value to
the client?
How does the business writing/ communication program add
value to the university and students?
The communications professionals at companies had a lot to say about how they
added value to the company. Clearly this is something that they must deal with
daily, while the academics typically do not have to justify their existence on such
a regular basis. The company respondents replied that they met the
communications needs of the firm in the following ways: public relations, investor
relations, public affairs and issues management, strategic marketing, competitive
assessment, reputation management, media relations. In addition, respondents
mentioned that they informed customers about programs, services and activities
of the company. They communicated with employees and key external
audiences. The corporate respondents articulated the voice of the brand and
developed key messaging for the company.
One respondent summarized the value added by reiterating that the
communications people “support the business and communicate business goals,
14
objectives and values to various audiences, employees, media, investors,
customers and the community.”
The academics found that they added value to their university largely
through their teaching and the development of communication skills in their
students. They added value to the institution in the following ways. The
communication skills they taught helped students to get better jobs, made them
better leaders, helped students become better strategic thinkers and achieve
academic, personal and job objectives. The communications courses also
helped the university win accreditation. One faculty member responded that the
business communication program gave students the “skills they need to be
competitive such as organization, clarity, critical thinking, conflict and crisis
management and cross-cultural communication.”
Evaluation

How do you measure the value of your communication/marketing efforts?

How do you measure the value of your teaching to your students and
university?
This is perhaps the most difficult question related to communications and
reputation management. One respondent acknowledged that the IABC and other
communications organizations had struggled with this issue for years, but no one
had found a “silver bullet”. She said, “This is what makes our work so difficult
and why when dollars get tight many organizations start cutting the
communication and marketing budgets. This is extremely shortsighted and I
know several organizations that have learned this the hard way.”At the 2004 ABC
15
Conference, Paul Argenti, professor of business communication at Dartmouth
College, referred to this issue as the “holy grail” of communications
professionals, that is finding a way to measure the results of your work and
showing how it adds value to the organization.
A wide variety of measures are used to measure reputation. Some use
actions to do so. Others measure reputation by gauging the “increased
probability of future revenue/profitability streams or consumer experience” or “the
influence of reputation on share values in the aftermath of a crisis” (Sarbutts,
2003). More widely known evaluation systems include the “Most Admired
Companies” lists and rankings of large companies by Fortune magazine and the
Financial Times.
Another familiar example of a reputation management system can be found
on eBay.com. Keser (2003) describes how eBay Inc. uses the Feedback Forum
as a system to measure the trustworthiness of participants in its transactions.
Buyers and sellers rate each other by sending in a comment and a rating. The
Feedback system counts the number of positive and negative ratings, and makes
the comments available in a user’s Feedback Profile. Through this system, the
users can develop and manage their reputation.
One of the respondents explained that the measurement depends on “work
specifics and target audiences, as well as the event, product or service. We
might look at ticket sales of an event, hits on a Web site, are sales up for a new
development.” The measurement depends on what the overall goals are.
16
Various evaluation methods were mentioned such as focus groups, telephone
interviews, coverage in print and electronic media, pulse surveys, employee
satisfaction surveys, attendance at meetings and events, and online sources.
Surveys, one person pointed out, can be expensive, but the can measure
changes in perceptions, attitudes or awareness of an issue, product or service.
Another respondent commented that “we measure more than just column inches,
broadcast time or number of mentions as we did in the past. Now we also look at
story placement, were the quotes accurate, were we well positioned in the
media.”
A communications company representative said her company “attends
industry or competitive events in person or online, and taps into existing
relationships with media and industry analysts to gather more insight and test
competitive positioning.”
Academic evaluation methods depend heavily on student evaluations. But
other techniques were mentioned such as salary and status, alumni surveys,
corporate surveys, exit interviews with students, and unsolicited feedback from
students and professors.
Communication


How do you convey the importance of your work to your associates and
clients?
How do you convey the importance of teaching business communication
to your colleagues and students?
Corporate communication professionals employ several strategies to get
across the value of what they add to the organization. One replied, “we share the
results of our measurements to show them how well we are helping the business
17
to achieve its objectives.” A number of respondents expressed the desire to
have “a seat at the table.” In other words, they want to be a part of the
management team that develops corporate strategy, and not just provide tactical
support. One replied that communications professionals don’t want to be limited
to implementation alone and told “go support what senior management has
decided to do. We must be an important driver in meeting the strategic directions
and goals of the company.”
Several see their role in communications as vital to the success of the
company. As a result, they want to participate in leadership discussions, and
ultimately “have a seat at the table.” Thus, they seek to link communication to the
business goals. Another part of their communication strategy is to pulse the
company and its external audiences. In order to improve quality, they try to
make continuous process improvements. Finally, they communicate the results
of what they do to their internal and external audiences.
One respondent complained that the company sees “our value when they
have a problem with public or the media.” Another explained, “we are dependent
upon public trust and consent to be able to do our work. If trust is betrayed, we’ll
experience delays in project approval, more confrontation with regulatory
authorities, less than maximum success in attracting and retaining top-quality
employees.”
For the academic communicators, it’s not so easy. Traditionally in
academe, you are not supposed to “blow your own horn.” Yet undeniably,
communication is vital to building reputation at a university. It involves letting
18
internal and external audiences know who you are, what you do, how you and
the communication program add value to students, faculty, the organization and
community at large. Communication faculty can also show how they and their
program are linked to the university’s goals.
Yet the reality is quite different. Most respondents lamented “we don’t do
enough of this.” Another said, “I don’t spend the time I should trying to convey
the importance of business communication to faculty—a situation I plan to work
on.” Yet another said, “we don’t actively try to convey this to our colleagues.”
The majority said communication about them or their program was done
informally or indirectly. This is fairly typical in the academic culture which neither
encourages “self promotion” and nor requires the same level of accountability or
measures of value added as the business world. Several respondents gave
examples of the indirect and informal ways of communication. One colleague
said communication about her program was done indirectly through the Dean,
Associate Deans, recruiters and respected publications such as the Wall Street
Journal. Others let others know what they were doing through informal talks or
speaking at departmental meetings when invited by their chairs or deans. One
faculty member explained, “I’ve tried to get to know individual line faculty in my
department (Marketing and International Business) and informally let them know
what I do. Last year for the first time my department chair had me speak at a
department-wide meeting about the teaching model I’ve created to work with our
executive MBA’s. As a preface to that I explained what our field is all about.”
19
Several respondents commented on their efforts to raise awareness within
the business school, community and business communication profession. One
explained, “I focus a great deal on the importance of establishing credibility within
the workplace in order to be successful.” This suggestion applies well to building
reputation within the business school and external community.
Robyn Walker, University of Southern California, developed an annual
communication plan for the Center for Management Communication. The plan
aimed to raise awareness of the center through several initiatives: 1) support
publishing of faculty in magazines and academic journals; 2) connect with alumni
through a speaker service; 3) host conferences; 4) host speakers series on
business communication. This was the only example of an actual written
communication plan among the respondents, but it could be considered a best
practice for academics.
Conclusions
The survey of reputation management in two different worlds found that
communication professionals in education and business have much in common.
Both feel a keen need to improve the perception of the value of their work at their
organizations. Corporate communicators worry about being cut when the
company faces difficult financial times. Business communication faculty are also
concerned about being undervalued at their schools. To enhance reputation,
Lines (2003) recommends a proactive approach. She believes that “because
corporate reputation affects business results, it deserves to be proactively
managed in the same way as any other business activity.”
20
Finally, university faculty could benefit from applying some of the diverse
ways that their colleagues in business use to communicate their value to their
institutions. Communications professionals in companies see their role in
communications as vital to the success of the company. This positive, confident
self image could help position business communication faculty as well. Also,
corporate communicators seek to participate in leadership discussions, set the
strategy rather than merely implement it. They want “a seat at the table.”
University faculty could follow their business colleagues’ lead by becoming more
active in business school administration by developing closer ties with business
colleagues, administrators, and working on committees or in the faculty Senate.
Business communication faculty could work to link their classes and
programs more directly to the business school’s goals. Like their business
colleagues, business communication faculty could pulse the students, alumni,
employers, and other business school faculty about their communication needs.
In order to improve quality, faculty could try to make continuous process
improvements. Finally, faculty could develop strategies or formal communication
plans to help them communicate the results of what they do to their internal and
external audiences. Faculty can try to raise awareness of what they do and the
value added to audiences within the business school, community and business
communication profession.
Business communication faculty can link their goals more closely to the
university’s, become more involved in making strategy decisions, and develop an
annual communication plan. They can actively work on reputation management
21
through open discussion of this important topic. Then they can directly and
formally address the perception, reality, value added, and evaluation processes
necessary to building a positive reputation within the academic and external
communities.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support of John Mathis,
Director of Faculty for conference travel to present preliminary results of this
study at the MCA Conference in May 2004 and final results at the ABC
Conference in October 2004. She thanks Susan Coffroth, former director of
communications and marketing at Thunderbird, The Garvin School of
International Management, for her invaluable assistance with the survey design.
The author appreciates the kind assistance of the survey participants who shared
their knowledge with colleagues. She also appreciates the insightful comments
made by Paul Argenti and Gail Fann Thomas about the presentation at the 2004
ABC conference.
Business participants included Thunderbird Corporate Communication
Council members: Linda Capcara, Brodeur Worldwide; Diana Whittle, City of
Glendale; Cathy Gedvilas, Honeywell; Sally Kur, The KurCarr Group; Paul
Barton, Petsmart; Peter Faur, Phelps Dodge Corporation; Liz Topete-Stonefield,
Topete/Stonefield; and Tara Martin, USAA Phoenix Operations.
Academic participants consisted of: Lynette Austin and Judy Grace,
Arizona State University; Marcy Krugel, Florida Atlantic University; John-David
22
Schramm, Stern School of Business, New York University; William E. King,
Thunderbird, The Garvin School of International Management; Lesley Baker,
Tulane University, Heidi Schulz, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Carl Maugeri, University of Pennsylvania-Wharton
School; Robyn Walker, University of Southern California; Judith Kalitzky,
University of Washington; and Michael Sider, University of Western Ontario.
REFERENCES
Argenti, P. (1997). Dow Corning’s breast implant controversy: Managing
reputation in the face of ‘junk science.’ Corporate Reputation Review, 1 (3), 126131.
Bennett, R. & R. Kottasz. (2000). Practitioner perceptions of corporate reputation:
An empirical investigation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
5 (4) 224-234.
Bennett, R. & R. Rentschler. (2003). Foreword by the guest editors.
Corporate Reputation Review, 6 (3) 207-210.
Deephouse, D. (2002). The term 'Reputation Management': Users, uses and the
trademark tradeoff. Corporate Reputation Review, 5 (1), 9-18.
Genasi, C. (2001). Can you spin a reputation? Business Communicator, 2 (6) 3.
Jacobs, P. (1999). Reputation management. InfoWorld, 21 (4), 97-98.
Keser, C. (2003). Experimental games for the design of reputation
management systems. IBM Systems Journal, 42 (3), 498-506.
Lines, V. L. (2004). Corporate reputation in Asia: Looking beyond bottom-line
performance. Journal of Communication Management, 8 (3), 233-245.
Marken, G.A. (2002). One-minute corporate reputation management.
Public Relations Quarterly, 47 (4), 21-23.
Marken, G.A. (2004). Reputation management starts at home…One day at a
time. Public Relations Quarterly, 49 (2), 35-36.
23
Sarbutts, N. (2003). Can SMEs 'do' CSR? A practitioner's view of the ways
small-and medium-sized enterprises are able to manage reputation through
corporate social responsibility. Journal of Communication Management, 7 (4),
340-347.
Smith, W. (2003). Give yourself a good name. Director, 57 (5), 28.
Appendix A
Respondents replied to an e-mail survey. They were assured that their
responses would be confidential. The questionnaires for the corporate (C ) and
academic (A) participants in the survey consisted of the following questions:
1(C).How are communication and marketing professionals perceived in
your company by your clients?
1(A).How are business writing/communication professors perceived at
your university? What reputation do they have?
2 (C ) Whom does marketing and communication report to in your
organization?
2 (A) To whom do you report at your university?
3 (C) How does your department add value to the company? If you own
your own business, how does your company add value to the client?
3 (A) How does the business writing/communication program add value to
the university and students?
4 (C ) How do you measure the value of your communication/marketing
efforts?
4 (A) How do you measure the value of your teaching to your students and
university?
24
5 (C ) How do you convey the importance of your work to your associates
and clients?
5 (A) How do you convey the importance of teaching business
communication to your colleagues and students?
25