Corporate Reputation Review
Volume 10 Number 4
Reputation Beyond the Rankings:
A Conceptual Framework for
Business School Research
Deborah Vidaver-Cohen
Department of Management and International Business, College of Business
Administration, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA
ABSTRACT
Despite the global explosion of the business
school rankings industry, the validity of current
ranking systems and league tables as credible
measures of business school reputation has been
questioned by scholars, accreditation agencies
and consumers worldwide. Critics have begun
calling for more substantive assessments of
educational quality and more meaningful,
theory-driven strategies for studying reputation
in the business school context. This paper responds to these critiques, introducing a conceptual model of business school reputation that
applies recent advances in reputation theory
and research to the specifics of the business
school setting. The literature anchoring the
model is reviewed, the variables in the model
are introduced and theoretical propositions suggested. The paper concludes with discussion of
the model’s practical implications, an analysis
of limitations and suggestions for future research.
Corporate Reputation Review (2007) 10, 278–304.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550055
business school reputation; business schools; reputation; theory; conceptual model;
rankings
KEYWORDS:
INTRODUCTION
Corporate Reputation Review,
Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 278–304
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd,
1363-3589 $30.00
278
As economic globalization becomes a salient
feature of today’s institutional landscape,
business schools have attained new status in
www.palgrave-journals.com/crr
the field of higher education worldwide. In
response to this trend, the practice of ranking business programs has burgeoned into an
international phenomenon and the study of
business school reputation has captured the
attention of scholars across the management
disciplines.
With few exceptions, most research on
the topic has accepted popular media rankings of business programs as sufficiently reliable and valid anchors for building theory
and drawing conclusions about managing
business school reputation. Yet despite the
global explosion of the rankings industry, and
the fact that rankings have become an inescapable proxy for business school reputation
in many circles, the validity of current ranking systems and league tables as credible
measures of reputation has been soundly
criticized by educators, scholars, accreditation agencies and business school consumers
alike (see AACSB, 2005; Corley and Gioia,
2000; Cornelissen and Thorpe, 2002; De
Angelo et al., 2005; Devinney et al., 2006,
2007; Dichev, 1999; Elsbach and Kramer,
1996; Gioia and Corley, 2002; Martins, 2005;
Policano, 2005, 2007; Trank and Rynes,
2003; UNESCO-CEPES, 2004; Schatz,
1993; Spender, 2006; Zimmerman, 2001).
Detractors increasingly challenge the
value, methodology and objectivity of these
rankings – calling for more substantive
assessments of educational quality and more
meaningful, theory-driven strategies for
Vidaver-Cohen
studying business school reputation. Educators and accreditation agencies have expressed particular concern that over-reliance
on rankings to measure business school reputation has driven administrators to focus on
improving rankings performance rather than
strengthening the educational quality of
their programs or attempting to meet the
needs of their constituents (Policano, 2005,
2007). Scholars have noted the inadequacy
of rankings as valid measures of the reputation construct – characterizing them as ‘noisy
signals’ that interfere with accurate assessments of organizational quality (Dichev,
1999). And consumers have commented
that the range of strategies used by various
media sources to establish a school’s rankings
position generates considerable confusion
not only for students but for career counselors and employers of business graduates as
well (Quacquarelli, 2007). Today, some of the
world’s most respected business programs
now refuse to participate in ranking surveys
due to their questionable methodology. As
Dean Pat Harker of the Wharton School
reports:
There is a very strong consensus… that
the ranking methodologies are severely
flawed. Some people who agree with that
also ask, ‘if the rankings help us, who cares
if they are flawed or give only a limited
view of the school?’ But we can’t have it
both ways. We either endorse a defective,
inconsistent practice, or we speak out, offer better alternatives for information, and
work with the media to enable them to
report with more useful, objective data
(Harker, enewsline 3 (4): 3 5/2004).
The conceptual model of business school
reputation introduced here seeks to offer
such an alternative, applying recent advances in reputation theory and research to the
specifics of the business school context. In
addition to addressing the need for better
ways to conceptualize and measure business
school reputation, this paper contributes to
the literature in several other ways. It responds to demands for more focused efforts
to apply management knowledge in the
public sector (Kelman, 2005), as well as to
the call for more serious academic research
on the nature of the business school as a
global social institution (Starkey and Tempest, 2005). The paper also advances the
reputation literature specifically – extending
reputation theory beyond the corporate
arena where it is most commonly applied
and suggesting a framework for examining
how and why organizational reputation assessments vary across constituencies.
I begin by reviewing recent advances in
the reputation literature and provide an
overview of current issues in the study of
business school reputation. The variables in
the model are introduced and several theoretical propositions suggested. The paper
concludes with discussion of the model’s
practical implications, an analysis of limitations and suggestions for future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
As the study of organizational reputation has
evolved, scholars have made important contributions toward defining and operationalizing the reputation construct (see Barnett
et al., 2006). A thorough review of this rich
and growing literature is beyond the scope
of this paper and discussion is restricted to
several recent contributions applied to the
model developed here. The emerging literature on business school reputation is also
reviewed and several concerns identified that
remain to be addressed.
What is Reputation?
Although some definitional issues continue
to be debated in the literature, scholars agree
that rather than existing as an inherent property of organizations, reputation is a perceptual phenomenon – emerging from
observers’ collective judgments about an organization based on assessment of the organization’s performance over time in areas
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Corporate Reputation Review
279
Conceptual Framework for Business School Research
observers deem important (see review in
Barnett et al., 2006). Research has shown
that reputation is also contingency-based: An
organization’s reputation may vary across
stakeholder groups depending on the degree
to which each group perceives the organization fulfills its unique expectations (Bromley,
2002). And it may vary as a function of institutional forces that generate different
norms and values over time and across cultural environments (Schweizer and Wijnberg,
1999; Vidaver-Cohen, 2007a).
A good reputation is considered by academics and business professionals alike to be
one of the most valuable intangible assets
an organization can possess – reducing
stakeholder uncertainty about future organizational performance, strengthening competitive advantage, contributing to public
confidence and creating value by maximizing an organization’s ability to receive a
premium for product or services. Organizational efforts to build reputation with specific constituencies can produce desirable
stakeholder-based outcomes as well – motivating consumers to buy company’s products, attracting high quality employees,
encouraging outside investors, earning praise
of local communities and helping to retain
essential transaction partners such as suppliers and distributors (Fombrun, 1996). An
organization’s ability to sustain a strong reputation over time builds ‘reputational capital’
that can protect the organization from failure
in times of crisis or threat (Jackson, 2004).
Conversely, research has shown that reputational damage can seriously jeopardize an
organization’s short-term success as well as
its long-term survival (Alsop, 2004).
Several advances have been made in
recent years to theoretically refine the reputation construct and extend reputation theory in new directions. Rindova et al. (2005:
1035) empirically demonstrate two distinct
dimensions of reputation in their research.
The first relates to perceived quality, capturing
‘the degree to which stakeholders evaluate
280
Corporate Reputation Review
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
an organization positively on a specific attribute, such as ability to produce quality
products’. The second pertains to prominence,
determined by ‘the degree to which an
organization receives large-scale collective
recognition in its organizational field’.
Further clarification has been provided by
other scholars who distinguish reputation
from the related constructs of image, identity,
asset and legitimacy. For example, Barnett
et al. (2006) propose that reputation is an
evaluative assessment of an organization –
emerging from observers’ awareness of an organization’s key characteristics (identity), as
communicated by organizational actors in an
effort to shape observer impressions (image).
Cumulative positive assessments over time
yield reputational capital – a valuable intangible asset that enhances an organization’s competitive standing relative to others in its field.
Advancing Reputation Measurement
A number of useful contributions have been
made in the last several years toward improving reputation measurement (see Helm,
2005, Money and Hillenbrand, 2006). A recent international construct-validation study
conducted by the Reputation Institute (RI)
has made particularly important progress in
this area – demonstrating that the reputation
construct can be ‘reflectively’ operationalized
by assessing the degree of admiration/respect,
trust and good feeling observers experience for
the target, as well as their perception of the
target’s level of overall public esteem.1
In the process of constructing reflective
measures, researchers identify a set of theoretically derived indicators to directly represent or ‘reflect’ a particular construct. These
indicators are highly correlated such that ‘an
increase in one…is accompanied by increases [in the others]’ (Helm, 2005: 97). The use
of a direct reflective measure to operationalize reputation departs from the indirect
or ‘formative’ approaches commonly used
in many ranking studies. In formative
approaches, organizational variables assumed
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vidaver-Cohen
Governance Procedures, Citizenship Activities, Workplace Climate and Approach to
Innovation. Each is captured through a set
of ‘reputational attributes’ to operationalize
each predictor (see Figure 1).
The RepTrak framework resulting from
this research has been used successfully to
study reputation in hundreds of companies
worldwide and has recently been adopted by
Forbes Magazine in its annual review of the
World’s Most Respected Companies. Although
the RI study identified 23 reputational
attributes for the seven predictors in the
to enhance reputation are considered proxies
for the reputation construct rather than
independent predictors on their own. In the
RI study, such variables are clearly designated as predictors or ‘drivers’ of reputation
assessments, thereby addressing a common
criticism that many reputation measures fail
to clearly distinguish between strategic reputation antecedents and perceptual outcomes
(see Money and Hillenbrand, 2006). The
predictors identified by RI researchers include Organizational Performance, Product/
Service Quality, Leadership Practices,
Err_1
PDOffe rs high quality
products and services
Err_2
PDGood value for
the money
Err_3
PD Stands behind its products
and services
Err_ 4
PD Meets customer needs
Err_ 5
Inn Is an innovative
company
Err_ 6
Inn Generally firs t
to market
Err_ 7
Inn Adapts quickly
to change
Err_8
WP Rewards its
employees fairly
Err_9
and well-being of its employees
Err_ 10
WP Offe rs equal opportunities
in the wo rkplace
Err_ 11
Gov Open and transparent
e1
.93
.89
Products
.93
.92
.96
e2
WP Concern for the health
.92
Innovation
.92
.94
.93
e3
.95
Wo rkplace
.96
.97
.96
.88
.94
Good Feeling
About
e8
Confidence
e9
Admire and
Respect
e10
e4
.93
Err_ 12
Gov Behaves ethically
Err_ 13
Gov Is fair in the way it
does business
Err_ 14
Citiz Acts responsibly to
protect the environment
Err_ 15
Citiz Has a positive influence
on society
Governance
.99
.95
.95
RepTrak™
Reputa
Index
Err_ 17
L Is a well organized
company
Err_18
L Has a strong and
appealing leader
Err_19
WP Has excellent
managers
.95
Err_ 20
L Has a clear vision fo r
its future
.91
Err_21
Perf Is a profitable company
Err_22
Perf Delivers good
financial results
Err_23
Perf Shows strong
prospects for future growth
.96
.98
Citizenship
.92
.94
Err_16
.96
e5
.95
Citiz Supports good causes
RepTrak™
Pulse
Overall
Reputation
.95
e6
e11
.97
.94
Leadership
.93
.83
.89
e7
Performance
.95
.93
Figure 1: RepTrak model of organizational reputation – confirmatory factor analysis (C) 2006
Reputation Institute
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Corporate Reputation Review
281
Conceptual Framework for Business School Research
model (see left side of Figure 1), they note
that any number of attributes may be salient,
depending on the type of organization studied or the stakeholder group considered
(Fombrun, 2006).
To date, RepTrak has been used to study
only customer perceptions. The robustness
and flexibility of the framework, however,
suggest a wide range of research applications
and a wealth of testable hypotheses across a
range of stakeholder groups, making it a
valuable starting point for the conceptual
model of business school reputation introduced here. Moreover, as the framework has
only been used to measure reputation among
private sector firms, applying it to the business school context can significantly expand
its potential.
Business School Reputation
In the study of business school reputation,
unlike other areas of organizational science,
widespread measurement of the construct in
the form of publicly available ranking systems and league tables has preceded the development of theory. Hundreds of measures
now exist to rank schools in countries around
the globe – providing evaluations of overall
quality and identifying areas of unique programmatic competence (see UNESCO-CEPES, 2004).
Both quantitative and qualitative measures
have been used to position a school relative
to its competitors in these ranking systems.
Quantitative criteria include variables
such as faculty research productivity, student
scores on entrance exams, admissions
selectivity, graduate starting salary and job
offers extended. Qualitative criteria include
perceptions of alumni, employers/recruiters,
current and prospective students, and
deans of peer institutions. Most of these
popular league tables combine both qualitative and quantitative criteria, with weights
assigned for each criterion to arrive at a
final ranking for each school (see UNESCOCEPES, 2004).
282
Corporate Reputation Review
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Problems arise when considering such
rankings as valid proxies for business school
reputation since not only do all use different
measures to arrive at a ranked score, but even
within the same publication, ranking criteria
may change yearly, criterion weights are reassigned on a regular basis and virtually no
rationale is given for the weighting structure
(Devinney et al., 2006). In fact, a recent study
demonstrated that if weights were changed
in one well-known ranking measure (US
News and World Report) school position
would change consistently across the sample
(Policano, 2007).The same study also showed
that while differences in raw scores between
the highest and the lowest ranked schools
are virtually negligible, observers perceive a
significant quality difference between
them, based on ranked position. Compounding this problem, the practice of mixing
output criteria, performance criteria,
perceptual criteria and stakeholder groups
within the same index yields serious questions of construct validity, complicates
interpretation and yields only an indirect
measure of the reputation construct (see
Cornelissen and Thorpe, 2002; Devinney
et al., 2006, 2007; Martins, 2005). To truly
advance understanding of business school
reputation, the use of direct measures is
strongly advised (see Morgeson and Nahrgang, 2007).
Yet despite these fundamental methodological problems, ranking tables continue to
be the primary means by which observers
evaluate business school reputation, and they
continue to be used by organizational scholars in their efforts to build theory about how
business school reputations are formed, how
reputation perceptions influence business
school outcomes and how the practice of
measuring a business school’s reputation
helps to define business education as an organizational field (see Wedlin, 2006).
An early critic of business school league
tables observed that methodologies in use by
the popular media ‘would not rate a passing
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vidaver-Cohen
grade in any of the schools that the survey
ranks’ (Schatz, 1993: 16). And in nearly a
decade and a half since the publication of
this critique, apparently little has changed
(Policano, 2007). Several scholars have, however, provided guidance on issues to consider when developing alternative measures
of business school reputation that can move
beyond the rankings. These include improving conceptual clarification of the reputation
construct, measuring reputation directly
rather than by formative proxy indicators
and using a framework for evaluating business school reputation that is consistent with
validated measures of reputation in the private sector (see Cornelissen and Thorpe,
2002; De Angelo et al., 2005; Devinney
et al., 2006, 2007; Policano, 2005, 2007).
Identifying differences in stakeholder expectations for business school performance is
also critical for an accurate assessment of
business school reputation (see Baden-Fuller
et al., 2000; D’Aveni, 1996; Standifird, 2005;
Trieschmann et al., 2000), and accounting
for ways that reputation assessments are
affected by the judgments of influential
third parties can add useful information
as well (Rindova et al., 2005). The model
of business school reputation introduced
in this paper addresses each of these
recommendations.
A MODEL OF BUSINESS SCHOOL
REPUTATION
Unlike ‘formative’ measures of business
school reputation used in most popular
league tables, the present model employs
RepTrak’s ‘reflective’ measurement strategy
(described above) to differentiate between
‘reputation predictors’, related to business
school quality, and ‘reputation judgments’ in
the form of business school reputation
assessments. Accordingly, Business School
Reputation Assessments are conceptualized as:
The level of trust, admiration/respect and good
feeling observers experience for the target school,
as well as their perception of the school’s overall
public esteem.
Building the model around a reflective
operationalization of the reputation construct,
rather than the formative approach employed
in most popular business school ranking systems, not only tackles criticisms of business
school league tables raised above but also
addresses concerns raised by Barnett et al.
(2006) that many general reputation measures fail to articulate whether reputation is
conceptualized as Awareness, Assessment or
Asset. Here, emphasis is clearly placed on
Assessment.
Again following the RepTrak formula, the
current model uses the same set of quality
dimensions as reputation antecedents, each
operationalized by a set of ‘reputational
attributes’ customized for the business school
context. To improve the explanatory precision of the model, mediating and moderating
variables are also proposed.
Mediating variables are those that explain
‘the reasons why’ or ‘the mechanisms through
which’ a predictor influences an outcome
(Frazier et al., 2004). In illustrating the relationship between Business School Quality
Dimensions and Business School Reputation
Assessments, I consider research demonstrating that business school reputation assessments vary across stakeholder groups
depending on the degree to which each
group perceives the school meets its expectations for quality programs, processes and
practices (see Armstrong and Sperry, 1994;
D’Aveni, 1996; Standifird, 2005; Trieschmann
et al., 2000). The mediator Stakeholder Expectations captures the idea that:
Business school reputation assessments are a
function of the degree to which key business
school constituents perceive that a school’s programs, processes, and practices meet their unique
expectations for quality.
Moderating variables are those that alter
the direction or strength of the relationship
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Corporate Reputation Review
283
Conceptual Framework for Business School Research
between two or more variables in a model
(Frazier et al., 2004). Moderators can affect
not only the primary predictor–outcome
relationship but in a process labeled ‘moderated mediation’, they can also alter the
relationship between a predictor and a
mediator or between a mediator and an
outcome (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Building
on the results of recent research on business
school reputation conducted by Rindova
et al. (2005), I propose that Third-Party
Judgments will moderate the relationship
between the mediator Stakeholder Expectations and the outcome Reputation Assessments. As these authors discovered in
their research, reviews of a school by
influential third parties can have considerable impact on stakeholders’ perceptions
of a school’s reputation. I therefore suggest
that:
Regardless of the degree to which business school
stakeholders perceive that a school meets their
personal expectations, their ultimate assessment
of the school’s reputation may be moderated by
the judgments of these third parties.
Constructing the model in this way can
potentially remedy the deficiencies of
other business school reputation measures
currently in use. According to Devinney
et al. (2006: 8–9):
A measure of reputation should be
grounded in a relevant domain. In this
case it would be the ideal model of a
business school. Now, what is ‘ideal’ will
differ across a school’s various stakeholder groups, but it would likely include
aspects of pedagogy, research, service to
the business community, connection with
its parent university, et cetera. The relative
importance of these various aspects of an
ideal business school will be determined
by the needs of stakeholder groups, and
the business model that underpins the
school’s funding.
In addition to providing a framework for
scholarly inquiry, the model can be used by
business school administrators to identify
which particular characteristics of their
school appeal to specific stakeholders and
which third-party judgments about their
school most enhance or interfere with the
school’s efforts to build and maintain its
reputation. Here I review each variable in
the model (see Figure 2) and suggest a series
REPUTATION
PREDICTORS
EXTERNAL
MODERATORS
BUSINESS SCHOOL
QUALITY
DIMENSIONS
THIRD PARTY
JUDGMENTS
PERFORMANCE
REPUTATION
PERCEPTIONS
BUSINESS SCHOOL
REPUTATION
ASSESSMENTS
PRODUCT
TRUST
SERVICE
OBSERVER
MEDIATORS
LEADERSHIP
GOVERNANCE
STAKEHOLDER
EXPECTATIONS
ADMIRATION
GOOD FEELING
PERCEIVED
PUBLIC ESTEEM
WORKPLACE
CITIZENSHIP
INNOVATION
Figure 2: Conceptual model of business school reputation
284
Corporate Reputation Review
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vidaver-Cohen
of theoretical propositions to guide empirical research.
Outcome Variable: Business School
Reputation Assessments
As noted above, using Reptrak to anchor the
present model of business school reputation
responds to the need for direct measures of
the construct and addresses the criticism that
existing measures of business school reputation
lack ‘a transparent link’ to validated reputation
measures used in private sector organizations
(see Devinney et al., 2006). Moreover, by
operationalizing reputation in terms of the
‘emotional appeal’ factors of trust, admiration/
respect and good feeling, RepTrak also captures
the ‘driving force’ behind reputation assessments (Alsop, 2002) that most other business
school reputation measures fail to tap.
RepTrak’s operationalization of the reputation construct also makes a particularly
unique contribution to studying business
school reputation: Unlike other reputation
measures used in popular business school
league tables, RepTrak explicitly considers
stakeholders’ experience of Trust in the target
organization. The omission of ‘trust’ from
other business school reputation measures is
striking in light of the fact that not only is
trust considered by many scholars to be the
fundamental pillar of organizational reputation, but a serious breach of stakeholder trust
can destroy reputation virtually overnight
(Alsop, 2004). Trust has also been found in
an extensive body of private sector research
to be the foundation of organizational commitment – fostering employee motivation,
investor confidence, community support,
and the loyalty of customers and transaction
partners (see Costigan et al., 1998; Dirks
and Ferrin, 2001; Lee and Jamil, 2003,
Schoorman et al., 2007). While the needs of
business school stakeholders vary from those
of corporate constituents, trust can be critical for building and preserving relationships
in the business education context as well (see
Hon and Brunner, 2002). For instance,
students must be able to trust that a school will
effectively prepare its graduates for successful
business practice and that the promises made
in promotional materials will be fulfilled.
Employers hiring these graduates must be
able to trust they can not only perform the
work required but that they will avoid engaging in actions that could embarrass their
employers or harm company stakeholders.
Alumni and the parent university must be
able to trust that the school will preserve the
value of the business degree by maintaining
a commitment to excellence and using resources to fulfill its strategic mission. And
business school faculty must trust the school
to support their goals for collegiality, professional development and intellectual growth.
Research generated by a model that includes
the critical component of trust can therefore
advance the study of business school reputation in an innovative way.
Finally, anchoring the model in the
RepTrak framework also addresses the problem noted above of combining objective and
subjective data or antecedent and outcome
measures in the same index. Unlike reputation measures used in most popular business
school league tables, the model outlined here
clearly differentiates between reputation
antecedents in the form of objective
business school Quality Dimensions and perceptual outcomes in the form of subjective
Reputation Assessments.
Mediating Effects of Stakeholder
Expectations
The term ‘stakeholders’ has become so widely used in both academic and practitioner
circles that many scholars no longer see the
need to define the term. However, advances
in the stakeholder literature that use the literal interpretation of the word ‘stake’ can
facilitate understanding of why organizational constituents formulate reputation
assessments as they do. From this perspective,
a stake is defined as ‘something of value,
some form of capital – human, physical or
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Corporate Reputation Review
285
Conceptual Framework for Business School Research
financial – that is (placed) at risk, either voluntarily or involuntarily’ (Clarkson, 1998: 2).
Organizational ‘stakeholders’ can therefore
be understood as individuals or groups
who incur and/or impose risk in their relationships with the organization. In the
corporate setting for instance, employees,
customers, shareholders, transaction partners
and the local community initially incur
risk from organizational activities as they
invest tangible or intangible capital into
the relationship. However, over time, as
they assess the degree to which the organization has successfully met their expectations
for how these ‘investments’ should be
managed, such assessments can act to impose
risk on the organization if expectations
are not fulfilled. Other stakeholders such
as media, government regulators and
activist groups typically only impose risk
as they make no capital investment in
the firm.
A number of reputation researchers have
found that risk management is at the
heart of building and maintaining strong
organizational reputations (see Fombrun
et al., 2000; Rao, 1994, Scott and Walsham,
2005); thus, a risk-based framework for
conceptualizing stakeholders is particularly
useful for the present model. In the business
school context, stakeholders who can both
incur and impose risk include students,2
alumni, faculty, employers/recruiters, the
parent university and the relevant business
community. Stakeholders who solely impose
risk include external evaluators such as
accreditation agencies and administrators
from other schools, as well as external
scholarly peers.
Studies of university reputation have demonstrated the importance of a multi-stakeholder view in educational settings
(Alessandri et al., 2006) and business school
research has also shown that ‘each group may
value certain specific attributes when determining which schools to admire and respect’
(D’Aveni, 1996: 167). Indeed, beyond a small
286
Corporate Reputation Review
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
subset of the well-established business school
elite, a school’s reputation among its key
stakeholders may vary considerably, depending on the degree to which these different
groups perceive a school has fulfilled, or can
in the future fulfill, their expectations for
quality.
As D’Aveni points out:
Building a high status reputation among
more than one constituency is theoretically possible, but may be very difficult
for two reasons. First, resource limitations
may constrain actions, forcing schools to
select among constituencies. Academics
may judge the status of a school on factors
that the national business community and
students ignore. Students may consider
factors that are unimportant to the national
business community or academics. Therefore, when resources are limited, schools
may have to select investments and strategies that impress one constituency but not
the others (D’Aveni, 1996: 168).
While some overlap among expectations
exists across constituencies, the literature
reviewed throughout this paper suggests
certain overriding considerations unique to
each group, illustrated in Table 1.
Predictor Variables: Business School
Quality Dimensions
As noted above, research on the formation
of business school reputation has demonstrated that reputation assessments derive in
large measure from perceptions of quality
– ‘the degree to which stakeholders evaluate
an organization positively on a specific attribute’ (Rindova et al., 2005: 1035). Table 2
shows how reputational attributes associated
with RepTrak’s Quality Dimensions can be
customized for the business school context.
In the following discussion I examine how
these attributes may predict reputation
assessments differently for various stakeholders in the model.
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vidaver-Cohen
Table 1: Expectations of business school stakeholders
Stakeholder
group
Stakeholder expectations
of a business school
Students
•
•
•
•
•
Alumni
• Networking opportunities
• Service to the business community
• Professional development opportunities
• Preserving value of degree
Employers
•
Faculty
• Research time and resources
• Professional development support
• Achievement recognition and reward
• Stimulating intellectual climate
Business community
• Service to the business community
• Networking opportunities
• Professional development programs
Parent university
• Prestigious, productive faculty
• High performing students
• Strong ties to business/
academic communities
• Strong financial performance
• Competent leadership
External evaluators:
Accreditation agencies/
Administrative peers
• Strong curriculum
• Prestigious, productive faculty
• Effective governance procedures
• Competent Leadership
Scholarly peers
• Prestigious, productive faculty
• Faculty professional service
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Career advancement
Specialized business skills
Professional contacts
Procedural and financial support
High quality, accessible faculty
Competent, trustworthy graduates
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Corporate Reputation Review
287
Conceptual Framework for Business School Research
Table 2: Business school quality dimensions and reputational attributes
Business school quality
dimensions
Reputational attributes
Performance
• Intellectual Performance: Recruits/retains
prestigious faculty, strong record for
research.
• Network Performance: Attracts quality
students, obtains lucrative job placements,
strong alumni/business ties.
• Financial Performance: Strong revenues
from endowments, tuition and value-added
programs
Services
• Effective job placement system
• Specialized skills training
• High quality instruction
• Good value for the money
Products
• Competent graduates
• Stands behind Output
Leadership
• Strong and appealing leaders
• Competent, well organized management
• Clear vision for the future
Governance
• Open and transparent
• Demonstrating ethical behavior
• Fairness in stakeholder transactions
Workplace Climate
• Rewards employees fairly
• Shows concern for employee well-being
• Offers equal opportunities
Citizenship
• Promotes community service
• Supports good causes
• Exerts positive influence on society
Innovation
• Innovative curriculum
• Innovative delivery methods
• Adapts quickly to change
Organizational performance
In private sector organizations, RI researchers have found that Organizational Performance factors predicting reputation assessments
are generally related to economic considerations – profitability, financial results and
288
Corporate Reputation Review
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
growth prospects (Fombrun, 2006). In educational institutions such as the business
school, performance measurement is more
complex. While a school’s financial performance is critical insofar as it enables a school
to accomplish other reputation-building
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vidaver-Cohen
goals, it may be less important in itself than
other aspects of business school performance.
Drawing on the business school reputation
literature reviewed above, I suggest that in
the educational context, reputation-related
performance indicators can be classified into
one of three categories: Intellectual Performance (driven by faculty quality), Network Performance (emphasizing relations with external
constituents), or Financial Performance
(obtaining monetary resources). Typically, all
three are highly correlated and reciprocal: A
school’s ability to attract outstanding faculty
and build strong social networks is generally enhanced by healthy revenue. And
financial rewards consistently accrue to
schools with prestigious faculty and strong
network ties (Antunes et al., 2004; Michael,
2005, Trieschmann et al., 2000). However,
research on business school reputation has
consistently shown that business school
stakeholders place different emphasis on
each performance indicator listed above
(Armstrong and Sperry, 1994, D’Aveni,
1996). I therefore suggest that each will predict reputation assessments differently among
business school constituents, to the degree
performance factors are relevant to meeting
their expectations of a school.
Reputational attributes associated with
Intellectual Performance include: Recruiting and
retaining prestigious faculty, and maintaining a
strong record for research productivity. Faculty
prestige may be assessed by considering
research recognition, journal editorships,
officer positions in professional associations,
research grants received, article citations and
awards for exemplary scholarship. Research
productivity is typically measured by publications (see AACSB, 2003).
As one would intuitively surmise, intellectual performance is consistently shown to
be a strong predictor of business school reputation assessments among external academic stakeholders: Scholarly peers, accreditation
agencies and administrators from other
schools (Argenti, 2000; Armstrong and
Sperry, 1994, D’Aveni, 1996; Dill and Soo,
2005; Rindova et al., 2005; Standifird, 2005).
Indeed as one researcher observes, ‘Individual scholars are the building blocks of academic departments and schools… reflected
in a school’s image of quality and the degree
to which a school is admired by academia’
(D’Aveni, 1996: 164).
Yet, despite the importance of faculty in
building a school’s reputation for quality, few,
if any, reputation studies directly assess
faculty perceptions of their own school’s
reputation. As academics themselves, internal
faculty are likely to share the same values
as their external counterparts and would
therefore consider intellectual performance
more important than the other performance
attributes in the model. However, research
on faculty impressions of their university
experience has shown that although the
‘quality of individual colleagues’ and the
‘intellectual ethos’ of a school are paramount
concerns, faculty perceptions of their institutions typically decline over time as a
function of unremitting job stress and
dissatisfaction with salary and support
(Sorcinelli, 1994). Intellectual performance
may therefore be a less significant predictor
of business school reputation for internal
faculty than for the external academic
audience. Moreover, much to the dismay
of many educators, several studies have
shown that among non-academic stakeholders, a school’s intellectual performance
has very little effect on reputation
assessments (see Armstrong and Sperry,
1994; Morgeson and Nahrgang, 2007). The
following propositions are therefore suggested:
P1a: Among both internal and external academic stakeholders, Intellectual Performance will be a stronger predictor of business
school reputation assessments than
Network Performance or Financial
Performance.
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Corporate Reputation Review
289
Conceptual Framework for Business School Research
P1b: Intellectual Performance will be a weaker
predictor of business school reputation
assessments for internal faculty than for
external academic constituents
P1c: Among students, alumni, employers/
recruiters and members of the business
community, Intellectual Performance will
be a weaker predictor of business school
reputation assessments than Network
performance or Financial performance.
In contrast to the academic audience,
expectations of students, alumni, employers
and members of the business community
revolve around more practical considerations –
students are concerned primarily about career advancement, alumni and members of
the business community value networking
opportunities and professional development,
while employers expect a school to produce
competent, trustworthy graduates, etc (see
Bickerstaffe, 2005). These expectations suggest that Network Performance would be a
significant predictor of business school reputation among these groups. Network performance is defined here as: The effectiveness of a
school’s outreach to external stakeholders who provide sustaining inputs to the school: Prospective
students, alumni, recruiters/employers and members of the business community. Reputational
attributes associated with network performance include a school’s ability to attract high
quality applicants, obtain lucrative job offers
for graduates and build enduring relationships with alumni and members of the business community.
Several studies have demonstrated that admissions selectivity, student GPA and job
placement success are important predictors
of reputation assessment among these stakeholders (Morgeson and Nahrgang, 2007,
Bickerstaffe, 2005, Corley and Gioia, 2000;
Zimmerman, 2001). Also mentioned in
studies of business school reputation is
the strength of a school’s relationships
with alumni and the business community
290
Corporate Reputation Review
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
(Argenti, 2000). Such relationships are critical
to meeting these stakeholders’ expectations
of a school, as well as the expectations of the
student population (Bickerstaffe, 2005; Ivey
and Naude, 2004; Lorange, 2005; Thomas,
2007). Relationships are seen by many scholars as the foundation of organizational reputation (Grunig and Hung, 2002). And
according to Fombrun (1996): ‘To acquire a
reputation that is positive, enduring, and
resilient requires managers to invest heavily
in building and maintaining good relationships with their company’s constituents’
(p. 57). The absence of relationship assessment
in most business school reputation measures
highlights this area as worthy of further
exploration. I therefore suggest that in addition to performance on admissions and placement, a school’s ability to sustain strong
relationships with students, alumni, employers
and the business community will have a more
significant impact on business school reputation assessments for these constituents than
other performance indicators in the model.
P1d: For students, alumni, employers/recruiters
and members of the relevant business community, Network Performance will be a
stronger predictor of business school reputation assessments than Intellectual Performance or Financial Performance.
While both network and intellectual performance contribute significantly to business
school reputation, in the absence of strong
Financial Performance, success in these other
domains may be difficult to sustain. And
although researchers have demonstrated a
consistently strong relationship between
financial performance and business school
reputation (see Michael, 2005; Trieschmann
et al., 2000), high correlations between
financial performance and other performance indicators make the task of identifying
the unique contribution of financial performance to reputation assessments daunting
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vidaver-Cohen
at best. Moreover, examples of highly profitable yet poorly regarded business schools
abound in the ‘diploma mill’ industry,
particularly with the growth of online
degree programs (Spender, 2006).Thus while
a strong financial foundation may be necessary
to meet stakeholder expectations of a school,
strong financial performance is not sufficient
in itself to reliably predict business school
reputation assessments.
P1e: Financial Performance will be significantly related to business school reputation
assessments across stakeholder groups
when Intellectual Performance or Network Performance is strong. When both
are weak, no relationship between Financial Performance and Reputation Assessments will be observed.
Products and services
To study reputation in the corporate sector,
RepTrak operationalizes the Product/Service
dimension as a company’s ability to provide good value for the money, to stand
behind its output and to meet customer
needs. Research on business school reputation and a review of business school ranking
systems shows these ‘output’ factors would
likely be strong reputation predictors for
students, employers, alumni and members of
the business community, as well as for accreditation agencies and the parent university who consider overall quality in their
evaluations of a school (see Argenti, 2000;
D’Aveni, 1996; Devinney et al., 2007;
UNESCO-CEPES, 2004). However, these
factors are less likely to predict reputation
among faculty and scholarly peers who focus
on the intellectual dimensions discussed
above.
According to Trieschmann et al., (2000:
1130): ‘Business schools typically acknowledge at least two constituencies: (1) students
and business practitioners and (2) academics… Within business schools, distinct sub-
cultures…have developed to serve these two
constituencies’. Using March’s (1991) terminology, they label academic stakeholders
‘explorers’ – concerned with intellectual input – and the student/practitioner contingent ‘exploiters’ – concerned with practical
output. Thus while output quality is expected to be particularly important to practitioners it is likely to be one of the least
significant predictors of business school
reputation assessments among faculty and
scholarly peers.
In the preceding discussion of business
school performance, alumni and members of
the business community are grouped with
students and employers into a single practitioner constituency. However, when discussing the Product/Service dimension, the focus
explicitly targets consumers. In the business
school context, two primary consumers
emerge: Students who consume a school’s
service output and employers who consume a
school’s product output in the form of business
graduates hired for their companies.
As discussed above, student motives for
pursuing a business education focus overwhelmingly on issues related to career advancement (Bickerstaffe, 2005, Schleef,
2000). Services that meet this expectation
are therefore likely to predict business school
reputation assessments among students more
significantly than other quality dimensions
of the model. Career advancement attributes
include training in important business skills,
breadth and specialization of programs offered, and perhaps most importantly, an
effective placement system that can insure
lucrative employment upon graduation (see
Bickerstaffe, 2005). Like customers of business firms, students also consider ‘good value
for the money’ a relevant dimension of service quality (Bickerstaffe, 2005; Devinney
et al., 2007; Dhalla and Carayannopoulos,
2006). However, due to numerous types of
financial support available for educational
pursuits and due to the nature of business
education as ‘investment’ in future lucrative
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Corporate Reputation Review
291
Conceptual Framework for Business School Research
‘payback’ (see Badenhausen and Kump,
2003), value is less likely to predict reputation than other attributes in the Service category. Quality of academic instruction and
faculty availability are also considered important to students, but to a considerably
lesser degree (Bickerstaffe, 2005; Morgeson
and Nahrgang, 2007). Thus all service attributes related to facilitating career advancement are expected to be the model’s most
salient reputation predictors among student
stakeholders.
With regard to the other primary consumer group – employers/recruiters – assessments of business school reputation within
this group depend fundamentally on student
competence and integrity displayed reliably
over time (Alsop, 2006, Bickerstaffe, 2005).
The Wall Street Journal (US) and Economic
Intelligence Unit (Global) have identified a key
set of graduate characteristics considered salient to corporate employers. The chart below lists those considered ‘very important’
by 60 per cent or more of each sample:
P2a: Among faculty and scholarly peers, Service
or Product Quality will be weaker predictors
of business school reputation assessments
than other dimensions of the model.
P2b: Among students, the quality of service related to career advancement will be a
stronger predictor of business school reputation assessments than any other dimension of the model.
Wall Street Journal (2006: n=4,125 )
Economist Intelligence (2005: n=225)
89%
87%
86%
84%
83%
75%
73%
67%
82%
81%
77%
70%
67%
66%
61%
60%
Communication, interpersonal skills
Ability to work well within a team
Personal ethics and integrity
Analytical, problem-solving skills
Work ethic
Fit with the corporate culture
Leadership potential
Strategic thinking
Across both groups, employers place a
premium on student integrity, interpersonal
skills, creative thinking and strategic orientation. The degree to which a school’s students
display such qualities is therefore expected
to be a significant predictor of business
school reputation assessments among
employers and recruiters. Differences between
the two data sets may reflect difference in
sample size, survey methods, external events
292
occurring at the time data were collected
and particularly cultural/regional differences.
For instance, the US sample emphasizes
‘teamwork’ factors in a way the global sample
does not and the global sample highlights international knowledge and experience
whereas this characteristic is rated ‘very important’ by only 21 per cent of the US sample (and not included in the chart above).
Further investigation of such discrepancies
would be an intriguing avenue for future
research.
The preceding discussion suggests the
following propositions:
Corporate Reputation Review
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Honesty and integrity
Communication, interpersonal skills
Innovative/open to new ideas
Strategic vision
International knowledge, experience
Market knowledge
Understanding of technology
Functional knowledge
P2c: Among employers, the integrity and competence of students will be a stronger
predictor of business school reputation
assessments than any other dimension of
the model.
Leadership
In a university setting, deans of academic
units must answer to a university administration and must accommodate faculty
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vidaver-Cohen
governance at least to some degree. Business
school leaders therefore lack the same control over a unit’s practices and procedures
than would be true among leaders of private
sector organizations. However, business
school deans do wield considerable influence
on programs and policies (Evans et al., 2006)
– often credited for a school’s success and
more often, held responsible for a school’s
failures (Fee et al., 2005). And the decisions
and actions of business school deans are important determinants of how effectively the
expectations of a school’s constituents will
be fulfilled. Thus the same leadership attributes RepTrak identifies as reputation predictors in corporations – strong and
appealing leaders, competent and well-organized management and clear vision for the
future – would also be relevant in the business school context, insofar as the effects of
a leader’s actions on other areas of business
school quality are visible to a school ’s constituents. Moreover, while few studies of
business school reputation address leadership
issues directly, research on leader effectiveness in business schools has shown the same
attributes important in the business school
context as well (see Green and Spritzer,
2002), suggesting additional new directions
for business school reputation research.
Leadership attributes are likely to be stronger predictors for students, faculty, alumni, the
parent university, the business community and
external evaluators than for external scholarly
peers or employers. These latter stakeholders
experience business school leadership only
indirectly through the outcomes a school can
produce, whereas stakeholders in the former
group are directly affected. And unlike more
stable organizational reputation predictors,
leaders change over time. Thus while leadership attributes may have a strong short-term
impact on business school reputation, over the
long range they may be less influential predictors than other quality dimensions in the
model. While some business school characteristics are stable predictors of reputation (see
Morgeson and Nahrgang, 2007) leadership
most likely is not.
P3a: Leadership attributes will be weaker predictors of reputation in the business school
context than in the corporate context.
P3b: Leadership attributes will be less significant predictors of business school reputation for employers and external scholarly
peers than for other constituents.
P3c: Leadership attributes will be less significant
predictors of business school reputation over
the long term than the short term.
Governance
RepTrak identifies three primary governance
attributes as predictors of reputation among
private sector companies: Transparency, ethical conduct and fairness in transactions with
stakeholders. While other governance issues
are important in terms of overall organizational effectiveness, these three are the ones
empirically demonstrated as drivers of reputation in particular (Fombrun, 2006). All
would be relevant predictors of business
school reputation as well, insofar as stakeholders are either affected by or informed
about a school’s governance procedures.
Typically, internal stakeholders who have
specific governance expectations of a business school (eg students, faculty and the parent university) are most directly affected by
and also most informed about business
school governance issues. Thus when a
school demonstrates the governance attributes noted above, the positive reputational impact is predicted to be stronger for
internal than for external stakeholders.
However, as research in the corporate sector has shown, failure to display these governance attributes can create greater reputational
risk for an organization than failure in any
other area, particularly when systemic ethical
misconduct is involved and spotlighted by
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Corporate Reputation Review
293
Conceptual Framework for Business School Research
the media (Alsop, 2004). Although the negative reputational impact of such a situation
would span all stakeholder groups over the
short term, long-range reputational damage
is more likely among external stakeholders.
External constituents have only publicly
available information on which to base
their assessments of an organization, whereas internal stakeholders are more informed
about steps the organization is taking to
address its problems. A recent example of
widespread cheating in the well-respected
MBA program at Duke University in the
US indicates this may also hold true for
business schools. Whereas Duke students and
faculty considered the case an isolated
incident, public opinion has been less forgiving, calling the incident ‘a black eye’ for
the school’s reputation and questioning
the school’s widely publicized commitment
to ethics and professional responsibility
(Damast, 2007).
Although the impact of governance
failures on reputation in private sector
companies has been studied extensively (see
Schnietz and Epstein, 2005), to date, little
research has been conducted to determine
the impact of such crises on reputation assessments in the business school context.The
following propositions thus constitute a particularly interesting domain for further investigation.
P4a: Governance failure is a stronger predictor
of negative reputation assessments across
all business school stakeholder groups than
failure in any other area.
P4b: Governance failure is a stronger predictor
of long-range negative business school reputation assessments among external stakeholders than among internal stakeholders.
P4c: Effective governance is a stronger predictor
of positive business school reputation assessments among internal stakeholders
than among external stakeholders.
294
Corporate Reputation Review
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Workplace climate
RepTrak correlates three workplace attributes
with corporate reputation: Rewarding employees fairly, showing concern for employee
well being and offering equal opportunity.
Such attributes would clearly be more salient
predictors of organizational reputation for
employees than for other stakeholder groups,
and the same would likely be true for faculty in the business school context.
Ironically, although a school’s ability to
attract and retain high quality faculty is considered a foundation of business school excellence and a strong predictor of reputation
across all business school constituents to a
certain degree (see Argenti, 2000,Verhaegen,
2005) faculty perceptions and expectations
of a school may differ markedly from those
of other stakeholders. For example, a recent
large-sample study of European business
schools revealed significant discrepancies between faculty and administrator perceptions
of the most relevant factors for faculty recruitment and retention. Whereas faculty
considered work climate, achievement recognition, professional development and the
school’s ability to provide a satisfactory
work/family balance to be most salient,
administrators considered these factors considerably less important than institutional
reputation, innovation and other organizational characteristics (Verhaegen, 2005).
Other studies of job satisfaction among university faculty in general have shown that
faculty experience considerable stress, anxiety and ‘burnout’ from the challenges of
balancing publication, teaching and university service, as well as from battling salary
compression and fulfilling the demands of
scholarly associations and members of their
local community (Daly, 2006; Henderson
and Kane, 1991; Norman, 2006).
It is interesting to note that despite the
importance of faculty performance for
building business school reputation, virtually
no research has addressed the relationship between faculty perceptions of their
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vidaver-Cohen
own school’s work climate and the school’s
reputation with other stakeholders. Authors
of the faculty satisfaction studies cited
above conclude that failure to address faculty needs can have serious negative consequences for a school, potentially eroding
effectiveness, competitive position and
reputation over time. Conversely, as studies
in the corporate arena have shown, companies with strong records of employee
satisfaction can reap considerable reputational reward (see Ahmed et al., 2005).
Taken together these observations suggest
the following:
P5a: Workplace Climate attributes will be significantly stronger predictors of business
school reputation assessments for faculty
than for other business school stakeholders.
P5b: Faculty evaluation of Workplace Climate
will be significantly related to assessments
of their own school’s reputation.
P5c: Schools with strong Workplace Climate
evaluations among faculty will show
stronger reputational assessments overall
than schools with weak Workplace
Climate ratings among faculty.
Citizenship
In recent years, citizenship activities have
become increasingly important determinants
of reputation in the corporate sector. Corporate stakeholders worldwide expect companies to practice stewardship of the natural
environment, share their resources with local
communities, and ‘give back’ to society in a
meaningful way. Indeed, most companies
now see strategic citizenship as a clear source
of competitive advantage and research has
demonstrated that a strong record for citizenship can mitigate reputational risk for
companies faced with crisis (Alsop, 2004;
Fombrun et al., 2000; Porter and Kramer,
2006,Vidaver-Cohen and Altman, 2000; Weber-Shandwick, 2006). In the Reptrak measure, citizenship is operationalized by the
degree to which a company demonstrates
environmental responsibility, supports good
causes and exerts a positive influence on society. While the latter two attributes would
be relevant to the business school context,
the first is unlikely to attract the attention
of business school stakeholders, except by
blatant failure. Instead, the degree to which
a school promotes community service among
students and faculty would be a more salient
citizenship indicator. Many business schools
with programs in ‘service learning’ or ‘civic
engagement’ use these programs to promote
their schools with external constituents and
generate support from their local communities (Vidaver-Cohen, 2007b). Research has
also demonstrated a positive impact of service efforts on student learning and relations
with local communities (Lester et al., 2005).
However, despite these findings and
despite the importance of citizenship for
reputation in private firms, a recent Wall
Street Journal recruiter survey showed only
17 per cent of respondents considered
‘commitment to social responsibility’ a very
important characteristic to seek out in a
business school graduate (Alsop, 2006).These
results are paradoxical considering that 86
per cent of the same group considered ‘personal ethics and integrity’ very important
qualities in business graduates and ranked
schools with a large number of such students
at the top of their lists. One explanation for
this discrepancy may be found in the preceding definition of stakeholders as ‘individuals
or groups who are potentially incur risk
from organizational activities’. Unlike corporate stakeholders, who can be directly
harmed by a company’s failure of social responsibility, most business school stakeholders may feel they have little to lose if a school
or its students fail to perform well in this
area. Conversely, they could be greatly
harmed by student failures in the arena of
personal ethics – as recent business school
cheating scandals have shown (Damast, 2007,
McCabe et al., 2006). Citizenship activities
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Corporate Reputation Review
295
Conceptual Framework for Business School Research
are thus expected to be less significant reputation predictors among most business school
constituents than would be the case for
stakeholders of private sector firms, as well
as less significant predictors than other dimensions of the model.
Although this situation may possibly
change over time in response to changing
norms and values in the institutional environment, it is currently expected that only
those stakeholders who are directly affected
by a business school’s citizenship activities
would consider this dimension important in
their reputational assessments. Among external stakeholders this would include members
of the local business community and the
subset of employers who specifically seek out
graduates with a strong record for social
service. Among internal stakeholders, the
strongest effect on reputation assessments
would be expected for the parent university:
Civic engagement on the part of any university unit typically reflects positively on
the school in the view of the local public
(Lester et al., 2005). A strong relationship
between citizenship and reputation assessments among students and faculty would be
expected only to the degree that citizenship
activities reflect individual interests.
P6a: Citizenship activities will be weaker predictors of reputation in the business school
context than in the corporate context.
P6b: Citizenship activities will strongly predict
business school reputation assessments only
among stakeholders who benefit directly
from these activities or who have a personal interest in solving social problems.
Innovation
The RepTrak framework associates three
reputational attributes with the Innovation
dimension in private sector companies: Innovative organization, generally first to market,
and adapts quickly to change. In today’s
dynamic business environment, a company’s
296
Corporate Reputation Review
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
ability to demonstrate these characteristics
may be the difference between failure and
success and may be an important platform
on which to build a strong reputation. According to RI researchers: ‘Innovation is one
of the foundations on which organizations
build competitive advantage. It is therefore
a key platform companies can rely upon to
distinguish themselves from rivals and around
which they develop respect, admiration, and
trust from stakeholders’ (www.ReputationInstitute.com). The highly competitive environment of the business education industry
suggests the same would be true in the business school context, as schools today compete on a global level for top quality faculty,
competent students and business community
support (Pfeffer and Fong, 2002).
Innovation in business education typically involves expanding curriculum and
program offerings to address current business
interests, creating research centers to advance
knowledge in areas of faculty expertise and
introducing new delivery strategies such as
distance learning and joint ventures with
other institutions (AACSB, 2003). Unlike
other dimensions of the model that predict
business school reputation assessments more
strongly for some stakeholder groups than
for others, the case can be made that innovations will have a strong reputational impact
among stakeholders across the board, to the
degree that the innovations implemented
contribute to fulfilling their particular expectations of a school.
However, despite the broad appeal of innovation, scholars warn against adopting
‘trendy’ fads that cannot sustain educational
quality over time. Some of these include excessive investment in distance learning at the
expense of traditional course delivery, replacing Socratic educational methods and basic
skills instruction with a barrage of new technologies, and over-committing to specialized
programs in the latest popular management
techniques without regard for demand
among a school’s relevant population
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vidaver-Cohen
(De Angelo et al., 2005).These cautions yield
the following proposition:
P7: Innovation activities will predict reputational
assessments across all stakeholder groups over
the long term only to the degree that they
enhance educational quality over time.
Moderator Variable: Third-Party
Judgments
Classic theories of social influence suggest
that information about a target provided by
salient reference groups or respected third
parties can alter an individual’s perceptions
of the target (see Merton, 1957). In the same
vein, institutional theorists propose that individual perceptions and actions are frequently affected by normative, cognitive and
regulative forces in the external environment
(see Scott and Meyer, 1994). With regard to
the formation of business school reputation
assessments, these theories suggest that the
way a school is perceived by influential third
parties and the degree to which a school is
‘institutionally’ validated through formal
third-party certification processes (such as accreditation) could potentially alter stakeholders’ expectation-based assessments of a school’s
reputation. The present model of business
school reputation therefore includes ThirdParty Judgments as moderator of the relationship between stakeholder expectations and
business school reputation assessments.
The inclusion of this variable in the model also captures the ‘awareness’ or ‘prominence’
aspect of organizational reputation previously
discussed – ‘The degree to which an organization receives large-scale collective recognition in its organizational field’ (Rindova et al.,
2005: 1035). Elaborating on this aspect,
Rindova and her colleagues suggest that organizational reputation assessments are formed
‘as a result of information exchanges and social influence among various actors interacting in an organizational field’. They explain
that ‘uncertainty about the “true” attributes
of firms is reduced through the exchange of
information’, and that ‘certain actors such as
institutional intermediaries and high-status
actors, have superior ability to access or disseminate information by virtue of their institutional roles or structural positions’
(Rindova et al., 2005: 1033–1034).
In the business school context, they propose that media rankings are one useful way
to represent the perspective of influential third
parties – that ‘by offering “ready-made” evaluations of organizations’ relative standing,
media rankings reduce stakeholders’ need to
evaluate the attributes and quality of an organization directly’ (p. 1038). Other influential
third parties in the business school’s institutional environment include accreditation
agencies, well-known business leaders, scholarly peers and high-status alumni (see Antunes
et al., 2004; Argenti, 2000; Standifird, 2005;
Vidaver-Cohen, 2007b; Urgel, 2007). Secondary school teachers and guidance counselors have also been found to influence
student perceptions of business school reputation (Plank and Chiagouris, 1997).
The extent to which Third-Party Judgments
will alter predicted relationships between a
school’s ability to meet stakeholder expectations and the school’s reputation with these
stakeholders depends on several factors. Because susceptibility to social influence is
stronger among individuals who lack information or experience about a target (Merton,
1957), a strong moderating effect of ThirdParty Judgments is more likely among stakeholders who lack comprehensive information
about or personal experience with a school,
as well as among those who believe they lack
the expertise to make meaningful evaluations
of a school’s quality. Similarly, as shown by
one recent study of instances in which business school stakeholders discount media rankings (Dhalla and Carayannopoulos, 2006), a
weak effect is predicted among those who
demonstrate the opposite tendencies, as well
as among those who have overriding interest
in a school’s unique characteristics such as
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Corporate Reputation Review
297
Conceptual Framework for Business School Research
specialized areas of expertise, demographic
composition or geographical location.
Third-party moderation effects are also
expected to be stakeholder-specific, depending on which reference groups or institutional forces are salient. For example, business
school reputation assessments among students, alumni, employers and members of the
business community are most likely to be
influenced by media rankings and the opinions of business leaders or high status alumni, whereas faculty and external scholarly
peers are more likely to be influenced by
the judgments of other academics.
P8a: The moderating effect of Third-Party Judgments on the relationship between stakeholder expectations and business school
reputation assessments will be stronger
among stakeholders who lack comprehensive information about a school than
among well-informed stakeholders.
P8b: The moderating effect of Third-Party Judgments on the relationship between stakeholder expectations and business school
reputation assessments will be weaker
among stakeholders who are attracted to
the unique characteristics of a school than
among those who are concerned with overall quality and performance.
P8c: The moderating effect of Third-Party Judgments on the relationship between stakeholder expectations and business school
reputation assessments will depend on the
third party’s ‘reference group salience’ to
individual business school constituents.
systems that lack theoretical or empirical
rationale. Second, the model offers a clear
conceptual distinction between business
school reputation predictors and reputation
assessments, a feature most current measures
also lack. Third, by including mediating and
moderating variables, the model adds explanatory richness and predictive precision
absent from these other measures as well.
The formulation of the model is based on
certain assumptions. For example, it assumes
a certain level of portability from the private
sector to the public sector which remains to
be tested empirically. Although many of the
attributes shown to be valid predictors of
corporate reputation intuitively seem appropriate for the business school context, this
assumption may not necessarily hold true
after testing the model in the field. The
model also assumes a certain degree of
‘expectation consistency’ within stakeholder
groups that may not reflect the reality in all
cases. An empirical test of the model would
also be necessary to determine if this assumption holds true. Moreover, the model
assumes that perceptions of quality are ‘primary drivers’ of reputation and that perceptions of prominence are ‘secondary
moderators’ of this relationship. Given that
media rankings, accreditation status and personal recommendations may arguably exert
a stronger impact on evaluations of business
schools than on assessments of other types
of organizations, the model could theoretically be reframed to present ‘prominence
variables’ as primary predictors and ‘quality
variables’ as moderators. Such re-organization offers an interesting opportunity for
further research.
Summary and Assumptions
The model introduced in this paper seeks to
remedy certain deficiencies in existing measures of business school reputation. First, because it is anchored in the theoretically
grounded and empirically validated RepTrak
framework, the model improves upon
approaches used in most popular ranking
298
Corporate Reputation Review
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
LIMITATIONS OF THE MODEL
Although the model makes a number of potentially valuable contributions, it has certain
limitations as well. Addressing these limitations can become a fertile field for future
research. First, the theoretical propositions
suggested above represent only a small selec-
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vidaver-Cohen
tion of possibilities. Future research could
expand on these possibilities with new propositions and testable hypotheses. Second, although the model addresses the ‘assessment’
and ‘awareness’ domains of reputation identified in recent literature reviews, it falls short
of examining how positive reputation assessments may translate into ‘assets’ over time.
Future research could examine which particular stakeholder reputation assessments
generate the most financial, intellectual or
social capital for an individual school and
across the business education industry as a
whole. A third limitation of the model is that
it does not account for differences between
various types of business schools. Research
has shown that stakeholder expectations
vary between public and private schools
(Standifird, 2005), between secular schools
and those with a religious orientation (Evans
et al., 2006), and between schools in different
geographical regions (Bickerstaffe, 2005).
Differences might also be expected between
independent business schools and those affiliated with major universities.Testing hypotheses
about the degree to which these differences
REPUTATION
PREDICTORS
ORGANIZATIONAL
QUALITY
DIMENSIONS
affect stakeholder expectations and their corresponding reputation assessments would be a
particular interesting avenue for research.
An additional limitation of the model is that,
in the interest of parsimony, it does not include
any moderators of the relationship between the
RepTrak Quality Dimensions and Stakeholder
Expectations. Two intriguing moderators suggested in the literature are Institutional Forces
and Organizational Signaling Strategies.
With regard to Institutional Forces, research
conducted in the tradition of institutional
theory has shown that stakeholder expectations for organizational performance are often strongly influenced by forces in the
external social environment (see Scott and
Meyer, 1994). These include prevailing moral values, cultural norms and regulative requirements, as well as commonly accepted
performance standards for organizations in
particular sectors, industries or geographical
regions. Variations in institutional pressures
over time or across different contexts are
likely to affect the type of expectations constituents hold for organizational performance, as well as the degree to which
EXTERNAL
MODERATORS
EXTERNAL
MODERATORS
INSTITUTIONAL
FORCES
THIRD PARTY
JUDGMENTS
PERFORMANCE
PRODUCT
REPUTATION
PERCEPTIONS
ORGANIZATIONAL
REPUTATION
ASSESSMENTS
TRUST
OBSERVER
MEDIATORS
SERVICE
ADMIRATION
LEADERSHIP
STAKEHOLDER
EXPECTATIONS
GOVERNANCE
GOOD FEELING
PERCEIVED
PUBLIC ESTEEM
WORKPLACE
CITIZENSHIP
INNOVATION
INTERNAL
MODERATORS
ASSETS
SIGNALING
STRATEGIES
REPUTATIONAL
CAPITAL
Figure 3: Expanded model of organizational reputation – directions for future research
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Corporate Reputation Review
299
Conceptual Framework for Business School Research
stakeholders emphasize various dimensions
of organizational quality over others (see
Vidaver-Cohen, 2007a,c). A recent study
conducted by Evans et al. (2006) revealed
that institutional forces do have a significant
influence on stakeholder expectations in the
business school context.
Regarding Organizational Signaling Strategies, the way in which business schools
strategically signal intentions and actions
has been shown to influence the extent to
which a school’s stakeholders perceive their
expectations are being met (Dhalla and
Carayannopoulos, 2006). In the business
school setting, communications and visibility
strategies can have a strong impact on stakeholder perceptions and ultimately on assessments of an organization’s reputation (see
Argenti, 2000;Vidaver-Cohen, 2007b).These
additional variables can also advance reputation research in other types of organizations
as well. The expanded model in Figure 3
illustrates these possibilities.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Along with providing a framework for
research on business school reputation,
the model introduced in this paper offers
a template for studying reputation in other
industries as well. In their introduction
to the RepTrak system, RI researchers
emphasize that the system can be customized
for particular types of organizations,
industries and stakeholder groups (Fombrun,
2006). The model described here illustrates
how this goal can be accomplished,
thereby providing a foundation for further
industry-based research. With growing
interest in exploring the notion of
collective industry reputations (see King
et al., 2002), a model that facilitates industryspecific scholarship can make a particularly
useful contribution to the reputation
literature.
Moreover, while reputation scholars routinely note that organizational reputations
vary across stakeholder groups, most accept
300
Corporate Reputation Review
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
this assumption ‘a priori’ without demonstrating explicitly why this is so. By illustrating
how an organization’s ability to meet specific ‘Stakeholder Expectations’ mediates the
relationship between organizational quality
dimensions and organizational reputation assessments, the present model contributes an
additional level of explanatory clarity to
the discussion. And proposing ‘Third-Party
Judgments’ as a moderating variable further
articulates the relationship by advancing
understanding of how reputation perceptions
are formed.
The model also suggests certain practical
applications. As several scholars have pointed
out, dissatisfaction among business educators
with ‘playing the rankings game’ does not
negate the fact that building and maintaining
a strong reputation with key constituents is
central to remaining competitive in the
educational marketplace (Corley and Gioia,
2000; Cornelissen and Thorpe, 2002;
Morgeson and Nahrgang, 2007; Wedlin,
2006). The model introduced here can be
used not only to test hypotheses that advance
reputation scholarship but can also provide
a framework for internal research within a
school that can help improve competitive
standing.
By identifying strengths and weaknesses
in a school’s ability to meet stakeholder
expectations, such research can help educators determine the best way to channel resources toward improvement, depending on
which constituency is most salient to the
school’s unique mission. Moreover, by
highlighting stakeholder-specific reputation
assessments, findings from such research can
be used to market a school’s programs toward
specific stakeholder groups, particularly if a
school has mediocre performance in the
media rankings. According to Devinney
et al. (2006: 21):
There are opportunity costs associated with playing the rankings game if
these costs could be more productively
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vidaver-Cohen
spent on other marketing activities… If
money is spent on managing to the reputation criteria as measured by, say, the
Financial Times instead of the choice
criteria used by potential students (and
faculty and patrons), then money and effort
is misallocated.
The foregoing observation suggests that instead of trying to ‘manage to the rankings’
most schools would be better served by
adopting a strategic approach to reputation
management – positioning themselves on
specific characteristics highly valued by their
own unique constituents. This could include
promoting or developing special areas of
competence or demographic appeal, focusing on regional rather than national or international recognition, offering innovative
learning models, seeking to be a ‘top value’
school, or creating formal alliances with another school that is strong in areas one’s program lacks. Such a ‘stakeholder alignment’
strategy has proven an effective approach to
reputation management in the private sector
(Foley, 2006) and can be useful in the business school context as well. A self-study effort based on the present model can facilitate
these goals. Finally, given that this model
potentially improves on existing measures of
business school reputation used in popular
league tables, commercial applications are
also a possibility.
In the year 2000, several scholars observed
that ‘reputation management in academic
organizations is a relatively under-studied
area of organizational science’ (Corley and
Gioia, 2000: 320). Yet nearly a decade later,
with some notable exceptions cited here, little progress has been made to remedy this
situation. A research agenda such as that outlined in this paper can therefore contribute
to the literature in a useful way. Moreover,
the business school, as a global social institution, has recently confronted a range of legitimacy threats – with criticisms ranging
from mild irrelevance to flagrant moral ir-
responsibility (Boyle, 2004). Studying how
reputation assessments are formed among
specific business school constituent groups
can potentially help the business education
industry as a whole maintain a respected
position in the global educational arena.
NOTES
1 Reputation Institute researchers have chosen the
label ‘esteem’ to represent the ‘overall reputation’
factor depicted in Figure 1. In order to differentiate this indicator, which reflects the observer’s
perception of how the firm is seen by others,
from the ‘admiration/respect’ factor that reflects
the observer’s personal experience with the firm,
I have renamed this factor ‘perceived public
esteem’.
2 Regarding student stakeholders, others note that
current and prospective students have different approaches to measures of business school reputation:
Current students look to these measures ‘to help
validate their choice’ while prospective students
use them ‘to help make the right choice’ (Devinney
et al., 2007: 2). In the present model, the two are
considered as a single stakeholder group since
their expectations of a business school would
be the same.
REFERENCES
AACSB International: Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2003) Eligibility Procedures
and Standards for Business Accreditation, AACSB International: Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business, St. Louis, MO.
AACSB International – The Association to Advance
Collegiate Schools of Business. (2005) The Business
School Rankings Dilemma, AACSB International –
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business, Tampa, FL.
Ahmed, P., Nanda, S. and Schnusenberg, O. (2005) ‘Can
firms do well while doing good?’, Working Paper,
University of North Florida Jacksonville, FL. http://
ssrn.com/abstract=794790.
Alessandri, S.,Yang, S. and Kinsey, D. (2006) ‘An integrative approach to university visual identity and reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review, 9(4), 258–270.
Alsop, R. (2002) ‘Companies’ reputations depend on
service they give customers’, Wall Street Journal, 16
January, 2002, p. B1.
Alsop, R. 2004 The 18 Immutable Laws of Corporate
Reputation, Free Press, New York.
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Corporate Reputation Review
301
Conceptual Framework for Business School Research
Alsop, R. (2006) ‘M.B.A. survey: Something old, something new’, Wall Street Journal, 20 September, 2006;
p. R1.
Antunes, D., Goussevskaia, A. and Thomas, H. (2004)
‘Evaluating business schools in the U.S. and Europe’,
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Reputation, Identity and Competitiveness, Fort Lauderdale,
FL, May 2004.
Argenti, P. (2000) ‘Branding b-schools: Reputation
management for MBA programs’, Corporate Reputation Review, 3(2), 171–178.
Armstrong, J. and Sperry, T. (1994) ‘Business school
prestige – Research versus teaching’, Interfaces, 24(2),
13–43.
Baden-Fuller, C., Ravazzolo, F. and Schweizer,T. (2000)
‘Making and measuring reputations: The research
ranking of European business schools’, Long Range
Planning, 33, 621–650.
Badenhausen, K. and Kump, L. (2003) ‘Despite a shaky
economy, an M.B.A. still pays for itself ’, Forbes, 13
October, 2003. http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/
2003/1013/078.html.
Barnett, M., Jermier, J. and Lafferty, B. (2006) ‘Corporate reputation:The definitional landscape’, Corporate
Reputation Review, 9(1), 26–38.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986) ‘The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
Bickerstaffe, G. (2005) Which MB?, Economist Intelligence Unit, London.
Bromley, D. (2002) ‘Comparing corporate reputations:
League tables, quotients, benchmarks or case studies’,
Corporate Reputation Review, 5(1), 33–50.
Boyle, M. (2004) ‘Walking our talk: Business schools,
legitimacy, and citizenship Mary’, Business and Society, 43(1), 37–48.
Clarkson, M. (1998) The Corporation and its Stakeholders, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Corley, K. and Gioia, D. (2000) ‘The rankings game:
Managing business school reputation’, Corporate
Reputation Review, 3(4), 319–333.
Cornelissen, J. and Thorpe, R. (2002) ‘Measuring a
business school’s reputation: Perspectives, problems
and prospects’, European Management Journal, 20(2),
172–178.
Costigan, R., Ilter, S. and Berman, J. (1998) ‘A multidimensional study of trust in organizations’, Journal
of Managerial Issues, 10(3), 303–318.
D’Aveni, R. (1996) ‘A multiple-constituency, statusbased approach to interorganizational mobility of
faculty and input–output competition among top
business schools’, Organizational Science, 7, 166–189.
302
Corporate Reputation Review
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Daly, C. (2006) ‘Greener pastures: Faculty turnover
intent in urban public universities’, The Journal of
Higher Education, 77(5), 776–803.
Damast, A. (2007) ‘Duke MBAs fail ethics test’, Business
Week, 30 April, 2007.
De Angelo, H., DeAngelo, L. and Zimmerman, J.
(2005) ‘What’s really wrong with U.S. business
schools?’, Working Paper, University of Southern
California. Los Angeles, CA.
Devinney, T., Dowling, G. and Perm-Ajchariyawong, N.
(2006) ‘The MBA rankings game’, Working Paper,
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Devinney, T., Dowling, G. and Perm-Ajchariyawong,
N. (2007) ‘Business Week & the Financial Times
Business schools rankings: Similar but different’,
Working Paper, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, Australia.
Dhalla, R. and Carayannopoulos, S. (2006) ‘Understanding when stakeholders discount reputations’,
Paper presented at 10th Anniversary Conference on
Reputation, Identity and Competitiveness, New
York, NY, May, 2006.
Dichev, I. (1999) ‘How good are business school rankings’, Journal of Business, 72(2), 201–213.
Dill, D. and Soo, M. (2005) ‘Academic quality, league
tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of
university ranking systems’, Higher Education, 49(4),
495–533.
Dirks, K. and Ferrin, D. (2001) ‘The role of trust in
organizational settings’, Organizational Science, 12(4),
450–467.
Elsbach, K. and Kramer, R. (1996) ‘Members’ responses
to organizational identity threats: Encountering and
countering the Business Week rankings’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 442–476.
Evans, J., Trevino, L. and Weaver, G. (2006) ‘Who’s in
the ethics driver’s seat? Factors influencing ethics in
the M.B.A. curriculum’, Academy of Management
Learning and Education, 5(3), 278–293.
Fee, C., Hadlock, C. and Pierce, J. (2005) ‘Business
school rankings and business school deans: A study
of nonprofit governance’, Financial Management,
34(1), 143–166.
Foley, J. (2006) Balance Brand: How to Balance the Stakeholder Forces That Can Make or Break Your Business,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Fombrun, C. (1996) Reputation: Realizing Value from the
Corporate Image, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Fombrun, C.J., Gardberg, N.A. and Barnett, M.L.
(2000) ‘Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk’, Business and
Society Review, 105, 85–106.
Fombrun, C. (2006) ‘The RepTrak system’, Presented
10th Anniversary Conference on Reputation, Image,
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vidaver-Cohen
Identity and Competitiveness, 25–28 May, 2006,
New York, NY.
Frazier, P., Tix, A. and Barron, K. (2004) ‘Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research’, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1),
115–134.
Gioia, D. and Corley, G. (2002) ‘Being good versus
looking good: Business school rankings in US business schools’, Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 1, 107–120.
Green, R. and Spritzer, A. (2002) ‘Deans’ perspectives
on effective business school leadership: A content
analysis is’, Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting,
American Society of Business and Behavioral Sciences,
pp. 133–138.
Grunig, J.E. and Hung, C.F. (2002) ‘The effect of
relationships on reputation and reputation on
relationships: A cognitive, behavioural study’, Paper
presented at the PRSA Educator’s Academy 5th
Annual International, Interdisciplinary Public
Relations Research Conference, Miami, FL.
Harker, P. (2002) ‘We can’t have it both ways’, AACSB
International e-NEWSLINE, 3(4), 3.
Helm, S. (2005) ‘Designing a formative measure for
corporate reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review,
8(2), 95–109.
Henderson, B. and Kane, W. (1991) ‘Caught in the
middle: Faculty and institutional status and quality
in the State Comprehensive Universities’, Higher
Education, 22(4), 339–350.
Hon, L. and Brunner, B. (2002) ‘Measuring public
relationships among students and administrators at
the University of Florida’, Journal of Communication
Management, 6(3), 227–238.
Ivey, J. and Naude, P. (2004) ‘Succeeding in the M.B.A.
marketplace: Identifying the underlying factors’,
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,
26(3), 401–417.
Jackson, K.T. (2004) Building Reputational Capital,
Oxford University Press, New York.
Kelman, S. (2005) ‘Public management needs help!’,
Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 967–969.
King, A., Lenox, M. and Barnett, M. (2002) ‘Strategic
responses to the reputation commons problem’, in
A. Hoffman and M. Ventresca (eds.), Organizations,
Policy and the Natural Environment: Institutional and
Strategic Perspectives, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 393–406.
Lee, B. and Jamil, M. (2003) ‘An empirical study of
organizational commitment: A multi-level approach’,
The Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 4(3),
176–188.
Lester, S., Tomkovick, C., Wells, T., Flunker, L. and
Kickul, J. (2005) ‘Does service learning add value?
Examining the perspectives of multiple stake hold-
ers’, Academy of Management Learning and Education,
4(3), 278–294.
Lorange, P. (2005) ‘Strategy means choice: Also for
today’s business school!’, The Journal of Management
Development, 24(9), 783–791.
March, J.G. (1991) ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science, 2, 71–87.
Martins, L.L. (2005) ‘A model of the effects of
reputational rankings on organizational change’,
Organization Science, 16(6), 701–722.
McCabe, D., Butterfield, D and Trevino, L.
(2006) ‘Academic dishonesty in graduate business
programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action’,
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3),
294–305.
Merton, R.K. (1957) Social Theory and Social Structure,
Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Michael, S. (2005) ‘The cost of excellence: The financial implications of institutional rankings’, The International Journal of Education Management, 19(4/5),
365–383.
Money, K. and Hillenbrand, C. (2006) ‘Beyond reputation measurement: Placing reputation within a
model of value creation by integrating existing
measures into a theoretical framework’, Presented
10th Anniversary Conference on Reputation, Image,
Identity and Competitiveness, 25–28 May, 2006,
New York, NY.
Morgeson, F.P. and Nahrgang, J.D. (2007) ‘Same as it
ever was: Recognizing stability in the Business Week
rankings’, Academy of Management Learning and Education (forthcoming).
Norman, M. (2006) ‘Assessing and addressing faculty
morale: Cultivating consciousness, empathy, and
empowerment’, The Review of Higher Education,
29(3), 347–379.
Pfeffer, J. and Fong, C. (2002) ‘The end of
business schools? Less success than meets the eye’,
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1),
78–95.
Plank, R. and Chiagouris, L. (1997) ‘Perceptions of
quality of higher education: An exploratory study
of high school guidance counselors’, Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, 8(1), 55–67.
Policano, A.J. (2005) ‘What price rankings’, BizEd
(September/October), 26–32.
Policano, A.J. (2007) ‘The ranking game: and the winner is …’, Journal of Management Development, 26(1),
43–48.
Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2006) ‘Strategy & society:
The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility’, Harvard Business Review,
84(12), 78–92, 163.
Quacquarelli, n. (2007) ‘B-School rankings lose their
luster. 19 February, 2007. www.topmba.com/
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Corporate Reputation Review
303
Conceptual Framework for Business School Research
mbanews/news_item/article/b_school_rankings_
lose_their_lustre/.
Rao, H. (1994) ‘The social construction of reputation:
Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival
of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912’, Strategic Management Journal, 15,
29–44.
Reputation Institute (2006) Global RepTrak 200: The
World’s Best Corporate Reputations 2006, Reputation
Institute, New York, NY.
Rindova,V.P., Williamson, I.O., Petkova, A.P. and Server,
J.M 2005 ‘Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents
and consequences of organizational reputation’,
Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1033–1049.
Schatz, M. (1993) ‘What’s wrong with MBA ranking
surveys’, Management Research News, 16, 15–18.
Schleef , D. (2000) ‘“That’s a Good Question!” Exploring motivations for law and business school choice’,
Sociology of Education, 73(3), 155–174.
Schnietz, K. and Epstein, M. (2005) ‘Exploring the
Financial Value of a reputation for corporate social
responsibility during a crisis’, Corporate Reputation
Review, 7(4), 327–345.
Schoorman, F., Mayer, R. and Davis, J. (2007) ‘An
integrative model of organizational trust: Past,
present and future’, Academy of Management Review,
32(2), 344–354.
Schweizer, T.S. and Wijnberg, N.M. (1999) ‘Transferring reputation to the corporation in different cultures: Individuals, collectives, systems and the
strategic management of corporate reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review, 2(3), 249–266.
Scott, R. and Meyer, J. (1994) Institutional Environments
and Organizations., Sage, London.
Scott, S. and Walsham, G. (2005) ‘Reconceptualizing
and managing reputation risk in the knowledge
economy: Toward reputable action’, Organization
Science, 16(3), 308–322.
Sorcinelli, M. (1994) ‘Effective approaches to new
faculty development’, Journal of Counseling and
Development, 72(5), 474–480.
Spender, J.C. (2006) ‘The business of business education in the United States’, http://jcspender.com/
Papers.html, accessed January 15, 2007.
Standifird, S. (2005) ‘Reputation among peer academic institutions: An investigation of the U.S. news and
world report’s rankings’, Corporate Reputation Review,
8(3), 233–244.
Starkey, K. and Tempest, S. (2005) ‘The future of the
business school: Knowledge, challenges and
opportunities’, Human Relations, 58(1), 61–83.
304
Corporate Reputation Review
Vol. 10, 4, 278–304
Thomas, H. (2007) ‘Business school strategy and
the metrics for success’, Journal of Management
Development, 26(1), 33–42.
Trank, C. and Rynes, S. (2003) ‘Who moved our
cheese? Reclaiming professionalism in business
education’, Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 2(2), 189–205.
Trieschmann, J., Dennis, A., Northcraft, G. and
Niemi, A. (2000) ‘Serving multiple constituencies
in business schools: MBA program versus research
performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 43,
1130–1141.
UNESCO-CEPES (2004) Ranking and League Tables
of Universities and Higher Education Institutions-Methodologies and Approaches, European Centre for Higher Education, Bucharest.
Urgel, J. (2007) ‘EQUIS accreditation: Value and
benefits for international business schools’, Journal of
Management Development, 26(1), 73–83.
Verhaegen, P. (2005) ‘Academic talent: Quo vadis? Recruitment and retention of faculty in European business schools’, The Journal of Management Development,
49(9), 807–818.
Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2007a) ‘Industry legitimacy and
organizational reputation: A model of reciprocal
processes’, Paper presented at the Management and
International Business Faculty Research Colloquium, Florida International University, Miami, Fl,
March 2007.
Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2007b) ‘Architectures of
excellence: Building business school reputations
by meeting the ethics challenge’, in R. Giacalone
(ed.), IAP Research Series: Ethics in Practice, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT (forthcoming).
Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2007c) ‘Business school reputation
and professional responsibility: A framework for empirical research’, Working paper, Florida International University, Miami, FL.
Vidaver-Cohen, D. and Altman, B. (2000) ‘Corporate
citizenship in the new millennium: Foundation for
an architecture of excellence’, Business and Society
Review, 105(1), 145–168.
Weber, S. (2006) Safeguarding Reputation, New York,
NY, www.reputationrx.com.
Wedlin, L. (2006) Ranking Business Schools. Forming
Fields, Identities and Boundaries in International Management Education, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Zimmerman, J.L. (2001) ‘Can American business
schools survive?’ Financial Research and Policy, Working Paper, The Bradley Policy Research Centre,
University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
© 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.