27
This article was downloaded by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries] On: 13 November 2014, At: 21:28 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Marketing Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20 Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media Joonas Rokka a , Katariina Karlsson b & Janne Tienari b a Rouen Business School, France b Aalto University School of Business, Finland Published online: 15 Jul 2013. To cite this article: Joonas Rokka, Katariina Karlsson & Janne Tienari (2014) Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media, Journal of Marketing Management, 30:7-8, 802-827, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2013.813577 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.813577 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

  • Upload
    janne

  • View
    240

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

This article was downloaded by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries]On: 13 November 2014, At: 21:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

Balancing acts: Managing employeesand reputation in social mediaJoonas Rokkaa, Katariina Karlssonb & Janne Tienariba Rouen Business School, Franceb Aalto University School of Business, FinlandPublished online: 15 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Joonas Rokka, Katariina Karlsson & Janne Tienari (2014) Balancing acts:Managing employees and reputation in social media, Journal of Marketing Management, 30:7-8,802-827, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2013.813577

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.813577

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

Journal of Marketing Management, 2014Vol. 30, Nos. 7–8, 802–827, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.813577

Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputationin social media

Joonas Rokka,Rouen Business School, FranceKatariina Karlsson, Aalto University School of Business, FinlandJanne Tienari, Aalto University School of Business, Finland

Abstract Although previous studies have shown that social-media platformsoffer companies new ways to gain business value, they have also identifiedfundamental brand-related challenges in social media. The purpose of thispaper is to complement the extant literature by addressing the ways inwhich companies manage their reputation in social media, focusing on therole of employees. We first illustrate how social-media environments amplifythe need for distinct corporate reputation-management practices and, second,how challenges and solutions vary across companies in different sectorsand businesses. We contribute to prior research by conceptualising corporatereputation management in social media as balancing acts, which take place inrelation to different, contradictory, and sometimes paradoxical priorities relatedto branding and managing employees.

Keywords branding; corporate reputation; corporate reputation management;social media; employees

Introduction

Branding – in both practice and philosophy – is facing important challenges due tothe rise of digital and social-media environments that facilitate and enable electronicword-of-mouth (eWOM; Fournier & Avery, 2011; Kozinets, de Valck, Wojnicki, &Wilner, 2010). Although many scholars outline the opportunities and benefits thatonline social platforms and eWOM may offer to companies (Culnan, McHugh, &Zubillaga, 2010; Fournier & Lee, 2009; Gallaugher & Ransbotham, 2010; Kaplan& Haenlein, 2010; Porter, Donthu, MacElroy, & Wydra, 2011; Schau, Muñiz, &Arnould, 2009), critical commentaries have recently stressed that even strong brandsare vulnerable in these new environments due to greater transparency, consumerempowerment, and online activism (P. Aula, 2010; Cova & White, 2010; Fournier& Avery, 2011; Kozinets et al., 2010; Solove, 2007).

Fournier and Avery (2011) present a vision of the ‘open source branding’landscape in which brand-building activities give way to brand protection and where‘brand value is driven by risk, not return’ (p. 1). The authors describe this newbranding scene as increasingly demarcated by the shift to the age of transparency,

© 2013 Westburn Publishers Ltd.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

Rokka et al. Managing employees and reputation in social media 803

the age of criticism, and the age of parody in the contemporary global economy, andargue that there is a growing emphasis on reputation management and reputationrisk assessments in brand management. Kozinets et al. (2010) note a similar shift inpower relations between marketers and consumer networks online, suggesting moreconsumer criticism and resistance towards brands in the form of eWOM. P. Aula(2010), in turn, suggests that social media expand ‘the spectrum of reputation riskand boost risk dynamics’ (p. 45) because, in these dynamic environments, practicallyanybody can search for, publish, and share information about brands, making itimpossible for companies to control all conversations online.

Recent contributions suggest that there is an urgent need for a rapprochementbetween branding and reputation-management perspectives in the context of socialmedia (Fournier & Avery, 2011). In addition, there is a growing interest in therole of corporate reputation, reputation building, and reputation management inorganisations (H.-M. Aula & Tienari, 2011; Balmer, 2001, 2008; Balmer & Greyser,2006; Barnett, Jermier, & Lafferty, 2006; de Chernatony, 1999; Fombrun & VanRiel, 1997; Gotsi & Wilson, 2001a, 2001b). Although social media have receivedincreasing attention in the branding and marketing literature (Cova & White, 2010;Culnan et al., 2010; Fournier & Avery, 2011; Fournier & Lee, 2009; Gallaugher& Ransbotham, 2010; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Kozinets et al., 2010; Porteret al., 2011; Schau et al., 2009), there is a lack of empirical studies and theoreticalelaborations exploring corporate reputation management in the context of socialmedia. As the extant research has primarily focused on exploring how the emergingsocial-media landscape is currently changing brand management (Fournier & Avery,2011; Schau et al., 2009), customer dialogue (Culnan et al., 2010; Fournier & Lee,2009; Gallaugher & Ransbotham, 2010; Porter et al., 2011), or WOM marketingapproaches (e.g. Kozinets et al., 2010), broader issues crucial to corporate reputationmanagement in social media – including the ways organisational members contributeto reputation building – have largely been left unaddressed, although the importanceof these dimensions is recognised (Labrecque, Markos, & Milne, 2011).

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether and how social mediaaffect corporate reputation management in a fashion similar to brand management(Fournier & Avery, 2011). We address this gap in the literature in the followingways. First, we offer empirical insights on a variety of reputation-managementpractices and managerial sense-making regarding social media in three companiesrepresenting different sectors: fast-moving consumer goods (food products), financialservices (banking), and professional services (new media consulting). Second, wetheorise on our explorative empirical study by drawing insights from managementand organisation studies that discuss the crucial role of employees in buildingand developing corporate reputation. Third, we elaborate on the ways in whichcompanies need to be sensitive to social-media challenges in corporate reputationmanagement, and discuss the reasons that underlie the limits of managing employeesin social media.

We contribute to the existing literature by conceptualising how corporatereputation management in social media is essentially a balancing act. Rather thantrying to provide a managerial framework or recommendations about how companiesshould manage their reputation online, our intention is to demonstrate throughempirical cases how managing corporate reputation as a balancing act takes variousforms across sectors depending on the nature of the markets, the business model,and the emergent social-media strategy of the companies in question. This means

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

804 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

that rather than viewing social-media engagement in managing reputation as a merecontinuum from passive to active as ‘mindful adoption’ (Culnan et al., 2010) oras a novel way to embrace opportunities for managing product or brand-relatedrisks (Fournier & Avery, 2011), we argue that organisations would benefit fromunderstanding management in social media as a balancing act related to (andsometimes determined by) the specific configuration of the organisation’s operatingenvironment (customer market and industry), stakeholders, and organisationalpractices. In this space, balancing takes place in relation to different, contradictory,and sometimes paradoxical priorities related to branding and to the ways in whichemployees are encouraged to ‘live the brand’ online (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001b).

The paper is structured as follows. First, we develop an initial theoreticalframework on the basis of corporate reputation and branding, the roles of employeesin building reputation and brands, and reputation and branding in social-mediaenvironments. Second, we outline and justify our methodology together with apresentation of our three case-study companies. Third, we present the findings ofour exploratory empirical study, providing insights into how companies conceiveand make sense of their reputation management in online social networks. Finally,we offer conclusions on the basis of our study, and discuss its implications for futureresearch and managerial practice.

Theoretical framework

Corporate reputation and branding

Although corporate reputation and related concepts have been studied from a numberof perspectives for decades, in recent years the research has gained momentum(Barnett et al., 2006; Fombrun & van Riel, 1997). The approach taken in this articledraws mainly on corporate-reputation research in management and organisationstudies. Whereas in the marketing and branding literature corporate reputation isoften linked with the task of projecting a brand image to consumers via marketingcommunication channels, management and organisation research tends to regardcorporate reputation as something that is always firmly rooted in the organisation’sidentity and culture or ways of working, emphasising that these notions are stronglyrelated to the employees’ experiences in, and of, the organisation (Fombrun & vanRiel, 1997).

Although there is no unified view or meaning for the notion of corporatereputation (Barnett et al., 2006; Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun & van Riel, 1997; Gotsi& Wilson, 2001a), there is general agreement that reputation matters for companies.For instance, having a favourable corporate reputation can enhance an organisation’sfinancial value, influence purchase intentions, and enhance customer and employeeloyalty (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001b), making it important to analyse reputation fromvarious perspectives. It has been asserted that reputation is constantly negotiatedin relation to different company stakeholders – including customers, investors,employees, and society – and therefore companies host multiple reputations (e.g.Barnett et al., 2006). While some scholars regard corporate image and reputation assynonymous, others argue that they are distinct entities.

This paper follows the latter view, adopted by Gotsi and Wilson (2001a), wherethe two concepts are regarded as interrelated, dynamic, and bilateral. This means

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

Rokka et al. Managing employees and reputation in social media 805

that the reputations that the company ‘has’ are continuously influenced both byinteraction with multiple audiences and stakeholders and by all the ways in whichthe company attempts to project its brand image. More specifically, we employ thedefinition presented by Gotsi and Wilson (2001a) depicting corporate reputation as‘a stakeholder’s overall evaluation of a company over time’ (p. 29). This evaluationis based on the stakeholder’s direct experiences with the company, any other formof communication and symbolism that provides information about the firm’s actions,and/or a comparison with the actions of other leading rivals.

Recently, there have been attempts to align the marketing/branding andorganisational perspectives and to offer holistic understandings of corporatereputation (Balmer, 2001, 2008; Balmer & Greyser, 2006; Hatch & Schultz,2003). Balmer and Greyser (2006), for example, suggest ‘corporate marketing’ asan integrative umbrella term for the overall management of corporate identity,corporate brand, corporate communication, and corporate reputation. Hatch andSchultz (2003) propose that the management of corporate vision, culture, and imageare the basic tools for increasing the overall corporate brand visibility and recognitionand also for influencing corporate reputation in the eyes of stakeholders. To conclude,a crucial management challenge lies in managing corporate reputation under a morecomprehensive framework that takes into account all the company’s stakeholdersrather than focusing on its customers.

Employee roles in building reputation and brands

Research on both corporate branding and reputation has recognised the importanceof addressing the ways in which employees and organisational culture play outin effectuating images of the company – both internally and externally (Hatch& Schultz, 2003). Employees reflect their own experience of the organisation tooutsiders when working in different roles in the interface of the internal and externalrealities of the organisation, and they build reputation by delivering the brandpromise to customers (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001b; Hatch & Shultz, 2003; King & Grace,2008; Vallaster & de Chernatony, 2006).

Nevertheless, employee involvement in reputation building tends to be a double-edged sword. A company’s success is often linked with how well their employeeshave internalised the brand and company values (de Chernatony, 1999) and howwell their actions and activities are aligned with the brand promise (e.g. Ind, 2001;Vallaster & de Chernatony, 2006). In the worst-case scenario, employees can actagainst the company as brand ‘saboteurs’ (Ind, 2001; Richards, 2008; Wallace & deChernatony, 2007). This is why management of employees has been acknowledged asa crucial element of corporate-image formation processes (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001b;Hatch & Schultz, 2003; Vallaster & de Chernatony, 2006). The ways in whichemployees are encouraged to commit themselves to the organisation and its goals– through meaningful work practices, healthy work communities, and encouragingincentives and rewards – becomes central to how employees ‘live the brand’ andthus create (or destroy) reputation in their everyday exchanges and social influencewith various stakeholders (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001b). Hatch and Schultz (2003) addto this that in order to forge a strong identification with the organisation, values andsources of desire that attract stakeholders must be expressed and a ‘feeling of sense ofbelongingness’ encouraged in and around the focal organisation. Järventie-Thesleff,Moisander, and Laine (2011) take the argument further and suggest that corporate

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

806 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

branding needs to be understood as a strategic management practice – something thatis ‘done’ in the organisation as a crucial part of its strategy process – rather than amarketing and communications tool. Corporate branding can also be viewed as anexercise in the management of meaning that influences organisational members, forexample by helping them to cope with ambiguities in their interactions with variousstakeholders (Kärreman & Rylander, 2008).

However, considerable disagreement can be found in the literature regardingthe extent to which organisations can direct employee identification and henceestablish a favourable reputation with key stakeholders (van Riel & Balmer, 1997).On the one hand, from the perspective of corporate and internal branding, it hasbeen emphasised that recruiting people with similar values and beliefs supports thebuilding of a strong corporate brand in a natural way (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001b;Hatch & Schultz, 2003; Vallaster & de Chernatony, 2006). It has also been pointedout that establishing policies, guidelines, and systematic practices is important incontrolling employees’ branding-related behaviour (Culnan et al., 2010; Gallaugher& Ransbotham, 2010; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Lee, Hwang, & Lee, 2006; Wyld,2008). In these processes, individual managers act as an integrating force in branding(Vallaster & de Chernatony, 2006).

On the other hand, although a set of core ‘values’, policies, and practices mayform the basis for corporate branding, there are problems in determining the extentto which employees and their identities can be aligned with the projected corporateidentity. The perceptions of employees concerning their company’s central, enduring,and distinctive characteristics (Albert & Whetten, 1985) are likely to vary, and thebrand defined by some players is likely to disrupt the identities and identification ofothers (Land & Taylor, 2011). This may lead to actions that are detrimental to thereputation of the company, not least in the context of social media. Branding canincrease ambiguity among organisational members, rather than help them cope withit (Kärreman & Rylander, 2008). Further, as employees are increasingly encouragedto bring ‘more of themselves’ into the workplace in the name of branding, this canbe viewed as an extended and intensified form of control, which may encouragecounter-actions such as sarcasm and irony (Fleming, 2009). In other words, pressuresto identify with brands and internalise them may lead to elaborate forms of resistance(cf. Alvesson & Willmott, 2002).

Social media, reputation, and employees

Against the backdrop of the complexity of corporate reputation and branding, itis likely that social-media environments pose further challenges for companies inthe form of increasing transparency and consumer empowerment (P. Aula, 2010;Cova & White, 2010; Fournier & Avery, 2011; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Kozinetset al., 2010). It is argued that social media have amplified corporate reputationrisks – that is, the risk of losing one’s reputation – to a new level (P. Aula, 2010;Madden, Fox, Smith, & Vitak, 2007; Solove, 2007). Reputation is considered tobe at stake whenever negative events are triggered (Barnett et al., 2006), such asan unfavourable discussion thread, news feed, or the rapid spread of a viral videovia online consumer-to-consumer networks. However, social-media environmentsalso offer potential benefits for reputation management, for example by providingnew ways to reach different stakeholders directly (Lee et al., 2006; Wyld,2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

Rokka et al. Managing employees and reputation in social media 807

P. Aula (2010) suggests that a company’s reputation is determined in socialmedia by a ‘complex narrative web of meaning’ that is continuously produced inthe interactions and dialogue between social-media users and organisations (seealso Kozinets et al., 2010). It is increasingly difficult to identify boundaries withdifferent media, content, and content-producing stakeholders. According to P. Aula(2010), organisations can either opt to adopt these ‘ambient media’ by participatingproactively in online conversations or by staying in more conventional media.However, they should be aware that reputation risks can emerge anywhere andanytime in the social web of meaning, irrespective of the media strategy chosen.Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), in turn, stress that in addition to deciding which social-media platforms a firm should adopt, particular care should be taken in definingthe groups of employees taking responsibility for social-media actions and activities(and whether or not all employees should have access), and making sure that theirengagement is active, interesting, and, above all, honest.

The challenge of transparency takes various forms in social media. To address this,Fournier and Avery (2011) envision that the future of brand management may liein systematic brand protection and relatively passive reputation management ratherthan in active brand building. Alternatively, companies can adopt a more proactivestrategy. In order to be successful, however, they need to ensure that their brandsare supported by a competent social-media team staffed with Generation-Y Internetusers (so-called digital natives), who can empathise with bloggers and posters and also‘craft authentic stories, hype celebrities, fly under the radar, place content for pick-up, and build buzz’ (Fournier & Avery, 2011). In addition, a successful brand strategyin social media aims for cultural resonance with both customers and employees, andseeks to discover ways to be invited into people’s everyday lives (Fournier & Avery,2011).

Other ways to attempt to control transparency online include creatingorganisational policies, guidelines, and practices for social media in general, as wellas for specific forms of communication such as corporate blogging (Culnan et al.,2010; Gallaugher & Ransbotham, 2010; Wyld, 2008). Lee et al. (2006) foundthat top-down strategies driven by management tend to dominate over strategieswhere employees are given more autonomy. Culnan et al. (2010) propose that inadopting social media as a part of their daily processes, firms should be mindfulof the risks involved. They emphasise that formal rules and systems need to becreated for employees to use in responding to social-media messages and warn thatcompanies invite trouble if they fail to develop policies governing employee use andto monitor what is said about the firm in social media. Indifference and inactivityinvite risks and breed failure. However, too much control may result in inauthenticbrand communication (Fournier & Avery, 2011) and lead to a sense of alienationand resistance among employees (Fleming, 2009). Balancing between control andtrust is hence likely to be a crucial management challenge in the social-mediacontext.

Despite advances in understanding the ways in which consumers react to socialmedia marketing activities, the issue of corporate reputation management has notreceived specific attention in the context of social media, particularly in relationto managing employees. We agree that corporate reputation management is distinctfrom brand management in that it goes beyond the product- or corporate brand-centric view (Hatch & Schultz, 2003, p. 1044) and instead attempts to capturethe management actions that are required to support and enhance an organisation’s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

808 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

Figure 1 Conceptual framework and research questions.

SOCIAL MEDIA

MANAGEMENT REPUTATION

RQ3: How do companies seekto manage their reputationthrough employees?

RQ1: How do companies embracesocial media and engage in onlinecustomer dialogue?

RQ2: How do companies conceivethe role of reputation (andreputation risks) in social media?

Employees‘living the

brand’

corporate reputation in the light of its all stakeholders over time (cf. Gotsi & Wilson,2001a, 2001b). This leads us to consider whether the above-mentioned social-media challenges are changing corporate reputation management in the same wayas they have been argued to change brand management (Fournier & Avery, 2011).We believe that new research perspectives are needed in this regard, and set out toinvestigate how companies coordinate their social-media activities in the organisationand attempt to manage their employees with respect to social media in order tosupport and develop their reputation. Figure 1 summarises our theoretical frameworkand empirical research questions derived from the extant literature.

Method

To explore how companies understand the ways in which employees can build anddestroy corporate reputation in online environments, and how reputation buildingcan be managed therein, we offer case studies in three different business sectors:fast-moving consumer goods (food products), financial services (banking), andprofessional services (new media consulting). Our research approach is qualitative,and it aims to generate first-hand insights by means of in-depth interviews andparticipant observation. Since our objective is to shed light on how managementconceives and deals with corporate-reputation issues in relation to employees andsocial media, the primary empirical materials consist of 25 recorded interviewswith managers (carried out in 2010–2011). The three case companies have engagedin social-media environments by using social media as a branding and reputation-building platform or by observing and analysing online discussions concerning thecompany.

Research design

We employ a qualitative case-study design in order to provide an in-depthand context-sensitive interpretive analysis of the subject matter (Welch, Piekkari,Plakoyiannaki, & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, 2011) and to understand it in its

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

Rokka et al. Managing employees and reputation in social media 809

complexity (Stake, 2005). We use our explorative study as a basis for theorisingon corporate reputation management in relation to social media. As the studiedempirical phenomenon is relatively new, we use our case studies primarily to shedlight on how firms operating in different contextual environments and businessesmake sense of their reputation management activities in the social media inpotentially different ways. This allows us to develop theory from the focal actor’ssubjective experiences and the ways in which they ascribe meaning to their ownbehaviour (Welch et al., 2011).

More specifically, we investigate the managerial sense-making (Watson & Watson,1999; Weick, 1995) that takes place when managers encounter and come to termswith the fact that they are confronted with contradictions, paradoxes, and tensionsregarding reputation management in social media. As Watson and Watson (1999)note, it is increasingly recognised that managerial work cannot be understood asstraightforward professional activity where managers simply ‘apply’ given toolsor management recipes to tackle problems. Instead, they engage in conversations,learning, innovation, and ongoing negotiation that they make sense of and enact inthe organisational and environmental circumstances in which they find themselves(Watson & Watson, 1999; Weick, 1995). Thus, we do not seek to generate causalexplanations from our cases, but rather use their contextual richness to build abetter understanding of the nature of the phenomenon at hand and to grasp ‘thesurroundings associated with phenomena which help to illuminate that phenomena[sic]’ (Cappelli & Shearer, 1991, p. 56). In other words, we use case study asa research design that ‘examines, through the use of a variety of data sources, aphenomenon in its naturalistic context, with the purpose of “confronting” theorywith empirical world’ (Piekkari, Welch, & Paavilainen, 2009, p. 569).

We have selected our case companies because (1) they constitute well-knownand respected brands in their respective sectors and industries; (2) they differ interms of their principal markets, customers, size, and nature of business; (3) theyappear to have different levels of expertise and experience regarding social-mediaenvironments; and (4) they have granted us access to people involved in the day-to-day management of the company and its brand and reputation. We selectedthree Finnish case companies for our study. For reasons of confidentiality, we usepseudonyms to describe them. FOOD represents one of the best-known consumerbrands and one of the largest food-production companies in its domestic market;BANK represents a mid-size firm in the domestic financial-services sector, servingboth private and business customers; and CONSULT is a small start-up companyoffering a range of new media-related consulting services and professional expertiseto businesses. Our aim is to explore and compare these companies closely bymeans of in-depth interviews, participant observation, and informal discussionswith employees. Given that the first author worked continuously with FOOD andCONSULT for more than two years and the second author worked for BANK forseven months, we were able to contextualise the insights from the interviews andgain a more complete and rich understanding of the studied phenomenon as a partof the companies’ day-to-day business. The first author conducted the interviews atFOOD, while the second author carried out the interviews at BANK and CONSULT.The third author acted as an ‘outsider’ to the studied companies. He analysedthe interview data independently and engaged in subsequent discussions with the‘insiders’ (Bartunek & Louis, 1996).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

810 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

Data and analytical process

In each case company, we interviewed top executives and managers, as well as keyparticipants involved in the company branding process (see Table 1). As FOOD issignificantly larger than the two other companies studied, the number of informantsis correspondingly higher. While a saturation point was reached on key themesregarding the management of employees in social media already after a handfulof interviews at BANK and CONSULT, the more complex nature of FOOD’spractices vis-à-vis social media necessitated more informants. All interviews werestructured on the basis of our research questions. Depending on the role of theinterviewee in the company, we allowed flexibility in terms of the outline and courseof discussion. We asked participants to describe relevant examples of situationsthey had encountered in their work regarding managing employees in the social-media context. On average, the interviews lasted one to two hours, and they wererecorded and transcribed verbatim. All researchers read the interview transcriptsand coded recurring themes from the data individually. A triangulation procedurewas then used to verify interpretations and observations and to clarify meaningsbetween researchers (Stake, 2005, p. 454). In this process, the texts produced inthe interviews were read and reread, and key themes within and across cases werecompared for coherence and consistency. Finally, we analysed the transcripts forspecific ways of making sense of actions by individuals and the company in relation toreputation management and common ways of phrasing themes (e.g. categorisations,metaphors).

Table 1 Summary of interviews.

No. Position Organisation Interview date(s)1. CEO BANK 05/20102. HR Director BANK 05/20103. Branch Manager BANK 05/20104. Marketing Manager BANK 05/2010 & 10/20105. Admin. and HR Assistant BANK 05/20106. CEO, Co-Founder CONSULT 04/2010 & 10/20107. Head of R&D, Co-Founder CONSULT 05/20108. Creative Director, Partner CONSULT 04/20109. Communication Manager CONSULT 04/201010. Legal Councillor CONSULT 05/201011. Vice President FOOD 11/2010 & 07/201112. Brand Director FOOD 07/201113. Marketing Director FOOD 12/2010 & 08/201114. Digital Team Leader FOOD 11/2010 & 06/201115. Marketing Communication Manager FOOD 12/2010 & 07/201116. Marketing Communication Manager FOOD 11/201017. Communication Manager FOOD 11/201018. Product Manager FOOD 12/201019. Product Manager FOOD 11/2010

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

Rokka et al. Managing employees and reputation in social media 811

Through triangulation between the three case companies, we sought a diversity ofpoints of view by examining how our interviewees understand the various challengesto their organisation’s reputation in social media, and how they constantly negotiatetheir role as active meaning makers in the process of corporate reputation building.Here, our main objective was to explore the extent to which the reputation-management activities and issues vary depending on the organisation’s internal goalsor are bound to external (contextual, situational, or environmental) factors, on theone hand, and to what extent they can be regarded as consistent across cases, onthe other. We identified and discussed differences and similarities across the cases byagain sorting and classifying interview data into relevant themes and profiles. Finally,we compared each individual interview with the company profile to identify variationand possible internal inconsistency within the cases.

In brief, we adopted a lens of managing employees and reputation in the socialmedia to generate and analyse our empirical materials (Alvesson, 2003). There areother possible readings of our data, and the following account is neither exhaustivenor exclusive. The plausibility of our study is supported by the fact that ourinsights are based on interviews with key company participants (analysed by thethree authors separately and jointly) and also with participant observation inside theorganisations, which helped to verify the themes and storylines that emerged in theinterviews.

Findings

Our managerial interviewees in the three companies share a conviction that corporatereputation affects business performance, although the underlying reasons for this areframed somewhat differently. FOOD regards managing corporate reputation as oneof its key focus areas due to increasing consumer scepticism towards the sector ascrises related to food quality, price, and safety have gained visibility in the media.BANK claims that the company’s reputation forms the foundation of their business,especially in view of recent blows to the credibility of the financial sector. CONSULTplaces emphasis on building a good reputation because demand is growing in itsrapidly developing business environment – new media consulting (digital marketingservices) – and there is an urgent need to differentiate the company brand in thecrowded market.

Similarities in the managerial sense-making of corporate reputation issues in socialmedia can be found across cases, particularly in relation to the ways in whichemployees are perceived to affect reputation through their behaviour online inand out of their professional roles and to how organisational practices such asleadership, internal branding, and recruitment play a role in managing reputationthrough employees. However, several differences between the cases can be identifiedin the form and degree of social-media adoption. BANK is still consideringwhether to engage more fully in online dialogue, and it does not have an officialcompany presence in social media. FOOD and CONSULT use social-media toolsmore systematically, although varying degrees of employee encouragement andempowerment strategies can be observed between the companies. This is in line withCulnan et al. (2010), who point out that retail and IT firms are more active thanfinancial services in adopting social media. We will next turn to the similarities anddifferences in more detail.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

812 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

Companies’ social-media presence

Our interviews indicate that in BANK, the discussion regarding social media is stillstrongly characterised by the question of whether the company should have an‘official presence’ there. The fact that many of the company’s employees have privateprofiles in social-media sites was not considered important from a management pointof view, although some possible risks and benefits were identified:

I don’t even know how many of our employees are Facebook users, but I believethat there are many. You have to see it as an opportunity in that they representBANK there with dignity. I guess positive messages are good. However, it is alsoeffective in other types of communication. (Interviewee 1, BANK)

Moreover, all our interviewees at BANK said that they do not use social mediafrequently, even if most of them do have a profile in Facebook. Overall, the responseswere characterised by scepticism and caution:

I am in Facebook, but maybe I am a sort of ‘old school’ person in the sense thatprivacy issues are important to me. It is the main reason why I use Facebook solittle. I’ve seen how people write there . . . it is a place where you can share yourentire life with the rest of the world. (Interviewee 5, BANK)

In contrast, FOOD’s online presence is active across several social-media platformsof which Facebook has been the most important thus far. The company reachesnearly 200,000 consumers through their Facebook fan pages alone. In addition,Twitter, YouTube, Wikipedia, and collaboration with relevant bloggers are consideredimportant social-media channels. The company online presence is systematicallymanaged by a digital marketing team responsible for developing online customerdialogue and for providing support and help for all company employees in social-media activities. According to our interviewees, the company’s strategy is to embracesocial media openly and actively.

Finally, the new media professionals at CONSULT regard social media as one ofthe main reputation-building channels for their expertise in new media. Accordingto the participants, the company blog maintained and regularly updated by all ofthe employees is the key forum, complemented by active Facebook, Twitter, andLinkedIn accounts. In these groups, the company has several thousand followers.Overall, employees are considered avid social-media users in their private life as well:

We have our own blog, Facebook, and Twitter accounts . . . I mostly write aboutcompany-related things, including the projects where I am. But yes, we haven’treally defined who should be writing and about what . . . And, of course, allour employees also represent the company in some way in their free time, inFacebook and other networks. (Interviewee 8, CONSULT)

Different ways to make sense of social-media management

At BANK, a ‘cautious approach’ to social media is stressed, as the CEO puts it. This issaid to be due to the regulated nature of the financial sector. Threats related to privacyand customer security were constantly and consistently brought up by the companyrepresentatives in our interviews. Corporate decision makers seemed to be afraidof the uncontrollability of the Internet and the possible impact negative messagescould have on their (and their clients’) reputation. Despite the many advantages that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 13: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

Rokka et al. Managing employees and reputation in social media 813

social media might offer, the top management emphasised that before a more activeapproach can be taken, clear objectives and a long-term plan need to be crystallised:

I think [social media] is a good thing. But if you engage in Facebook, you need toconsider the big picture in advance – why you go out there, what you do there, whoit’s for, and how you are there. And how you’re going to maintain a certain levelof quality . . . when practically anyone can post there . . . (Interviewee 5, BANK)

In contrast, the main reason for FOOD and CONSULT to build presence insocial media is to foster interactive dialogue with customers and to build customerrelationships on a deeper, more emotional level. At FOOD, social media are also seenas an important window into people’s daily lives, making it possible for companiesto listen and learn from their customers:

I see [social media] as an opportunity for direct consumer interaction . . . Thismakes consumers more involved with our company. (Interviewee 13, FOOD)

It is argued in FOOD and CONSULT that, via social-media networks, the companiescan find improved ways to reach multiple (and sometimes new) audiences. They alsosee a connection between their social-media presence and sales performance:

It’s an important channel to reach these digital natives. They’re accustomed tosearch for recommendations and influences for their purchase decisions fromdiscussion forums, and that’s why we want to be there. (Interviewee 13, FOOD)

Because we are a social-media agency, we have to be able to show that we cansell through it. (Interviewee 6, CONSULT)

As emphasised by representatives of both FOOD and CONSULT, companies do nothave a choice: people will talk about the companies online in any case. It is up to thecompany in question to decide whether they want to participate in the dialogue or,if possible, try to facilitate and influence the ongoing discussions. Otherwise, thecorporate brand is destined to remain ‘distant and one-directional in consumers’minds’ (interviewee 14, FOOD). At BANK, this was not considered much of aconcern as long as the online discussion related to the company remained relativelylimited.

Reputation and risks in social media

Participants in our study experience that corporate reputation stems from the ‘doingsand sayings of the company’. BANK describes it as ‘the company image plus theimpressions and experiences that form out of what the company does’, whereasFOOD describes it as ‘the face of the company embodied in the people’, andCONSULT conceives it as ‘the sum of all the images that the organisation cancreate or that others create of the organisation’. It is also concluded that corporatereputation is increasingly shaped in online environments, including social media. It isargued that social media have an effect on how people evaluate the company, and alsothey bring multiple stakeholder groups together and make them visible. At BANK,managers justify the cautious approach towards reputation risk by referring to thenature of the sector:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 14: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

814 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

Banks and insurance companies are not very much involved in social media atthe moment. And it is probably based on the fact that now everyone’s thinkingabout security and image risk. (Interviewee 1, BANK)

In contrast, our interviewees in FOOD believe that a strong brand and goodreputation is only possible to achieve and maintain through the open and transparentbusiness practices demanded by increasingly conscientious consumers. Social mediaare therefore perceived to be inevitable in addressing this challenge, allowing thecompany to receive direct feedback from customers and to respond to possibleproblems instantly:

I think you simply cannot be away from there anymore. If you aim to be aresponsible company, in the future, you will have to open up and be transparent,and try to give a face to your company. (Interviewee 12, FOOD)

For decision makers at CONSULT, reputation reflects people’s judgements aboutthe company based on their experiences and what they hear from other people,as well as via social media. Our respondents stress that various networks insocial media constitute a promising arena for reputation building, especially in theprofessional service sector. However, social media are not necessarily considered themost important forum where reputation is formed. Direct service encounters andexperiences together with strong personal client relationships still lay the foundationfor a corporate reputation to emerge:

In our business, when you are strongly focused on social media . . . In a way, ourcompany brand is so transparent already that our clients can post on our wallthat they were not satisfied with our work. So it plays a huge role. (Interviewee 8,CONSULT)

Reputation risks and opportunities are regularly considered in connection withthe rapid, real-time diffusion of information and word of mouth in the social-media networks. Whereas our interviewees at CONSULT envisioned great potentialin spreading positive news and stories, interviewees at BANK were more likely tounderline possible risks and negative aspects of social-media presence. The mostsevere threat for the company would be the leaking of company secrets or customerinformation online. Our interviewees at FOOD stressed that the possibility ofreceiving both negative and positive comments from consumers is equally important:

There are many things we want to bring up, not only our strengths but alsoto specify the negative aspects – how things are in reality. Rumours pickup incredibly fast online and are in part influenced by search engines whichdetermine what you can actually find. (Interviewee 14, FOOD)

Employees as meaning makers

Our empirical materials indicate that the case companies differ significantly interms of how they conceive of their employees as active meaning makers in socialmedia, both during and outside working hours. BANK applies a strict policy in thatemployees are not allowed to use social media during office hours, mainly becausethey are not considered ‘work’ or a customer-service channel. During employees’free time, social media are permitted de facto, although there are a few officially

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 15: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

Rokka et al. Managing employees and reputation in social media 815

communicated rules for desired conduct. Yet, at the same time, the managementargues the following:

Employees are in a key position regarding reputation building, the most crucialstrategic factor. There is no doubt about it. Everything is based on employeewell-being. If they’re not motivated to work, I believe, a firm cannot have a goodreputation either. (Interviewee 2, BANK)

According to our interviews with BANK, the crucial role of employees becomesapparent when working in the customer interface. In contrast, social media wereconsidered a private sphere. Although employees’ negative comments on work-related issues were seen as a potential risk, it was not considered a very probable one.Rather, attention was directed to how customers discuss BANK in social media. It wasstressed that external communication needs to be well coordinated and directed fromthe top management: ‘you need to have a high profile in communications so thatthe message will get through . . . you cannot have too many voices’ (Interviewee1, BANK). This ‘high profile’ was embodied in the company CEO, whose role wasconceived to be decisive in the company’s reputation building both in day-to-daymanagement and in representing the company in the media. However, in this case,the CEO was not active in social media, signalling the fact that he values leadershipand presence in social media less than in the conventional media.

FOOD employs a different strategy. Their employees are not only allowed butalso encouraged to participate and contribute to the online dialogue concerningtheir company with respect to well-defined and communicated social-media rules.On the one hand, according to our interviewees, there are not enough enthusiasticparticipants or employee ‘brand ambassadors’ in social media:

In a sense, our organisational culture currently demands more individual effort.We have one excellent example, a terrific guy from the factory warehouse. If youhave a look on our Facebook page, he’s always posting there. He brims withcommitment towards the company and our products, and is always bringing upnew content . . . He’s the type of person we need to have more. (Interviewee 17,FOOD)

On the other, the extent to which social-media participation belongs to the officialwork profile of every employee is actively discussed in the organisation:

Social media brings new content to our daily work. Others seem not to care aboutit, saying it’s not their job after all. Others accept it, thinking it’s part of today’sworld we live in. It depends on the person whether or not he or she wants tocontribute and be interested and open. (Interviewee 17, FOOD)

Our interviewees at FOOD say that they are well aware that employees are thecompany’s face in social media, and that reputation is built there on a person-to-person basis. Unlike BANK, the management at FOOD would be willing to abandonthe company’s ‘single voice’– at least to some degree; employees could cultivate theirown personal character and style as long as the corporate brand and its values arereflected in the social-media presence:

Facebook is an environment where you can’t stick with an official corporate toneof voice. We have decided to adopt a more casual approach, resembling a style

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 16: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

816 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

that people in Facebook commonly use in talking to their friends – however, witha touch of our brand. (Interviewee 14, FOOD)

Similarly, our respondents at CONSULT see employees as reputation builders insocial media. They were even of the opinion that active employees have the meansto offset any risks to reputation. This is because they are many in number and theyinvoke a more ‘human’ image of the organisation and its members:

If there is a negative event or crisis, I think, employees have the power to relievethe situation to some extent. Greater than a communication director would have.It is the sort of grassroots-level work they can do. (Interviewee 9, CONSULT)

However, CONSULT’s social-media presence is actively coordinated by thecompany CEO, who is also the most visible person online. CONSULT employeesare active contributors to the company blog, and permission is not needed to do so.Although there is a posting schedule, the management strongly believes that it is notpossible to force employees to be active in social media, especially during their freetime. Finally, the CEO is convinced that ‘too much selling’ and ‘pushing’ in socialmedia may backfire and influence the corporate brand negatively. Quantity does notguarantee quality, and managers and employees alike must be able to distinguishbetween genuine dialogue and being pushy:

If you tweet and broadcast too much about your company you become . . . it’s kindof like you irritate people. So you have to be very sensitive about how you mix kindof self-promotional and company promotional with a genuine, honest account ofyour life. And that’s a craft, an art I think. (Interviewee 7, CONSULT)

While differences were identified regarding the potential in active social-mediapresence in the three companies studied, negative reputation building by employeeswas considered a reputational risk in all companies. However, any negative impacton reputation was mostly discussed in connection with undesired communication ‘byaccident’ and not sabotage. Profound trust in employees characterises the ways inwhich our interviewees in the three case companies talked about social media andreputation.

We encountered only one corporate reputation crisis situation in the interviews:an incident between FOOD and an environmental organisation. In this case, ourinterviewees concluded that it is necessary to maintain a transparent stance towardssocial-media discussions, even when the company’s reputation was under attack.In addition, the critical incident demonstrates the heightened pressure on employeesin defending the corporate reputation:

Although I have always talked about the importance of giving your face to thecompany, when the intense discussions emerged [online], I realised for the firsttime how you are personally involved in there. In social media, people talk withpeople and not with the company. So when the opposing side begun to addressme [with my own name], I was startled momentarily, and I was thinking that, afterall my experiences in the company, I need to be able to manage it. They were notsaying that, hey, your company is doing bad, but I felt the attack was directed tome. It was a difficult situation, and we talked about it a lot inside our organisation.The best part was to notice howmany people joined in to defend me in the heateddebate – this is a benefit of a strong brand, your loyal fans will stand up for you!(Interviewee 12, FOOD)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 17: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

Rokka et al. Managing employees and reputation in social media 817

Managing reputation

Our interviewees in all three companies agreed that reputation can be managedand controlled by the company, but only to a certain degree. They maintained thatreputation management in social media is often based on employee behaviour. Hence,recruitment and internal branding – in the sense that all employees should internalisethe company brand values and act accordingly – were considered among the mostimportant ways to manage corporate reputation online, especially at BANK andCONSULT:

We hire the type of people here who share the same values. The people whoalready reflect us are selected. (Interviewee 4, BANK)

The people we have recruited are similar to us. When we recruit someone, weask is he or she a ‘CONSULT person’. We trust that the person is also like that insocial media. (Interviewee 6, CONSULT)

At BANK, active online participation is not encouraged, and there are onlyvery general guidelines regarding the use of social media outside office hours,in employees’ private lives. Instead, like CONSULT, the company invests in thesatisfaction and well-being of its employees as the principal means to control theirreputation:

The way we treat and invest on our employees is a form of control. When we actright as an employer, we build our good reputation. (Interviewee 2, BANK)

Our interviewees at BANK and CONSULT stress that openness towards employeesin all communications and fair treatment in day-to-day decision making overrides‘strict orders’ or ‘artificial brand guidelines’ in reputation management. This was notdirectly emphasised at FOOD, which relies heavily on their digital marketing team’sexpertise in leading, training, and educating employees vis-à-vis social media.

Other management practices to control social-media presence were identified inthe companies studied, including crafting of social-media guidelines, monitoring,and online branding policy. Social-media guidelines were mentioned as a potential(preventive) way to both encourage and control employee behaviour online.However, only FOOD has actively employed such guidelines. People working closelywith online communication activities are required to take part in regular follow-upmeetings hosted by the digital team and also in training sessions where social-mediapolicy and practices are constantly reviewed.

This is a continuous management challenge at FOOD. On the one hand, ‘ourdigital team has come up with instructions for all aspects of social media wherewe are present’ (Interviewee 15, FOOD). On the other, ‘it is rather permissive,and that’s how it should be . . . it would be shocking if we all spoke the same“branded” language. You’ve got to be able to have your personal style, but it mustbe a friendly one . . . but then again we can’t define what that is. I’d say that beingresponsible comes from your gut feeling, something that is part of our organisationalculture’ (Interviewee 12, FOOD). This duality seems to be at the heart of social-media management. It requires careful balancing between the encouragement ofcreative and personal versus more dictated, stylised, and centralised communicationapproach. Interestingly, top management in all three companies expect positivecommunication from their employees in social media. This is despite the fact thatopenness, truthfulness, and authenticity are emphasised as important brand values.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 18: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

818 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

At FOOD, ‘we are still a bit too formal, and we should be more flexible, maintain thepositive tone, you know, be fresh’ (Interviewee 14, FOOD).

At CONSULT, open participation in social-media dialogue is stressed, but controlmay at times be exerted, for example, when unsuccessful postings or messages byemployees are deleted in order to polish the company’s online footprint. The CEOsays, ‘I’m everyone’s Facebook friend, so I tend to keep an eye on what they write. . . not systematically, though. I’m just interested to see what they’ve been up to. Andthey check out my postings and comment on them’. All CONSULT employees aresocial-media professionals, so the conviction is that strict guidelines on social-mediapresence are not necessary: ‘We give lots of freedom to employees. I see it as ourstrength that we’re not dictating strict rules. Gaining visibility is important. As longas it remains positive . . . ’ (Interviewee 8, CONSULT).

Discussion

In this paper, we have offered an exploratory empirical study for theory developmenton reputation-management practices in relation to employees and social media inthree companies representing different industries and businesses. Our interviewees inall companies regard employees as a fundamental element of reputation management,and they underline the crucial importance of transparency not only online but alsoin the new operating environment in general (cf. Fournier & Avery, 2011). However,distinct approaches can be discerned regarding how employees are perceived andmanaged as reputation builders in social media (see Table 2). Our analysis leads us tosuggest that reputation management in social media unfolds as balancing acts that areparticular ways of making sense of various contradictions, paradoxes, and tensions.This balancing plays out differently in different contexts and circumstances (seeoverview in Table 3). Most importantly, it includes (but it is not limited to) acts andactivities of balancing between active versus limited company social-media presence;encouraging versus restricting employees in online participation; centralising versusdecentralising responsibility and leadership; emphasising employees work versusprivate social-media roles; as well as disseminating marketing content versusauthentic and ‘naturally’ transpiring content in social media. Our findings suggest thata state of balance can only be temporary and fleeting, and it needs to be constantlyworked on and managed.

At BANK, social media are seen as a private sphere, something that is locatedprimarily outside work. By embracing a cautious and even sceptical approach,management acknowledges that corporate reputation may be influenced by employeeparticipation online. Important ways to control reputation includes managingemployee well-being and satisfaction, which are seen to generate ‘natural’ positiveonline WOM. This approach is justified by referring to the regulatory nature ofthe banking sector and the inherent intimacy of customer information and securityin banking business. The balancing act is, first, about whether ‘to be or not tobe’ officially present online and, second, about the extent to which employees canbe trusted in their online behaviour as opposed to being actively controlled andmonitored. In addition, the balancing act is primarily about privacy in the sensethat the company strongly emphasises the employees’ work tasks over private life,rendering social-media presence exclusively a private matter.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 19: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

Rokka et al. Managing employees and reputation in social media 819

Table2Comparisonoffindings.

BANK

FOOD

CONSU

LTRQ1:Howdo

companies

embracesocial

media?

−No‘official’socialmedia

presence

−Employeesnotconsideredtobe

activesocial-mediausersas

privatepersons

−CEOnotpresentonline

−ActivepresenceviaFacebook,

YouTube,Wikipedia,Twitter,and

bloggercollaboration

−Digitalteammostvisiblein

contributingtosocial-media

presence

−CEOandtopmanagementnot

activelypresentonline

−Companyexpertiseactively

communicatedviacompanyblog,

Facebook,Twitter,andLinkedIn

profiles

−Employeesavidsocial-mediausersas

privatepersons

−CEOmostvisiblepersononline

RQ2:Howdo

companies

conceive

reputationin

socialmedia?

Whatistherole

ofemployees?

−Approachshapedbycautionand

scepticism

−Reputationisconsideredto

spreadincreasinglyonline

−Employees’roleiskeyinactive

reputationbuildingvia

customer-serviceprocess

−Workinghoursemphasisedin

reputationbuilding

−Employeesconsidersocialmedia

asanon-worksphere

−Noaccesstosocialmediaatwork

−Approachshapedbyopenness

andtransparency

−Transparentonlinedialogueseen

asrequirementforgood

reputation

−Employees’roleconsidered

criticalinreputationbuilding,but

productqualityandreliable

supplychainmoreimportant

−Allemployeesareencouragedto

beactivebrandambassadors

online,evenviaprivatenetworks

−Socialmediaasatoolfor

customerservice,marketing,

communication,andR&D

−Approachshapedbycreativityand

spontaneity

−Reputationisnotbuiltonlyinsocial

media,however,industryandclient

networksarecrucial

−Employeesareimportantasbrand

ambassadorsonline,CEOinparticular

−Noexpectationsforreputationbuilding

duringfreetimeandinpersonal

networks

−Socialmediaasasourceofinspiration

andhangoutalsoduringworkinghours

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 20: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

820 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

Table2(Continued).

BANK

FOOD

CONSU

LTRQ3:Howdo

companies

seektomanage

andcontrol

their

reputation?

−Reputationmanagedthrough

investmentsinemployee

well-beingandsatisfaction

−Recruitingtherightpeople,trust

andinternalisingofbrandvalues

willgenerate‘natural’positive

WOMonline

−Social-mediamonitoringbeing

tested

−Brandingpolicy:high-profile,

top-downsinglevoiceappliedin

allcircumstances

−Reputationmanagedonlinevia

digitalteamresponsiblefor

providingtraining,support,and

guidelinesforallemployees

−Social-mediaresponsibilities

writteninworkdescriptions

−Increasingexpectationsfor

employeesasbrand

ambassadorsonline

−Brandingpolicy:officialbrand

voiceisdownplayed,personal

styleandpositivetoneofvoiceis

encouraged

−Reputationmanagedbymeansof

recruitingtherightpeople,open

internalcommunication,andinternal

branding

−Noformalrulesorguidelines–skills

arerequirementforsocial-media

professionals

−Employeesaccesseachother’s

personalsocial-mediaprofiles,

includingCEO

−Brandingpolicy:positivetone,values,

andpersonalityencouraged

−No‘pushing’isallowedbecauseitcan

backlashinemployeebehaviour

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 21: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

Rokka et al. Managing employees and reputation in social media 821

Table 3 Corporate reputation management as balancing acts.

1. Balancing for company social-media presence – active vs. limitedBANK: ‘If we were a bigger company we’d definitely be there . . . I don’t see that

there are many reputation risks currently, now that we’re not there as acompany’ (I4)

FOOD: ‘We’ve experienced that active social media presence is important forbuilding relationships with customers and other stakeholders groups.We’ve got clear communication principles and also areas that we want topursue through it’ (I14)

CONSULT: ‘In our business, we’re strongly focused on social media . . . we need to beable to sell through it . . . our employees take it (active social mediapresence) for granted, too’ (I6)

2. Balancing for employee empowerment – participation vs. restrictionBANK: ‘We have not encouraged anyone to participate in online discussions . . .

because only a few discussions can be found about us online’ (I4)FOOD: ‘Our next step is to involve more of our people to be ambassadors online.

Through them we can influence and inspire thousands of people, friends,family etc.’ (I17)

CONSULT: ‘Reputation is all about the projects we do and that our employees do agood job’ (I8); ‘reputation is communicated most importantly through ouremployees – for example, how they are in social media, how they write inblogs . . . ’ (I6)

3. Balancing for responsibility – centralised vs. decentralisedBANK: ‘All external communications always need to go via the CEO’ (I1)FOOD: ‘We’ve got a lot of new managers all the time so we need to coach them in

our digital team about how to use social media, both in terms of contentand style’ (I14); ‘digital team leads the way, monitors and controls’ (I15)

CONSULT: ‘Our employees need to communicate their expertise in social media . . .

People we hire need to be like us, and we trust they’ll behave that wayonline too’ (I6); ‘Our [CEO] is the most visible person in social media’ (I8)

4. Balancing for employee privacy – work vs. privateBANK: ‘The “work” me and “private” me are different [online] so it presents

possible risks . . . during working hours, you’re not allowed toparticipate, and during free time, you’re not supposed to talk aboutwork-related topics’ (I4)

FOOD: ‘When you’re at work, you communicate via professional profile, and whenyou’re off, you are yourself. But the boundaries are not always crystalclear. So far, we haven’t had any problems with that!’ (M15)

CONSULT: ‘Our employees also represent our company during their free time . . . inFacebook and other networks’ (I8)

5. Balancing for branding policy – single voice vs. multiplicityBANK: ‘You cannot have too many voices – to make sure the message you want to

communicate is the right one’ (I1)FOOD: ‘In principle, everybody has a chance to participate, and we have been

offered training and guidelines’ (I17); ‘In Facebook, it is not possible toenforce a traditional, clumsy corporate voice. We need to be moreflexible and closer to how friends chat online. But as it can be quiterandom, too, our digital team has been taking more control’ (I14).

(Continued)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 22: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

822 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

Table 3 (Continued).

CONSULT: ‘You need to allow your employees a degree of flexibility and freedom inthat they can, for example, write about a topic instantly, if somethingcomes up’ (I6); ‘But if there’s an issue, say someone goes overboard, it’sour CEO who should address it’ (I8)

6. Balancing for content – marketing vs. authenticityBANK: ‘If we’d have a fan page, I don’t quite see the benefits. I’m not sure we’d

have enough interesting content to offer there. It doesn’t seem a smartway to spend your time’ (I4)

FOOD: ‘We’ve experienced that only being open and transparent builds our brandimage – so that people see that we’re not taking off negative comments,for example’ (I15)

CONSULT: ‘Pushing marketing messages aggressively is not ethical’ (I6); ‘But whenyou share information through your social network, it might reachpotential customer contacts or new people we could hire’ (I8)

FOOD’s approach, in contrast, is shaped by openness and transparency in that,in principle, all employees are invited to participate in online dialogue aboutthe company and its products. However, this is done under the leadership andsurveillance of a ‘digital team’. The company regards the role of employees criticalin reputation building, and expects a certain degree of employee involvement andeWOM also in personal social-media networks. This approach is apparently linkedwith the nature of the food business, where employees are expected to stand behindthe company’s products and their quality and to recommend company productsto consumers. Nevertheless, the balancing act for the company is primarily aboutwalking the delicate line between a marketing-and-sales-oriented focus and an‘authentic’ voice and content. Thus far, the company has decided to use social mediamainly as a product-focused marketing and customer-service tool rather than a meansto connect with customers’ everyday lives more fully. In addition, balancing betweena ‘single’ branded voice with ‘multiple’ personal voices in online communicationremains a constant challenge for this large company in a fast-moving consumer goodsbusiness.

Finally, CONSULT’s active online reputation building is shaped by the creativityand spontaneity of its employees. As employees possess strong social-media skillsand expertise, it seems natural to encourage them to act as brand ambassadorsonline. Control is not enforced by strict social-media rules or plans. Instead, thecompany seeks to recruit employees with the right personality and values as wellas social-media talent. In contrast to the other two companies studied, CONSULT’ssocial-media presence is led by the company CEO as the most visible person. Suchan approach is considered effective in a small firm in a business-to-business industrywhere the role of hands-on management of employee expertise and networks areseen as essential for the company success. The balancing act is, first, about constantlyfinding the right balance between being proactive and ‘authentic’ online, and avoidingthe risk of being considered ‘pushy’ in promoting the company and its achievements.Second, it is about managing the juxtaposition between the official company presenceand employees’ private social-media networks, where the employees constantly build

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 23: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

Rokka et al. Managing employees and reputation in social media 823

their own personal reputation as experts, but where they are not particularly keen onposting about the company.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have sought to expand theorising on corporate reputationmanagement to account for the benefits and challenges of social media. While themarketing literature has recently emphasised that social media are accompanied bya number of challenges – including accentuated reputation-related risks (P. Aula,2010; Solove, 2007) – that have profound implications for brand management(Fournier & Avery, 2011), customer dialogue (Culnan et al., 2010; Gallaugher &Ransbotham, 2010; Porter et al., 2011), and WOM marketing (Kozinets et al.,2010), these accounts have tended to explore phenomena related to social-mediamarketing and branding from product- or customer-centric perspectives. Theextant literature has also adopted a focus on corporate brand- and reputation-management issues from a more holistic perspective (Balmer, 2001; Balmer &Greyson, 2006; Fombrun & van Riel, 1997; Gotsi & Wilson, 2001b), but ithas not explicitly addressed the important shifts presented by the social-medialandscape. Although this literature suggests an important role for the managementof employees (Hatch & Schultz, 2003; King & Grace, 2008; Vallaster & deChernatony, 2006) in delivering the company brand promise and conveying brandmeanings to customers and also in building reputation through ‘living the brand’(Gotsi & Wilson, 2001b), relatively little is known about how companies regardand manage employees as active meaning makers and reputation builders in socialmedia.

We have addressed this research gap by conceptualising corporate reputationmanagement in social media as a balancing act. By employing an interpretivesense-making approach (Welch et al., 2011), we have sought to understand howmanagers make sense of contradictions, paradoxes, and tensions in corporatereputation management in social media. This has allowed us to develop context-specific and in-depth insights into a phenomenon that is taking shape as themanagers struggle to make sense of their new communication and work environmentin an ongoing dialogue with the companies’ stakeholders. The balancing actsidentified are interwoven with managerial sense-making regarding the company’sbusiness, goals, practices, and also the external environment. Our findings revealcorporate reputation-management contradictions regarding (but not limited to)the company’s social-media presence, employee empowerment, responsibility andleadership, employee privacy, branding policy, and marketing focus. These tensionsare balanced and weighed off in an ongoing dialogue and sense-making by managerswho try to come to terms with the challenges and to manage corporate reputationeffectively.

Our research contributes, first, to the extant corporate reputation and corporatebranding literature (Balmer & Greyson, 2006; Fombrun & van Riel, 1997; Gotsi& Wilson, 2001b; Hatch & Schultz, 2003; King & Grace, 2008; Vallaster & deChernatony, 2006) by demonstrating that the social-media challenges observed byFournier and Avery (2011) for brand management are also prominent for corporatereputation management. We observe a consistent need to address the heightened role

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 24: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

824 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

of employees in social media, regardless of whether the company has an officialpresence there. This need emerges from the fact that companies perceive thatemployees have an important role as active meaning makers and reputation buildersin various social-media networks that include customers, colleagues, and friends, andin which the boundaries between work and non-work roles begin to lose their sharpcontours. Hence, the ways in which companies balance between managing work andprivate lives of their employees online becomes an issue that needs more attention(Labrecque et al., 2011; Madden et al., 2007; Solove, 2007). Our study also bringsinto focus how employees can be perceived and managed online as active reputationbuilders rather than possible sources of reputation risks (Richards, 2008; Wallace& de Chernatony, 2007). Our findings suggest that achieving transparency is moreimportant for reputation building than seeking to avoid negative impressions or risks.Tolerance for critical messages may be seen as a sign of openness and trustworthinesstowards stakeholders.

Second, our study suggests specific ways in which corporate reputation canbe managed in social media. Prior research suggests that social-media policies,guidelines, and practices are essential means for controlling social-media presence(Culnan et al., 2010; Gallaugher & Ransbotham, 2010; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010;Lee et al., 2006; Wyld, 2008). To complement this focus, we suggest that employeewell-being influences social-media presence and, ultimately, corporate reputation.Open communication and fair treatment of employees in day-to-day managementtherefore becomes in effect a pre-emptive control mechanism. Our findings alsosuggest that conventional, top-down management practices seem to be consideredoutdated in social-media management. Whereas prior research stresses an integratedapproach in which the corporate brand is consistently communicated to stakeholdersacross different media (e.g. Balmer & Greyser, 2006; Einwiller & Will, 2002;Hatch & Schultz, 2003), our study shows that having a ‘single voice’ online canbe seen as inauthentic and less credible by the company’s stakeholder groups.Congruent with Vallaster and de Chernatony (2006), our findings indicate thatcompanies need to trust their employees and allow for personal style, as long asthe company and brand values have been internalised through ‘good’ day-to-daymanagement.

Our study remains an explorative one. We have not aimed at generalisationsor recommendations in the sense that our findings apply in the same way in allindustries, businesses, and companies of various sizes. Instead, we argue that thebasic dynamic – balancing acts – that plays out in corporate reputation managementacross our cases in different ways occurs more generally in organisations that areengaged with social-media environments. The forms taken by balancing acts inorganisations depend on their unique circumstances and context. We hope that ourresearch inspires future research to explore companies in different industries withdifferent types of services and products. Longitudinal studies that focus on howbalancing in organisations takes different forms and changes over time would beparticularly useful. Finally, our findings are limited in the sense that we interviewedonly top executives and managers involved in the case companies’ branding processes.Incorporating employee views on behaviour in social media and contrasting themwith managerial views is a crucial challenge for further research on managingemployees and reputation in social media.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 25: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

Rokka et al. Managing employees and reputation in social media 825

References

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in OrganizationalBehavior, 7, 263–295.

Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: A reflexive approach tointerviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 13–33. doi:10.5465/AMR.2003.8925191

Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control:Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 619–644. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00305

Aula, H.-M., & Tienari, J. (2011). Becoming ‘world-class’? Reputation-building in auniversity merger. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 7(1), 7–29. doi:10.1108/17422041111103813

Aula, P. (2010). Social media, reputation risk and ambient publicity management. Strategy andLeadership, 38(6), 43–49. doi: 10.1108/10878571011088069

Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing– Seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 248–291. doi:10.1108/03090560110694763

Balmer, J. M. T. (2008). Identity based views of the corporation: Insights fromcorporate identity, organizational identity, social identity, visual identity, corporate brandidentity and corporate image. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10), 879–906. doi:10.1108/03090560810891055

Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2006). Corporate marketing: Integrating corporate identity,corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation.European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 730–741. doi: 10.1108/03090560610669964

Barnett, M. L., Jermier, J. M., & Lafferty, B. A. (2006). Corporate reputation: The definitionallandscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(1), 26–38. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550012

Bartunek, J. M., & Louis, M. R. (1996). Insider/outsider team research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Cappelli, P., & Shearer, P. D. (1991). The missing role of context in OB: The need for ameso-level approach. In: B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 13,pp. 55–110). Stanford, CA: JAI Press.

Cova, B., & White, T. (2010). Counter-brand and alter-brand communities: The impact of Web2.0 on tribal marketing approaches. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(3–4), 256–270.doi: 10.1080/02672570903566276

Culnan, M. J., McHugh, P. J., & Zubillaga, J. I. (2010). How large US companies can useTwitter and other social media to gain business value. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(4),243–259.

de Chernatony, L. (1999). Brand management through narrowing the gap between brandidentity and brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 157–179. doi:10.1362/026725799784870432

Einwiller, S., & Will, M. (2002). Towards an integrated approach to corporatebranding – An empirical study. Corporate Communication, 7(2), 100–109. doi:10.1108/13563280210426160

Fleming, P. (2009). Authenticity and the cultural politics of work: New forms of informalcontrol. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation: Realizing the value from the corporate image. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Fombrun, C., & van Riel, C. (1997). The reputational landscape. Corporate ReputationReview, 1(1/2), 5–13.

Fournier, S., & Avery, J. (2011). The uninvited brand. Business Horizons, 54(3), 193–207. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.001

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 26: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

826 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 30

Fournier, S., & Lee, L. (2009). Getting brand communities right. Harvard Business Review,87, 105–111.

Gallaugher, J., & Ransbotham, S. (2010). Social media and customer dialog management atStarbucks. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(4), 197–211.

Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. M. (2001a). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition.Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(1), 24–30. doi: 10.1108/

13563280110381189Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. M. (2001b). Corporate reputation management: ‘Living the brand’.

Management Decision, 39(2), 99–104. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005415Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2003). Bringing the corporation into corporate branding.

European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 1041–1064. doi: 10.1108/03090560310477654Ind, N. (2001). Living the brand: How to transform every member of your organization into a

brand champion. London: Kogan Page.Järventie-Thesleff, R., Moisander, J., & Laine, P-M (2011). Organizational dynamics and

complexities of corporate brand building – A practice perspective. Scandinavian Journalof Management, 27(2), 196–204. doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2010.07.001

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challengesand opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59–68. doi: 10.1016/

j.bushor.2009.09.003Kärreman, D., & Rylander, A. (2008). Managing meaning through branding – The case of a

consulting firm. Organization Studies, 29(1), 103–125. doi: 10.1177/0170840607084573King, C., & Grace, D. (2008). Internal branding: Exploring the employee’s perspective.

Journal of Brand Management, 15(5), 358–372. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.bm.2007.48Kozinets, R. V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. C., & Wilner, S. J. S. (2010). Networked narratives:

Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74,71–89. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.74.2.71

Labrecque, L. I., Markos, E., & Milne, G. R. (2011). Online personal branding:Process, challenges, and implications. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25, 37–50. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2010.09.002

Land, C., & Taylor, S. (2011). Be who you want to be: Branding, identity and the desire forauthenticity. In M. J. Brannan, E. Parsons, & V. Priola (Eds.), Branded lives: The productionand consumption of meaning at work (pp. 35–56). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Lee, S., Hwang, T., & Lee, H.-H. (2006). Corporate blogging strategies of theFortune 500 companies. Management Decision, 44(3), 316–334. doi: 10.1108/

00251740610656232Madden, M., Fox, S., Smith, A., & Vitak, J. (2007). Digital footprints: Online identity

management and search in the age of transparency. Pew Internet and American Life Project.Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org

Piekkari, R., Welch, C., & Paavilainen, E. (2009). The case study as a disciplinary convention:Evidence from international business journals. Organizational Research Methods, 12(3),567–589. doi: 10.1177/1094428108319905

Porter, C. E., Donthu, N., MacElroy, W. H., & Wydra, D. (2011). How to fosterand sustain engagement in virtual communities. California Management Review, 53(4),80–110.

Richards, J. (2008). The many approaches to organizational misbehavior: A review, map andresearch agenda. Employee Relations, 30(6), 653–678. doi: 10.1108/01425450810910046

Schau, H. J., Muñiz, A. M., & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How brand community practices createvalue. Journal of Marketing, 73, 30–51. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.73.5.30

Solove, D. J. (2007). The future of reputation: Gossip, rumor, and privacy on the Internet. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sagehandbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 27: Balancing acts: Managing employees and reputation in social media

Rokka et al. Managing employees and reputation in social media 827

Vallaster, C., & de Chernatony, L. (2006). Internal brand building and structuration:The role of leadership. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 761–784. doi:10.1108/03090560610669982

van Riel, C. B. M, & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: The concept, itsmeasurement and management. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 340–355. doi:10.1108/eb060635

Wallace, E., & de Chernatony, L. (2007). Exploring managers’ views about brand saboteurs.Journal of Marketing Management, 23(1/2), 91–106. doi: 10.1362/026725707X178576

Watson, T., & Watson, D. (1999). Human resourcing in practice: Managing employmentissues in the university. Journal of Management Studies, 36(4), 483–504. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00146

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Welch, C., Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011). Theorizing

from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal ofInternational Business Studies,42, 740–762. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2010.55

Wyld, D. C. (2008). Management 2.0: A primer on blogging for executives. ManagementResearch News, 33(6), 448–483. doi: 10.1108/01409170810876044

About the authors

Joonas Rokka is assistant professor of marketing at Rouen Business School, France. He hasa doctorate in marketing from Aalto University, School of Economics, Finland. His researchinterests include branding, consumer culture, new media, and research methodology.

Corresponding author: Joonas Rokka, Rouen Business School, Department of Marketing,Boulevard André Siegfried – BP215, 76825 Mont-Saint-Aignan Cedex, France.

T +33(0)2 32 82 46 69E [email protected]

Katariina Karlsson is a graduate from Aalto University, School of Business, Finland, and hasprofessional experience in human-resource consulting. She is interested in studying employeesin corporate reputation building.

E [email protected]

Janne Tienari is professor of organisations and management at Aalto University, School ofBusiness, Finland. His research interests include strategy work, cross-cultural communication,gender and organising, media, discourse, management, and the future.

E [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f H

ong

Kon

g L

ibra

ries

] at

21:

28 1

3 N

ovem

ber

2014