Un nouveau joueur dans le monde de la stratĂ©gie en communication d’affaires

Joliette, QuĂ©bec – Lundi 14 aoĂ»t 2017

Plusieurs d’entre vous savez que je suis de retour Ă  la maison et la majoritĂ© sait que je suis rempli de projets. AprĂšs avoir notĂ© qu’il y a un manque dans l’offre en gestion de la rĂ©putation et de la crĂ©dibilitĂ© corporative, j’ai dĂ©cidĂ© d’offrir des services de stratĂ©gie et conseil en gestion de la rĂ©putation aux start-ups et aux PME quĂ©bĂ©coises de mĂȘme qu’aux grandes entreprises d’ici et d’ailleurs. C’est avec fiertĂ© que j’annonce que RĂ©putation & cie commence ses opĂ©rations aujourd’hui depuis Joliette dans LanaudiĂšre, ma rĂ©gion natale. 

logo fra webLa rĂ©putation est le “buzz word” de tous les jours depuis quelques annĂ©es. La rĂ©putation des entreprises en crise, la rĂ©putation et la crĂ©dibilitĂ© des leaders, la stratĂ©gie de croissance et le dĂ©veloppement des affaires basĂ©s sur la rĂ©putation, et finalement le jugement des clients, des investisseurs, et de chacune des parties prenantes; tout y passe. L’image et le branding sont cruciaux dans le dĂ©veloppement des marques et des entreprises, mais les clients et les consommateurs ont une comprĂ©hension de ce qui est dit dans l’espace public et ils jugent les entreprises en se basant sur une perception.

C’est dans ce contexte que je peux contribuer aux succĂšs des entreprises, je les aide Ă  se construire une rĂ©putation, Ă  se prĂ©parer Ă  de potentielles crises, Ă  influencer la perception des clients, Ă  croĂźtre ici et Ă  l’Ă©tranger, et mĂȘme Ă  gĂ©rer la rĂ©putation en situation de changements organisationnels ou de fusions et acquisitions (M&A).

En plus de tout ce qui touche Ă  la crĂ©dibilitĂ© des entreprises, vous savez dĂ©jĂ  toutes et tous que je suis spĂ©cialisĂ© en gestion de la crĂ©dibilitĂ© depuis 14 ans, voici donc un aperçu des services que j’offre aux OBNL, start-ups, PME, et grandes entreprises : 

Construction de la réputation

  • Construction de la rĂ©putation pour startups et PME au Canada
  • Construction de la crĂ©dibilitĂ© et de la rĂ©putation dans de nouveaux marchĂ©s
  • StratĂ©gie et construction de la rĂ©putation en Chine et en Asie du sud-est

Gestion de la réputation

  • Gestion de la rĂ©putation corporative au Canada (PME et grandes entreprises)
  • Gestion de la rĂ©putation individuelle et de la crĂ©dibilitĂ© des leaders
  • Gestion de la crĂ©dibilitĂ© et de la rĂ©putation en temps d’incertitude
  • Gestion de la crĂ©dibilitĂ© et de la rĂ©putation durant des M&A
  • Gestion de la crĂ©dibilitĂ© en situation de changement organisationnel
  • StratĂ©gie de rĂ©putation pour les membres de conseil d’administration
  • Gestion de la rĂ©putation en Chine et en Asie du sud-est

Avant, pendant, et aprĂšs une crise

  • Gestion de crise et Communication de crise
  • Gestion d’enjeux
  • PrĂ©paration Ă  une crise
  • CrĂ©dibilitĂ© des porte-parole
  • Reconstruction d’une rĂ©putation endommagĂ©e par une crise


Les stratégies proposées incluent toutes le volet réputation en ligne et réseaux sociaux.

En plus de RĂ©putation et cie, je demeure disponible Ă  titre de consultant pigiste pour des mandats de relations publiques, communication d’affaires, communication marketing, de mĂȘme que communication Ă  l’international et dĂ©veloppement des affaires. Vous trouverez ma bio Ă  www.stephaneprudhomme.ca.

Alors voilĂ  c’est officiel, je suis de retour au pays avec ce projet stimulant. Je vous invite Ă  visiter le www.reputationetcie.com et le www.credibilityinstitute.com.

 

Advertisements

The rise and the fall of a star CEO

Two interesting articles on Marissa Mayer’s journey at Yahoo! have been recently published.

Marissa Mayer fades out as Yahoo ends its run
Why Marissa Mayer is the ‘least likable’ CEO in tech

I will do my best to comment the situation, through this blog, as soon as I can.

Stay tuned.

La crĂ©dibilitĂ© vue autrement aprĂšs la crise de Bombardier

J’Ă©cris sur la crĂ©dibilitĂ© des entreprises en gĂ©nĂ©ral aujourd’hui et prenons le cas rĂ©cent de Bombardier, dont la crĂ©dibilitĂ© et la rĂ©putation sont mal menĂ©es depuis quelques jours.

Le PDG de l’entreprise, Alain Bellemare, a avouĂ© ce matin sur les ondes de RDI que Bombardier n’avait pas vu venir la crise et qu’il y avait une leçon de communication Ă  retenir. En fait, ils avaient bien raison de ne l’avoir pas vu venir, il n’y avait pas de crise au dĂ©part, il ne s’agissait que d’un enjeu touchant qu’une seule partie prenante, les actionnaires. Nous connaissons tous et toutes les Ă©tapes de la naissance d’une crise.

Pas de crédibilité, pas de dialogue

Cependant, avec une analyse complĂšte des enjeux, des autres parties prenantes et des publics latents (voir la Situational Theory de Grunig), Bombardier aurait dĂ» voir l’enjeu de communication venir par la grande porte. Quelques jours plus tard, on assiste donc Ă  une crise majeure avec l’ensemble des parties prenantes, une crĂ©dibilitĂ© et une rĂ©putation grandement mal menĂ©es et meurtries pour trĂšs longtemps. Dois-je vous rĂ©pĂ©ter que la crĂ©dibilitĂ© prend des annĂ©es Ă  construire et quelques jours Ă  perdre.

Je vais cependant me concentrer sur la crĂ©dibilitĂ© de maniĂšre gĂ©nĂ©rale aujourd’hui et surtout ne pas blĂąmer Bombardier ni d’autres entreprises. Je tiens tout d’abord à vous rappeler que la crĂ©dibilitĂ© est la base de tout processus de communication, si vos publics ne croient pas vos messages, aucun dialogue n’est possible.

On croit un message, un porte-parole est crédible

La crĂ©dibilitĂ© est un actif intangible souvent nĂ©gligé par les organisations et un Ă©lĂ©ment dĂ©terminant pour construire une rĂ©putation; je l’ai dĂ©jĂ  expliquĂ© dans l’article Revisiting a powerful corporate asset: Credibility (bit.ly/2nAQoMI). Le schĂ©ma qui suit explique visuellement comment le branding contribue Ă  construire l’image et l’image Ă  crĂ©er de la confiance; la confiance Ă©tant la base de la crĂ©dibilitĂ© (Prud’homme). Il y a certes plusieurs autres facteurs qui entrent en jeu pour construire la crĂ©dibilitĂ© d’une personne ou mĂȘme d’une entreprise.

Le processus de construction de la réputation

reputation building framework
Des dizaines de facteurs de crĂ©dibilitĂ© ont Ă©tĂ© Ă©tudiĂ©s depuis les annĂ©es ’50, dont mon Ă©tude de maĂźtrise portant sur les facteurs de crĂ©dibilitĂ© en situation de crise en 2003 (voir amzn.to/2nAZuZW). Les porte-parole, les gestionnaires et les entreprises doivent toutefois retenir qu’il ne faut pas maĂźtriser tous les facteurs de crĂ©dibilitĂ© pour ĂȘtre crĂ©dible, mais il faut plutĂŽt ĂȘtre confortable avec certains d’entre eux et avoir une stratĂ©gie qui tient la route. C’est ce que le credibility engineering (voir bit.ly/2oQNSSL) propose aux professionnel(le)s qui travaillent sur la crĂ©dibilitĂ© et la rĂ©putation des entreprises.

Les piliers du credibility engineering (Prud’homme)

pillars.png

À travers le credibility engineering, nous comprenons que le mythe que “l’on croit un porte-parole ou une entreprise” est rĂ©volu. En fait, les gens croient un message et perçoivent le porte-parole ou l’entreprise comme Ă©tant crĂ©dible (Prud’homme).

Le processus de la crĂ©dibilité (Prud’homme) serait donc :

Picture1.png

La crédibilité est une transaction

Ceci dit, il est crucial de comprendre que la crĂ©dibilité n’est pas seulement une relation mais surtout une transaction. La crĂ©dibilitĂ© est un Ă©lĂ©ment fondamental dans la crĂ©ation et le consolidation des relations avec les parties prenantes, c’est clair (voir amzn.to/2nAZuZW). Ce qui est moins évident est de concevoir une transaction entre un porte-parole et ses publics, une dĂ©cision que prennent les personnes de croire ou ne pas croire des messages et d’attribuer de la crĂ©dibilitĂ© aux porte-parole et aux organisations, avec les avantages ou consĂ©quences gĂ©nĂ©rĂ©s. J’ai dĂ©jĂ  expliquĂ© les notions de transactions et d’Ă©changes d’information Ă  travers le systĂšme de la crĂ©dibilitĂ© (voir amzn.to/2nAZuZW) :

credibility ecosystem

Retour sur investissement de la crédibilité

Dernier point, le credibility engineering permet non seulement de concevoir une solide stratĂ©gie basĂ©e sur des KPIs pour construire la crĂ©dibilité mais aussi d’Ă©valuer et mesurer la crĂ©dibilitĂ© et ce, malgrĂ© son intangibilitĂ©. L’Institut de la crĂ©dibilitĂ© offre notamment un outil d’Ă©valuation et de mesure pour aider les professionnel(le)s travaillant sur la crĂ©dibilitĂ©.

_______________________
Rédigé par :
StĂ©phane Prud’homme, MA, MBA, PhD (ABD)
Directeur, Institut de la crĂ©dibilitĂ© – Credibility Institute
Contact : credibilityinstitute.com/contact
Twitter : @stepru   |   @credibilityctr

stephaneprudhomme.ca   |   www.institutcredibilite.ca

Revisiting a powerful corporate asset: Credibility

Here is why a corporation should invest in building credibility

We often hear about corporate trust, corporate reputation or leadership but rarely about source and corporate credibility. Experts frequently try to convince corporate professionals and spokespersons to follow rules and tips, or a 10-step process to improve their credibility. Or even worst, how many times did you hear that a spokesperson needs only expertise and charisma to be credible?

It is actually a wrong understanding of this fundamental skill and powerful intangible asset that is credibility. Based on a research realized in the early 2000 (now under review by its author), it is impossible to build and maintain credibility through a 10-step miracle process sold by charlatans, credibility lives and dies within an open system (Prud’homme, 2004).

Credibility as an open system

Contrarily to a close system, an open system lives through constant interactions between its internal and external elements, this is what Ludwig von Bertalanffy called negentropy in 1968 through his General System Theory. He defined an open system “as a system in exchange of matter with its environment, presenting import and export, building-up and breaking-down of its material components” (von Bertalanffy in panarchy.com). A detail important to remember is that

A central topic of systems theory is self-regulating systems, i.e. systems self-correcting through feedback (Wikipedia).

In the following figure, it is possible to see the typical spokesperson’s credibility system with a general view as well as the five elements and the different interactions between them.

Untitled

These five elements, individually or all together, could have major impacts on a spokesperson’s credibility, whether it is a communication dramatic situation, e.g. a crisis, powerful stakeholders attacking the corporation’s reputation, messages not adapted to a situation, bad communication strategy associated to a wrong public targeting tactic, all that might lead to a disaster in terms of losing credibility, especially in a crisis situation, during which everything is accelerated, as we all know.

Once practitioners and leaders understand credibility as an open system, they can start to appreciate the system’s elements and the interactions between them as well as the factors that structure and build corporate spokesperson’s credibility.

Credibility factors

In the same study (Prud’homme, 2004), it has been found that ten credibility factors/components influence the population to judge a spokesperson credible or not, because at all times a spokesperson is credible only in people’s mind, his/her audience.

As you can see in the following table, the top-10 factors are common sense. But what was new in this research is how to integrate these factors to a credibility system and how to build and maintain (and even regain) credibility.

factors

As it is possible to see in the right column of the table, a spokesperson can control almost all of them, except charisma. Some scholars say that some leaders are able to develop charisma, it is true indeed, but it is harder to develop charisma than exercising control on the other factors.

The intimate relationship between a spokesperson and his/her credibility

Credibility is not only related to influence and persuasion, but also to the act of informing, communicating, having a dialog with an audience, receiving feedback. That is to create and maintain a relationship of trust and sharing between a spokesperson or a corporation and their publics and stakeholders.

We must understand that credibility exists only in function of a reflection or a perception, it does not exist by itself, it starts in the mind of every member of an audience. A spokesperson is not credible because he/she thinks that he/she is credible, it is only how the audience perceives his/her credibility.

Members of an audience must have confidence in him/her and must have the feeling of being respected. (Prud’homme, 2004)

Credibility does not equal effectiveness. A credible spokesperson sincerely wishes to establish and maintain a relationship of trust and mutual understanding with his/her publics rather than being effective. I mentioned “dialog” because credibility is a two-way symmetrical communication (Grunig and Hunt, 1984). A credible spokesperson always demonstrates a great flexibility and a mindset of openness along with a constant authenticity.

To be credible, a spokesperson should know his strengths and weaknesses, because above all, he/she is a human being in a complex and uncertain environment (Prud’homme, 2004).

Finally, we must understand that credibility is built, managed and can be strengthened, but never won (Prud’homme, 2004) and that anyone should avoid at all costs to perform miracle recipes such as: “10 steps to become an effective spokesperson” coming from public speaking best-seller handbooks.

Credibility is lived day by day. It is a lifestyle one chooses to live or not. Credibility reinforcement is an arduous and long-term approach that positively contributes to build trust and reputation as well as a sharing and constructive dialog between a spokesperson and the population.

Credibility before trust and leadership

A fact that so many practitioners and leaders forget is the primacy that credibility has over trust and leadership. It should be easy to figure that if there is no credibility, there is no trust, no leadership. Therefore, trust and leadership should be considered as credibility’s crucial elements.

It is especially true in crisis management. How a spokesperson and a corporation could be trustworthy and recognized as a leader, two major considerations in crisis management, if there are not credible?

Why a corporation should invest to build credibility?

Managers who do not believe that they should seriously prepare for possible crisis to arise are not able to answer this question and they probably already stopped reading this blog anyways.

Credibility brings not only an impressive return on investment (ROI) to corporations in terms of two-way symmetrical communication and a powerful and long-term relationship with all stakeholders, but it can also save corporations from a disaster originated through a crisis or even solve it. It also contributes to reduce uncertainty.

The only constraint when a corporation decides to work on its credibility is the time, and in business, time is cash. People do not realize how long it could be to build a credibility sound enough to help them to get out of a crisis situation or to build a relationship with stakeholders. We often say that it takes years to build credibility and it takes hours to lose, and it is so true. On the long run though, it is worth to invest time as well as above-the-line, below-the-line and through-the-line capital.

Why your publics and your stakeholders should listen to you when you try communicating about a crisis or an issue if they do not believe you at first?

__________________________

Author:
Stephane Prud’homme, MA, i.e.MBA, PhD Candidate
stepru.com  |  credibilityinstitute.com
All Rights Reserved – 2015

Keywords: Credibility, source credibility, corporate credibility, spokesperson, trust, reputation, crisis, crisis management, uncertainty, return on investment, ROI, two-way symmetrical communication, management, leadership.