Reputational change among managers

Few would argue the importance of having a good reputation. Being viewed in a positive light by others has been shown to affect such things as career advancement (Singh and Vinnicombe, 2000), power (Pfeffer, 1992), management capital (Gowler and Legge, 1989), and the ability to persuade others (e.g., Ferris et al., 2005; Sosik and Jung, 2003). Additionally, those who have positive reputations are promoted faster and rewarded more generously than their colleagues with lesser reputations (Tsui, 1984). Not only are individuals motivated by societal rewards to create a good reputation (Zinko et al., 2007), but human nature drives individuals to create a positive reputation. Within humans there exists a desire to "be known for something" (Baumeister, 1982). This innate force causes a person to attempt to signal to others their intentions and wishes through actions that they hope will be viewed in a positive light (Ferris et al., 2003). Although not always successful, individuals aspire to have others around them see them as they see themselves (Baumeister, 1982). The purpose of this study is to examine and extend research on the burgeoning area of a manager's reputation. Not only is current theory still being developed regarding how a reputation is formed (e.g., Ferris et al., 2003; Tsui, 1984; Zinko et al., 2007), but even less is known about whether and how a manager's reputation could change. Building upon current theory, this study is one of the first to examine whether managers are able to change their reputations by altering their observable actions. Such actions are a way of "signaling" to their audience that change is occurring (Ferris et al., 2003; Spence, 1974). In turn, this study proposes that an audience will reassess the focal-manager in question, assigning a new reputation to the manager based upon these observable changes. First, a theoretical foundation for reputation is offered, and hypotheses developed. Next, the methodology is explained and the results of the change of the reputation of the focal-managers are described. Finally, a discussion of the findings and how they contribute to the field, practical applications, limitations, and future research directions for the field are presented. THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT Reputation in Our Daily Lives Reputation helps decrease ambiguity about an individual, group, or organization by suggesting predictable patterns of behavior in given situations (Zinko et al., 2011). When complete information is not known about an individual, reputation helps to reduce uncertainty by providing a "reasonable expectation" of an individual's actions, given a specific set of circumstances (i.e., this individual is reputed to take this course of action in a given situation). Reputations not only help reduce instances of uncertainty about an individual, but they also allow individuals to locus finite resources on other matters by accepting certain aspects as a given (Zinko et al., 2007). An individual's reputation is equally as useful due to the same reduction of ambiguity about individuals or groups in an organizational context. Frequently, this occurs in the hiring of a new chief executive officer (CEO) by a board of directors. Agency theory dictates that a board must consider the cost of monitoring an individual's actions versus the extent of positive gain the individual will bring to the company (Eisenhardt, 1989). If there is a solid personal reputation in place, the board can expect certain behaviors and will not need to monitor the individual as closely. Although improved knowledge regarding reputation is advantageous at the organizational level, it may be of even greater value to the individual. Mirroring marketing theory (e.g., Erdem and Swait, 1998), organizational scientists have suggested that reputation can be a form of "signaling" (Ferris et al., 2003; Spence, 1974). As with organizations, reputation is important to individuals in that it reduces ambiguity. …