Marco Conceptual

As mentioned in Section 2.3, the three corporate reputation or CBI models (FMAC, Harris-Fombrun’s the Reputation Quotientm and Reputation Institute’s RepTrak® Scorecard) represent tools for evaluative judgment of reputation (Clardy, 2012). A recent review of issues in conceptualisation and measurement of corporate reputation summarised some of the criticisms for the FMAC and Reputation Quotientm (see Clardy. 2012). For example, the FMAC was criticised for using biased sampling frames, relying on atypical respondents, reporting research methods poorly, producing merely financial-based outcome, and reflecting rankings, not reputation, whilst Reputation Quotientm was questioned on the validity or value of its emotional and rational appeal index. On the other hand, RepTrak® Scorecard, a revised version of the Reputation Quotientm, has yet to be reviewed. The Scorecard added additional dimensions (innovation) while maintaining and splitting the other existing dimensions of the Reputation Quotientm. For example, dimensions such as product/services,

leadership, workplace and performance are retained whilst the “social responsibility” is split into “governance” and “citizenship”. Despite the criticisms, all three models

prescribed leadership as one of the dimensions to assess CBI, but each model has not defined the leadership clearly. This thesis suggests that leadership archetypes offer clear representation of the ill-defined dimension.

9.6.1 Corporate Brand Management

For corporate brand management practitioners, the findings of Study 2 offer some

in the minds of various stakeholders. The findings suggest that corporate marketers have to be cautious in projecting CEOs to multiple stakeholders (potential investors, employees and customers). Should CEOs be used as brand endorsers to enhance CBI, they must portray images that can create favourable impression towards products/services or organisations. Yet, little is known about what leadership image is contributing favourably to CBI.

The results of Study 2 suggest that only visionary CEOs should be the brand endorsers. This being the case, it could be argued that the late Steve Jobs’ endorsement of Apple products could be seen as indicative of a strategy to convince distant stakeholders to identify with Apple Inc., patronise Apple brands, and invest in

Jobs’ ventures which transcended the boundary of various industries (entertainment

and technology). Such an example of specific-brand leadership may have been attracting potential employees and customers to Apple Inc. (Mohart et al., 2009; Wieseke et al., 2009 and Punjaisri et al., 2013).

In contrast, the findings also suggest that a commander CEO, such as Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel, should not be a product endorser. A commander, who is aggressive and directive (see Chapter 5), could be seen as being ruthless by socially distant stakeholders. His/her prominence in product endorsement may affect his/her

company’s brand image negatively as asserted by Power et al. (2008). This suggests

that the leader-context match concept of the CVF for leadership may have limited application to distant stakeholders.

Nonetheless, this research still illustrates how CEOs can be depicted in order to enhance corporate reputation or CBI, which leadership archetypes can influence

socially distant stakeholders’ perceptions in assessing CBI and how organisations

should strategise their corporate brand management. In short, image makers of CEOs could use the findings to assist them in projecting images that can have a spill over effect on corporate brands.

9.6.2 Leadership Development

For leadership development, the findings of Study 1 enlighten leadership trainers and trainees that mass media portrayals of CEOs are likely to activate personifications of leadership qualities in situational contexts. Not all personifications are useful. For example, the results of Study 2 suggest that a task-oriented commander archetype was not as favoured by stakeholders as a create-oriented visionary archetype, though it has been commonly captured in the academic literature and portrayed in the mass media. As such, training aspiring leaders to be more decisive and commander-like may not be useful for senior executives. CEOs with this archetype may deter external stakeholder to engage with the organisation that they run. They should be trained to be visionary leaders. Being visionary appears to give the impression that such CEOs are powerful to overcome various business challenges. This also seems to advocate a stream of strategic leadership research, that is, visionary leadership (Elenkov et al., 2005).

On the other hand, the findings of Study 2 seem to suggest that being visionary may not be much value at the supervisory level. CEOs are more likely to deal with external stakeholders whilst middle and first line managers are often dealing with internal stakeholders. At supervisory levels, being visionary may not help the internal stakeholders if the vision is not communicated or aligned to organisational strategies (Ulrich and Smallwood, 2008). For middle and first line managers, being trained as task-oriented commanders may be useful to ensure organisational success as they can assert their formal authority on subordinates. This suggests that leadership training should be customised to address the skills gaps and the managerial positions of aspirators.

Some developers of leadership programs may argue the identified leadership archetypes are highly suggestive personifications, or merely artistic. Yet, the irony is that the leadership metaphors were gathered from multiple print publications as specified in Study 1, and many of them correspond to the archetypes found in the business and academic literature of leadership development. These leadership archetypes appear more realistic as they are defined as personification of leadership qualities comprising behaviours and traits of CEOs in situational contexts.