From my colleague, Michael Sacks:

In this volatile business climate, every perceived misspent dollar or undeserved bonus is met with hostility and every corporate move is dissected and scrutinized to identify malfeasance or just plain stupidity. Today, protecting or rebuilding reputation can feel like a Sisyphusian task. Threats to reputation both lurk quietly and loom large.

In an effort to provide some practical help, June’s issue of the McKinsey Quarterly asserts that rebuilding corporate reputation must be achieved through more that “traditional PR tactics,” and swipes at the outmoded idea of “spinning” problems away.

A more nuanced strategy is required, the authors posit. This strategy must be multi-disciplinary and cross-functional internally, and must engage a variety of external stakeholders beyond the consumer and traditional media – NGOs, advocacy groups, grassroots supporters, bloggers, community influencers, and more. As my boss and editor-in-chief of this blog would say, you need a strategic “circle of friends” to help tell you story during a crisis. Undeniably true and invariably useful. And savvy communications counselors have always known and practiced this.

In the main, the article is correct – a company needs many more reputation protectors than a small marketing and public relations department. Colleagues from across an organization and across business units must be able to recognize threats – right in front of them or 100 miles down the road – and understand the reputational impact they can have. External friends must point out gaps in word and deed.

But one of the article’s fundamental assumptions doesn’t account for a very real and very active threat to reputation: the motivated adversary. The authors write much about “getting your side of the story out” and spreading “positive messages” when confronted with serious threats, particularly in the media. The assumption here is that a company can meet serious, if not legitimate, criticisms by simply proclaiming, Yeah but look at all the good stuff we’re doing! It also assumes that ardent critics have open minds and can be persuaded. More often than not, this just isn’t the case.

No amount of positive messaging is going to pacify those with entrenched and principled disagreements with a company’s actions. Advocacy organizations dedicated to organic food and healthful eating simply aren’t going to be on board with Fast Food Chain X. Greenpeace will not be persuaded that Oil Company Y is good for the environment.

Where companies can discredit critics, they should. Where there is a legitimate deficiency outed, companies should fix it. Over time, doing the right thing – and communicating it authentically – wins friends. “Getting positive messages out” doesn’t. Wal-Mart, as an example, was long a favorite target of environmental activist groups. Recognizing that it could do better, Wal-Mart stepped its game up, made a real commitment to sustainability, communicated it effectively, and now stands among the world’s enterprise leaders in responsible environmental stewardship.

Winning hearts and minds is nice, but not always in the cards. Sometimes, getting an opponent to leave you alone is the most prudent and best outcome.

Michael Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com

msacks General Corporate Corporate Reputation