Navigating your reputation through an uncertain world

An organisation’s reputation has always been important, it’s the lubricant that makes it easier to open doors, build partnerships, increase authority and extend reach and impact. That goes double for grant funders who constantly need to forge new and strengthen existing relations and influence to make progress towards their mission.

But there are a number of factors right now creating greater risks to those hard-won reputations.

Public trust in institutions in Europe is continuing to fray, made more acute by polarisation, with many people feeling unable or unwilling to trust or even want to engage with those who hold different views.

Alongside that trend, grant funders are seeing more challenges to both their approach and the issues they are seeking to make progress on. While a lot of the challenges to the philanthropic model are legitimate and even welcome, those relating to the issues foundations are working on are often being weaponised by influencers and political activists, aided by some legacy media outlets desperate for clicks. This creates a tricky situation where foundations need to address well-intentioned concerns and criticism without being dragged into winless culture war arguments. In the UK, several high-profile grant funders have found themselves the subject of media criticism about their funding decisions in the last few years.

I explored some of these issues with Philea members at the recent London meeting of the Communications Community of Practice, and three key areas emerged:

• Purpose hush – speaking out on a whole range of social and environmental issues, from climate change to DEI, comes with an increased threat of criticism and even a rising risk of legal action. A great deal of that criticism is coming from the populist and far right in its many guises and a lot of it is groundless or based on a legitimate issue that is blown out of all proportion, often designed simply to sow discord. It means many organisations are thinking twice about being vocal and in some cases opting to stay silent or tone down their message.
• Internal activist pressure – conversely, while that external pressure is rising, there is also a greater demand for organisations to take a public stance on a whole range of issues, driven by internal audiences and allies who believe foundations with progressive views should show support. It leaves some struggling to work out a rationale for which causes and issues they should publicly endorse.
• Challenges to the foundation model – with the retreat of public funding in some countries, both for tackling issues domestically and internationally, and a growing scrutiny of widening wealth inequality, grant funders are under greater pressure to fill some of the gaps and under increased scrutiny in terms of how they allocate funds, how they manage the capital they have and how it was created in the first place. Both trends increase the need for grant funders to articulate more clearly their funding rationale and their legitimacy to operate as a philanthropic institution and justify the privileges this brings.

So, in the face of reputational risks like these and others, what can grant funders do to reduce their vulnerability?

The first step is to identify the most relevant and serious threats for an individual organisation. It is tempting to concentrate on external threats, such as the rise of populist and far right movements in some parts of Europe, because they are often the ones that loom largest in our consciousness, but it would be a mistake not to give equal consideration to the risks that come from inside an organisation. One of the most significant of those internal risks, and one that can be uncomfortable for organisations to consider, is when the actions or behaviours of the organisation or its leaders do not match its stated values. Handled poorly, an issue like that can cause much greater long-term harm to an organisation’s reputation than becoming the focus for external criticism. In fact, it can often be the catalyst for that external criticism.

Once identified, it is worth considering what mitigation actions an organisation can take to reduce the likelihood and severity of those risks. Some of these will be operational, such as improved internal policies, but one of the most effective tools for organisations is to adopt an attitude of talking out loud about the complexities and challenges of the work they do and the environment they operate in. A great deal of criticism is fuelled by a perception that an organisation is being opaque or evasive on a difficult or controversial issue. As a result, it can be incredibly disarming if an organisation proactively communicates about it before others do. Ally that to a willingness to enter into dialogue with relevant stakeholders on the issue, and there is a good chance that an organisation’s reputation may even be enhanced as a result.

That enhanced reputation is likely to be with the audiences who are closest to the organisation, from staff through to grantees, partners and peers. In most circumstances, they are more important to engage and keep onside than those who aren’t part of an organisation’s ecosystem, despite those external voices often being the loudest and demanding attention and a response. It should be a priority for organisations to map those friends and family audiences and ensure they are top of the list for engaging on reputational issues. What lies underneath all of this is a basic truth – your reputation primarily lives in the perceptions of the people and organisations who are part of your ecosystem. In an increasingly uncertain and febrile environment, it pays to invest in your relationships with those audiences as the most powerful way to navigate your reputation through future choppy waters.