The Brief
The reputation challenge
Universities understand the value of reputation, but, according to a recent QS survey, many struggle to build it.
By Anton John Crace
Despite a deep understanding of the importance of reputation and how it can help improve performance across a number of measures, universities struggle with managing it.
To understand this challenge, QS surveyed individuals from 471 higher education institutions around the world, with representation from institutions across all positions in the 2024 QS World University Rankings. Among the barriers, 79 percent of respondents said their institution lacked a central contact management system, while 74 percent said dispersed data owned by different departments posed difficulties.
The cornerstone for building and improving reputation, nurturing relationships with academic and employer contacts, saw similar challenges. The most significant difficulties were around assessing current levels of engagement and a lack of data, a point linked to institutions' lack of a central contact management system.
Interestingly, however, the results also show that relationship management was not a problem rooted entirely in technology. Categorisation, consent to send communications, and concerns over spamming also featured prominently in the barriers identified by institutions.
The consequences of these challenges are very clear. When asked if they thought their university was effective in managing relationships with both academic and employer partners, fewer than half responded positively.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the perceived level of effectiveness in managing partner relationships decreased with rank, at least in the first three bands, Top 50, 51 - 200, and 201 - 500. This correlation between rank and perceived effectiveness stops, however, at the 501 - 1,000 band. Representatives from those institutions were substantially more upbeat on the effectiveness of partner management than any other band for both academic and employer partners.
In fact, more than half of representatives from universities ranked 501 - 1,000 believed their institution was effective in managing employer partners, the only instance in which satisfaction surpassed 50 percent.
Those ranked outside the top 1,000 were also comparatively upbeat around effectiveness of stakeholder management.
There are several possible explanations for the differences in perceived effectiveness between those ranked in the Top 500 and those outside. One is that universities ranked 501 - 1,000 and beyond are more actively pursuing measures that could benefit their reputation.
This hypothesis somewhat bears out with a closer look at the level of resources available at universities. As the rank of a respondent’s institution lower, the more likely they were to indicate their university had resources, be that either strategy, planning and data; tools to assist them that require manual processes; or a combination of both.
This is only true for institutions ranked 500 and above, however. Respondents in the Top 200 and 201 -500 bands indicated a comparable level of resourcing, and yet had different perceptions of effectiveness. Perhaps the higher proportion of dedicated teams in the Top 200 impacted this.
Noticeably, those in the Top 50 indicated they were the least resourced, but had the second highest levels of effectiveness in stakeholder management.
Another possible explanation is that while higher ranked institutions are less effective in managing partner relations, their shortfalls were better hidden by their already high reputation (in this case, rank). Stakeholder management is perceived to be effective because the rank is high, rather than rank being high because of effective reputation management.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the results may indicate that the mere existence of a team, dedicated resources and planning does not guarantee effectiveness. In simpler terms, owning a gym membership does not automatically lead to fitness goals; it requires ongoing work and redefined goals to make progress.
In this regard, most universities seem to be struggling. Despite being relatively well resourced, less than half of universities thought their stakeholder management was effective.
Why does this matter?
The effectiveness of stakeholder management is tantamount to the creation of reputation. With very few exceptions, the only way stakeholders will become aware of the achievements of a university is through letting people know.
If a university can’t communicate these achievements, be that through challenges in understanding and assessing current levels of engagement, a lack of data, difficulty in sorting data, or many others, the fewer stakeholders are aware, and reputation remains the same or worsens.
And this creates serious challenges in achieving other organisational goals. When asked about how reputation can help their institution, respondents displayed a nuanced appreciation for what good reputation can achieve. The top reasons to attract recognition and achieve good reputation are to recruit students and meet academic and industry partners. Attracting faculty and funding also rated highly.
In short, reputation is everything. It's a vitally important factor in ensuring the ongoing success of a university across a number of measures, and while priority areas differ per institution, poor reputation can hinder progress.
Given the importance of reputation, then, the survey responses show a clear gap between where universities want to be with reputation management and how advanced they currently are.
Aspire to reputational success
One approach institutions can use to work towards building effectiveness in their stakeholder and reputation management is using the ASPIRE approach:
- A for Ambition: Define what your institution aims to be recognized for – and by whom. What do you want your reputation to help you to achieve? This is the vision that guides your reputation-building efforts.
- S for Strategy: Develop a clear, actionable plan with objectives, a timeline, and delegated responsibilities to move toward that vision.
- P for Processes: Establish robust systems and procedures that support and streamline the implementation of your strategy.
- I for Insight: Utilize internal and external data to set your objectives, inform decisions, monitor progress, and adjust your strategy and tactics when necessary.
- R for Recognition: Seek and earn validation from reputable, independent bodies that endorse the quality and impact of your institution's work.
- E for Engagement: Actively communicate your achievements and value proposition to stakeholders.
But, universities don't have to go it alone. Organisations, such as QS, can help guide reputation management, to improve success.