Santiago, in your opinion, what is reputation and why is it so important in higher education?

“It is common to state that university reputation is the set of beliefs, perceptions and attitudes expressed by stakeholders to acknowledge the nature and academic performance of a university in terms of whether (or not) it has met their expectations over a period of time.”

“But this idea of reputation is somewhat misunderstood. Everyone notices when it is missing. Many agree that reputation is about university perceptions and values. But it’s also to do with people’s beliefs that trigger attitudes (positive and negative), areas of recommendation and legitimacy. So, it’s important that these perceptions don’t occur in a vacuum and for a long period of time without being addressed.

People also confuse brand for reputation. Brand is about expressing the organisation and reputation is how the stakeholder perceives that expression. So, whilst brand is the expression, reputation should be thought of as the perception.

Reputation is important because of the impact it has on the organisation. A good reputation is the best engine for attracting talented individuals because people want to be part of a strong community and collaborative projects. It’s the best mechanism for maintaining social mobility. I often say that reputation is an intangible value with many tangible effects – quality recruitment is one of them.”

How can universities invest in reputation management?

“A good operational model is crucial in understanding how reputation is built, performed, and cultivated. I like to explain this through a triangular approach, as this brings very practical results in the real world. The three dimensions of reputation are inside-out, outside-in and side-to-side. Inside-out refers to the institutional character or behaviour, which is the source of good academic performance. Outside-in is the classic view of reputation – it’s about perceptions of that university. Side-to-side drives value in collaboration. And so a good operational model must refer to all three practices of reputation in the triangle. It encompasses communication with all stakeholders and involves them in senior decisions.”

“In short, a university’s strategy for reputation should be about actions. This involves cultivating an identity, maintaining academic excellence, driving collaboration with its community, and learning from environmental trends. If you understand this triangle and its practical applications, you have the potential to make good strategic decisions.

Investments into reputational management should be made on two levels:

1. Consider reputation as a university governance principle. The greatest investment decision is not financial, but strategic. It’s important that leaders realise that reputation can only be cultivated if it is thought of as a main governance principle. Reputation is crucial in informing decision making at senior levels, and so it needs to be prioritised in leadership positions across the university.

2. The second investment must be made in terms of corporate communication and its professional capabilities. Reputation demands a change in communicating, as it moves from functional tasks to strategic outputs. The reputation lens transforms the corporate communications and more broadly, the whole institution. This investment is about creating a lasting relationship between internal and external stakeholders, and it opens listening systems within the organisation from the bottom up.

The reputational lens transforms the organisation and qualifies university governance; it makes it more sensitive to purpose, values, and internal culture; it activates open and lasting relationships with internal and external stakeholders; it opens listening systems within the organisation; it equips leaders with listening habits and leadership; it’s concerned with contributing to the common good and learning from the environment. This is about applying the reputation triangle to university governance and management.”

Are there some ways that universities can manage reputational risk?

“Reputation is very hard to gain, but so easy to lose. So, avoid having a reputational crisis at all costs. I don’t like phrases that state that an organisation can learn from a crisis, or that they have a great opportunity to grow, because I think that everything possible should be done to stop the crisis from arising in the first place. Very few will come out the other side untarnished.

I believe that universities must develop reputational risk prevention plans. There are prevention models, risk matrices and plans, and these are what we use at the University of Navarra. We involve as many departments and teams as possible within the organisation to get on board with the reputational mindset.

The question is not: “what penalty do I incur if I do this?” but “what trust do I lose if I do this?,” or “what stakeholder group will lose confidence in me because of this action?”. Reputational risk doesn’t only have a legal dimension; it incorporates many elements that need to be considered. In my opinion, the bar should be set higher.

The people need to alter their minds and consider reputation as a multitude of elements. In my opinion, the bar should be set higher so that reputation is not just a literal dimension. We must listen to the feelings and emotions of internal stakeholders so that they can help with decision making.”

What are some reputational truths that others may disagree with you on?

“These are turbulent times for universities. For example, changes in the market and technology, the questioning of the value of a four-year university degree, de-globalisation, geopolitical tensions, the debate on institutional neutrality and free speech force universities to reconsider their leadership in a challenging global scenario. University leaders today have fewer certainties when answering this question: how do we gain society’s trust today? Perhaps the key lies in how we have understood university reputation thus far.

As I said before, reputation is a complex reality that integrates three perspectives: an inside-out approach, an outside-in approach, and a co-creation of value approach in the environment. This reputation triangle may seem theoretical, but it explains some of the current crises.

Historically, managing university (and corporate) reputation has prioritised stakeholder management and context adaptation, often forgetting the first approach, possibly the most important: reputation is born and cultivated within the organisation and expressed outwardly. The current reputational crisis of many universities is, fundamentally, a crisis of identity: what is the fundamental academic mission? What is the unique and credible purpose that makes us distinguishable? How do we protect our professors’ intellectual work above other market interests (whether capital or ideas)? How do we safeguard the integrity of our universities when they are subjected to external forces?

Universities must integrate their stakeholders and correctly interpret the context; but they must also cultivate the purpose for which they were founded: to transmit and generate knowledge, preserve the free circulation of ideas and promote the holistic growth of their students. It is the task of university governance to seek a balanced approach to the three perspectives of reputation.”

Because universities like to benchmark each other, do you see room for greater authenticity in identity? 

“Yes, universities need to reinforce their fundamental principles and warn of the risks of entering into market spaces and political spaces. I think we are suffering the consequences of ill-considered decisions. Obviously, universities should be in the market, but a lot of rethinking is needed about how best to differentiate yourself.

To summarise, higher education institutions must avoid unrealistic isolationism, but they must also behave without uncritical adaptations to the environment and without the mimicry that has ended up making them all the same. Clarifying mission, cultivating purpose every day and strengthening internal culture and values must once again become central elements of university strategy.

Reputation is born on the inside, so if you want to run, be careful, because you could suffer internal stretching if the foundations are not well established.”

Do you have any examples of universities who you think have done a good job at building and maintaining a strong reputation?

“Yes, of course. I think that the ‘Defy Gravity’ campaign from the University of Toronto is clever. It works to engage the support of the community by advertising that they too can be part of the life-changing impact if they support the university’s research priorities.

In the UK, Sheffield Hallam University and the University of Sheffield have recently joined forces to create the ‘Your University City’ campaign. This is a great example of a collaborative strategy between two institutions to build a strong and competitive higher education brand. The digital platform provides space for students to get to know each university, the city, and opportunities before they even begin their degrees.

Finally, let me talk a little bit about the University of Navarra – my university. In 2015, we decided to learn how to cultivate university reputation from the best universities (mainly looking to the UK). Since then we have been driving training, research and transformation activities in the area of reputation. One of the most exciting actions has been the listening project to learn about brand perceptions and make decisions to improve the university. 50,000 people from ten stakeholder groups have participated so far. It has been a fascinating project that has taught us the full extent of which reputation management helps the good governance of the university.”

If you have enjoyed reading Santiago’s insights as much as we loved hearing them, you can purchase his latest book now. The book explores a conceptual framework of corporate reputation that informs universities’ cultivation, credibility, and growth. An English translation will be available later this year.