In these tough economic times, I’ve been thinking about corporate reputations and I've come, I think, to a rather compelling theory: nasty companies will become extinct and nice companies will survive and thrive. The reason why nice companies will do well is that they establish attractive reputations. Companies that have reputations for being good employers find it easier to recruit and keep good people. Companies that have reputations for being good citizens are looked upon favourably by consumers. These days, companies that give to charity and are genuinely concerned about the environment tend to attract more customers. Companies that care about their customers as well as their suppliers give to their products and services an additional, and rather special kind of value. Business leaders are getting very interested in this ‘reputation’ value. They’re beginning to see it as an asset on their ‘invisible balance sheets’. Those are the balance sheets accountants can’t see, but which contain the really crucial things like brand values, intellectual property and know-how of employees.If we agree that a company’s reputation is its most valuable asset, and if we recognise that reputation consists not of reality but of perceptions, then it is essential for a company to market a strategy. Reputation building and maintenance are going to be key management tasks going forward. It will become routine to acquire reputational assets at every opportunity. Until now, the big question for companies has been: ‘What shall we do?’ Henceforth the big question will be: ‘What am I?’
The theoretical part of the argument for how a nice company behaves is based on the theory of games. The game I think models nice businesses very well is ‘The Prisoners Dilemma’. Games theorist Robert Axelrod tried to discover the best strategy – the one that accumulated the highest score by inviting games theorists to enter their strategies in a computer tournament. To cut to the chase, the nice strategy did surprisingly well. (Axelrod defined the nice type of strategy as one that was never the first to make an aggressive move). It was a surprise because the conventional wisdom was to be first to defect (i.e. make an aggressive move). The reason why the conventional solution does badly in our game is that we are playing the repeated version. Players meet each other frequently, as they do in business, and soon establish reputations. A nasty player does well at first, but then gets a reputation for being nasty and finds that no-one wants to play with him any more.
The strategy that actually won Axlerod’s tournament he called ‘Tit for Tat’. It always cooperates on the first move and then always repeats what the other player does. Its simplicity is its strength. Other players recognise it; they know that if they’re aggressive it will be aggressive back. They also know that if they’re nice, it will be nice back, and that a long and mutually profitable relationship will begin.
It is this kind of niceness I mean when I talk about the nice strategy. It’s a clear, deliberate and disciplined kind of niceness. It’s not woolly, soft, weak niceness. Axelrod attributes Tit for Tat’s success on four qualities: it’s nice, it’s retaliatory, it’s forgiving, and it’s clear. I think all these qualities are desirable in a business strategy.
I'm convinced that the dominant business strategy of the future will be nothing other than to behave as a nice company.
Posts
