THE ROLE OF ONLINE AND OFFLINE REPUTATION IN THE PROCESS OF SELECTING A MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT

(1)

The role of online and offline reputation in the

process of selecting a management consultant

by

Rolf Cleveringa

s1918524

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc Strategy and Innovation

July 2012

Supervisors:

(2)

ABSTRACT

This study looks into reputation and e-dentity (all positive or negative information that is available on the internet about a company) and its influence on hiring management consultancy companies or management consultants. The management consulting service is an experience good, which means that the quality (intrinsic property) of the service can only be assessed during or after finishing the project. This means that potential clients need the consultants extrinsic property (reputation) as an indicator of its intrinsic property (quality). This research investigated the importance of reputation in the selection of management consultants. A total of 45 companies responded and these results were used to find the importance and the role of e-dentity and reputation. These 45 respondents consists of 38 (potential) clients and 7 consultants. The overall findings of this research offer a strong support that reputation and e-dentity play a significant role in the selection process and that the information found on the internet is also highly regarded as decisive for the choice of a consultant, especially when respondents lack direct experience. Consultancy companies can then use branding to create a positive and strong online brand that influences the decision of hiring that consultancy company.

(3)

PREFACE

This study was conducted as the final paper of my master education in Business Administration with Strategy & Innovation as specialization, at the University of Groningen.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank several people that supported me throughout the process of writing this paper. Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor dr. Thijs Broekhuizen for his support, his extensive feedback, his knowledge on statistics and his help in structuring and improving this paper. Secondly, I would also like to thank my second supervisor dr. Killian McCarthy. Thirdly, I would like to thank Wil Griffijn for her large network of companies relevant to this research and in her help recruiting these companies for questionnaires. Fourthly, I would like to thank Gieljan Scholing (MBA) and Anna van den Brand (BSc) for reading my paper, helping me with statistics and providing me a fresh point of view. Furthermore, I would like to thank everyone who filled in the online surveys and everyone who was willing to help me, gave useful comments and supported me throughout the process of writing this paper.

Rolf Cleveringa

(4)

1. INTRODUCTION

“The way to gain a good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear.” - Socrates (469BC-399BC) –

“It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it” - Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) -

These famous quotes, of Benjamin Franklin and Socrates, describe the core of reputation. The first describes branding as the most basic objective of creating a reputation; “The way to gain a

good reputation is to endeavor to be what you desire to appear” (Socrates, 469BC-399BC). It is

important for people in the business world to make a powerful and good impression (Everett, 2008). This is because an impression can greatly affect the reputation and image of a company in a positive or negative way (Balmer & Greyser, 2006; Falkenreck & Wagner, 2010). With reputational branding the first impression, reputation, image and identity of a company can be influenced (Kadembo, Jackson, Feather & Granata, 2010; Rode & Vallaster, 2005). Reputational branding is the creation (Rode & Vallaster, 2005) and management (Kadembo et al., 2010) of a unique set of associations, which represent what the brand reputation stands for and that imply a promise to customers (Aaker, 1998; Abimbola & Kocak, 2007; Lory & McCalman, 2002) and that provide assurance of product or service quality to consumers/customers (Onkvisit & Shaw, 1989).

A good reputation is something that costs time and effort, but it is also susceptible to negative influences; “It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to

lose it” (Socrates, 469BC-399BC).

Both of these quotes also touch upon the core of this research, which is to investigate the role of reputational branding, online reputation (e-dentity) and offline reputation in the selection process of a management consultant.

1.1 Relevance of (digital) branding

It is widely acknowledged that branding is important and that it makes a difference for companies (Noble, 2006) in the way that it helps companies to grow (Juntunen, Saraniemi, Halttu & Tähtinen, 2010), that it can be used in a competitive strategy (Abimbola, 2001; Merrilees, 2007), that it adds value to existing products or services (Onkvisit & Shaw, 1989) and that it helps with customer acquisition (Bresciani & Eppler, 2010). To stress the importance of branding, Bresciani & Eppler (2010), mention that if starting companies do not establish a corporate brand, they might disappear from the market. Thus, failing to compete with other companies.

(7)

consumers engage with brands and it transformed marketing; outdating many of the traditional strategies (Edelman, 2010). Web 2.01 changed the way people (digitally) engage and interact with brands (Andriole, 2010). Next to being a range of new services - blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, podcasts and social networks (Andriole, 2010), web 2.0 was also a fundamental shift from company-controlled content to user-driven content where anyone’s opinion can have an impact (Smith, 2009) on a company’s reputation. Many personal experiences, in this case with consultants or consultancy companies, can be found on the internet.

1.2 About the internet and its usage

The internet plays an important role in today’s life. A lot of people have access to the internet nowadays. CBS, the government agency that is responsible for collecting statistical information, researched the internet penetration in the Netherlands and found that in 2010 the total computer penetration was 94% and the total internet penetration was also 94% (CBS, 2011). Which means that 94% of all people in the Netherlands had access to a computer and 94% had access to the internet. According to the same source, the internet penetration of companies is even higher, 99% in 2010. These figures show that most people in the Netherlands have access to the internet. The same research showed that 82% of all companies had a website in 2010. So, from these figures, it can be concluded that the internet is mainstream in the Netherlands.

Table 1.1 shows the main activities of internet users in the Netherlands. As can be seen, 90% of the internet users search for information on products and services. This could mean that if there are reviews available on a certain company, that those persons looking for it will likely find them. The activities mentioned in table 1.1 are ways in which a person or company can find or stumble upon information about other persons of companies. In other words these activities/possible sources may influence how people view that person of company. Chapter 3 elaborates on this subject.

Table 1.1

Activities of internet users, 2010 (in %)

Internet activity 2010

E-mailing 96

Searching for information on products and services 90

Posting messages on discussion forums 29

Blog reading 35 Blog writing 12 Social media - Age 16-24 - Total 92 47 1

(8)

Source: CBS (2011)

Adex Benchmark (2012) researched online advertising (activities aimed at promoting brands online) in Europe. The research showed that in 2011, compared to 2010, the total online advertising grew with 14.4%. In 2010, compared to 2009, that was an increase of 15.3% and in 2009, compared to 2008, an increase of 4.5%. Adex Benchmark (2012) also shows that the internet advertising contributions to all media has grown to 21.8% in 2011, compared to 19.7% in 2010. The Netherlands is among the top 7 companies in Europe (5th place) that spend most on online advertising. Knapp (according to Heureux, 2012) links these results to the fact that advertisers increasingly recognize online advertising as a branding medium. Heureux also mentions that “the consumer is increasingly online and using multiple channels” so “advertisers try to be where the consumers are”.

Furthermore, table 1.1 shows that social media is one of the most used internet activities among youngsters (age 16-24). This may seem somewhat less relevant to this research, but todays youngsters are possibly tomorrows young professionals. Also, older people do use social media (47%). The leading social networks on user-generated content are social platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube (Smith, 2009), LinkedIn and Hyves (CBS, 2011). Also, the popularity and the importance of social networks increases (Bramoullé & Rogers, 2010; Smith, 2009). Nowadays people leave digital traces wherever they write reviews on websites, write blog posts, even comment on blog posts or create social media pages. The most visible traces of someone’s activities and interests are part of the basic surfing experience (Debatin, Lovejoy, Horn & Hughes, 2009). Everything is stored on the internet.

The process of recruiting a consultant may have some relation to the process of job recruitment. Research of Cross-Tab (2010) on job recruitment showed that only 15% of the people believed that online found information would have an impact on them getting a job, while 89% of the recruiters looks at professional data and 84% also looks at personal data. Hiring a consultancy company can also be seen as recruitment for a job. In that case these findings again show the importance of e-dentity. The research also showed that search engines (78%), networking sites (63%), personal websites (48%) and blogs (46%) are the most important source of information. Cross-Tab (2010) states that “not all online content is true, but candidates may be rejected nonetheless”. According to Debatin et al. (2009) “life without Facebook is almost unthinkable (…) this popular social network service has quickly become both a basic tool for and a mirror of social interaction, personal identity, and network building”.

(9)

user-generated content in the form of opinions and reviews (Smith, 2009). Companies recognized the possibilities of the new services that were mentioned before and when properly deployed, web 2.0 services could increase a company’s productivity and competitive advantage (Andriole, 2010), because of the consumer’s/client’s possibilities to freely give an opinion. The services that flowed from the web 2.0 trend again provided new opportunities for companies to reach their clients.

As Juntunen et al. mentioned web communications are important in branding (2010) and the opinions that are formed online also influence the opinions that are created with offline traditional media (Smith, 2009). Companies should embrace digital branding strongly, because with all internet trends going, e-branding is more important than ever before (Ibeh, Ying & Dinnie, 2005; Jones, Temperley & Lima) .

1.3 Context: management consultancy industry

The role of e-dentity has been research in an environment where reputation plays an important role. This industry where reputation is highly important is the management consultancy industry (Kubr, 2002; Lapsley & Oldfield, 2001; Lory & McCalman, 2002; Moldenhauer, 1982). Clients of management consultants often judge consultancies based on expertise and authority (Bäcklund & Werr, 2001; Starbuck, 1992), which are often reflected in the reputation of a consultancy company. It is important for companies to legitimize the hiring of a specific consultant (Bäcklund & Werr, 2008) and one way to do this is by making inquiries on the reputation and references of that consultant or consultancy company (Dawes, Dowling & Patterson, 1992). The consulting service is an experience good rather than a tangible object (Dawes, Dowling & Patterson, 1991) which means that the intrinsic qualities are hard to assess prior to the experience and that companies need to judge a consultancy company by its extrinsic properties (Teas & Agarwal, 2000). Intrinsic properties can be defined as all properties that describe something as it is (Francescotti, 1999; Vallentyne, 1997). For example, the intrinsic properties of an apple (the fruit, not the brand) are its firmness, its sweetness, its taste, its bite. Extrinsic properties are all properties that are non-intrinsic and are contributed to the object/good (Vallentyne, 1997). An example of the extrinsic properties of an apple are its appearance, its packaging and the reputation of the quality label. For this research an example of an intrinsic property of a management consultancy is the quality of its services. An example of an extrinsic property is reputation. The quality (intrinsic property) of a consultancy can only be assessed after the experience, thus after the consulting service has been concluded/experienced (Darby & Karni, 1973). Companies that do not have experience with a (specific) consultant, have to rely on an extrinsic property like reputation.

(10)

there may be a difference in importance of reputation when looking at the consultant as a person or as a company. It can be assumed that medium-large consultancies rely heavily on the company name and that small companies, or entrepreneurs rely mostly on personal e-dentity.

1.4 Research question

The focus of this research paper lies on online reputation (e-dentity) and offline reputation. The first goal of this paper is to inform managers, consultants and entrepreneurs on the importance of both online and offline reputation and a good e-branding strategy. The second goal is to present managers, consultants and entrepreneurs with e-dentity as a tool to recruit new customers and to maintain existing clients. Therefore, for this research paper the following research question will be used:

How important are online and offline reputation in the process of selecting a management consultant?

Sub questions are: (1) what is the difference between reputation, image and identity? (2) what is the difference between e-dentity and identity? (3) which factors determines reputation? (4) what are the effects of a damaged e-dentity and how can the disadvantages be mitigated? (5) what are the effects of a strong e-dentity and how can the advantages be strengthened?

1.5 Research boundaries

(11)

2. RESEARCH CONTEXT: MANAGEMENT CONSULTANCY

2.1 Management consulting defined

Consultants are experts who “bring about radical positive change among organizations” (Lapsley & Oldfield, 2001). According to the authors main purpose of consultants, as agents of change and stability, is to reduce the uncertainty within companies that is caused by external or internal factors which companies cannot deal with on their own. Fincham & Clark (2002) described the activities of consultants as diagnosing organizational illnesses and prescribing custom made and appropriate remedies. When a company has a problem or when a company wants to improve itself in a certain area of expertise, that company can hire a consultant to make it happen. The term management consultancy is open to misinterpretation as its meaning may vary according to the situation and the individuals involved (Corcoran, Fiona, & McLean, 1998), therefore the term needs to be clearly defined. Preceding the definition of management consulting, the different terms need to be explained: consulting is the professional service (which will be defined), a consultancy is the company that provides the consulting service and the consultant is the individual expert who executes the consulting service. Kubr (2002) defines management consulting as “an independent professional advisory service assisting managers and organizations to achieve organizational purposes and objectives by solving management and business problems, identifying and seizing new opportunities, enhancing learning and implementing changes.” This definition combines several other definitions from other authors who say that consultancy is the process of applying and drawing on the expertise of others (Kuiper & Thomas, 2000; Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 2005) by providing external and objective advice (Datamonitor, 2010a/b) in the form of knowledge in relationship to the market, instead of a static set of skills (Fincham & Clark, 2002) with as goal to improve business performance (Datamonitor, 2010a/b). Several fields of management consultancy can be distinguished: “corporate strategy services, operations management services, information technology solutions, human resource management services and outsourcing services” (Datamonitor, 2010a/b). For this research the definition of management consultancy of Kubr (2002) will be adopted: “an independent professional advisory service assisting managers and organizations to achieve organizational purposes and objectives by solving management and business problems, identifying and seizing new opportunities, enhancing learning and implementing changes.”

2.2 Selecting the management consultant

(12)

deciding decision points tend to vary for companies. The authors named five steps that companies should follow when selecting a management consultant (table 2.1).

Table 2.1

Advice on selection a management consultant, adopted from Gustafson & Di Marco (1973)

1 Have the individuals who will use the consultant involved in the selection process.

2 Use a variety of sources such as colleagues, former consultants, professional associations, professional publications, chambers of commerce, etc. to elicit a set of names of consultants.

3 Obtain additional information on these consultants. This information should include the consultants' backgrounds, education, experiences and publications.

4 Check with the previous clients to find out about the consultants' past performances.

5 Interview them on a face-to-face basis and have them indicate how they would approach your problem.

Another part of the research of Gustafson & Di Marco (1973) was on the basis on which consultants were hired in companies. The results show that the nature of the problem is the most important reason for hiring a certain consultant. Another important reason is the reputation of the consultant; the authors name the consultant’s previous experience, consultant’s credentials and testimonials from previous clients. Gustafson & Di Marco (1973) also show that the use of previous employers, professional associates and other informal sources of information on management consultants are often used. The authors found that word of mouth advertising is the best method.

The importance of reputation was also found by Dawes et al. (1992), who researched what criteria 253 companies used to select a management consultant. The results of their research was a table containing selection criteria that were scored on importance for the selecting company. Table 2.2 contains these criteria and the scores.

Table 2.2

Criteria used to select management consultants, adopted from Dawes et al. (1992)

Criteria Score

Reputation of consultant in specific functional area 5.7

General reputation 5.5

Client knows specific consultant(s) 5.2

Client has experience with consulting firm 5.0

Experience in client’s industry 5.0

Prior use of consultant 4.8

Written consulting proposal 4.7

Consultant will assist with implementation 4.6

Total costs for consultants 4.5

Formal presentation 4.2

Satisfied clients’ recommendation 3.8

Offers full range of services 3.6

Academic qualifications of consultants 3.5

Size of firm 2.9

Location of firm 2.5

Other consultants’ recommendations 2.3

Age of firm 2.2

(13)

Table 2.2 shows that reputation and experience with the consultant are important factors in selecting a management consultant. Therefore table 2.3 describes the properties of reputation and mainly of e-dentity. Hannington (2004) wrote a book on researching a company’s reputation. In this book the author also named criteria that influence the selection of service companies in general. However the author relates most of these to the reputation of the company. Another research that can add some properties to be adopted in this research is from Cross-Tab (2010), in which the online reputation has been researched. This research from Cross-Tab (2010) shows properties that influence the e-dentity of a company. The properties named in table 2.3 are all related to digital communications, both professional and informal. As mentioned before the most important sources of digital information, when seeking information on companies (table 1.1), are: search engines, social network sites (personal and professional), company website, blogs, news sharing sites and online forums (Cross-Tab, 2010).

Table 2.3

Properties of online reputation with a negative influence, adopted from Cross-Tab (2010)

Properties

The consultants gives inappropriate comments and writes inappropriate texts The consultant posts unsuitable photos , videos and information

Inappropriate comments or texts written by friends and relatives of the consultant

The consultant writes criticizing comments on (previous) employers, co-workers or clients Inappropriate comments or text written by colleagues or work acquaintances

The consultant has a membership in certain groups and networks Discovered that information the consultant shared was false The consultant shows poor communication skills

Source: Cross-Tab (2010)

As mentioned before, if companies lack direct experience, the only way to assess the consultancy company is by its extrinsic qualities (e.g. reputation). So, in line with other research, it can be assumed that most criteria that are used to select a management consultant are also based on one’s own experience or the experience from others with the specific consultant or consultancy company. To be able to research e-dentity in the area of management consulting it is necessary to decide what the criteria are that other companies use when hiring a management consultant. Table 2.4 contains a list of criteria that have been used by companies to select a management consultant. The criteria listed there showed that reputation in the specific functional area and the general reputation are the two highest ranking criteria. Therefore, next to selecting the right criteria for selecting a management consultant, also the criteria/properties for reputation will be assessed and selected.

(14)

(15)

Table 2.4

Summary of research on criteria to evaluate management consultants

Criteria Cheung

et al.

Dawes et al.

Gallouj Glückler & Armbrüster

This study Reputation (indirect experience)

Reputation of the consultant in the specific functional area X X X X

General reputation of the consultant X X X X X

Advertising by consultants X X X

Network reputation (indirect experience)

Recommendation by business partner, colleague or other company

X X X

Recommendation by other consultant X X

Recommendation/reference by a satisfied client X X X

Quality of the recommendation X

Direct experience with the consultant

Client knows the specific consultant(s) X X

Client has experience with the consultancy company X X X

Client has made use of the consultant before X X X

Experience of the consultant

Technical competence/qualification of the consultant X X X

Academic qualifications of consultants X X X

Experience in the client’s industry X X X

Experience with similar project X X

Past performance

Quality of past services X X X

Cost control X X

Time control X X

Contact with the consultant

Personal contact with the consultant X X X

Written consulting proposal X X

Formal presentation X X

Direct approach by consultant X X

Consultant's capacity to accomplish work

Size of consultancy firm X X X X

Age of consultancy firm X X X

Location of consultancy firm X X

Availability of qualified personnel X X

Available resources X X

Present workload X X

Offered services

Offers full range of services X X

Variety of services provided X X

Project approach

Consultant will assist with implementation X X

Consultants skill to grasp the project requirement and client needs

X X X

Approaches to quality X X

Approaches to time schedule X X X

Cost control (on schedule) X X

(16)

3. LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ON REPUTATION

3.1 Differences between reputation, identity and image

Reputation, identity and image all have to do with what a company, brand or person stands for. Most research on identity and image connects and links both to each other (Schultz, Hatch & Larsen, 2002) and most research on reputation connects it to image (Jones et al., 2009). However, there are conceptualized differences between the three.

Identity. Schultz et al. (2002) distinguish two perspectives on identity, corporate identity and

organizational identity. Corporate identity refers to “how an organization expresses and differentiates itself in relation to its stakeholders” (Schultz et al., 2002). In other words, how a company wants to express its identity to external parties. This is inside-out communication. This form of identity is often mentioned in relation to marketing and is often formed or influenced by its managers, in the form of strategy, vision and visual characteristics by using graphic design (Hatch & Schultz, 1997). Organizational identity refers to “what members perceive, feel and think about their organizations” (Hatch & Schultz, 1997). According to the authors, it is more concerned with the relationship between the company and its members. Organizational identity is also more linked to the company’s embedded culture and ongoing interactions between the company’s members (Hatch & Schultz, 1997). In other words, how employees perceive themselves and their company and how they want to express that to external parties. This is a two-way communication, as well as inside-out as well as outside-in. From the definitions above it looks like corporate and organizational identity are quite different from each other, however both are internal to the company (Rode & Vallaster, 2005) and provide a different perspective on the same concept (Christensen & Cheney, 2000). Therefore, for this research, identity will be seen as corporate and organizational.

Image. According to Dutton & Dukerich (1991) image is how members of the company think

that other people see their organization. Bernstein (1992) is somewhat more specific and states that it is about the feelings and beliefs about the company that “exists in the minds of its audiences”. Another, quite similar, definition of image is the set of negative and/or positive associations someone has with a company (Lowry, Vance, Moody, Beckman & Read, 2008; Reese, 2007). Image is a more personal view compared to identity and it is always perceived by externals. This research paper uses the definition of Dichter (as quoted in Hatch & Schultz, 1997): the total impression an organizations makes on the minds of people external to the company.

(17)

company, but it is also linked to and derived from the identity of the company (Rode & Vallaster, 2005).

Reputation. Reputation looks very similar to image, but there are some differences. Where

image can be derived from identity, reputation “describes the actual attributes outsiders ascribe to an organization” (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). Reputation is actually determined by the actions a company takes, its communication and its image (Falkenreck & Wagner, 2010). Hong & Yang (2009) define reputation as “a collective assessment of a company’s ability to provide valued outcomes to a representative group or stakeholders”. The literal meaning of the word reputation is: the opinion that people have about the company, based on what happened in the past (Oxford University Press, 2005). The definition of Zabala et al. (2005) can also be added here: the prestige in which a company is held through a period of time, that is based on a set of shared values and through the operational excellence of the company, which assures the credibility, sustainability and differentiation of the company. According to Herbig & Milewicz (1995) a reputation is established by fulfilling the communicated intentions, commitments and promises. The authors also mention that a company will lose its reputation if it repeatedly fails to fulfill these communicated intentions, commitments and promises. So, where image can be influenced by a company’s marketing practices, reputation is mostly related to whether the company followed its promises and how a company conducted its practices in the past.

Table 3.1 contains the three summarized definitions on the mentioned terms: identity, image and reputation.

Table 3.1

Identity, image and reputation defined

Term Definition

Identity The internal view on the company.

Image The external view on the company, based on its outward (corporate controlled) communication and non-corporate controlled information.

Reputation The external view on the company, based on its earlier practices and whether the company fulfilled its promises.

3.2 What is e-dentity?

(18)

Currall, Moss & Stuart, 2005; Niezen, 2005) and therefore offline criteria fail in digital context (Allison et al.). To make a distinction between offline and online, a new term has been adopted: e-dentity.

E-dentity is a contraction of ‘identity’ and the ‘e’ (short for ‘electronic’) which indicates a web based activity (e.g. e-branding, e-commerce, e-mail). The term e-dentity has been adopted by several authors (Guenther, 1999; Kimme Hea, 2002; Reznowski & McManus, 2009; Skiba, 2005; Stenberg, 2010), most other authors use the term digital identity or web identity. E-dentity stands for digital (or internet) identity, image and reputation together. It would be possible to split the term in e-dentity, e-image and e-reputation (like the terms in chapter 3.1), but that makes the term more difficult to grasp. According to Reznowski & McManus (2009) e-dentity is “basically an electronic amalgamation of one’s social, professional, personal, and academic history and growth”. The authors also mention that “personal web pages, resumes posted online, discussion posts, blogs, past publications” all contribute to one’s e-dentity.

For this research e-dentity is all information that is available on the internet about a company, that is controlled and not controlled by that company, with which people can have negative and/or positive associations (characteristics, feelings of beliefs) toward that company.

As mentioned before e-dentity contains aspects of the described (offline) image, identity and reputation. However, there is one major difference and that is that e-dentity is about the digital environment and that image, identity and reputation are in the offline environment. For this research e-dentity will be used for all information that is available on a firm or person on the internet. This difference between offline and online is not clear-cut, which is because of the spillovers of information on both aspects. This includes, for example, an offline experience with a company that has been put online by another company or person (e.g. blog). So, e-dentity is also digital information that has its origin in the offline area. Other examples are information on the website, on blogs, on review sites, videos on YouTube. Identity, image and reputation will be used for all offline information that is available on a firm or person. This includes, for example, word-of-mouth, physical folders and television commercials. So, there is a difference between online and offline, but both are also likely influence each other. This study does not create a direct distinction between offline and online.

3.3 Determinants of reputation

A company’s reputation can be (accidentally) influenced by the company itself (corporate

controlled) and also by others (non-corporate controlled). For this research these are the two main

(19)

reputation by building a good image with branding, but also by fulfilling the criteria with relation to the project and service from table 2.4. In the latter cases, customers may influence the company’s reputation because they had direct or indirect experience with the company and its practices.

3.3.1 Non-corporate controlled influencers on reputation

As mentioned before, non-corporate controlled information as an influencer for reputation is shaped by self-experience (one’s own experience) and experience of others, which are both beyond the control of the consultancy company. Self-experience is a form of direct experience and the experience of others is called indirect experience, which is mostly communicated by (digital) word-of-mouth. As mentioned before clients with direct experience with a specific consultant, or consultancy company, can directly assess the quality of the service. Companies that do not have that (direct) experience have to rely on indirect experience and have to consider the consultant’s reputation. The quality is hard to assess prior to the project and companies need to judge a consultancy company by its extrinsic properties (Teas & Agarwal, 2000). Where direct experience is objective, indirect experience is more subjective and can be influenced by word-of-mouth, rumors and branding. So, it is expected that direct experience has a stronger influence in the selection process, but there is not always data available.

(20)

3.3.2 Corporate controlled influencer on reputation

As mentioned, branding can be used as a corporate controlled influencer for reputation. First of all, the essence of a brand is a promise about who the company is and what benefits the company delivers (Chiaravalle & Findlay Schenck, 2007) that gets reinforced every single time people come in contact with any facet the organization (Deckers & Lacy, 2011). This is very similar to the previous mentioned reputation, image and identity, because those three aspects are all part of the whole brand (Aaker, 1996). It can be said that all associations with the brand are part of the brand. Branding then is the process of building that positive collection of perceptions in the customers’ minds (Chiaravalle & Findlay Schenck, 2007), often paired with an emotional response (Deckers & Lacy, 2011). As the authors mentioned, it is about creating the emotional response a company wants people to have when they hear that company’s name or see the name online. Brands are the result of branding. They are the end result of “much effort and by implication represent a considerable investment by the organization” (De Chernatony & McDonald, 2003), because branding has to go all the way to the core of who the company is are and what it stands for (Deckers & Lacy, 2011). With help of branding a company can build a positive image in the eyes of the consumers that may strongly influence the purchase decision (De Chernatony & McDonald, 2003).

Where branding builds on a company’s image to influence its reputation, the company can also directly influence the experience clients have with the company and the provided service. This can be done by giving the client cause to be satisfied with the provided service.

3.4 Effects of a damaged reputation

As Herbig & Milewicz (1995) mentioned, a damaged reputation is established by (consistently) not fulfilling the communicated intentions, commitments and promises. Research showed that customers that are displeased with a brand or service will make their opinions known, most often by word-of-mouth (Amblee & Tung, 2008). According to the authors, the customers will make their opinion known when their expectations are not met and this leads to a negative word-of-mouth, which can lead to a damaged reputation. The authors also say that if a product or service has negative or less positive reviews, then there is a decreased likelihood of a sale. Sundaram, Mitra & Webster (1998) found that customers are motivated to engage in negative communications for “altruistic, anxiety-reducing, vengeful, and advice-seeking reasons”.

(21)

It can be assumed that the role of personal information is more important with the small consultancy company than with the large consultancy company. Boyd & Ellison (as quoted in Debatin et al., 2009) say that “specific privacy concerns of online social networking include inadvertent disclosure of personal information, damaged reputation due to rumors and gossip, (…) use of personal data by third-parties, and hacking and identity theft”. An example of this is of course a social network site, but also weblogs (blogs), which Rak (2005) calls digital diaries, can provide private information to the world. When people have this sort of digital diary, they often put a lot of private information on it. Twitter is also some sort of digital diary and it can be a source of issues when not correctly used (Social Media Marketing-Guide, 2010). An example of this is in a political context, where Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin posted (tweeted) a message (tweet) in which she insulted some people. This caused a stream of critical and confronting tweets of those who opposed her statements (Condon, 2010). Another (unrelated) example, in a more private context, is of Charlotte Bouwman whose ‘joke’ on twitter about bombing her school ended her up in jail (Zantingh, 2010). This example is to stress how easily information can be found and how quick people can base a solution on that information. Similar situations arise also on Facebook. For example, there was a lawsuit in the US against an employee who posted negative messages about her supervisor on Facebook (Anderson, 2011). Situations like in these examples can also occur within company context, for example when an important or public person is linked to negative posts or tweets or when other people tweet or post negative comments on the company or its work environment. These factors can negatively influence a company’s success, by damaging the company’s e-dentity. It is easy to exchange positive as well as negative information on the internet. As Gaines-Ross (2010) said, the “internet has leveled the playing field between large corporations and individual activists” and therefore critics have free play. In fact, almost every negative bit of information about the company can and will most likely have a negative influence on the company’s e-dentity. As Amblee & Tung (2008) mentioned, if a product or service has negative or less positive reviews, then there is a decreased likelihood of a sale.

3.5 Effects of a strong e-dentity

(22)

same goes for customers that are pleased. However, research of Marketresponse (2009) showed that people are more inclined to put positive reviews online than negative ones. According to Amblee & Tung (2008) the customers will make their opinion known when their expectations are surpassed and this leads to a positive word-of-mouth, which can lead to a strong reputation. Also positive reviews influence the likelihood of sales, however in a positive way. Sundaram et al. (1998) found that customers are motivated to engage in positive communications for “altruistic, product-involvement, and self-enhancement purposes”.

(23)

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1 Data sources and methods of data collection

This paper collects empirical data using surveys, in the form of questionnaires, that have been conducted among management consultancy companies (hereafter: consultants or consultancy companies) and companies that (possibly) make use of the services of management consultants (hereafter: consultancy clients or clients). The management consultancy companies that have been approached to participate in the research were found on the websites of The Consultancy Group (2012), the social networks LinkedIn and Twitter and by using the (peer) network of the researcher.. The companies that make use of consultancy services were mainly found on the social networks LinkedIn and Twitter and by using the (peer) network of the researcher.

4.2 Procedure

A selection of consultancy companies and clients was made. After the companies were contacted an email was sent to further inform the participants on the survey and to provide the link to the website of the survey. Because there are two different groups, two different questionnaires needed to be made. One targeted at the consultants and one at the (potential) clients of consultants. To avoid language barriers both surveys were in Dutch. The questionnaires can be found, in English, in appendix 8.1 (consultancy clients) and 8.2 (consultants).

Two weeks after the initial contact, if the survey had not been completed, an email was sent reminding the participant of the survey and requesting the participant to complete the questionnaire. To encourage the companies to participate, the research findings have been offered to them after the completion of this research.

4.3 Sample

(24)

2009). Based on Baruch (1999) and Baruch & Holtom (2008) a response rate between 40% and 50% is expected. Based on these percentages, approximately 125 companies were contacted of which 45 completed the survey, which is a response rate of 36%.

According to European Commission (2009) the size of companies, based on staff size, can be divided in four classes. The two groups, consultancy clients and consultants, consist of differently sized companies. The balance of the consultancy clients group was somewhat better than the balance of the consultants group. Table 4.1, figure 4.1 and figure 4.2 show these company size classes.

Table 4.1

Company sizes

Size classes Number of staff N (consultancy clients) N (consultants)

Micro 1-9 20 6

Small 10-49 7 0

Medium 50-249 5 1

Large > 250 6 0

Total 38 7

Figure 4.1. Size of the firm (consultancy clients) Figure 4.2. Size of the firm (consultants)

As for internet communication, table 4.2 shows what forms of internet communication people use in their personal and professional environment. For both groups in the professional environment, more than half of the respondents use social media (respectively 68.4% and 85.7%) and websites (respectively 97.4% and 100%) for internet communication. In the personal environment social media is used most by both groups, with 78.9% for consultancy clients and 85.7% for consultants..

53% 18% 13%

16%

Size of the firm

(consultancy clients)

1-9 (micro) 10-49 (small)

50-249 (average) > 250 (large)

86% 14%

Size of the firm

(consultants)

1-9 (micro) 10-49 (small)

(25)

Table 4.2

Internet communication in the personal and professional environment, in (%).

Internet communication

Consultancy clients Consultants

Personal environment Professional environment Personal environment Professional environment Blogs 10.5 7.9 28.6 28.6 Forums 28.9 18.4 28.6 28.6 News articles 73.7 63.2 100 42.9 Social media 78.9 68.4 85.7 85.7 Website(s) 23.7 97.4 0.0 100 Wikis 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0

Search Engine Marketing 0.0 42.1 0.0 28.6

As can be seen in table 4.2, social media is used a lot among the respondents. Table 4.3 shows the use of the different social media among the respondents. Among social media LinkedIn is used most in the business environment, with 71.1% for the consultancy clients and 100% for the consultants. LinkedIn was also used in the personal environment by consultancy clients (60.5%) and consultants (42.9%). The results also show that Facebook is used most in the personal environment

Table 4.3

Social media use in the personal and professional environment, in (%).

Social media

Consultancy clients Consultants

Personal environment Professional environment Personal environment Professional environment Facebook 39.5 18.4 57.1 14.3 Hyves 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Twitter 28.9 21.1 42.9 42.9 LinkedIn 60.5 71.1 42.9 100 MySpace 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yammer 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 none 28.9 21.1 28.6 0.0

The respondents also answered some questions that describe the level of importance of the internet to their companies and that describe the level of dependence of the internet in the selection process. Table 4.4 shows the results of these questions.

Table 4.4

Internet based criteria, based on a 5-point Likert scale.

Criteria Consultancy

clients Consultants

Importance of the internet for the company 4.13 4.43

To what extent the internet is used by search for information on the consultant

4.39 3.71

(26)

The table (4.4) shows that the clients in the eyes of the consultants regard the internet as more important and decisive as the clients themselves. However, both groups regard the internet as important. The clients use the internet to search for information on the consultant and the information found may be decisive.

As can be seen in the table, the consultancy clients find the internet important for their company. According to the respondents search the internet for information on the consultants and the information that is found on the internet is likely to be decisive in selecting a consultant. It also shows that negative reviews on the consultant have a significant influence on the ultimate decision.

4.4 Measures

Currently, there is no theoretical approach on the usage of e-dentity to recruit new customers. However, there are several theoretical approaches to the criteria for selecting and hiring a consultant (Cheung et al., 2002; Cross-Tab, 2010; Dawes et al., 1992; Gallouj, 1997; Glückler & Armbrüster, 2003). Chapter 2.2 describes these theoretical approaches. As was mentioned, two questionnaires were created, one for the consultants and one for the companies that (could) hire consultants. However, the questionnaires were very similar. Both questionnaires contain criteria, qualifiers and disqualifiers, for selecting a management consultant.

(27)

5. RESULTS

This chapter describes the survey results, which consists of several parts. In the first part of this chapter the descriptive statistics are described, containing general information on the sample. The second part describes the criteria for selecting, or not selecting, a management consultant. The third section describes the correlation results and the last section describes the results from the ANOVA test.

5.1 Criteria for selecting a management consultant by clients and consultants

The criteria for selecting a management consultant, as seen in this chapter (5.1) are mainly qualifiers for selecting a management consultant. Table 2.4 in chapter 2.2 contains a table with selection criteria that companies use to select a consultant or consultancy company. These selection criteria are categorized. Table 5.1 shows the composite scores of the categories based on the individual scores per criteria (table 5.2). In table 5.1 the composite score of direct experience with the

consultant, for example, is based on the following three items: client knows the specific

consultant(s), client has experience with the consultancy company and client has made use of the consultant before. The ranking for both groups is the same, with only one exception. The category

Reputation (indirect experience) is ranked 7th for the consultancy clients and for the consultants it is ranked 5th. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the categorized criteria for the two groups, consultants and clients. These results suggest that there is no difference in what consultants and clients find the most important criteria, except for Reputation (indirect experience). Table 5.1

Composite scores of selection criteria, ranked from (5) most significant to (1) least significant

Criteria in categories Items number Rank

Consultancy clients (n = 38) Consultancies (n = 7) Significance t-test

Direct experience with the consultant 4-6 1 4.15 4.57 (1) .094

Project approach 1,7,15,19-21 2 3.99 4.36 (2) .086

Network reputation (indirect experience) 2,8,10,27 3 3.96 4.32 (3) .071

Contact with the consultant 12,14,22,23 4 3.84 4.21 (4) .099

Experience of the consultant 9,11,17,29 5 3.75 3.82 (6) .704

Past performance 3,24,25 6 3.73 3.81 (7) .777

Reputation (indirect experience) 16,18,32 7 3.37 3.95 (5) .007*

Consultant's capacity to accomplish work 13,26,28,33-35 8 2.81 2.93 (8) .584

Offered services 30,31 9 2.78 2.79 (9) .977

Note1: The categories are based on table 2.4. The item numbers are the numbers of the ranked criteria from table 5.2.

Note2: Scores in the Significance t-test column marked with a *, are marked as significant.

As for reputation, a paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the importance of

(28)

difference in the scores for reputation (M=3.37, SD=0.530) and network reputation (M=3.96, SD=0.492) conditions; t(37)=-4.998, p < 0.001. These results suggest that network reputation (indirect

experience) is regarded as more important than reputation (indirect experience).

A paired-samples t-test was also conducted to compare the importance of reputation

(indirect experience) and direct experience with the consultant. There was a significant difference in

the scores for reputation (M=3.37, SD=0.530) and direct experience (M=4.15, SD=0.628) conditions; t(37)=-6.430, p < 0.001. These results suggest that direct experience with the consultant is regarded as more important than reputation (indirect experience).

The survey also showed that clients tend to rely more on network reputation, then on what is found on the internet. The mean score was 2.59. This is based on a 5-point Likert scale (in this case, 1 = completely rely on the network reputation and 5 = completely rely on the internet).

Table 5.2 (on the next page) contains the selection criteria from table 2.4 combined with the results of the research for the consultancy clients and the consultants. An extended version of the tables, both for clients and consultants, can be found in appendix 8.3. Table 5.2, compared to table 5.1, shows more fluctuation in the ranking of means. Where the results of table 5.1 showed a similar ranking for both groups, in table 5.2 the opposite seems true. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the criteria for the two groups, consultants and clients.

As can be seen in table 5.2, the results of the independent-samples t-test suggest there is a significant difference in how both groups score the importance of the following four criteria:

 Consultants skill to grasp the project requirement and client needs.

 Recommendation/reference by a satisfied client.

 Direct approach by consultant.

(29)

Table 5.2

Clients’ criteria for selecting a management consultant, results from (5) most significant to (1) least significant

Criteria Rank Consultancy clients (n = 38) Consultants (n = 7) Significance t-test Consultants skill to grasp the project requirement and client

needs

1 4.50 5.00 (2) .000*

Recommendation by business partner, colleague or other company

2 4.32 4.43 (11) .632

Quality of past services 3 4.16 4.43 (14) .371

Client knows the specific consultant(s) 4 4.16 4.43 (13) .371

Client has made use of the consultant before 5 4.16 4.71 (4) .104

Client has experience with the consultancy company 6 4.13 4.57 (5) .106

Approaches to quality 7 4.11 4.57 (9) .098

Quality of the recommendation 8 4.11 4.43 (12) .222

Experience with similar project 9 4.11 4.57 (6) .081

Recommendation/reference by a satisfied client 10 4.08 4.71 (3) .029*

Experience in the client’s industry 11 4.08 4.29 (16) .417

Personal contact with the consultant 12 4.03 4.57 (7) .087

Availability of qualified personnel 13 3.97 4.29 (17) .338

Direct approach by consultant 14 3.97 4.57 (8) .042*

Consultant will assist with implementation 15 3.95 4.43 (15) .059

Reputation of the consultant in the specific functional area 16 3.92 5.00 (1) .000* Technical competence/qualification of the consultant 17 3.92 4.00 (19) .827

General reputation of the consultant 18 3.84 4.43 (10) .057

Cost control (on schedule) 19 3.82 4.00 (21) .507

Total costs and fees (price) 20 3.79 3.86 (22) .824

Approaches to time schedule 21 3.79 4.29 (18) .140

Formal presentation 22 3.76 4.00 (20) .486

Written consulting proposal 23 3.58 3.71 (25) .653

Cost control 24 3.55 3.57 (26) .960

Time control 25 3.47 3.43 (27) .904

Available resources 26 3.42 3.71 (23) .418

Recommendation by other consultant 27 3.34 3.71 (24) .314

Present workload 28 3.00 2.71 (29) .448

Academic qualifications of consultants 29 2.89 2.43 (32) .081

Variety of services provided 30 2.79 2.71 (30) .827

Offers full range of services 31 2.76 2.86 (28) .803

Advertising by consultants 32 2.34 2.43 (33) .772

Age of consultancy firm 33 2.21 2.29 (34) .807

Size of consultancy firm 34 2.16 2.57 (31) .226

Location of consultancy firm 35 2.11 2.00 (35) .751

Note: Scores in the Significance t-test column marked with a *, are marked as significant.

5.2 Disqualifiers in the selection process

(30)

clients and table 8.4.2 in appendix 8.4 shows the results from the consultants. The criteria are ranked from (5) most significant to (1) least significant, based on a 5-point Likert scale. Table 5.1 shows that direct experience with the consultant, the project approach of the consultant and the network reputation of the consultant are the most important three criteria for selecting a management consultant. It can also be seen that direct experience and network reputation is valued higher than the general reputation.

Table 5.3 contains the means of these properties combined with the results of the research, ranked on consultancy clients. The survey showed that negative reviews on consultants do influence the choice (mean of 3.87). As the table shows, both groups have a different opinion on what the most important properties are that negatively influence the decision to hire a consultant.

Table 5.3

Criteria for not selecting a consultant, results ranked from (5) most significant to (1) least significant

Properties Rank Consultancy clients (n = 38) Consultants (n = 7) Significance t-test Discovered that information the consultant shared was false 1 4.74 4.00 (6) .016* The consultant posts unsuitable photos , videos and information 2 4.55 4.14 (5) .241 The consultant writes criticizing comments on (previous)

employers, co-workers or clients

3 4.55 3.14 (9) .366

The consultants gives inappropriate comments and writes inappropriate texts

4 4.53 4.86 (3) .130

The consultant shows poor communication skills 5 4.45 3.29 (8) .054

Inappropriate comments or texts written by friends and relatives of the consultant

6 3.74 4.00 (7) .152

Inappropriate comments or text written by colleagues or work acquaintances

7 3.74 4.29 (4) .289

The consultant has a membership in certain groups and networks you have negative associations with

8 3.53 5.00 (1) .000*

The consultant has a membership in certain groups and networks you have positive associations with

9 3.08 4.86 (2) .084

Note: Scores in the Significance t-test column marked with a *, are marked as significant.

As can be seen in table 5.3, the results of the independent-samples t-test suggest there is a significant difference in how both groups score the following disqualifiers of selecting a consultant:

 Discovered that information the consultant shared was false.

 The consultant has a membership in certain groups and networks you have negative associations with.

(31)

5.3 Correlation results

In order to start the identification of the potential relations between the variables, this study uses correlations. For the survey for the consultancy clients a total of 2377 correlations were calculated and 492 of these correlations were marked as significant. Among these correlations 190 were significant at the 0.01 level and 302 were significant at the 0.05 level. The table containing these correlations can be found in appendix 8.5. For the survey for the consultancy companies a total of 2485 correlations were calculated and 138 correlations were marked as significant. Of these correlations 46 were significant at the 0.01 level and 92 were significant at the 0.05 level. To identify connections that are considered theoretically logical, the correlations were compared to each other and ranked.

The results of the Pearson Correlation test demonstrate that ‘the importance of the internet

for the company’ correlates with the following factors. A positive association exists with the

importance of the internet and:

 the role a recommendation/reference by a satisfied client plays in the selection process, r = 0.357, p = 0.028.

A negative association exists with the importance of the internet and:

 the role the written consulting proposal plays in the selection process, r = -0.331, p = 0.043.

The results of the Pearson Correlation test demonstrate that ‘the extent to which the internet

is used to search for information on the consultant’ correlates with several factors. A positive

association exists with the extent to which the internet is used to search for information on the consultant and:

 If the company searches for information on the consultant, r = 0.390, p = 0.016.

 The extent to which the, on the internet, found information is decisive, r = 0.684, p < 0.001.

 The role the general reputation of the consultant plays in the selection process, r = 0.382, p = 0.018.

 The role advertising by consultants plays in the selection process, r = 0.330, p = 0.043.

 The role quality of past services of the consultant plays in the selection process, r = 0.376, p = 0.020.

(32)

 The role that poor communication skills of the consultant plays in the selection process, r = 0.332, p = 0.042.

 The extent to which negative reviews on the consultant influence the choice of the consultant, r = 0.380, p = 0.019.

A negative association exists with the extent to which the internet is used to search for information on the consultant and:

 The use of the consultant’s website as information source, r = -0.337, p = 0.039.

The results of the Pearson Correlation test demonstrate that ‘the extent to which the on the

internet found information is decisive in making a choice’ correlates with several factors. A positive

association exists with the extent to which the on the internet found information is decisive in making a choice and:

 The role advertising by consultants plays in the selection process, r = 0.360, p = 0.026.

 The role the consultant’s approaches to quality plays in the selection process, r = 0.347, p = 0.033.

 The role cost control (on schedule) plays in the selection process, r = 0.325, p = 0.047.

 The extent to which negative reviews on the consultant influence the choice, r = 0.452, p = 0.004.

The results of the Pearson Correlation test demonstrate that ‘the extent to which negative

reviews on the consultant influence the choice’ correlates with several factors. A positive association

exists with the extent to which negative reviews on the consultant influence the choice and:

 The use of colleagues as an information source, r = 0.372, p = 0.021.

 The role that knowing the specific consultant(s) plays in the selection process, r = 0.335, p = 0.040.

 The role that previous experience with the consultant plays in the selection process, r = 0.354, p = 0.029.

 The role that the technical competence/qualification of the consultant plays in the selection process, r = 0.512, p < 0.001.

 The role that membership of the consultant in certain groups and networks that offend you plays in the selection process, r = 0.531, p < 0.001.

(33)

internet is used to inquire about a consultant’s reputation, the quality of past services, negative reviews and other disqualifiers. The results also show that advertising , price and quality can strongly influence the choice for the consultant. Furthermore, the results shows that the disqualifiers (as mentioned in chapter 2.2) weigh strongly in the selection process. It can even be assumed that they weigh more strongly than the qualifiers.

5.4 Comparing means

The importance of means were compared based on ‘company size’ with the grouping variables: (1) micro, (2) small, (3) medium, (4) large. The results of the ANOVA-test demonstrate that at a p<0.05 these are significant:

 having hired a consultancy company in the past, F(3,34) = 4.186, p = 0.013. Post hoc

comparisons using the LSD test indicated that the mean score for micro companies (M = 1.6, SD = 0.503) was significantly different than small companies (M = 1.14, SD = 0.378) and large companies (M = 1.00, SD < 0.001). Taken together, these results suggest that the larger the company size, the likelier it is that the company has hired a consultant in the past. Specifically, the results suggest that large companies are likelier to have hired a company in the past then micro and small companies.

 availability of a standard procedure for selecting a consultancy company, F(3,34) =

10.666, p < 0.001. Post hoc comparisons using the LSD test indicated that the mean score for large companies (M = 1.17, SD = 0.408) was significantly different than micro companies (M= 2.00, SD < 0.001), small companies (M = 2.00, SD < 0.001) and medium companies (M = 1.80, SD = 0.837). Taken together, these results suggest that the larger the company size, the likelier it is that the company has a standard procedure for hiring a consultant. Specifically, the results suggest that large companies are likelier to have a standard procedure than micro, small and medium companies.

The importance of means were also compared based on ‘having hired a consultant in the

past’ with the grouping variables: (1) yes, (2) no. The results of the ANOVA-test demonstrate that at a

p<0.05 these are significant:

 having a standard procedure for hiring a consultancy company, F(1,36) = 7.129, p =

(34)

results suggest that most companies are unlikely to have a standard procedure for hiring a consultant.

 looking for information on the consultant on the consultant's website, F(1,36) = 4.728, p

= 0.036. Post hoc comparisons using the LSD test indicated that the mean score for those companies that have hired a consultant in the past (M = 1.08, SD = 0.282) was significantly different for those that have not hired a consultant in the past (M= 1.36, SD = 0.497). Taken together, these results suggest that companies that have not hired a consultant in the past are likelier to use the consultant’s website as an information source. However, the results also suggest that most clients will look for information elsewhere.

 the role the reputation of the consultant in the specific industry plays in the selection process, F(1,36) = 6.941, p = 0.012. Post hoc comparisons using the LSD test indicated

that the mean score for those companies that have hired a consultant in the past (M = 4.13, SD = 0.537) was significantly different for those that have not hired a consultant in the past (M= 3.57, SD = 0.756). Taken together, these results suggest that for companies that have hired a consultant in the past, the specific reputation of the consultant in the industry plays a more important role in the selection process than companies that have no experience with hiring a consultant.

 the role the general reputation of the consultant plays in the selection process, F(1,36) =

5.060, p = 0.031. Post hoc comparisons using the LSD test indicated that the mean score for those companies that have hired a consultant in the past (M = 4.04, SD = 0.690) was significantly different for those that have not hired a consultant in the past (M= 3.50, SD = 0.760). Taken together, these results suggest that for companies that have hired a consultant in the past, the general reputation plays a more important role in the selection process than companies that have not hired a consultant in the past.

 the role the quality of past services plays in the selection process, F(1,36) = 5.532, p =

THE ROLE OF ONLINE AND OFFLINE REPUTATION IN THE PROCESS OF SELECTING A MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT