View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
COLMAR BRUNTON
2016
Public Sector Reputation Index
(BENCHMARK RESULTS TO BE LAUNCHED 8 MARCH 2016)
Embargoed until 8 March 2016
© Colmar Brunton 2016 | 2
An increasing focus on public sector reputation
“It is fundamental for us to have high levels of trust and
integrity. It is both one of the biggest opportunities to
transform the state services but also one of our biggest threats to our standing as the trusted state
sector.”
- Ian Rennie, State Services Commissioner,
13 August 2013
In recent years more
and more public sector
clients have approached
us wanting our help to
understand how they’re
perceived.
© Colmar Brunton 2016 | 3
We saw a need for a better measure of reputation
Existing measures of public sector reputation are unidimensional.
They tend to focus on a single facet of reputation (eg, only trust, only
performance).
They tell us the what, but say little about thewhy.
• Increased compliance, reduced enforcement cost
• Increased social licence
• Better public engagement
• Support for policy and legislative change - lower implementation costs/improved efficiency
• Sacrifice of immediate benefits (if there’s trust in longer-term outcomes of policy)
See: OECD (2013). Trust in government, policy effectiveness, and the governance
agenda, in Governance at a Glance 2013, OECD Publishing.
?Positive reputation leads to:
© Colmar Brunton 2016 | 4
The Public Sector Reputation Index is a four pillar model for measuring reputation
– it’s based on the global RepZ framework.
Services
Financially
responsible
Communications
Social /
Environmental
Employee
commitment
Management &
leadership
Innovation
Governance
© Colmar Brunton 2016 | 5
The Public Sector Reputation Index design
Standardised reputation attributes and advocacy asked for 31 public sector organisations
– carefully selected based on a number of criteria, including whether they have a public
facing function, or have received significant media attention over the last year.
Uses the global RepZ framework - each entity’s reputation is indexed against the
others.
Two thousand online interviews conducted in November and December 2015.
Nationally representative sample by age, gender, household size, income, ethnicity,
and region.
© Colmar Brunton 2016 | 6
A number of attributes sit under the four pillars
− Is a successful and well run
organisation
− Is a forward looking organisation
− Attracts and retains top talented
staff
− Is easy to deal with in a digital
environment
− Contributes to economic growth
− Anticipates future trends and
opportunities
− Adapts quickly to change
− Has a long term perspective
− Is easy to deal with in a digital
environment
− Deals fairly with people
regardless of their
background or role
− Treats their employees
well
− Honours the principles of
the Treaty of Waitangi
− Is a positive influence on
society
− Behaves in a responsible
way towards the
environment
− Is open and transparent
− Is trustworthy
− Listens to the public’s point of
view
− Can be relied upon to protect
individuals’ personal information
− Communicates clearly and
consistently
− Uses taxpayer money responsibly
− Provides effective services
− Understands customers’ needs
Hard SoftREPUTATION
LEADERSHIP/SUCCESS
FAIRNESS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
TRUST
© Colmar Brunton 2016 | 7
Impact of each pillar on advocacy – New Zealanders respond more strongly to organisations
that show they care.
Hard Soft
LEADERSHIP/SUCCESS
FAIRNESS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TRUST
REPUTATION
NZ PRIVATE SECTOR
GLOBAL IMPACT ON
ADVOCACY
NZ PUBLIC SECTOR
27%
35%
20%
32%
16%
17%
37%
16%
22% 24% 27% 27%
© Colmar Brunton 2016 | 8
People are twice as likely to speak highly of organisations with a
strong reputation
Reputation scores are positively related to advocacy. Organisations with a strong reputation will
experience greater support and social licence to operate.
Weak
Reputation(95 and below)
Average
Reputation(100)
Strong
Reputation(105 and
above)
I would speak highly of them 20% 27% 42%
© Colmar Brunton 2016 | 9
A positive reputation can help increase resilience to negative publicity
The Top 10 agencies include some that have received significant and recent negative publicity.
0%
20%
40%
60%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
RepZ rank
% o
f p
op
ula
tio
n w
ho
rec
all n
egat
ive
med
ia
abo
ut
that
org
anis
atio
n
Reputation x awareness of negative media in previous three months
Strongest reputation
Weakestreputation
“They don't always get it right, but I trust them to do their best.”
“I trust them… even though they are heavily criticised.”
© Colmar Brunton 2016 | 10
Public Sector Reputation Index – Three key principles to keep in mind
The RepZ Index:
• Superior strength 105+
• Strong 101-104
• Average 100
• Weak 96-99
• Especially weak
95 and below
Scores should be
interpreted relative to
other government
agencies
Focus on the 4
‘Pillars’ that drive
reputation:
weighted by their
impact on advocacy
1 2 3
© Colmar Brunton 2016 | 11
TOP
RANKED
BY INDEX
129
115
112
111
111
110
110
109
108
107
106
106
103
103
102
101
101
REPZ
INDEX
New Zealand Fire Service
New Zealand Customs Service
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA)
Department of Conservation
Maritime New Zealand
Statistics New Zealand
New Zealand Police
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand
Commission for Financial Capability
Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Broadcasting Standards Authority
The Treasury
Human Rights Commission
Ministry for the Environment
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)
New Zealand Transport Agency
Department of Internal Affairs (DIA)
Global comparison: The top 10% of commercial brands achieve RepZ
scores above 105.
All of these organisations have above
average RepZscores.
Ab
ove
ave
ra
ge
R
ep
Zsc
ore
s
© Colmar Brunton 2016 | 12
112
128
117
112
114
RepZ leaders in New Zealand’s public sector 2015/16: We can see the Top 10 demonstrate strength across all reputation pillars, but looking at the
relative scores across an organisation begins to explain why.
REPZ LEADERSHIP FAIRNESSSOCIAL
RESPONSIBLITYTRUST
111
128
108
110
114
108
124
110
113
114
111
129
111
112
115
112
133
110
113
117
105
108
105
108
111
105
110
109
108
109
110
111
108
110
108
107
110
108
109
110
108
111
109
111
111
REPZ LEADERSHIP FAIRNESSSOCIAL
RESPONSIBLITYTRUST
© Colmar Brunton 2016 | 13
Analysis across all agencies identifies relative strengths and weaknesses for the public sector. Priority areas for
improvement are openness and transparency, listening to the public, and using taxpayer money responsibly.
4.0
3.9
4.1
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.1
4.4
4.1
4.1
Is open and transparent
Listens to the public’s point of view
Communicates clearly and consistently
Uses taxpayer money responsibly
Understands customers’ needs
Is trustworthy
Provides effective services
Can be relied upon to protect individuals’ personal information
Honours the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi
Behaves in a responsible way towards the environment
Is a positive influence on society
Treats their employees well
Deals fairly with people regardless of their background or role
Anticipates future trends and opportunities
Contributes to economic growth
Is a forward looking organisation
Adapts quickly to change
Attracts and retains top talented staff
Has a long term perspective
Is easy to deal with in a digital environment
Is a successful and well run organisation
LEADERSHIP/SUCCESS
FAIRNESS
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
TRUST
A seven-point scale was used where 1 is strongly disagree and 7 is strongly agree
IMPORTANCE TO
PILLAR (RANK)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Attribute benchmarks – average score for the entire public sectorEvery agency can be
benchmarked against
these norms, or
compared to other
similar agencies.
Recommended