Walesa and the question of reputation

Cafes, corporate corridors, taxis or business tête-à-tête are full of strong terms – traitor, liar, hero, guilty, desecrated. Which is not a surprise in similar matters. The multitude of opinions that can be heard is equal to or even greater than the number of those interested. Nevertheless, it is worth looking at this event more systematically and drawing several general conclusions from the perspective of Public Relations.

Building an analogy to the Solidarity Leader, life once again proved that it is neither black nor white, just like the environment in which organizations operate. In a dynamic economy, there are not only good and only wrong decisions; decisive pressure is high and the premises are subject to constant shuffling. In such a situation, the key in relation to the already made decision is openness to dialogue, that is, building arguments in such a way that it addresses the anxieties and beliefs of the interested parties. Nothing, especially in relation to the euphemistic naming of the crisis – a challenge, does not work as unfavorably as responding not to the subject, change of opinion and narrative.

Opinions regarding the seventies in the life of the former President have for years given rise to disputes. Like in communication, it is a disreputable mistake to assume that the problem can be covered up, the more so if it is already recognised. It is not easy to be a communication manager, who is only opening the champagne – over a long time span it is impossible. Strategic issues must be addressed, otherwise they will hit back with doubled strength. Difficult stories are delivered much easier when we are in control of them and plan an appropriate moment. The „burying” of an issue is a great light-heartedness.

Can a common denominator be put for the legend and the man in his human dimension? To paraphrase the question, can relations be simplified between the overall functioning of a company and a single event? With great difficulty, since the building of reputation is a multidimensional and long lasting process. But looking from perspective, everything that goes on over a long period of time, is a trend which can be neutralised with greater difficulty than a one-off, even the most difficult development. And again, the reaction is important, and not the weight itself of the development. It is also worth noting that the notion of a bad or good reputation is erroneous, even though it comes up often in erroneous statements. Reputation is the resultant of the promises made and how they are fulfilled. Hence, it may be strong and appropriate, resulting in foreseeability and consequently confidence. This means strategically that we can effectively realise objectives with even adverse attributes, but it is important that they are considered is the communication assumptions with appropriate advance.

From the PR perspective, there are no bad moments to start building an image or situations which are doomed to failure – there are only shallow and wishful strategies and those with sensitivity for the needs of those parties, which determine our success.