To build sustainable business value, you start with the goal, then earn the reputation that makes it possible.

At Reputation Sherpa, we guide CEOs and leadership teams to work backwards from their growth targets to define the reputation they need to achieve them. Then we help make it real.

Clients have attributed nearly half a billion dollars in added business value to this process.
Because when your reputation is clear, every path to growth gets easier:

--> Clients choose you faster
--> Employees stay longer
--> Investors see greater value

Using our CARAT framework (Credibility, Attention, Relatability, Authority, and Trust) we help turn your invisible wins into visible credibility.

Our frameworks are built on more than 15 years of research, psychology, and results across sectors from professional services to tech and infrastructure.

The outcome is a stronger reputation, inside and out, that amplifies your brand, builds stakeholder confidence, and increases the future value of your business.

If you’re ready to start with the goal and build the reputation that gets you there, let’s talk.

For insights on proactive reputation building, or to start a conversation, let's connect.

Jo Kinner

Any organisation that's thrived for 30 years creates significant value.
But it's so often buried under layers of words no one is reading.

For HCB Group, their reputation was already strong in one market. It just wasn’t transferring into a new geography with a different industry culture. 

After a session with their UK and Australian teams, we surfaced the gems in their offer. Then we created clear, value-based positioning and messaging for their internal team to roll out.

Of course, there’s more to be done. Reputation is a journey. 
Knowing where to start and what to do next makes for an easier climb.

Thank you Jim Harris, Derek Perkins 🇦🇺 and the HCB team. Working with people this kind and committed is always a pleasure.

Take your business further with a higher reputation | We guide you | Founding Partner at Reputation Sherpa

It takes around two months to climb Mt. Everest. 

I must admit that's longer than I thought. (I mean, how hard can it be? 😜 !!)

Some guides offer "fast track" expeditions, but they're riskier. It takes time to acclimatise to a higher elevation.

After weeks of trekking to base camp, climbers ascend gradually, build a higher camp, come back, rest and recover. When they set off again, they're better prepared. And each time they start from a higher place.

It's the same with organisations that succeed long-term. They don't overextend by pushing too hard too soon.

The clients I've helped reach their particular summits 
--> better quality clients
--> new revenue targets
--> first customers in a new market
--> investor confidence
--> a sale or acquisition 
didn't get there in one go either. 

They pushed ahead toward their reputation goal, then paused. When they called me back in (sometimes two years later), they were ready to go again.  

The pause is vital. CEOs and teams need time to acclimatise to internal changes and consolidate their resources. Then they set off from a higher place than before. 

If you're aiming for your next peak and are promised a rapid ascent to the top, think about the risks of overextending. 

Why is it that we always chase the promise of fast results, when we know a controlled climb is the best way to get where we're going?

----
I'm Jo from Reputation Sherpa. I help business leaders use reputation as a strategic tool to build long term value in their company and brand.

Why are some women reporting a massive boost in reach by switching their profile gender to "male?" It seems the use of AI is compounding the issue.

I dug into this and here's what I found:
--> LinkedIn doesn't filter content by demographics like gender or race
--> Its algorithm ranks and recommends content based on “quality”
--> Higher quality content is then amplified to test for engagement

So the first question is: What counts as "quality" to an algorithm? 
It appears to use leadership signals as filters. It ranks for topic authority, network size, job seniority, engagement levels, and language style.

On a business platform, that makes sense. But there's a problem. 

Algorithms aren't neutral. They absorb social and cultural patterns from the world. Those patterns have bias baked in. 

Research shows the algo rewards a direct, decisive language style. Writing that's more tentative or reflective gets filtered out. Not because readers reject it. Just because they don't get to see it.

AI content is reinforcing this dominant style. 
-->More people use AI to write posts 
--> those posts sound like 'leadership' and get amplified
--> AI tools learn what 'works' on LinkedIn and generate more of it. 

So no, LinkedIn isn’t suppressing content based on a gender switch. It doesn’t need to. The data is encoding what business leadership looks and sounds like and dishing up more of that, whether we like it or not!

Who else has experimented with this? Keen to know what you found.
---
I'm Jo. I usually post about reputation but sometimes deviate.

--> "Reputation is dead!" 
--> "You don't need brand trust."

I've seen some spicy takes on LinkedIn lately.

After my initial 𝘱𝘧𝘧𝘵𝘴, I decided to actually read the posts. The points were valid. They just looked at the issue from a different frame of reference. 

It's true that not all brands need to build trust equally. 
They only need to meet the baseline level of trust for their category. And that baseline varies widely.

You don't need to trust a hammer brand the same way you trust a car brand. And a barber doesn't rely on reputation the same way a financial adviser does.  

For low-involvement categories, the baseline is simpler: safe, effective, available, fairly priced. 

As price and complexity increase, so do risk and expectations. Expertise, honesty, compliance, and leadership all matter more. So does trust.

The more brand trust and reputation are 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 to your business, the more you need to invest in them. 

So when someone says, "reputation is dead," maybe they mean "reputation is less important to some companies than others." But that's not exactly a scroll-stopping hook! 😜

What's been called “dead” in your industry that might just need viewing from a different angle?

----
I'm Jo from Reputation Sherpa. I help business leaders use reputation as a strategic tool to build long term value in their company and brand.

I had a different post planned for today. But after reading the news, I couldn't write about business reputation. 

All day I've been thinking about the reputation of people. 

In particular, individuals willing to stake their personal reputation on the belief that power and privilege will protect them, no matter what.

So they deny, distract, and deflect, waiting for the expected protections to kick in. 

But as my mum always used to say, "truth will out." (Shakespeare might have said it first, but it holds up whatever). 

And when that happens, the repeated lies -- and the arrogance and entitlement that accompanies them -- make everything worse.

I watched the interview the late Virginia Giuffre gave to journalist Tara Brown. 
She talked about that infamous photo of her with the former Prince. She described the room, the girls, the power dynamics, the dehumanisation. It was a hard listen. 

Of course we've all heard the denials: I've never met her, I don't remember, the photo might be doctored, those aren't my fingers. 👀 🫱 Deny, distract, deflect.

Now we see evidence of the pleading for protection, asking others to deny everything, complaining their lives are being ruined. The pattern of believing a title will make everything uncomfortable disappear.

The point is, whether you run a country or a company, your reputation isn't protected by privilege. Reputations are built on trust and protected by truth.

The first rule of crisis communication is: Don’t make it worse.
But those who believe they’re untouchable do exactly that. And their personal reputations, rightly, pay the ultimate price.

Back to normal business programming shortly. 🤨

Open article: 'I can't take any more': Former prince Andrew emailed Epstein for help by abc.net.au

'I can't take any more': Former prince Andrew emailed Epstein for help

A financial services CEO told me their clients didn't care about brand. 

We were about to interview their stakeholders and brand is one of the dimensions we explore. 

Sure enough, the first two clients said "brand doesn't matter." They were happy this firm flew under the radar. To them, a known brand just meant higher prices. 

Interesting, I thought. These were loyal clients in their traditional niche.
-->they already trusted them
-->they knew the quality of their work
-->they'd experienced promises kept 
--> it was a close-knit industry where word of mouth travelled.

They didn't care about brand. They already had the evidence they needed.

Then I spoke with newer clients and referrers in the larger growth market they saw as their future. They loved my client's service, but said:
--> their website didn't look professional
--> they wanted materials to share that explained the firm's value
--> their own clients preferred to deal with a recognised name

This firm was highly regarded and didn't need a major overhaul.
We clarified their positioning, refreshed their visual identity and produced a strong company profile informed by their clients' perspectives. Not long afterwards, they were acquired by a leading player in the new market.

If your current clients “don’t care about brand,” it’s likely because they already trust you. But future clients don't come with trust built in. How does your services firm make its value clear?

This report by Craig Badings and SenateSHJ on the Future of Reputation is timely reading for anyone leading through uncertainty. 

We're moving further into an era where disinformation, polarisation, and AI make it harder to know where to place our trust. And where, as Scott Sayres puts it, "it's never been easier to torpedo a company with half-truths and lies." 

Building an aligned reputation "from within," as Alan Chumley says, gives organisations a structural integrity that can resist many pressures.

The report dispels common misconceptions about what reputation is and isn't, and positions it firmly at the centre of business strategy (where it belongs!)

Thank you, Craig for undertaking this important work and for inviting me to take part. Thanks also to the many leaders featured who've advanced our collective understanding in an area I am passionate about.
Look forward to learning with and from you.

Partner at SenateSHJ, PRovoke Innovator Asia Pacific 2024. Passionate about building and protecting your reputation

What a privilege it has been to interview the 44 global experts on reputation, corporate affairs, communication and risk for SenateSHJ's Future of Reputation 2030 report.  

For anyone in an executive role that touches on communication, culture, risk or reputation, this is essential reading. Here is the link - go to the bottom of the web page and you can download the full report:  https://lnkd.in/gJGHwFji 

Unfortunately, I am limited by how many people I can tag below, but a massive thank you to the experts who took part:
Oliver Freedman, Anthony Larmon, Patricia Santa Marina, Tony Jaques, Stephen Waddington, Gary Davies, Paola Vallejo, Chris Savage, Trevor Young, Peter M. Sandman, Jo Kinner, Mike Abel, Dirk Aarts, Rod Cartwright, Dustin Chick, Kasper Ulf Nielsen, Emmanuel Goedseels, Michael Felber, Basil Towers, Tony Langham, Sandra Macleod, Peter Heneghan, Mark Hutcheon, Amy Binder, Scott Sayres, Lori Turner, Ron Culp, Ralph Jackson, Mignon van Halderen, Elliot S. Schreiber, David McCarthy, Karine Lohitnavy, Lida Citroen, Paul Stamsnjider, Rupert Hugh-Jones, Richard Tsang, Victoria Cross, Alan Chumley, Jason Laird, Helio Fred Garcia, Gerry McCusker, Stephen Thomas, Thomas Fife-Schaw and Will Hetherton

taplio