Michael D. Moberly, Principal, Founder, kpstrat
As with many things in our lives, whether-or-not-new-information, or perspective we may seek, choose to receive, and may variously come to believe, and act…
- is wholly or even partially factual, and
- may not (actually) affect anyone, other than ourselves, and
- its relevance lies with how we may come to frame our thoughts and discourse with others,
- some, whom we consider friends, acquaintances, employment, and/or groups we routinely identify and associate, aside from that…
that information – knowledge may not be consequential and may not make a difference.
(Says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, University of Pennsylvania, and co-founder of FactCheck.org, whose research on rhetoric and politics helped give rise to the ‘fact check’ movement in American journalism which led to refining how journalists would approach their tasks.)
For business leaders, entrepreneurs, and investors, negotiating – navigating the above relative to obligations to safeguard – mitigate risks to reputation and brand, is often a tricky balance…
- in part the trickiness of the balance emerges from – is variously responsive to steady streams of voices, sources, and platforms which have expanded the realm in which facts are (maybe) considered relevant – consequential to a business’s reputation and/or brand.
For example, we are obliged to consider ‘the circumstances we presume must be present’ insofar as business leaders recognizing – considering particular-public (online) messaging – conversation which variously targets – describes acts, behaviors, oversights, errors in judgement, e.g., if – how same maybe…
- sufficiently consequential to warrant execution of prudent efforts to mitigate, relative to,
- gradations of business reputation – brand ‘consequetiality’ (impact) arrive and cascade @ keystroke speeds, @ the will and timing of other people and/or AIA (artificial intelligence algorithms).
Presumptions which may be held on matters related to mitigating (in advance) vulnerability – probability – criticality of risk to (business) reputation and brand, etc.,
- that such ‘consequences’ now, are more routinely generated by – emerging from ‘online misinformation’, and
- the underlying receptivity (by a business’s consumers, clients, value chains, etc.) can be dispelled or stopped readily – miraculously, and
- revenue generation – competitive advantage damage effectively mitigated, and momentum restored ex post facto (sic) is probably naively near-sighted.
Mitigating adverse effects of reputation – brand risk initiated – sustained by misinformation, readers are (fiduciarily) obliged to consider, as I do, these additional insights also put forth by Jamieson…
- “it is not advisable to negate something; it’s advisable to displace something,”
- “a detailed alternative account of the reality has a power that simply saying ‘that’s wrong’ or ‘no, that’s not true’ doesn’t.
- by simply saying, ‘no, that’s not true,’ you (businesses may) risk reinforcing the prior – already formed beliefs.”
Go deeper on this matter in subsequent – previous posts. Please enjoy.
Respectfully, readers are invited to explore other – similar posts, books, and papers available @ ‘Business Intangible Asset Blog’ and https://kpstrat.com
