Reputation of public organizations: What dimensions are crucial?

Meirinhos, Galvão et al. Article Reputation of public organizations: What dimensions are crucial? Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Meirinhos, Galvão et al. (2022) : Reputation of public organizations: What dimensions are crucial?, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 12, Iss. 4, pp. 1-19, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040126 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/275396 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Meirinhos, Galvão, Maximino Bessa, Carmem Leal, Márcio Oliveira, Amélia Carvalho, and Rui Silva. 2022. Reputation of Public Organizations: What Dimensions Are Crucial? Administrative Sciences 12: 126. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci12040126 Received: 26 August 2022 Accepted: 22 September 2022 Published: 28 September 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Article Reputation of Public Organizations: What Dimensions Are Crucial? Galvão Meirinhos 1, Maximino Bessa 2, Carmem Leal 3, Márcio Oliveira 4,5 , Amélia Carvalho 6 and Rui Silva 3,* 1Department of Literacy, Arts and Communication, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro—UTAD, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal 2Department of Engineering, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro—UTAD, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal 3 CETRAD Research Center, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro—UTAD, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal 4NECE-Research Center in Business Sciences, University of Beira Interior, 6201-001 Covilha, Portugal 5School of Education and Social Sciences, Polytechnic of Leiria, 2411-901 Leiria, Portugal 6CIICESI, ESTG, Porto Polytechnic, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal *Correspondence: r[email protected] Abstract: This paper explores the relationships among variables and determines the influences of dimensions (i.e., municipal satisfaction, organizational performance, perceived quality, contestations and complaints of the municipal executive) on the notoriety, image, and reputation (NIR) of municipal executives. We attempted to understand if citizens’ opinions influenced the evaluations, recommendations, and contestations based on NIR. Parishes in the municipality of Valongo were selected and analysed, namely Alfena, Campo e Sobrado, Valongo, and Ermesinde; a total of 998 questionnaires were collected. It was concluded that all of the studied dimensions were statistically significant in the final structural estimated model. The structural results point to municipal satisfaction and contestations and complaints of municipal executives as having directly positive and statistically significant influences on NIR. Organizational performance and perceived quality have directly positive but not statistically significant influences on NIR. The results of this research suggest that obtaining the personal opinions of citizens (e.g., regarding the work performances of their mayors) allows citizens to feel heard and active in their municipalities. From the point of view of public executives, the results of this type of study could provide valid information that allows stakeholders to make political decisions that are appropriate for the interests of their communities (e.g., by listening to their citizens). Keywords: municipal satisfaction; organizational performance; perceived quality; contestation and complaint; notoriety; image; reputation; organizational reputation; public organizations 1. Introduction Municipal management is increasingly being influenced by citizen perceptions and community satisfaction. Mayors, managers, and technicians are increasingly becoming attentive and conciliatory (and are at the service of citizens and voters). Public institutions in Portugal have become cognizant of the value of information and its effects at the cognitive, persuasive, and behavioural levels. Within the scope of the effects considered, these realities are dynamic and cumulative; moreover, they are accurate thermometers and perceptive barometers that deserve to be attended to by the different agents of public interventions (Meirinhos et al. 2022a). In fact, more public organisations are placing citizens at the centres of their activities and communication strategies, publicly and politically, to respond to the complaints of citizens/voters. We are living in a time in which the perceived values and satisfaction of citizens are decisive aggregates in the strategic orientations of organisations, which leads us to believe that organisations, both public and private, are increasingly Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 126. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040126 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 126 2 of 19 becoming sensitive to the market, the consumer, the citizen, and the voter (Meirinhos et al. 2022b). Notoriety, image, and institutional reputation are realities that are being considered in public institutions. As for indicators of perceived values, they ascertain institutional performances and organisational qualities via knowledge, representation, and public credibility. These forms are obtained by managing communications over time, where structures, people, and processes are the variables that construct perceived values. Studying the combinations of these different elements implies an interdisciplinary exercise between management, psychology, sociology, and internal and public communications, which definitively define the organization and nature of public management. Reputation management is directly dependent on the relationship between the political and administrative dimensions of the public organization (Lockert et al. 2019). The result of this cohabitation, which is expected to be fluid and fruitful, is expressed in the form of notoriety, image, and reputation. Before examining the relationships between awareness, image, and reputation from psychological and organisational perspectives, we should first review the core concepts of this article in the academic literature. Notoriety is a concept that refers to the degree to which a consumer is aware of a concept, brand, or situation. Historically, it is an essential concept because it is related to the widespread presence of an informational reality in the consumer’s conscious (Bérard and Marchenay 2007). When there is a generalised knowledge of reality, the consumer can build and elaborate attitudes that will be constituted as predispositions guiding their behaviours. A young commercial brand may be widely known, but it has no established image and even less of a reputation. Therefore, notoriety is an initial, informative, and essential state for creating more complex, resilient, timelessly cognitive, and effective elaborations. Notoriety is both a concept and a measure of the awareness of individuals and consumers. Historically, there have been three measurement methods: the top-of-mind recall test, spontaneous recall, and assisted recall (Lendrevie et al. 2010). Companies, organisations, and institutions have several tools at their disposal to increase awareness, namely through advertising, organisational or institutional communications, and marketing and digital communication actions. One of the main concerns of modern companies and organisations is the public perception of their companies, as it implies a choice and an interpretation of relevant signals by the consumer. This public perception is commonly referred to as the organisation’s image, made-up of perceptions, impressions, and valuations about the company and its products. The business, organisational, or institutional image will be positive or negative depending on the organisation’s attitudes, behaviours, and messages (Gümü¸s and Öksüz 2009;Golgeli 2014). In this regard, Don Schultz and Beth Barnes argued that a corporate image offers functional benefits, experimental and symbolic to consumers assimilated in the form of attitudes, with a certain level of favourability, strength, and uniqueness (Schultz and Barnes 1999). In the same sense, Kevin Keller defined corporate image as a set of perceptions about an organization organised in the form of associations in the minds of consumers (Keller 1993). Based on the different perspectives, we consider the image as the result of an organised process diffusing a specific message that is relatively stable in time, which transposes a strategic intention, a mission, a vision, objectives, identity, and the fundamental values of the company, organization, or institution (Leuthesser and Kohli 1997;Van Riel and Balmer 1997;Bravo et al. 2009). 2. Literature Review The concept of reputation is the expression of what is generally said or believed about the skills and/or qualities of something or someone (Hawkins 1990), buoyed by the feeling, taste, and culture of the individual. From a business perspective, reputation is a strategic management variable and simultaneously an intangible asset of the company (Kitchen and Watson 2010). Over time, companies increasingly value the reputations obtained by their communication policies and marketing practices; in the market, it is also considered a tool for competitive differentiation (against the competition). Paul Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 126 3 of 19 Argenti and Bob Druckenmiller consider reputation a “collective representation of images of multiple constituent groups of a company built over time” (Argenti and Druckenmiller 2004). The companies with the best reputations develop close relationships and continuous interactions with the public through policies and practices that offer continuous and mutual benefits to the public, collaborators, customers, shareholders, regulators, and suppliers (Lockert et al. 2019). The objective of notoriety is related to knowledge about the public’s offer (the extent and depth). In this sense, the organised accumulation of information on the quantity and quality of public services, combined with the positive experiences of the citizens’ relationships with the institution, is the ideal way to build a stable, deep, and added-value reputation. It is essential to periodically evaluate awareness to understand the nature of perception, the values of which vary according to the techniques used in the form of spontaneous, assisted, or qualified awareness. Several authors consider ‘image’ as a momentary perception capable of summarising the subjects’ expectations, attitudes, and feelings concerning the brand, the product, and in this case, the public service. In these meanings, ‘image’ becomes the organisation’s reality at the personal level (MaldonadoMartinez and Rodriguez-Villafañe 2004;Mahon and Wartick 2003;Heath 2010;Wartick 2002). The organisation controls the production and dissemination of messages in the form of meaning, and the public in turn processes and interprets them, resulting in the accumulation of meanings. In this dialectic between what is said and what is interpreted, the generation of the institutional image takes place; as a representation, it must be managed, programmed, and controlled. Moreover, reputation is constituted as the credible result of the historical construction of images that are stored and recalled by the subjects who disseminate it within the community (Nguyen and Leblanc 2001), or the organization itself disseminates information in various forms and formats capable of generating dynamics in the media in order to increase its public credibility (Fombrun and Shanley 1990). Therefore, the diffusion and collective sharing of these images in the community allow for the development of a stable reputation (consistent and with public force). Organizational reputation is a slow construction that mixes stable images and credible mental representations from the consumers themselves, the community, the market, and/or the media. It is a historical construction that assumes its mental pre-eminence in the buying decision processes of consumers, companies, and institutions. Its origin is divided between the perceived quality of the products or the salience or prominence of the organisation in the market, media, or among personalities of high social status (Rindova et al. 2005). In recent decades, reputations have become important realities in the institutional and business context as indicators of competitiveness and organisational performance. This is why the organisation must manage the information disseminated, the knowledge generated, and the representations stored, be better against the competition, or obtain a favourable consumer predisposition toward the organisation’s offer (Overman et al. 2020). This reality is only achieved when there is an isomorphism between the organisation’s identity, personality, and behaviour. The organizations with futures are the ones that have strong customer cultures and relate to the customer truthfully and transparently. From a psychological perspective, the concepts of notoriety, image, and reputation are intrinsically linked from the receiver’s point of view. Everything begins with the set of characteristics, beliefs, and values of the organisation, which, when conveyed by the different conventional and/or digital media, produce individual and collective perceptions, albeit variable, and underpin appearances, knowledge, and associations. In this context, time is essential in the process because it allows the organization to develop relationships with these intangible assets with the internal and external public, namely customers and stakeholders (Balmer 2001,2008). In this transfer and informative production flow, the organisation manages this perceptive reality concerning a specific identity and behavioural pattern. Thus, we understand that institutional competitiveness is increasingly dependent on the identity profile of the organisation and what it represents and symbolises in society. Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 126 4 of 19 Notoriety as a cognitive reality refers to customers’ knowledge about the institution and the reality of the offer. This knowledge is determined through classic memory measures in recall (spontaneous or assisted) and the recognition of stimuli (Franco et al. 2017). Accessing the client’s memory is an important exercise because it discriminates the quantity and quality of information stored in the citizen’s mind, and becomes the ingredient of evaluation, judgement, and judgment in the form of attitude. In our view, attitude as a predisposition guiding behaviour plays an essential role in recommending and/or contesting the public services provided by parishes and municipalities. Citizen satisfaction and contestation and complaint levels are realities that directly depend on the quantity and quality of information assimilated by citizens when dealing with public institutions. In other words, when there is a good level of information, in quantity and quality, one is in a more favourable position to form positive thoughts and judgements. Consequently, the contestation and complaint levels are lower, thus favouring citizen satisfaction. In this way, attitudes form the image spectra about products, organisations, or public institutions, enabling us to check the resistance and/or acceptance of messages, and the distance and/or involvement of customers. Institutional reputation may be defined as the aggregation and consolidation (tending to be positive) of a series of images, experiences, and realities (that have been purged and verified) on an organisation or institution (Fombrun 1996;Fombrun and Van Riel 1997;Fill 2006). The concept of reputation has been defined in several ways, namely as: the ability of a company to meet the expectations of different stakeholders (Fombrun et al. 2004), a belief system among members of a social group (Bromley 2000), the collective beliefs that exist about the identity, the prominence of an organisation (Rao 1994;Kotha et al. 2001), the media visibility of the company (Deephouse 2000), and the representations present in the minds of multiple audiences of an organisation over time (Grunig and Hung-Baesecke 2015; Yang and Grunig 2005). Thus, we can define reputation as the aggregate of the perceptions shared by the public interested in the activities and success of an organisation over time. Organizational performance and perceived quality are two essential realities and two essential results in the activity of an organization because they explain the differences between the current reality and the ideal reality in the organization’s activity and functioning (Cho and Dansereau 2010;Abraham and Jones 2015). Organisational performance results from cognitive, emotional, and social intelligence and leadership skills (Silalahi et al. 2022). Cognitive skills relate to problem-solving and decision-making (Sun and Hui 2012;Lee et al. 2013). Emotional intelligence refers to the management of employees’ feelings by the leaders to convert this reality into an opportunity (Boyatzis 2009). Moreover, social intelligence is directly related to the power of observation, which allows an individual to achieve certain goals in a particular social environment (Beheshtifar and Roasaei 2012). Perceived quality is defined as the customer’s perception of the overall quality or superiority of a product or service in relation to its purpose (and the alternatives) (Fombrun and Van Riel 1997). In this sense, perceived quality is a global and intangible feeling about a person, organization, or brand. Nevertheless, this reality is based on dimensions such as trustworthiness and performance, being, in our opinion, an objective, global, and useful construct for building a fluid, normal, and value-added relationship between parties. The dimensions and aggregates of municipal satisfaction (MS), organizational performance and perceived quality (OPPQ), and municipal executive complaints (CCME) assume important explanatory and scientific capacities in the understanding of the phenomenon of the NIR of a public organization. Therefore, within the scope of NIR, a series of statements were presented in which the respondents positioned themselves, namely statements related to seriousness, credibility, responsibility, sensitivity, transparency, innovation, creativity, trust, public visibility, media strength, public communication management, and politics (Meirinhos et al. 2022a,2022b). This aggregate allows us to ascertain the mental representation residing in the collective memory about a set of vectors related to the knowledge, representation, and social evaluation of the quality of political action carried out by elected representatives. Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 126 5 of 19 The satisfaction of the citizen (MS) as a result of a process of comparisons between performances and a personal and/or regulated standard (Oliver Richard 1997) is a particularly relevant metric in and for the functioning of organisations, especially public institutions. The interaction between the parties allows the citizen to judge the action of the public entity (concerning its performance) against the legitimate expectations of any citizen. When expectations are equal to or are even exceeded, the citizen’s satisfaction is created or sedimented; the results reiterated over time consolidate the perception of satisfaction (Meirinhos et al. 2022b). In the scope of our work, and around municipal satisfaction, we assess the performance of the municipality in different areas of political intervention, namely social action, emigrant support, water and sanitation, the environment, collection and inspection, accounting and treasury, culture, sports, education, hygiene and urban cleaning, urbanism, parks and gardens, patrimony, veterinary services, and traffic and road networks (among others) in municipal services, namely the environment, internationalisation, social interventions, mobility and transport, tourism, urbanism, the economy and entrepreneurship, sports, culture and leisure, and youth, among others, as well as the overall satisfaction with the municipal executive and with the mayor. Within the scope of organisational performance and perceived quality (OPPQ), we investigated the quality of organisational functioning and its perception by the citizen. To this end, a series of statements were presented relating to the direction and management of the municipality, concern for people and companies, compliance with deadlines, database management, variety of means of contact with the community, opening hours, internal procedures, location and places of attendance, and the human qualities of public servants (Meirinhos et al. 2022a,2022b). This aggregate allows us to clarify which vectors deserve greater valorisation as well as the vectors that the municipality will have to invest in, review, or change. Finally, the contestations and complaints of the municipal executive (CCME) allow us to ascertain the negative charges presented by residents of the community about the actions and management of the municipal executive. In this context, we could ascertain whether there are reasons to complain, whether complaints are attended to and resolved, and whether complaints improve the behaviours and services of the municipality. We also understand whether contestations and complaints influence municipal decisions. This aggregate is becoming increasingly important in municipalities (it is a legal obligation to ascertain the levels of satisfaction with the services); municipal executives look at contestations and complaints as opportunities to improve the functioning of the public entity. The data collection questionnaire was based on the theoretical and validated models: SERVQUAL, the common measurement tool (CMT), the common assessment framework (CAF), Speyer’s model, and the European customer satisfaction index (ECSI). However, it should be noted that none of these models has been adjusted and validated so far for public administration or the evaluation of Portuguese public services. Therefore, our research model (see Figure 1) and respective survey are references used in understanding the influences of dimensions, such as municipal satisfaction (MS), organizational performance and perceived quality (OPPQ), contestations and complaints of the municipal executive (CCME), and the NIR of municipal executives. Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 126 6 of 19 Adm. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20 Figure 1. Research model. In this sense, the purpose of this paper is to explore the relationships among variables and determine the dependencies among dimensions, indicators, and variables present in the general model of notoriety, image, and reputation, whose antecedents are related to the citizen’s perceived value and the consequences related to the citizen’s evaluation, recommendation, and contestation. According to the literature review, it is possible to hypothesize that the MS, OPPQ, and CCME dimensions increase notoriety, image, and reputation (NIR). In this sense, the following research hypotheses were defined: H1. Municipal Satisfaction (MS) has a positive effect on notoriety, image, and reputation (NIR). Notoriety, image, and reputation (NIR) is a central theme in the evaluation of public service performances and should be analysed over time so that public administrators can implement effective political action programmes, leading to an increase in municipal satisfaction (MS), organizational performance and perceived quality (OPPQ), and a reduction in the contestations and complaints of the municipal executive (CCME). There is a relationship between these dimensions because it is not possible to have public notoriety, a good image, and a consequent reputation if citizens are not satisfied with the public policies implemented during the (public administrator’s) time in office (Lee et al. 2013; Boyatzis 2009). Moreover, the contestation, if it exists, influences the reputation of the executive and consequently the confidence of the voters. Organisation and performance, which are strictly linked to the quality of public service, will lead to an increase in the notoriety, image, and reputation of those who manage the destiny of the population. In fact, those who have the power of decision are constantly being evaluated (Lee et al. 2013; Beheshtifar and Roasaei 2012). Municipal satisfaction requires efficiency and effectiveness in the process and relationship with the citizen (Lamsal and Gupta 2022) and, therefore, a constant need to listen Figure 1. Research model. In this sense, the purpose of this paper is to explore the relationships among variables and determine the dependencies among dimensions, indicators, and variables present in the general model of notoriety, image, and reputation, whose antecedents are related to the citizen’s perceived value and the consequences related to the citizen’s evaluation, recommendation, and contestation. According to the literature review, it is possible to hypothesize that the MS, OPPQ, and CCME dimensions increase notoriety, image, and reputation (NIR). In this sense, the following research hypotheses were defined: H1. Municipal Satisfaction (MS) has a positive effect on notoriety, image, and reputation (NIR). Notoriety, image, and reputation (NIR) is a central theme in the evaluation of public service performances and should be analysed over time so that public administrators can implement effective political action programmes, leading to an increase in municipal satisfaction (MS), organizational performance and perceived quality (OPPQ), and a reduction in the contestations and complaints of the municipal executive (CCME). There is a relationship between these dimensions because it is not possible to have public notoriety, a good image, and a consequent reputation if citizens are not satisfied with the public policies implemented during the (public administrator’s) time in office (Lee et al. 2013;Boyatzis 2009). Moreover, the contestation, if it exists, influences the reputation of the executive and consequently the confidence of the voters. Organisation and performance, which are strictly linked to the quality of public service, will lead to an increase in the notoriety, image, and reputation of those who manage the destiny of the population. In fact, those who have the power of decision are constantly being evaluated (Lee et al. 2013;Beheshtifar and Roasaei 2012). Municipal satisfaction requires efficiency and effectiveness in the process and relationship with the citizen (Lamsal and Gupta 2022) and, therefore, a constant need to listen to and involve citizens in institutional dynamics so that the municipality can adjust to the needs and expectations of the citizens (Balan and Burlea-Schiopoiu 2017). In this interaction Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 126 7 of 19 and conciliation, the state improves its performance in the provision of public services (Beheshtifar and Roasaei 2012) and, consequently, the reality of the public organisation’s notoriety, image, and reputation. Several authors, such as Sabrina Helm, Andreas Eggert, and Ina Garnefeld argue that more than half of the effect of reputation is the responsibility of the nature and level of customer satisfaction (Helm et al. 2010). Municipal satisfaction is a tool for performance evaluation and management, as citizens are considered public service stakeholders (clients) who are concerned with the quality of public goods and services and with equity and accessibility to public goods and services. In this sense, public managers must develop forms of management that allow recognition and notoriety and increase their reputations with citizens/electors (Collins et al. 2019). The loss of citizen satisfaction has high political costs that may have consequences on future choices (Chen et al. 2020). Citizens constantly analyse the performance of the executive concerning the influence of decisions taken by political forces on their personal lives, consolidating their perception of satisfaction, which in turn influences the notoriety achieved, the image held, and the reputation achieved (Ochoa Rico et al. 2022;Gendel-Guterman and Billig 2021). Public initiatives and management influence the notoriety, image, and reputation of the municipal executive, and there is a substantial impact on citizen satisfaction (Czepiel and Gilmore 1987;Gremler and Brown 1996), which considers aspects, such as honesty, environmental responsibility, humanisation, quality of services, social and economic transparency, cultural development, innovation, communication, and keeping promises as fundamental for improving the notoriety of the municipality (Zins 2001). H2. Organizational performance and perceived quality (OPPQ) have positive effects on notoriety, image, and reputation (NIR). Since the citizens are the main beneficiaries of public services (Winkler 1987;Thomas and Palfrey 1996), politicians should meet public and private needs that can add value to lives. For this reason, we believe that organisational performance creates a positive effect on an individual’s knowledge, on individual mental representations in the form of an image, as well as on the aggregation and consolidation of positive experiences and realities lived by the citizens that consolidate the reputation of the public organisation (Helm et al. 2010). In terms of organizational performance and perceived quality, previous studies have shown a direct influence of this dimension on the notoriety, image, and reputation of the municipality (Zins 2001;Meirinhos et al. 2022a,2022b), suggesting that this dimension is a valid tool for measuring the competence and decisions of the municipal executive (Zeithaml et al. 1996;Boyne 2003). The performance of the executive and the perception of the quality of its decisions and management methods leads to positive or negative evaluations by the citizens who daily feel the influences of these decisions in their personal and family lives. In this context, citizens attach importance to the balance between the political decisions/measures taken and their social and economic realities (Czepiel and Gilmore 1987;Gremler and Brown 1996). The quality perceived by the citizen is related to the balance between the expected value in the form of benefits and the total cost for the citizen (in terms of personal and/or financial sacrifices) (Chang and Dibb 2012). This balancing between the good and not-so-good things provided by political decisions is related to a set of mental representations, judgements, and meanings stored around functional, symbolic, emotional, and social realities of everyday life (Zeithaml et al. 1996). H3. Contestations and complaints of the municipal executive (CCME) have positive effects on notoriety, image, and reputation (NIR). Contestation in the form of social activity (e.g., reactive contestation) and the critical mode (e.g., proactive contestation) means criticism and an objection to the norms and functioning in the case of a public body (Wiener 2017). We believe that this opposition constitutes an opportunity to improve functioning. Therefore, we believe that reactive contestation and the respective response that the public entity has to formulate, contribute to the improvement of the NIR. In this context, transparency and the power of communication Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 126 8 of 19 are essential ingredients to contain reactive and proactive contestations, thus preserving the NIR (Oržekauskas and Šmaižien˙ e 2014). The contestations and complaints of municipal executives assume explanatory capacities of significant impact on the notoriety, image, and reputation of the executives because the evaluation of this dimension is strictly related to aspects such as seriousness, credibility, responsibility, sensitivity, transparency, innovation, creativity, trust, public visibility, media strength, and public and political communication management. This aggregate allows us to verify the mental representation residing in the collective memories of the citizens (Collins et al. 2019;Chen et al. 2020). The effective resolution of problems, the speed and efficiency of the organisational response, and the quality of the services provided influence the contestations and complaints, which, in turn, will positively or negatively impact notoriety (in this sense, the quality of organisational functioning and its perception by citizens) (Chen et al. 2020;Chang and Dibb 2012). In this sense, the more influential the executive’s response to the concerns of individuals and companies, compliance with deadlines, database management, variety of means of contact with the community, opening hours, internal procedures, and the location and human quality of public employees, the less contestation and the more reputation, image, and notoriety the municipal executive will obtain. These results allow citizens to appreciate their public managers and praise the actions of the management, which will, consequently, keep them in power for longer. Thus, contestations and complaints about the municipal executive are significant factors in the evaluation of the reality of the functioning of a municipality (Gremler and Brown 1996; Czepiel and Gilmore 1987;Boyne 2003). The rigorous analysis of the dimensions reviewed above makes it possible to obtain a reliable picture of the citizen’s active involvement in the daily life of his/her municipality, as well as the need for valid information that will encourage the executive to take political action that is appropriate for the citizens’ interests and expectations. 3. Method 3.1. Study Background In the last 30 years, Portugal’s public administration has undergone numerous reforms by introducing principles and mechanisms for performances and performance evaluations (Rocha 2009;Mota et al. 2016). The trend toward the corporatisation of the state (present in the principles of new public management) (Hood 1991;Pollitt 1990;Pollitt and Bouckaert 2017) had a serious impact on the activity of the state as a whole. Furthermore, the paradigms of governance (Rhodes 1997) and new public services (Denhardt and Denhardt 2003) have forced the state to look at the municipality, citizens, and voters as central elements of its functioning. The reduction in the number of civil servants in recent years, their ageing, and the freezing of their salaries and careers have led to the loss of social dignity in public employment as well as a collective demotivation of workers (Madureira and Rodrigues 2015). Based on this context, quality is lost in the relationship between the state and the citizen. However, the state is increasingly being equipped with internal and external evaluation metrics and citizens are increasingly becoming demanding and knowledgeable about their rights. Therefore, the problems presented in this article are important because they allow us to understand if the basic metrics of satisfaction, organizational performance, perceived quality, and complaints contribute to the improvements in the levels of awareness, image, and reputation of Portugal’s public institutions. Our overall model consists of four dimensions. First, in the scope of municipal satisfaction, we have indicators, such as satisfaction with the different intervention axes (formed by 13 variables); satisfaction with municipal services (formed by 20 variables); satisfaction with the municipal executive (formed by 4 variables); and overall satisfaction with the municipality (formed by 1 variable) for a total of 38 variables. Organizational performance and perceived quality are formed by 27 variables; contestations and complaints of the municipal executive are formed by 4 variables; and notoriety, image, and reputation are Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 126 15 of 19 7. Limitations, Contributions, and Implications of the Study Data collection instruments can always be questioned because others have been previously validated in the literature, which allows for obtaining better and different results. Perhaps one of the limitations of this study was the use of collection instruments adapted to the reality of municipalities. However, the academic validity of these instruments leads us to believe that the data obtained were robust. A great contribution of this study involved the direct analysis of local public reality, i.e., listening to those who were genuinely interested (citizens) in improving the quality of their living conditions. Studies such as these may, in the future, be replicated in other areas of the country and extrapolated internationally to other sociocultural realities. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.M., A.C., M.O. and R.S.; methodology, R.S.; software, R.S.; validation, G.M., M.B., A.C., M.O. and C.L.; formal analysis, R.S.; investigation, G.M.; resources, C.L. data curation, R.S.; writing—original draft preparation, G.M.; writing—review and editing, C.L.; visualization, M.B.; supervision, G.M.; project administration, G.M. and R.S.; funding acquisition, G.M., M.B., C.L., A.C., M.O. and R.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The work by author Rui Silva was supported by national funds, through the FCT— Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology under project UIDB/04011/2020 and by NECEUBI, the Research Centre for Business Sciences, Research Centre, under project UIDB/04630/2022. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, the Centre for Transdisciplinary Development Studies (CETRAD), and the University of Beira Interior (NECE—UBI). Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Appendix A Table A1. Selection of Research Variables. Survey Variables Study Dimension The City Council is honest and truthful. Notoriety, Image and Reputation The Town Council is credible and serious in its relationship with the citizen. The Town Council is humane and sensitive to the difficulties of the of the population. The City Council is stable and well managed. The City Council has quality services The City Council is transparent The Town Council provides excellent customer service The City Council contributes to social, economic and cultural development The City Council is innovative and forward-looking The City Council is creative in its interventions and and solutions. The City Council is visible to the public. The City Council is known nationally and international level. The City Council has media presence and strength. The City Council manages communication on social media. The City Council is organised in the field of public and political communication. Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 126 16 of 19 Table A1. Cont. Survey Variables Study Dimension Environment: revitalising public spaces, rationalising natural resources, preserving the environment, air quality. Municipe Satisfaction Culture and leisure: congresses, museums, events, shows, festivals. Sports: existence of sports and leisure equipment, promotion of (school) sports activity, physical activity as occupation of free time/school holidays. Economy and entrepreneurship: development of economic activity in the municipality, business/industrial parks, business incubators, science and technology parks. Education: school network (management of school groupings of the various cycles, school meals). Urban hygiene: urban cleaning, cleaning of public buildings and equipment. Internationalisation: international promotion of the municipality, sports and business activities. Social intervention: childhood, youth, old age, employment, training, precariousness, economy, health. Youth: management of youth centres, cultural promotion. Mobility and transport: mobility/public transport network, other mobility (cycle paths), parking, heavy traffic induction roads, road safety. Safety: road prevention and control, safety and monitoring of the elderly, policing (environment, commercial and public space control, surveillance and vigilance). Tourism: information offices, tourist routes. Urbanism: public space management, public heritage maintenance, licensing, infrastructures. Is satisfied with the notoriety, image and reputation of the Municipality. Is satisfied with the attention that the Municipality gives to the citizens. Is he/she is satisfied with the functioning of the municipal services. He/she is satisfied with the fees charged by the Municipality. Overall, he/she is satisfied with the way the Municipality works. The City Council delivers what it promises to citizens and businesses. Organizational Performance and Perceived Quality The opening hours of municipal services are appropriate to the needs of people and organisations. The waiting times are acceptable and bearable. The procedures and application forms have a simple language understood by everyone. The organisational performance of the municipality corresponds to the expectations of citizens and businesses. The performance of the Municipality is on par with the ideal and recommendable Municipality. The location of municipal services is suitable for citizens and businesses. The furniture and equipment of the municipal services are modern modern and appropriate to the function. The service areas are accessible to people with reduced mobility. The reception and service areas are comfortable, pleasant, clean and in good condition, pleasant, clean and well maintained. Citizens have reason to complain about the management of the municipal executive. Contestation and Complaint of the Municipal Executive Complaints submitted to the City Council are attended to and resolved. Complaints improve the behaviour and the municipal services. Challenges and complaints influence municipal decisions. Disputes and complaints decrease support References Abraham, Anne, and Hazel Jones. 2015. Facilitating student learning in accounting through scaffolded assessment. Issues in Accounting Education 31: 29–49. [CrossRef] Argenti, Paul, and Bob Druckenmiller. 2004. Reputation and the corporate brand. Corporate Reputation Review 6: 368–74. [CrossRef] Bagozzi, Richard, and Youjae Yi. 2012. Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40: 8–34. [CrossRef] Balan, Drago¸s-Alexandru, and Adriana Burlea-Schiopoiu. 2017. The development of a corporate reputation metric: A customer perspective. In Major Challenges Today’s Economics. Bucharest: Tritonic, pp. 595–606. Balmer, John M. T. 2001. Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing-Seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing 35: 248–91. [CrossRef] Balmer, John M. T. 2008. Identity based views of the corporation: Insights from corporate identity, organisational identity, social identity, visual identity, corporate brand identity and corporate image. European Journal of Marketing 42: 879–906. [CrossRef] Beheshtifar, Malikeh, and Fateme Roasaei. 2012. Role of social intelligence in organizational leadership. European Journal of Social Sciences 28: 200–6. Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 126 17 of 19 Bérard, Laurence, and Philippe Marchenay. 2007. Produits de Terroir-Comprendre et Agir. Paris: CNRS—Ressources des terroirs-Cultures, Usages, Sociétés. Boyatzis, Richard. E. 2009. Competencies as a behavioral approach to emotional intelligence. Journal of Management Development 28: 749–70. [CrossRef] Boyne, George A. 2003. Sources of public service improvement: A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13: 367–94. [CrossRef] Bravo, Rafeal, Teresa Montaner, and JoséM. Pina. 2009. The role of bank image for customers versus non-customers. International Journal of Bank Marketing 27: 315–34. [CrossRef] Bromley, Dennis B. 2000. Psychological aspects of corporate identity, image and reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 3: 240–52. [CrossRef] Brown, Timothy A. 2015. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York: Guilford Publications. Chang, Connie, and Sally Dibb. 2012. Reviewing and conceptualising customer-perceived value. The Marketing Review 12: 253–74. [CrossRef] Chen, Longjin, Junling Zhang, and Yu You. 2020. Air pollution, environmental perceptions, and citizen satisfaction: A mediation analysis. Environmental Research 184: 109287. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Cho, Jeewon, and Fred Dansereau. 2010. Are transformational leaders fair? A multi-level study of transformational leadership, justice perceptions, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly 21: 409–21. [CrossRef] Ciavolino, Enrico, and Jens J. Dahlgaard. 2007. ECSI—Customer satisfaction modelling and analysis: A case study. Total Quality Management 18: 545–54. [CrossRef] Collins, Brian K., Hyun Joon Kim, and Jie Tao. 2019. Managing for Citizen Satisfaction: Is Good Not Enough? Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs 5: 21–38. [CrossRef] Czepiel, John A., and Robert Gilmore. 1987. Exploring the concept of loyalty in services. In The Services Challenge: Integrating for Competitive Advantage. Chicago: American Marketing Association, pp. 91–94. Deephouse, David L. 2000. Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management 26: 1091–112. [CrossRef] Denhardt, Robert B., and Janet V. Denhardt. 2003. The new public service: An approach to reform. International Review of Public Administration 8: 3–10. [CrossRef] Engel, Christian. 2002. Common Assessment Framework: The state of affairs. Eipascope 2002: 1–5. Fill, Chris. 2006. Simply Marketing Communications. London: Pearson Education. Fombrun, Charles. J. 1996. Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Fombrun, Charles, and Mark Shanley. 1990. What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal 33: 233–58. Fombrun, Charles, and Cees Van Riel. 1997. The reputational landscape. Corporate Reputation Review 1: 1–16. [CrossRef] Fombrun, Charles J., C. B. M. van Riel, and Cees Van Riel. 2004. Fame & Fortune: How Successful Companies Build Winning Reputations. Upper Saddle River: FT Press. Franco, Sainu, Venkata Ravibabu Mandla, and K. Ram Mohan Rao. 2017. Trajectory of Urban Growth and Its Socioeconomic Impact on a Rapidly Emerging Megacity. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 143: 04017002. [CrossRef] Gendel-Guterman, Hanna, and Miriam Billig. 2021. Increasing citizen satisfaction with municipal services: The function of intangible factors. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 18: 171–86. [CrossRef] Ghiglione, Rodolphe, and B. Matalon. 1997. O Inquérito: Teoria e Prática. Oeiras: Celta Editora. Golgeli, Kursad. 2014. Corporate reputation management: The sample of Erciyes University. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 122: 312–18. [CrossRef] Gremler, Dwayne D., and Stephen W. Brown. 1996. Service loyalty: Its nature, importance, and implications. Advancing Service Quality: A Global Perspective 5: 171–81. Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephen G. 2010. Transparency of public decision-making: Towards trust in local government? Policy & Internet 2: 5–35. Grunig, James E., and Chun-ju Flora Hung-Baesecke. 2015. The effect of relationships on reputation and reputation on relationships: A cognitive, behavioral study. In Public Relations as Relationship Management. London: Routledge, pp. 63–113. Gümü¸s, Murat, and Burcu Öksüz. 2009. Key role within reputation process: Corporate social responsibility communication. Journal of Yasar University 4: 2129–50. Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, Rolph E. Anderson, and Ronald L. Tatham. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis. London: Pearson. Hair, Joseph F., Marko Sarstedt, Lucas Hopkins, and Volker G. Kuppelwieser. 2014. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review 26: 106–21. [CrossRef] Hawkins, Joyce. 1990. Oxford Current English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hayes, Bob E. 2001. Medindo a satisfação do cliente. In Medindo a Satisfação do Cliente. Rio: Qualitymark Editora, p. 228. Heath, R. L. 2010. The SAGE Handbook of Public Relations. London: Sage. Helm, Sabrina, Andreas Eggert, and Ina Garnefeld. 2010. Modeling the impact of corporate reputation on customer satisfaction and loyalty using partial least squares. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 515–34. Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 126 18 of 19 Hoelter, Jon W. 1983. The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods & Research 11: 325–44. Hood, Christopher. 1991. A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69: 3–19. [CrossRef] Keller, Kevin Lane. 1993. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57: 1–22. [CrossRef] Kitchen, Philip J., and Tom Watson. 2010. Reputation management: Corporate image and communication. In Strategic Marketing Management. Boston: Cengage Learning. Kotha, Suresh, Shivaram Rajgopal, and Violina Rindova. 2001. Reputation building and performance: An empirical analysis of the top-50 pure internet firms. European Management Journal 19: 571–86. [CrossRef] Lamsal, Bishnu Prasad, and Anil Kumar Gupta. 2022. Citizen Satisfaction with Public Service: What Factors Drive? Policy & Governance Review 6: 78–89. Lee, Hyejung, Jungi Park, and Jungwoo Lee. 2013. Role of leadership competencies and team social capital in IT services. Journal of Computer Information Systems 53: 1–11. [CrossRef] Lendrevie, Jacques, Arnaud de Baynast, Pedro Dionísio, and JoaquimVicente Rodrigues. 2010. Publicitor (7 a edição). Lisboa: Dom Quixote. Leuthesser, Lance, and Chiranjeev Kohli. 1997. Corporate identity: The role of mission statements. Business Horizons 40: 59–66. [CrossRef] Lockert, Åshild Skjegstad, Hilde Bjørnå, Kristian H. Haugen, and Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen. 2019. Reputation reform strategies in local government: Investigating Denmark and Norway. Local Government Studies 45: 504–25. [CrossRef] Madureira, César, and Miguel Rodrigues. 2015. Fatores de motivação dos trabalhadores na Administração Pública Central em Portugal. Lisbon: Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, pp. 83–110. Mahon, John F., and Steven L. Wartick. 2003. Dealing with stakeholders: How reputation, credibility and framing influence the game. Corporate Reputation Review 6: 19–35. [CrossRef] Maldonado-Martinez, Ángeles, and Justo Rodriguez-Villafañe. 2004. La Buena Reputación. Claves del valor Intangible de las Empresas. Madrid: Pirámide. Marôco, João. 2010. Structural Equation Analysis: Theoretical Foundations, Software & Applications. Lisboa: Report. Meirinhos, Galvão, Maximino Bessa, Carmem Leal, and Rui Silva. 2022a. Municipal Rating System: A Municipality Compliance Index. Administrative Sciences 12: 46. [CrossRef] Meirinhos, Galvão, Maximino Bessa, Carmem Leal, Márcio Sol, Amélia Carvalho, and Rui Silva. 2022b. “Municipal Executive Recommendation by Citizens: Who Is Most Significant?”. Administrative Sciences 12: 81. [CrossRef] Mota, Luís, Maria Engrácia Cardim, and Luísa Pereira. 2016. Public administration reforms in Portugal: A path between service improvement and cutback measures. In Public Administration Reforms in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 194–204. Nguyen, Nha, and Gaston Leblanc. 2001. Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers’ retention decisions in services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 8: 227–36. [CrossRef] Ochoa Rico, Maria Salomé, Arnaldo Vergara-Romero, JoséFernando Romero Subia, and Juan Antonio Jimber Del Rio. 2022. Study of Citizen Satisfaction and Loyalty in the Urban Area of Guayaquil: Perspective of the Quality of Public Services Applying Structural Equations. PLoS ONE 17: e0263331. [CrossRef] Oliver Richard, L. 1997. Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York: Irwin-McGraw-Hill. Oržekauskas, Petras, and Ingrida Šmaižien ˙ e. 2014. Public Image and Reputation Management: Retrospective and Actualities. Available online: https://www3.mruni.eu/ojs/public-policy-and-administration/article/view/2328/2134 (accessed on 23 August 2022). Overman, Sjors, Madalina Busuioc, and Matthew Wood. 2020. A multidimensional reputation barometer for public agencies: A validated instrument. Public Administration Review 80: 415–25. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Parasuraman, Arun, Leonard L. Berry, and Valarie A. Zeithaml. 1993. More on improving service quality measurement. Journal of Retailing 69: 140–47. [CrossRef] Pollitt, Christopher. 1990. Doing business in the temple? Managers and quality assurance in the public services. Public Administration 68: 435–52. [CrossRef] Pollitt, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. 2017. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis-into the Age of Austerity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rao, Hayagreeva. 1994. The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–912. Strategic Management Journal 15: 29–44. [CrossRef] Rhodes, Rod A. W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Milton Keynes: Open University. Rindova, Violina P., Ian O. Williamson, Antoaneta P. Petkova, and Joy Marie Sever. 2005. Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal 48: 1033–49. [CrossRef] Ringle, Christian M., Sven Wende, and Jan-Michael Becker. 2015. SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt SmartPLS GmbH. Available online: http//www.smartpls.com (accessed on 23 August 2022). Rocha, J. A. Oliveira. 2009. Gestão pública e Modernização Administrativa Oeiras. Oeiras: INA. Schultz, Don E., and Beth E. Barnes. 1999. Strategic Brand Communication Campaigns. Lincolnwood: NTC Business Books. Adm. Sci. 2022,12, 126 19 of 19 Silalahi, Marto, Vivi Candra, Ernest Grace, Sudung Simatupang, and Julyanthry Julyanthry. 2022. Servant Leadership and its influence on employee performance. International Journal of Educational Review, Law And Social Sciences 2: 295–304. Speyer, Verwaltungswissenschaften. n.d. Umbenennung in Deutsche Universität für. Available online: https://opus4.bsz-bw.de/ dopus/files/1025/SpeyerJournal20.pdf (accessed on 23 August 2022). Strickland, Teresa, Citizen-Centred Service Network (Canada), and Canadian Centre for Management Development Learning Centre. 1998. Client Satisfaction Surveying. Common Measurements Tool. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Management Development. Sun, Rachel C. F., and Eadaoin K. P. Hui. 2012. Cognitive competence as a positive youth development construct: A conceptual review. Scientific World Journal 2012: 210953. [CrossRef] Thomas, Paul, and Colin Palfrey. 1996. Evaluation: Stakeholder-focused criteria. Social Policy & Administration 30: 125–42. Van Riel, Cees B. M., and John M. T. Balmer. 1997. Corporate Identity: The Concept, Its Measurement and Management. European Journal of Marketing 31: 340–55. [CrossRef] Wartick, Steven L. 2002. Measuring corporate reputation: Definition and data. Business & Society 41: 371–92. Wiener, Antje. 2017. A theory of contestation—A concise summary of its argument and concepts. Polity 49: 109–25. [CrossRef] Winkler, Fedelma. 1987. Consumerism in health care: Beyond the supermarket model. Policy & Politics 15: 1–8. Yang, Sung-Un, and James E. Grunig. 2005. Decomposing organisational reputation: The effects of organisation—Public relationship outcomes on cognitive representations of organisations and evaluations of organisational performance. Journal of Communication Management 9: 305–25. [CrossRef] Zeithaml, Valarie A., Leonard L. Berry, and Ananthanarayanan Parasuraman. 1996. The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing 60: 31–46. [CrossRef] Zins, Andreas H. 2001. Relative attitudes and commitment in customer loyalty models: Some experiences in the commercial airline industry. International Journal of Service Industry Management 12: 269–94. [CrossRef]