Conjecture 3: A bad reputation lasts through the centuries…

Doctrine 3: Reputation. (Academic) words and (repeated) images

Question: What can you do to protect your CEO’s reputation?

Within the memory of man Emperors and Kings have known how to value and serve their reputation. Julius Ceasar, as well as many emperors after him, revealed himself as writer showcasing his strategic skills and eminence as military general[1]. The Emperor Augustus compiled a list of his Good Works[2], that he exposed in order to influence his positive image. The French president Mitterand built eight architectonically outstanding monuments: The ‘Grands Travaux’, the Grand Works.

And so did many others. If they are nòt watchful of their own reputation, disaster may overcome them. Their opponents might decide to serve their image and not necessarily in a positive way. The ’cause célèbre’ of the reverse promotion of a reputation and the persistency of a bad image is the reign of the 15^th century British king Richard III, whose reputation was completely destroyed after his death, especially by historian Thomas More. As a very early predecessor of the publicity function of television William Shakespeare acted as a carrying medium with his play Richard III[3]. This was a story whose characters were played time and again, and the leading man himself leaves little room for any other interpretation than him being nothing but a cruel villain. This version of events was repeated and repeated and repeated: centuries on end. From this repetitiveness, unchallenged at that, the story gains more and more experienced truth. Richard III was a cruel king and the murderer of his nephews Edward and Richard. More vested his authority in this case, or so people were led to believe, on the claim that he was a contemporary of Richard III. Strictly looking at the dates this is rather stretching the limits. More was some seven years of age when Richard died at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, and wrote his History of King Richard III some 25 to 30 years later (1510-1518). To say nothing of Shakespeare, who wrote The Tragedy, without any remaining living witnesses and mainly based on the work of More, even a hundred years later, in 1592. It would take to 1951 before anyone dared suggest that this presentation of the facts might not be true, and that the nephews were not killed, at least not by Richard[4]. It took another sixty years before the real rehabilitation got underway[5], resulting in the discovery of the remains of the king and a new burial in the cathedral of Leicester. A ruined reputation is just as immune for contradicting facts, as an exceedingly strong reputation resists numerous incidents and survives the centuries.

Next time: … and a good reputation also lasts

[1] Commentarii de bello civili.

[2] Res Gestae

[3] William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Richard III, (1592) Oxford: Oxford University Press 2008.

[4] Josephine Tey, The Daughter of Time, New York: Simon & Schuster 1951/1995.

[5] Ph. Langley & M. Jones, The Search for Richard III, the King’s Grave. London: John Murray Publishers 2013.