IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v19y2025i1p104-125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regulatory agency reputation acquisition: A Q Methodology analysis of the views of agency employees

Author

Listed:
  • Lauren A. Fahy
  • Erik‐Hans Klijn
  • Judith van Erp

Abstract

This article reports findings of a Q Methodology study in which we explored the opinions of employees from eight Dutch regulatory agencies on how agencies gain their reputation. This is the largest study to date examining employee's views on the relative importance of different factors in reputation acquisition by public organizations, and the first analyzing employees in regulatory agencies. Results reveal five distinct “profiles” of opinion among employees about the factors most important in reputation acquisition. Regression analysis, further, supports that different regulatory agencies are dominated by employees with different opinions on how reputation is formed. These findings contribute to the growing empirical literature on how regulatory agencies, and their various employees, understand and approach reputation management.

Suggested Citation

  • Lauren A. Fahy & Erik‐Hans Klijn & Judith van Erp, 2025. "Regulatory agency reputation acquisition: A Q Methodology analysis of the views of agency employees," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 104-125, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:19:y:2025:i:1:p:104-125
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12603
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12603
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12603?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:19:y:2025:i:1:p:104-125. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.