Motivating employees to “live the brand” : the influence of work environment and the moderating role of internal branding

MSc Thesis Marketing 2014

Motivating employees to “live the brand”

The influence of work environment and the moderating

role of internal branding

Author: P.B. Muller

Student number: 10662820

2

Abstract

In marketing literature, frontline employees have been recognized to be key in delivering the core values of the brand and shape the perception of the brand by customers. This emphasizes the importance of motivating frontline employees to represent the brand in building a favorable corporate reputation. Organizational practices like internal branding have been found to align and motivate frontline employees to represent the brand. But the effect of the direct environment of the employee is unknown. Therefore the goal of this study is to identify whether the work environment of the frontline employees affects their motivation to “live the brand”, and the role of internal branding in this relationship. A survey among 100 frontline employees working in the automotive industry provides evidence for the findings that work environment plays an important role in motivating frontline employees to “live the brand”. Further findings indicate that internal branding does not affect this relationship. These results provide insights in the importance of work environment and the role of internal branding for managers who wish to increase the motivation of their frontline staff to “live the brand”.

3

Content

2.1 Living the brand ... 9

2.2 Work environment ... 11 2.3 Internal branding ... 15 3. Research method ... 19 3.1 Sample description ... 19 3.2 Procedure ... 19 3.3 Description of measures ... 20 3.4 Hypotheses testing ... 22 4. Results ... 22 4.1 Preliminary analysis ... 23 4.2 Sample description ... 23 4.3 Reliability analysis ... 24 4.4 Correlation analysis ... 25 4.5 Hypotheses testing ... 28 5. Discussion ... 35

5.1 Implications for theory ... 36

5.2 Managerial implications ... 38

5.3 Limitations and future research opportunities ... 39

6. Conclusion ... 40

References ... 42

4

1. Introduction

With competition becoming increasingly stronger, it becomes necessary for organizations to stand out and differentiate themselves. They have to communicate to the external stakeholders why they should consider their organization and not the competitor. Therefore, it is important for organizations to build a favorable corporate reputation (Chun, 2005; Ettenson and Knowles, 2008). This is a major factor when it comes to differentiating from other organizations to create a competitive advantage (Wilkinson and Balmer, 1996; Hammond and Thwaites, 2000; Wilson, 2001). An important factor in building this favorable reputation are the frontline employees, who are the representation of the organization (De Chernatony, 2002). Frontline employees communicate with external stakeholders and therefore shape their perception of the organization (George, 1990; Harris and de Chernatony, 2001). So knowing what motivates frontline employees to deliver the core values of the organization is an important factor when deciding on a strategy to build a favorable corporate reputation.

In this study we define the concept of delivering the core values of the organization by frontline employees as “living the brand”. Studies have shown that motivating frontline employees to “live the brand” has a positive effect on building a favorable corporate reputation (Elsbach and Glynn, 1996; Gotsi and Wilson, 2001; Harris and de Chernatony, 2001). Marketing literature has focused more and more on internal branding mechanisms that affect frontline employees and motivate them to deliver the core values of the organization (De Chernatony and Segal-Horn, 2003; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011). On the other hand, psychology and management and business literature have looked at the relationship of work environment on job motivation and outcome (Hackman and Oldham, 1975; Steers and Braunstein, 1976; Campion and Thayer, 1985; Edwards et al., 2000; Morgeson and Humprey, 2006). This paper will further examine the effect of attributes in the work environment that

5 shape job motivation and outcome (Barack and Mount, 2013) and explore if these attributes have a similar effect on the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”. Furthermore, this paper will examine the role of internal branding mechanisms as found by marketing literature (Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011) on this relationship. Specifically if internal branding would still contribute to the motivation to “live the brand” if the attributes of the work environment are altered in such a way that they already have a positive effect on this motivation.

1.1 Problem statement

The focus of this study will be on frontline employee motivation to “live the brand”. More specifically, this study will look at the influence of the work environment of frontline employees on their motivation to “live the brand” and the impact of internal branding on this relationship. The next research question is formulated:

What is the influence of the work environment of frontline employees on their motivation to “live the brand”, and how does internal branding affect this relationship?

To elaborate and substantiate on the main research question, the next sub-questions are formulated:

- What does “living the brand” mean?

- Why is it important for frontline employees to “live the brand”?

- How can work environment affect motivation of employees to “live the brand”? - How is internal branding related to “living the brand”?

- How can internal branding moderate the influence of work environment on the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”?

6

1.2 Academic relevance

Studies have tried to find what it is that motivates frontline employees to “live the brand” (Gotsi and Wilson, 2001; Maxwell and Knox, 2009; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007). All taking corporate branding from a different perspective. According to Balmer and Gray (2003) corporate branding is something that needs the whole organization to commit to in order to be successful, including managers and frontline employees. For managers, different approaches are of their disposal to motivate employees. Looking at existing literature, marketing literature has looked mainly at organizational practices (Melewar et al., 2012), focusing on corporate identity, visual identity, corporate personality, leadership, vision, values and corporate culture, training, internal branding and integrated corporate communication initiatives. Of these studies, Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) found that internal branding mechanisms do influence the employee’s attitude towards the organization and as a consequence increase brand performance. In their earlier study, Punjaisri and Wilson (2007) found that of internal branding mechanisms, training programs and internal communication influence frontline employees to deliver the brand promise the most. However, like stated before, these studies have focused mainly on organizational practices. They ignore the direct environment of the employee and whether it has an effect on their motivation to “live the brand”.

Looking at applied psychology and management and business literature, studies have been done to identify which dimensions of the work environment affect the motivational aspect of the job (Hackman and Oldham, 1975; Campion and Thayer, 1985; Edwards et al., 2000; Morgeson and Humprey, 2006). In the last couple of years ideas have started to arise towards the formulation of the two attributes of the work environment that affect job motivation the most (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006; Grant, 2007; Humphrey et al., 2007). In their paper, Barack and Mount (2013) state that these two attributes are task characteristics and social

7 context. So while studies have focused on the direct environment of frontline employees (Steers and Porter, 1983; Susskind et al., 2007; Tomer, 2001), the influence of work environment was studied on job motivation and not the motivation to “live the brand”. So again, it remains unclear what the influence is of the work environment of frontline employees on the motivation to “live the brand”.

We defined the concept of “living the brand” as delivering the core values of the organization by frontline employees, also called brand citizenship behavior. In their study, Chang et al. (2012) defined three dimensions of brand citizenship behavior, namely helping behaviors and brand consideration, brand sportsmanship and self-development of brand enhancement. They argue that frontline employees who behave according to these dimensions act like sellers and show an increased amount of empathy in order to satisfy customers. They behave in a manner that represents the core values of the organization. Interpreting the findings of applied psychology and management and business literature and combining it with brand citizenship behavior, it is likely that the work environment of frontline employees would have a positive influence on brand citizenship behavior. However, this relationship has yet to be explored. Therefore the main objective of this study will be to examine the relationship between work environment and brand citizenship behavior.

In their study Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) found that internal branding does positively influence frontline employee motivation to deliver the core values of the brand. Work environment was found to have a moderate moderating role on this relationship. This means that even with internal branding practices, a positive work environment can increase the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”. In line with this result, the main objective of this study tries to see if work environment by itself influences the motivation to

8 “live the brand”. However, if work environment does influence the motivation by itself, the role of internal branding becomes unclear. Therefore, the second objective of this study is to see whether internal branding is still necessary, or in other words whether it moderates the relationship between work environment and the motivation to “live the brand”.

In order to compare the results of this study with studies being done in the applied psychology and management and business literature (Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006; Grant, 2007; Humphrey et al., 2007) and to compliment on their findings, the relationship between work environment and intrinsic job motivation and achievements will be examined. The contribution to existing literature will be by studying the motivational attributes of the work environment of frontline employees in a marketing context. Also, this study distinguishes itself from studies being done in the marketing literature (Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011) by focusing on the direct work environment of frontline employees instead of focusing on organizational practices like internal branding.

From previous studies managers know which attributes motivate frontline employees in their job the most concerning their work environment (Barack and Mount, 2013). They also know which internal branding mechanisms influence motivation of frontline employees to deliver the core brand values (Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011). This study will contribute to this by showing managers how work environment attributes influences frontline employees to “live the brand”. It also shows how internal branding mechanisms can moderate this relationship and whether managers would still have to use them if they alter the work environment. Managers can shape the work environment of their frontline employees accordingly and adjust internal branding mechanisms to fit the situation. This way the motivation of employees to “live the brand” is optimized.

9

2. Theoretical framework

In this chapter different concepts will be explained with the help of existing literature. First the concept of “living the brand” will be looked at. More specifically, how it is defined and why it is important. Secondly, work environment will be explored and what its relationship is with intrinsic job motivation and work achievement and how this translates to its relation with the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”. Finally the concept of internal branding is discussed. Especially how it relates to the motivation to “live the brand” and how it can moderate the relationship of work environment on “living the brand”. The conceptual model (Figure 1) gives a visual representation of the relation between hypotheses that will be studied.

2.1 Living the brand

Different studies have looked at the concept of “living the brand”, or delivering the core values of the organization by (frontline) employees, and put different labels on it. Chang et al. (2012) talks about brand citizenship behavior and uses a definition of Organ (1988) to describe it: “Individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization”. Looking at different literature, there is somewhat of a consensus that “living the brand” has something to do with the (voluntary) behavior of employees that may increase the strength of the brand (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005; Chang et al., 2012). The next question then becomes: why is it so important for employees to express such kind of behavior? According to Balmer (2001), for an organization to be differentiated form its competitors and to be successful, it needs all its employees to be committed to the corporate brand. And according to Thomson et al. (1999), this is the case when employees fully understand the core brand values.

10 Competition is becoming more and more an issue for organizations. This means organizations need to find ways to differentiate themselves from others. One way of doing this is creating a strong brand that stands out from competitors (Kelly, 1998; Sharp, 1995). This way customers recognize the brand and its values. If they favor these values above those of others, it will be more likely they will choose that product or service. According to Punjaisri and Wilson (2007), frontline employees are an important factor when it comes to delivering these brand values. Customers come in contact with an organization in several ways. One of them is the contact with personnel, either face-to-face or indirect (e.g. telephone or e-mail). For the customer, the employees represent the brand and therefore have a major influence on the perception the customer has of the brand (Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991). This means that a negative experience of a customer with one particular employee can create a negative attitude towards the whole brand. On the other hand, one employee can also create a positive attitude toward the whole brand. So frontline employees have the power to make a brand successful or not in establishing a favorable reputation compared to competitors (Bharadwaj et al., 1993). Besides creating a favorable reputation, frontline employees are key in positioning a brand (Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007). For a brand to establish itself in a certain position in the market (e.g. Audi as a premium car brand), it is employees who have a major role in creating and maintaining that position. According to Punjaisri and Wilson (2007), this creates a challenge for managers. A (large) organization has multiple frontline employees, and they all need to represent the brand in a unified way to create and maintain the brand reputation. But different people have different attitudes and behaviors, so these need to be shaped to become in line with the brand values.

The recognition that employees are an important asset in the delivery of the brand values has been established in existing literature for a while (Gotsi and Wilson, 2001). The first study in

11 which was proven that employees do in fact have an influence on the perception of how customers perceive the organization was by Kennedy (1977). According to her, employees play a big role in the customer experience and therefore shape the corporate identity a customer perceives. She also pointed out that an organization needs to develop a policy that makes sure the corporate identity is shaped effectively. In line with this, Dowling (1986,1993) argues that with communicating their image, organizations have to present a unified image to both internal and external stakeholders. He states that employees are the ones who have to communicate this identity and are therefore a very important part in delivering the organizational image to stakeholders. Also Stuart (1999) argues, when it comes to corporate reputation management, the way employees perceive the organizational identity is extremely important. Because if employees identify themselves with the organization, it is more reasonable to believe that they have a positive feeling towards the organization and adjust their behavior to fit accordingly with its identity. So managers have to make sure that their employees have a positive perception of their organization. This means that they have the responsibility to identify and communicate the brand values to their employees so that they become more committed and enthusiastic to behave in a way that represents these brand values (De Chernatony, 1999).

2.2 Work environment

According to Barack and Mount (2013), a lot of studies have been done that looked at different characteristics in work situations (e.g., Hackman and Oldham, 1975; Humphrey et

al., 2007; Turner and Lawrence, 1965). All looking at which attributes are important when it

comes to the motivation and behavior of employees. It has been recognized that jobs consist of certain characteristics that influence in a certain degree the motivational aspect of the employee and therefore the job performance. Two attributes of the work environment that have been found to be of high importance are task characteristics and social context. This

12 study will look at the job characteristic scales developed by Turner and Lawrence (1965) and reviewed by Hackman and Lawler (1971) who identify six different dimensions, namely variety, autonomy, task identity, feedback, dealing with others and friendship with others (Sims et al., 1976). According to Hackman and Lawler (1971), the first four dimensions are the so called “core dimensions” for the reason that “…individuals will be able to obtain meaningful personal satisfaction when they perform well on jobs which they experience as high on variety, autonomy, task identity, and feedback”. Dealing with others and friendship opportunities have a focus related to the influence of social context of the job.

Looking at the work design literature (Grant and Parker, 2009), job characteristics relate to how these jobs, but also tasks and roles, are structured, enacted and modified. All characteristics are aimed at improving employee motivation and performance. They are modified in such a way that motivation and performance are optimal. Taylor (1911) was the first to focus on the design of jobs, particularly on how jobs could be specialized and simplified (Fried et al., 2008). Consequently, this specialization and simplification of jobs resulted in lower performance instead of higher due to increased tardiness, lower levels of motivation and productivity, and more harm being done to the work equipment (Fried et al., 1998). So a new focus in the field of job design emerged, namely the motivation of employees that determined the attitude and performance of the job (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). In line with this, the job characteristics mentioned earlier, variety, autonomy, task identity, and feedback, influence three psychological states of employees, namely experienced responsibility for work outcomes, meaningfulness of work, and knowledge of work results. Each of these three then has a positive influence on work outcomes, which are high intrinsic work motivation, job satisfaction, job performance, and less absenteeism and turnover (Fried

13

H1: Task characteristics will be positively related to (a) intrinsic job motivation and (b) work achievement.

Besides task characteristics, the social context in which employees work can be very critical in how employees experience their work and how they behave (Grant and Parker, 2009). Grant and Parker (2009) defined the social context of work as: “…the interpersonal interactions and relationships that are embedded in and influenced by the jobs, roles, and tasks that employees perform and enact”. According to Humphrey et al. (2007), work design literature started recognizing the importance of the social context in the second half of the 20th century (Trist and Bamforth, 1951; Turner and Lawrence, 1965). But besides the characteristics mentioned earlier, dealing with others and friendship opportunities, social characteristics did not get a whole lot of attention by scholars compared to task characteristics. This was due to the fact that they were found to relate to satisfaction, but not to motivation and behavioral outcomes. More recently, there has been a shift in this line of thought. Work design literature has started recognizing that social characteristics are in fact important in the motivation of employees (Grant, 2007; Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006). Well-being has been found to be positively influenced by good relationships between employees (Myers, 1999). A reason for this increased attention can be due to the fact that work in organizations is being done more and more by teams (Ilgen, 1999). This increase in work being done with interaction with others has been found to positively affect satisfaction of employees (Ryan and Deci, 2001). Also, more interaction results in a more challenging and complex job, which in turn can improve employee motivation (Kiggundu, 1983). But besides these positive effects of social context on motivational aspects, social context can also have a positive effect on work achievements (Humphrey et al., 2007). The interaction between

14 employees can stimulate learning from each other how the job is done in the most effective way (Berman et al., 2002). This is why the next hypothesis is formulated:

H2: Social context will be positively related to (a) intrinsic job motivation and (b) work achievement.

In their study of the effect of internal branding activities on the attitude of employees towards the brand, Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) recognized the importance of the work environment where employees perform their job. They state that while certain factors concerning work environment have been studied in relation to motivation (Simons and Enz, 1995; Van woerkom et al., 2002; Steers and Porter, 1983; Susskind et al., 2007; Tomer, 2001), it has never been related to internal branding practices and the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”. Since the effect of work environment on intrinsic motivation and work achievement has been found in existing literature to be substantial, like mentioned before, a translation of this to the effect of work environment on the motivation to “live the brand” can be expected to be similar. Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) looked at the moderating role of work environment attributes on the influence of internal branding on the attitude of employees towards the brand. In the qualitative part of their study, they found that employees referred to both task characteristics and social context to be of influence on their motivation to “deliver the brand promise effectively and efficiently” (Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011). In line with these findings, Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) found in the quantitative part of their study that work environment attributes indeed moderate the influence of internal branding practices on the attitude of employees towards the brand. They concluded that work environment attributes are an important aspect to take into consideration when applying internal branding practices because they can negatively affect the effectiveness of these practices. Looking at the findings

15 of Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) and studies done in the work design literature, the next hypotheses are formulated:

H3: Task characteristics will be positively related to frontline employee motivation to “live the brand”.

H4: Social context will be positively related to frontline employee motivation to “live the brand”.

2.3 Internal branding

Internal branding has received an increasing amount of attention over the years (Melewar et

al., 2012). Helm (2011) refers to internal reputation building and defines it as: “…all activities

or behaviors employees exhibit in order to contribute to the formation of corporate reputation”. Helm (2011) states that employees have the power to affect the reputation of a brand by behaving in a certain way towards customers, either voluntarily or involuntarily. According to Punjaisri and Wilson (2007), internal branding “…is considered as a mean to create powerful corporate brands”. And also that “it assists the organization in aligning its internal process and corporate culture with those of the brand” (Vallaster, 2004; de Chernatony and Segal-Horn, 2001; Hatch and Schultz, 2001; LePla and Parker, 1999). Bergstrom et al. (2002) state that internal branding consists of three parts, namely communicating the brand towards employees, convincing employees of the core brand values, and linking every job to these core brand values so they will deliver them. So while there is a lack of a universal definition, many authors agree on the main principles that are concerned with internal branding (e.g. Aurand et al., 2005; Boone, 2000; de Chernatony and Cottam, 2006; King and Grace, 2008; Manhert and Torres, 2007). Foster et al. (2010) state this agreement as: “…it ensures that employees transform the espoused brand values, which set

16 customers’ expectations about the organization, into reality during the delivery of the brand promise”.

In the past, organizations were mostly concerned with branding by creating a certain identity or image for customers to be recognizable with the help of logo’s, advertising, and name (Bergstrom et al., 2002). Halfway the 90s, organizations started to realize that these practices were limited in their approach. Customers didn’t only identify a brand through its name, logos and advertisements, but also through the contact they had with service personnel. According to Bergstrom et al. (2002), it is not possible to “give” a customer the brand. Customers perceive the brand subconsciously. Therefore, organizations started to focus more and more on the employee in the branding process, which meant introducing internal branding practices.

However, with work environment having the potential to motivate frontline employees to “live the brand”, internal branding practices may become obsolete. But even if work environment would have a positive effect on the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”, according to King and Grace (2008) internal branding practices are still necessary. They argue that organizations need a central line of thought about the brand so that employees behave in such a way as customers would expect (Webster, 1992). If organizations don’t have a central line of thought about their brand, employees behave without direction in a way they think they should behave themselves (Berry et al., 1990; Webster, 1992). So organizations need to communicate the core brand values inside the organization so that employees have a sense of direction that is in line with expectations of the customer (Tosti and Stotz, 2001). If organizations only have an external branding program, the lack of knowledge about core brand values among the employees will result in a failure of this program because employee

17 behavior is not in line with customer expectations (Berry, 2000; Jacobs, 2003; Miles and Mangold, 2004).

In line with this, Punjaisri and Wilson (2007, 2011) argue in favor of applying internal branding mechanisms in an organization. In their study, Punjaisri and Wilson (2007) found that employees agree with their supervisors and managers that they are key in the process of delivering the core brand values to the customers. But in order for them to be able to do this, managers have to translate the core brand values in day-to-day activities. Of the different internal branding mechanisms which do so, Punjaisri and Wilson (2007) found that internal communication and training are the most important. They state that management can use these mechanisms to positively affect the behavior of employees to represent the core values of the brand. The study of Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) build on this by looking at the relationship of internal communication and training with brand performance, mediated by brand identification, brand commitment and brand loyalty. They conclude that internal branding does have an impact on employees’ brand performance and also their capability to communicate the core brand values, or in other words “live the brand”. Therefore internal branding becomes key to the success of an organization and especially to the successfulness of the brand (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002). And since corporate branding is closely linked with internal branding (Balmer and Greyser, 2006), Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) argue that their findings implicate that internal branding is key in the successful outcome of corporate branding practices. Based on these findings and for mentioned findings, it can be argued that internal branding practices positively affect the relationship of work environment on motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”, and managers cannot just rely on a positive work environment. The next hypotheses are formulated:

18

H5: Training programs positively affect the influence of (a) task characteristics and (b) social context on frontline employee motivation to “live the brand”.

H6: Internal communication positively affects the influence of (a) task characteristics and (b) social context on frontline employee motivation to “live the brand”.

19

3. Research method

In this chapter the research methods will be explained. First, a description of the sample will be given. Then the data collection procedure will be described. A description of all the measures used will be provided. And finally, the analysis necessary to test the hypotheses will be discussed.

3.1 Sample description

The population of this study consists of frontline employees exposed to internal branding. The study has been done with employees working in the same industry to reduce bias. In this case the automotive industry was chosen, specifically dealerships and service-centers. Because this entails an enormous amount of people, probability sampling is not applicable. A form of non-probability sampling was used, namely purposive sampling. Judgment was used to choose the participants that will best fit the criteria. Participators of the study were mainly salesmen or woman and front desk employees. Because these people can be heterogeneous in terms of age, sex, education level and organizational surroundings, the focus was on the heterogeneous sampling variety. A minimum of 100 participants was maintained to be able to perform the needed statistical analysis.

3.2 Procedure

The data collection was done with the delivery and collection method. This way a high response rate was ensured. Accessing frontline employees in the automotive industry was done by visiting car dealerships and service-centers of various brands in the Amsterdam area of the Netherlands (a service-center is a place where customers can let their car be serviced and is part of the dealer network). Employees were asked if they had 5-10 minutes to fill in a survey. Most surveys were collected right away, but several were collected at a later point in time.

20

3.3 Description of measures

To measure the variables, a 5-point Likert scale was used. This scale was used because it is a commonly used scale in measuring attitudes (Wilson, 2006; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011) and also because using a more complex scale results in large proportions of construct-irrelevant variance in the field of job design (Harvey et al., 1985; Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006).

Work environment

The independent variable used in this study is work environment with its two constructs task characteristics and social context described by Barack and Mount (2013) as being the most influential constructs of work environment. The work of Sims et al. (1976) was used to define the measures for task characteristics and social context. A description is given for each one of them.

- Variety (α = .80). Was measured using a 5-item scale and defined as: “The degree to

which a job requires employees to perform a wide range of operations in their work and/or the degree to which employees must use a variety of equipment and procedures in their work” (Sims et al., 1976).

- Autonomy (α = .74). Was measured using a 5-item scale and defined as: “The extent to which employees have a major say in scheduling their work, selecting the equipment they will use, and deciding on procedures to be followed” (Sims et al., 1976).

- Task identity (α = .77). Was measured using a 4-item scale and defined as: “The extent to which employees do an entire or whole piece of work and can clearly identify the result of their efforts” (Sims et al., 1976).

- Feedback (α = .80). Was measured using a 3-item scale and defined as: “The degree to which employees receive information as they are working which reveals how well they are performing on the job” (Sims et al., 1976).

21 - Dealing with others (α = .75). Was measured using a 3-item scale and defined as: “The degree to which a job requires employees to deal with other people to complete the work” (Sims et al., 1976).

- Friendship opportunities (α = .62). Was measured using a 3-item scale and defined as: “The degree to which a job allows employees to talk with one another on the job and to establish informal relationships with other employees at work” (Sims et al., 1976).

Work outcomes

The first dependent variable used in this study was work outcome. Two constructs were used to measure the motivational aspect and behavioral aspect, intrinsic job motivation and work achievement respectively. Intrinsic job motivation (α = .678) was measured using a 4-item scale as developed by Lawler and Hall (1970). They described it as: “…the degree to which the person is motivated internally to perform his job well”. Work achievement (α = .72) was measured using a 5-item scale as developed by Steers and Braunstein (1976). It can be described as the degree to which an employee tries to perform well in his job (Steers and Braunstein, 1976).

Frontline employee motivation to “live the brand”

The second dependent variable used to represent the frontline employee motivation to “live the brand” was brand citizenship behavior. It was measured using a 15-item scale as developed by Chan et al. (2012) measuring the helping behaviors and brand consideration (α = .918), brand sportsmanship (α = .856) and self-development of brand enhancement (α = .884). They state these kinds of behaviors “…refer to voluntary brand behaviors”.

22

Internal branding

Internal branding (α = .828) is used as a moderator in this study. Two constructs, training programs and internal communication as described by Punjaisri and Wilson (2007) as the most influential mechanisms for employee motivation to deliver the core values of the brand are used. The construct training programs was divided into two scales, namely training and orientation, a 4-item scale and a 2-item scale respectively as derived from Punjaisri and Wilson (2011). It can be described as the degree to which an organization provides training programs to align core brand values (Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011). Internal communication was divided into two scales as well, namely meetings and briefings, both a 2-item scale as derived from Punjaisri and Wilson (2011). It can be described as the degree of formal and/or informal communication inside an organization (Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011).

3.4 Hypotheses testing

To test the hypotheses and see whether they can be accepted or not, two kinds of analyses need to be done. These are a linear analysis and a moderation analysis. For the linear analysis a linear regression analysis will be used. This way hypotheses 1 (a + b), 2 (a + b), 3 and 4 can be tested. For moderation analysis, the tool PROCESS as developed by Hayes (2012) will be used so hypotheses 5 (a + b) and 6 (a + b) can be tested.

4. Results

In this chapter the results of the study will be described. First, a preliminary analysis will be done. Then a description of the sample will be given. After that, an analysis of reliability and correlation between variables will be described. And finally the hypotheses will be tested according to the methods described above.

23

4.1 Preliminary analysis

Due to the way the data was collected and verifying if all questions were answered, not a lot of data was missing in the questionnaires (less than 10 percent). Only the answers to age and number of years employed at current employer were missing more often (more than 10 percent) due to the nature of the question itself. Due to the high percentage of missing values of Age and Employment and the fact that values are not missing at random, instead of Hot Deck, Expectation Maximization was used to fill missing values (Myers, 2011). For all other variables Hot Deck imputation was used.

4.2 Sample description

In total 100 surveys were filled in and collected. Table 1 shows an overview of the sample information. Overall, more men than women participated in the study. Due to the nature of the profession of selling cars, more men than women were found to be in the population. Women mostly worked at front desk positions in the organization and less in sales positions. Although age was overall evenly distributed, slightly more young employees participated in the study than older ones. Also with the number of years employed at the current employer there is a somewhat even distribution. Employment was clearly more fulltime than part-time.

24

4.3 Reliability analysis

A reliability test was done for all variables, calculating cronbach’s alpha and the reliability of each of the items. Table 2 shows the cronbach’s alpha for each variable. With six variables an item was deleted to increase cronbach’s alpha, namely autonomy, task identity, dealing with others, friendship opportunities, training and work achievement. With the construct autonomy one item was removed, namely “To what extent do you receive information from your superior on your job performance?”. The reason this question didn’t contribute to the reliability of the construct autonomy can be due to the nature of this question, which is not highly related to autonomy. Also for the construct task identity an item was removed, namely “To what extent do you do a "whole" piece of work (as opposed to doing part of a job which is finished by some other employee)?”. The misunderstanding of this question by participators can be the reason for not contributing to the reliability of task identity. Both dealing with others and friendship opportunities produced a low cronbach’s alpha, 0,4 and 0,421 respectively. Combining items of both constructs (with the label social context) resulted in a higher reliability, although 4 items were removed to increase cronbach’s alpha. From the variable dealing with others the items “To what extent is dealing with other people a part of your job?” and “How much of your job depends upon your ability to work with others?” were

25 removed. From friendship opportunities the items “To what extent do you have the opportunity to talk informally with other employees while at work?” and “The opportunity to develop close friendships in my job.” were removed. The two items remaining still represent dealing with others and friendship opportunities. From the variable training five items were removed due to a low cronbach’s alpha for every combination of items. So one item was chosen that best represents the construct training, namely “Training gives me appropriate skills in relation to delivering the brand promise based on the brand standards.”.

4.4 Correlation analysis

Two correlation matrices were constructed to see the correlation between the variables. The first matrix shows the correlation between every individual construct of the task characteristics (variation, autonomy, feedback and task identity), independent variable social context, dependent variables brand citizenship behavior, intrinsic job motivation and work achievement and moderators training and internal communication (Table 3). The second matrix shows the correlations between the independent variables task characteristics (the mean of the constructs variation, autonomy, feedback and task identity) and social context, the moderators training and internal communication and the dependent variables brand citizenship behavior, intrinsic job motivation and work achievement (Table 4).

With regard to mean interpretation, it is notable that the mean of training and internal communication is in the upper 3s, meaning that most participators of the study were exposed to these types of internal branding. This may make a comparison of internal branding practices being used versus not being used harder, but not impossible. Another notable mean value is that of intrinsic job motivation. The value is very high, which means that almost all

26

27 participators answered high on intrinsic job motivation. This may be due to the way data is collected, which relied on free will to participate in the study. Employees that agreed to participate in the study could be generally more motivated to perform their job well than employees who refused to participate in the study. Although it can be a biased interpretation of the population, it does not make the outcome of further analyses needed for this study unsound.

We can see in table 4 that the control variables have no significant correlation with task characteristics, social context, training, internal communication, brand citizenship behavior and intrinsic job motivation. Only age has a negative correlation with work achievement. Therefore the control variables won’t be taken into consideration in the hypotheses testing. Furthermore, we can see in table 3 a correlation between variety, autonomy, feedback and task identity, and a correlation between intrinsic job motivation and work achievement due to the fact that they are constructs of the same variable. Also task characteristics and social context have a significant correlation (Table 4). This is in line with the fact that they both represent work environment. If we look at inter-variable correlations (Table 4), it is notable that the dependent variable brand citizenship behavior has a positive correlation with both independent variables task characteristics and social context, and moderator internal communication. Also, moderator internal communication is positively related to the independent variables task characteristics and social context. This is in line with the formulated hypotheses that task characteristics and social context both have a positive relation with brand citizenship behavior and that moderator internal communication has a positive influence on this relationship. Training appears to have no correlation to both independent variables task characteristics and social context and dependent variable brand citizenship behavior. Besides this, dependent variables intrinsic job motivation and work achievement

28 both have a positive correlation with the independent variable task characteristics and social context. This is also in line with the formulated hypotheses that the independent variables task characteristics and social context have a positive relation with dependent variables intrinsic job motivation and work achievement.

4.5 Hypotheses testing

First, every hypothesis will be tested individually including a and b if applicable. After that, independent variables, moderators and dependent variables will each be taken together in one model to get a better insight of the main problem statement.

H1: Task characteristics will be positively related to (a) intrinsic job motivation and (b) work achievement.

This hypothesis was tested with simple linear regression analyses. The mean of the constructs variation, autonomy, feedback and task identity was calculated to form the variable task characteristics. Task characteristics was then taken as independent variable and intrinsic job motivation as dependent variable for one analysis and work achievement for the other analysis to test respectively hypotheses a and b (Table 5).

With intrinsic job motivation as dependent variable the same significant relation was found as with the correlation analysis (β = ,204; p < ,05), but with a R2 of ,042 which means that only 4,2% of the intrinsic job motivation can be explained by task characteristics. The same is true

29 if we take work achievement as dependent variable, which results in a significant relationship (β = ,320; p < ,01) with a R2 of ,102, which means that 10,2% of work achievement can be explained by task characteristics. So both hypotheses 1a and 1b can be accepted.

H2: Social context will be positively related to (a) intrinsic job motivation and (b) work achievement.

Like with hypothesis 1, simple linear regression analyses were used to test hypotheses 2a and 2b. Social context was taken as independent variable and intrinsic job motivation and work achievement for hypothesis 2a and hypothesis 2b respectively as dependent variables (Table 6).

Taking intrinsic job motivation as dependent variable results in the same significant relationship as found with the correlation analysis (β = ,214; p < ,05), but with a R2 of ,046, which means that only 4,6% of the intrinsic job motivation can be explained by social context. Again, the same is true for work achievement as dependent variable, which results in a significant relationship (β = ,301; p < ,01) with a R2 of ,090, which means that only 9% of work achievement can be explained by social context. So hypotheses 2a and 2b can be accepted.

H3: Task characteristics will be positively related to frontline employee motivation to “live the brand”.

30 To test hypothesis 3, a simple linear regression analysis was done. Task characteristics (calculated as the mean of variation, autonomy, feedback and task identity) is taken as independent variable and brand citizenship behavior as dependent variable (Table 7).

Table 7 shows the same significant result as we saw with the correlation analysis (β = ,253; p < ,05), but with a R2 of ,064, which means that only 6,4% of brand citizenship behavior can be explained by task characteristics. So hypothesis 3 can be accepted.

H4: Social context will be positively related to frontline employee motivation to “live the brand”.

For testing hypothesis 4, a simple linear regression analysis was done as well. Social context was taken as independent variable and brand citizenship behavior as the dependent variable.

With social context as independent variable, we see the same outcome as with the correlation test done earlier, namely a significant relationship (β = ,327; p < ,01) with a R2 of ,107, which means that 10,7% of brand citizenship behavior can be explained by social context. So hypothesis 4 can be accepted.

31

H5: Training programs positively affect the influence of (a) task characteristics and (b) social context on frontline employee motivation to “live the brand”.

As stated before, to test hypothesis 5 with moderation, PROCESS will be used (Hayes, 2012). More specifically, model 1 with task characteristics as independent variable for hypothesis 5a and social context as independent variable for hypothesis 5b. For both hypotheses training programs was taken as moderator and brand citizenship behavior was taken as dependent variable.

32 As can be seen in table 9, for both independent variables task characteristics and social context the interaction effect of training on their relationship with brand citizenship behavior is not significant. But although the overall interaction effect is not significant, table 10 shows that the interaction effect of training on task characteristics with the dependent variable brand citizenship behavior is significant (p < ,05) if the values for training are high. The same is true for the interaction effect of training if social context is taken as moderator. Table 11 shows that although the overall interaction effect is not significant, it is significant (p < ,05) if the values of training are 3,6667 and 4,000. But because the overall interaction of training is not significant for both independent variables task characteristics and social context, hypothesis 5a and 5b are both rejected (Table 9).

H6: Internal communication positively affects the influence of (a) task characteristics and (b) social context on frontline employee motivation to “live the brand”.

As with hypothesis 5, PROCESS (model 1) (Hayes, 2012) will be used to test the moderation effect of internal communication on the relationship of the independent variable task characteristics (hypothesis 6a) and independent variable social context (hypothesis 6b) with the dependent variable brand citizenship behavior.

33 Internal communication has for both independent variables task characteristics and social context no significant interaction effect on their relationship with dependent variable brand citizenship behavior (Table 12). Also, table 13 shows that internal communication has no significant interaction effect for any of its values for the relationship of task characteristics on brand citizenship behavior. On the other hand, for the relationship of social context on brand citizenship behavior, internal communication does have a significant interaction effect (p < ,05) for the values 3, 3,25, and 3,75 (Table 14). But due to the fact that there is no overall significant interaction for both relationships with independent variables task characteristics and social context, hypothesis 6a and 6b are rejected.

Besides hypothesis testing, further analyses have been done to get a better insight in the main problem statement. For the hypothesis tests, simple linear regression was used. To see what

34 the combined influence and individual influence while controlling for each other is of both task characteristics and social context on work outcome and brand citizenship behavior, a multiple linear regression is done.

Testing the effect of work environment on work outcome shows a significant relationship (β = ,379; p < ,01) with a R2 of ,144, which means that 14,4% of work outcome can be explained by work environment. Also, both independent variables task characteristics and social context show a significant relationship with work outcome (Table 15). With the effect of work outcome on brand citizenship behavior, also a significant relation was found (β = ,351; p < ,01) with a R2 of ,123, which means that 12,3% of brand citizenship behavior can be explained by work outcome. Of the independent variables task characteristics does not show a significant relationship any more, while social context does.

Finally, a multiple linear regression was done to look at the influence of internal branding on brand citizenship behavior. The moderation test done earlier shows that training and internal communication don’t moderate the relationship of work environment on brand citizenship behavior, but they can still have a direct effect. Training and internal communication are taken as independent variables and brand citizenship behavior as dependent variable (Table 17).

35 The analysis shows a significant relationship (β = ,593; p < ,01) of the relation of internal branding with brand citizenship behavior with a R2 of ,352, which means that 35,2% of brand citizenship behavior can be explained by internal branding. Also, both independent variables training and internal communication have a significant relationship with brand citizenship behavior (Table 17).

5. Discussion

While marketing literature has focused on organizational practices (Melewar et al., 2012) like internal branding to influence the frontline employees’ attitude towards the organization (Pjujaisri and Wilson, 2011), this study set out to investigate the influence of the direct environment of frontline employees, namely the work environment, on their motivation to “live the brand”. The first objective of the study was to see whether work environment, represented by task characteristics and social context (Barack and Mount, 2013), could positively affect the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”, or in other words increase their brand citizenship behavior (Chan et al., 2012). The second objective was to see whether internal branding, represented in this study by training programs and internal communication (Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007), could positively affect this influence of work environment on brand citizenship behavior.

36

5.1 Implications for theory

The development of the hypothesis that work environment attributes could actually influence the motivation to “live the brand” was based on arguments substantiated by a combination of marketing, work design, and applied psychology and management and business literature. In the work design and applied psychology and management and business literature, it was found that two attributes of the work environment affect the motivation and behavior of employees the most, namely task characteristics and social context (Barack and Mount, 2013). In the marketing literature, Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) found that work environment attributes indeed are of importance when it comes to using internal branding practices to positively influence the attitude of frontline employees towards the brand. So the argument was made in this study that combining these findings would mean that work environment by itself would also influence the motivation of employees to “live the brand”. To test this assumption, a control element was created. Hypotheses 1 and 2 were based on the statements made in the psychology and management and business literature that the work environment attributes task characteristics and social context influence the motivation and behavior of employees in their job. In line with these statements, data gathered in this study supported hypotheses 1 and 2.

With hypotheses 1 and 2 supported, the assumption that the work environment attributes would also influence the motivation to “live the brand” was substantiated. Testing hypothesis 3 and 4 resulted in support that task characteristics and social context indeed influence the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”. Marketing literature already established that organizational practices like internal branding influence the attitude towards the brand (Melewar et al., 2012; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007). The support of hypotheses 3 and 4 in this study show that not only organizational practices affect frontline employees, but also their

37 direct environment. This implicates that employees find their work environment important when it comes to their level of motivation to “live the brand”, and is therefore an important aspect when the objective is to increase this motivation.

The results of the simple linear regression analyses show that task characteristics and social context by themselves do significantly influence the motivation to “live the brand”. Multiple linear regression analysis however revealed that although combined work environment still has a significant relation with motivation to “live the brand”, task characteristics controlling for social context does not. This can imply that the variable task characteristics is less relevant than social context when both attributes are altered to improve the work environment.

With hypotheses 3 and 4 confirmed, it is established that work environment does have a significant influence on the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”. The next question then becomes what the role of internal branding is, which has been proven to affect the attitude of frontline employees towards their brand (Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011). This is where the outcome is unexpected. King and Grace (2008) argue that organizations need a central line of thought, which requires internal branding practices so that employees behave in such a way as customers would expect. Contradictory to this, the results of this study show that internal branding practices do not moderate the influence of work environment on the motivation to “live the brand”. Or in other words, applying (or not applying) internal branding in an organization does not influence the relationship of work environment with the motivation to “live the brand”. It must be said that although no overall significant relationship was found, some values of both training and internal communication showed a significant moderation effect, which gives an insight into what levels of internal branding could affect the relationship the most. But because no overall significant relationship was found, it cannot be

38 said that internal branding influences the relationship of work environment with the motivation to “live the brand”. These results contradict with existing theories (King and Grace, 2008; Tosti and Stotz, 2001) by showing that it is not necessary to apply internal branding to increase motivation to “live the brand” if the work environment is already altered to increase this motivation. Apparently work environment by itself can increase the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”.

To rule out any bias in the data that internal branding was not perceived as influential by the participants in this study, an analysis of the direct effect of internal branding on the motivation to “live the brand” was done. In line with findings done earlier by Punjaisri and Wilson (2011), it showed that internal branding does indeed have a substantial influence on the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”. In fact, a comparison with work environment reveals that a bigger percentage of motivation to “live the brand” can be explained by internal branding, namely 35,2 percent versus 12,3 percent by work environment. This implies that internal branding influences motivation to “live the brand” to a greater extent than work environment.

5.2 Managerial implications

This study provides managers with two new insights. First, it shows managers that work environment does indeed influence the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”. This means that if managers want to increase this motivation, it is relevant to improve the task characteristics and social context of their frontline employees. Secondly, it shows managers that the influence of work environment on motivation to “live the brand” isn’t affected by the amount of internal branding they exercise within the organization. This means that managers can always improve the motivation to “live the brand” by altering the work environment in a

39 favorable way. Whether they apply internal branding or not, it does not influence the outcome of their efforts.

Besides these two insights, this study also provides managers with an understanding of the direct impact of internal branding on the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”. It shows that internal branding is indeed important if managers want to increase the motivation to “live the brand”. The direct effect of internal branding is in fact greater than that of work environment. But managers should not underestimate the influence of work environment. As Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) stated that work environment is indeed important when it comes to attitude of employees towards the organization, this study contributes to this that the direct influence of work environment should not be overlooked. Managers should take the significant influence of work environment into consideration when motivation to “live the brand” is low and the core values of the brand are not communicated to customers.

5.3 Limitations and future research opportunities

This study has been subject to several limitations. First of all, the study was done in the automotive industry with participators being mostly cars salesman and front desk employees. The internal branding practices in this industry might not be executed in a similar way in other industries. Also perceptions of work environment could be specific to the automotive industry and might not be representative for other industries. Future research should determine whether the results of this study are applicable in multiple industries. With regard to the way data was collected, motivation to “live the brand” and work outcome could be biased. Frontline employees were asked to participate in the study on a free will basis. The results show that especially the mean of intrinsic job motivation has a very high value. This may be due to the fact that employees who agreed to participate may already have a higher

40 level of motivation. Future studies where all employees are “forced” by higher management to participate in the study should rule out this bias. Finally, reliability values of certain variables turned out to be low. Items were deleted to increase these values. Future research should determine whether different scales representing the same variables and which are higher on reliability levels produce the same results as the scales in this study. Also, scales used were translated from English to Dutch. Some bias could have occurred with regard to the interpretation of the items by participators.

6. Conclusion

In this study the concept of “living the brand”, or the motivation to deliver the core values of the brand by frontline employees towards customers was studied. It was found that this concept is becoming more and more important for organizations in their challenge to stand out from competitors (Kelly, 1998; Sharp, 1995). Frontline employees have a major influence on the perception the customer has of a brand, because customers perceive them as a representation of the brand (Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991). Studies have been done arguing the importance of internal branding to align frontline employees to deliver the core values of the brand (Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007; Schutz and de Chernatony, 2002). Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) stated that work environment as moderator has an important role in the relation of internal branding on the attitude of employees towards the brand. This study found that work environment not only has a direct effect on work outcome (Barack and Mount, 2013), but also has a direct influence on the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”. But while internal branding was found to have an effect on motivating employees to deliver the core values of the brand in earlier studies (Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011), in this study it was found not to affect the relationship of work environment on the motivation to “live the brand”. However, the same direct effect was found of internal

41 branding on the motivation to “live the brand”. It can therefore be concluded that work environment influences the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand” consistently for any level of internal branding.

Based on these results, this study emphasizes the importance of work environment when it comes to increasing the motivation of frontline employees to “live the brand”. Although internal branding was found to also have a major influence on this motivation, work environment should not be underestimated. If an organization wants to improve the motivation of its frontline employees to “live the brand”, work environment is a key factor to take into consideration.

42

References

Aurand, T.W., Gorchels, L. and Bishop, T.R. (2005), “Human resource management’s role in internal branding: an opportunity for cross-functional brand message synergy”, Journal of

Product & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 163-9.

Balmer, J. and Wilkinson, A. (1991). Building societies: Change, strategy and corporate identity, Journal of General Management, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 20 – 33.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: seeing through the fog”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 248-91.

Balmer, J. M., & Gray, E. R. (2003). Corporate brands: what are they? What of them? European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 972-997.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2006), “Integrating corporate identity, corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image, and corporate reputation”, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 730-41.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management

Review, 38(1), 132-153.

Bergstrom, A., Blumenthal, D., & Crothers, S. (2002). Why internal branding matters: the case of Saab. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2-3), 2-3.

43 Berman, S. L., Down, J., & Hill, C. W. L. (2002). Tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage in the National Basketball Association. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 13– 31.

Berry, Leonard L. (2000). “Cultivating service brand equity”, Academy of Marketing Science

Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 128 –137.

Berry, Leonard L., Valarie Zeithaml and A. Parasuraman (1990). “Five imperatives for improving service quality”, Sloan Management Review, Vol 31, No. 4, pp. 29.

Bharadwaj, S. G., Varadarajan, R. P. and Fahy, J. (1993). Sustainable competitive advantage of service industries: A conceptual model and research propositions, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 83–99.

Boone, M. (2000), “The importance of internal branding”, Sales & Marketing Management, Vol. 9, pp. 36-8.

Burmann, C. and Zeplin, S. (2005), “Building brand commitment: a behavioral approach to internal brand management”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 279-300.

Campion, M. A., & Thayer, P. W. (1985). Development and field evaluation of an interdisciplinary measure of job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(1), 29.