Internal Branding, the principal of alignment
of internal and external brand perceptions
Name Lara Molendijk | 5927978 Supervisor Dr. Karin A. Venetis
Statement of originality
This document is written by Lara Molendijk who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references
Preface and acknowledgements
This thesis is written to finish my MSc in Business Administration at the faculty of Business and Economics of the University of Amsterdam. As I specialized in Marketing, my thesis is written in this field. Writing a master thesis was a challenging project and a great learning process. During this research all my skills developed throughout my academic education were utilized and at the end bundled together in this thesis.
In the very beginning I decided to focus my research on internal branding. Branding is a topic that has caught my attention for years. Reading up on it I found especially the differences in brand perceptions of multiple stakeholders very interesting. Within the field of Internal Branding some main principles were developed, but without any significant empirical evaluation. I believe this research is of great value for Marketing, Human Resource and General managers to evaluate the importance of one of the main principles of Internal Branding, namely the necessity of the alignment of external and internal brand perceptions to improve brand performance. Therefore, the research question of this thesis is:
“To what extend does a gap between employee perceptions and customer perceptions of the corporate brand effect brand performance?” .
I would like to thank those who have been involved in my thesis and contributed with the advice and helpful insight. Particularly, I would like to thank my supervisor Karin Venetis for her coaching, support and feedback during the process of writing this thesis. I also like to thank the organization that made allowed me to spread my questionnaire to their employees and customers. Subsequently, I like to thank all participants who engaged in this research. They provided help and information proved to be essential for this thesis.
I hope you find this thesis just as interesting as I found to write it.
Lara Molendijk June, 2016
Abstract
Purpose - This study seeks to provide empirical valuation of the importance of the alignment of internal and external perceptions of the brand and the organization. In addition, it will further analyze the relation between the two dimensions. Hence, the perceptions of customers and employees of the culture of the organization and the personality of the brand have been evaluated by the use of Corporate Personality Scale and Organizational Culture Profile as measurement tools. At the core of this research is the examination of the importance of minimizing the gap between internal and external perceptions of the brand and organization for better brand performance. The study is conducted in the financial service industry in the Netherlands.
Method – Regression and correlation analyses were conducted.
Findings – The results of this study, using data from surveys completed by 429 respondents, present surprising new insights. The key principle of the importance of the alignment between external and internal brand perception for brand performance is supported. But, the main assumption of employees to deliver the brand to customers is only weakly supported, which contradicts the argument of employees being of great importance to deliver the brand to the outside world. Furthermore, the findings in this research proved the measurement of the culture of the organization to be of significant value to compare brand perceptions between stakeholders in addition to the measurement of the brand as person.
Practical implications – This research highlights the importance of the alignment of internal and external brand perceptions for improving brand performance. It also shows that the key assumption within internal branding that employees are key to deliver the brand to external stakeholders is not true. For that reason managers should carefully reconsider how to achieve the alignment in brand perceptions of multiple stakeholders. Therefore, this study gives new insight in what way internal and external perceptions can be integrated in branding strategies.
Table of content
1. Introduction
7
1.1 Background 7
1.2 Research questions 9
1.3 Research objective 9
1.4 Outline of the thesis 10
2. Literature review
11
2.1 Branding 11
2.2 Internal branding 12
2.3 The role of employees 14
2.4 Brand perception 15 2.2.1 Corporate identity 16 2.2.2 Corporate image 17 2.2.3 Organizational culture 18 2.2.4 Corporate Personality 18 2.5 Brand performance 18 2.5.1 Brand reputation 18 2.5.2 Brand Loyalty 19 2.6 Measurement tools 19
2.6.1 Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) 19
2.6.2 Corporate Personality Scale (CPS) 20
3 Contribution
21
3.1 Managerial relevance 21 3.2 Academic relevance 214 Conceptual model
22
4.1 Research model 23 4.3 Sample 24 4.4 Measures 24 4.5 Statistical procedure 254.6 Strengths and limitations 25
6.1.1 Data errors 27
6.1.2 Reliability 27
6.2 Respondent analysis 30
6.2.1 Employee respondents analysis 30
6.2.2 Customer respondents analysis 31
6.2 Hypothesis 1: Discrepancy 32
6.3 Hypothesis 2: Number of contacts and alignment 33
6.4 Hypothesis 3: Alignment and brand performance 38
6.5 Hypothesis 4: Number of contact and brand performance 41 6.6 Hypothesis 5: Strength of perception and brand performance 42
7 Conclusions
45
8 Implications
48
9 Limitations and Further research
49
10 References
51
11 Appendices
57
Appendix A: Measurement scale items 57
Appendix B: Reliability tests of all constructs 59
B.1 Corporate Personality Scale 59
B.2: Organizational Culture Profile construct 60
B.3: Brand Reputation construct 61
B.4: Customer Loyalty 61
B.5: Employee satisfaction 62
B.6: Brand perception 62
Appendix C: MANOVA tests 62
Appendix C: Difference of brand perceptions between customer and employees. 63
Appendix C.1 mean scores CPS 63
Appendix C.2 mean scores OCP 63
Appendix C.23 absmean scores OCP and CPS 64
Appendix D: Kurtosis and Skewness 64
Appendix E: Regression analysis SPSS results 65
Appendix F: Questionnaires 66
F.1 Questionnaire employees 66
1. Introduction
This research investigates the importance of alignment between internal and external dimensions of the corporate brand for brand performance. It focuses specifically on employee and customer perceptions of the brand and organization. Should branding managers invest in internal branding? Should they invest in minimizing the gap between internal and external dimensions when developing branding strategies?
1.1 Background
Recent work emphasizes the importance of building a strong corporate brand to differentiate from competitors in an increasingly crowded marketplace (Chong, 2007; Hatch and Schultz, 2003). Consequently, corporate branding is expanding the orientation on consumers to all different stakeholders and networks of the whole organization (Balmer and Greyer, 2006; Berry, 2000).
Of all these stakeholders, it are the employees that are argued to be key in contributing to the brand (Hatch and Schultz, 2003; Balmer and Greyser, 2003; Chong, 2007). It is internal branding management that focuses on the integration of the branding concept among employees to ensure that they deliver the brand promise to the external stakeholders (Chong, 2007). The main assumption of internal branding is that the employees have a major influence on how external stakeholders perceive the corporate brand and make sense of its identity and image (Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011; Dortok, 2006; Lings, 2004). Accordingly, it is argued that the strategic use of employees will increasingly differentiate high performing firms from mediocre firms (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002). Therefore, internal branding is seen as just as important as the external branding activities (de Chernatony, 2002).
The principle often mentioned in recent literature on internal branding is the importance of alignment between external and internal dimensions of the corporate brand (Mitchel, 2002; Mahnert and Torres, 2007; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011; Balmer, 2006; Schulz and de Chernatony, 2002). As a mismatch in the internal and external dimensions can threaten the company’s integrity. Therefore, corporations need to eliminate any form of “corporate dissonance” (Balmer et al., 2009). It is argued the smaller the gap, the better the brand performance (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001; Yaniv and Farkas, 2005). Although the importance of understanding this relation is often
significant empirical evaluation of this reasoning is still missing. Two important efforts have been made to do a quantitative study to the different dimensions in corporate branding (Davies and Chun, 2002; Kowalczyk and Pawlish, 2002).
Davies and Chun (2002) measured the internal and external brand perceptions of two department stores in the retails sector by using the Corporate Personality Scale (CPS). They presented two key findings. Their first key finding shows that, although companies have very different reputations, in terms of characteristics, they can be equally successful in performance. Second, they also argue a gap between perceptions does not necessary has to be negative. In addition, they argue when having a gap, having the internal perception stronger than the external perception, can be seen as more positive for brand performance. The study was not comprehensive enough to conclude any causal relation between identity and image of the corporate brand. Davies and Chun (2002) emphasize the need to examine the causal relations and to further examine their argument that it is better to have a superior identity over image.
Kowalczyk and Pawlish (2002) used measurement tools as Reputation Quotient (RQ) and Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) to analyze the relation between the external perception of the brand and the corporate brand reputation. Their main contribution is the use of the OCP as measurement tool to measure the external perception of culture in a way it may influence branding phenomena. According to them organizational culture plays an important role in generating an image to outside stakeholders (Kowalczyk and Pawlish, 2002). They propose further study of this linkage.
Both studies explore the relation between internal and external dimensions by the use of different measurement tools, with the same purpose of developing better understanding of the relation between the different dimensions, one focussing on the brand’s personality, the other focussing on the culture of the organization. Further quantitative research is necessary to be able to make any significant generalizations and comparisons between these studies and the proposed measurement tools. In addition, there is a need for further understanding of the causal relation between the two dimensions (Schultz and Chernatony, 2002; Hatch and Schultz, 2001; de Chernatony, 1999; Balmer, 2001.2).
This study will examine the relation between the alignment of internal and external dimensions and brand performance. It will extend the research of Davies and Chun by using the new measurement tool proposed by Kowalczyk and Pawlish (2002), Organizational Culture Profile (OCP). This way it can validate the use of the OCP as valuable measurement tool for branding
perception of the brand outside for the performance of the brand. Furthermore, this study will examine the argument of Davies and Chun (2002) about the possible importance of a stronger internal perception, identity, over the external perception, image, of the brand. It will also further analyze the causal relation between the two dimensions. To do this, it will empirically evaluate to what extend the employee delivers the brand to the customer. Finally, this study will be able to answer the research question to what extend does a gap between employee perceptions and customer perceptions of the corporate brand effect brand performance.
1.2 Research questions
This research focuses on the following main question:
“To what extend does a gap between employee perceptions and customer perceptions of the corporate brand effect brand performance?”
The following sub questions are set up to answer the main question:
-
To what extends do employees deliver the brand to customers?-
How does the OCP measurements relate to CPS measurements of the internal and external perceptions?-
To what extend has the strength of the customer perceptions an effect on customer loyalty and brand reputation?1.3 Research objective
The main objective of this thesis is to understand how employees perceive the brand inside and how this is related to how customers perceive the brand outside the organization. It will be investigated how the relation between these two effect brand performance. This will help branding management to gain insight into how to integrate perceptions of internal and external stakeholders into their branding strategies.
1.4 Outline of the thesis
This thesis consist of nine chapters. The first chapter starts with an introduction of internal branding. Chapter two provides information about previous studies on concepts relevant to this subject. The third chapter will outline the contribution of this study. In chapter four follows the conceptual model. Chapter five describes how the data for the research, the research design and measures were conducted. In chapter six the results are described. Furthermore, it provides an analysis of the collected data. In chapter seven the results are descriptively presented and compared to the existing theories described in the literature review, here the stated research question is answered. In chapter eight, recommendations are given for what marketing management can implement to use the internal branding perspective successfully. Finally in the last chapter, chapter nine, the limitations of this research are highlighted and recommendations for further research are presented.
2. Literature review
2.1 BrandingBranding itself refers to a name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of these, that characterizes the seller of a product or service and strives to differentiate them from those of competitors (Kotler, 2003). Corporate branding concerns branding on the corporate level, but within the existing literature there are many different concepts and interpretations of concepts that refer to corporate branding. A key attribute of corporate branding is its concern with the present and future multiple exchange relationships with multiple stakeholder groups and networks of the whole organization (Balmer and Greyser, 2006; Hatch and Schultz, 2003; Knox and Bickerton, 2003). Hence, it extends the focus on consumers to all stakeholders of the company. Therefore, corporate branding is seen as a pan-company activity that cuts across functional areas and business units (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002; Ahmed and Rafiq, 2000). It is the systematic planned management of behavior, communications and symbolism in order to attain a favorable and positive reputation with target audiences for an organization, by means of building a strong brand whose positioning, in terms of customer loyalty, high market share and price premium, is extremely difficult for competitors to threaten or copy (Einwiller and Will, 2002; Burmann, Zeplin and Riley, 2009).
This recent focus on corporate branding changes the marketing-communication activity into a strategic framework to increase the organizations sustainable competitive advantage by differentiating and improving a brands image by strategic use of the whole organization (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002; Balmer, 2001). This framework provides a solid foundation to conceptualize a coherent and engaging promise to all stakeholders (idem). It is argued that internal and external expressions of the corporate brand need to be linked and intergraded with each other (Mitchel, 2002; Mahnert and Torres, 2007; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011). Therefore, the key principle within the corporate branding literature is the importance of alignment between internal and external dimensions of the corporate brand (Mitchel, 2002; Mahnert and Torres, 2007; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011; Balmer, 2006; Schulz and de Chernatony, 2002). Accordingly, corporate branding management need to eliminate any form of “corporate dissonance” between the multiple stakeholders groups (Balmer et al., 2009).
Within corporate branding the principle is to align the brand perceptions of all stakeholders, especially the brand perception between the internal and external dimension. Thus, a discrepancy between these dimensions is assumed. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
There is a discrepancy between the brand perception of employees and customers.
2.2 Internal branding
Of all the stakeholders, it are the employees that are argued to be key in contributing to the brand (Hatch and Schultz, 2003; Balmer and Greyser, 2003; Chong, 2007). Employees are perceived to represent the brand to the outside world. Therefore, internal branding is seen as just as important as the external branding activities (de Chernatony, 2002).
It is internal branding management that focuses on the integration of the branding concept inside an organization to ensure that employees deliver the brand promise to the external stakeholders (Chong, 2007). The reasoning is that corporate brand values of employees have to represent the actual corporate values and culture declared by the management to ensure to transfer the brand promise to customers in a successful way. Aaker (2004) states when employees are regarded as being committed to the values and culture of the organization, most customers sense these values and develop attitudes and perceptions accordingly. Likewise, Davies and Chun (2005) argue that, how employees see the organization can influence how customers see the organization in a number of ways. Consequently, it is argued that once the brand promise is being delivered to the customers it can influence brand reputation as it may provide customer satisfaction, customer preference and loyalty (Gapp and Marrilees, 2006; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007). Thus, the closer the alignment of the brand perception of customers and employees the better the performance (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001; Yaniv and Farkas, 2005).
The key principles of internal branding is to align the brand perceptions of employees and customers. It is argued that the closer the alignment of the brand perception of customers and employees the better the performance.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
There is as positive effect of the alignment of brand perceptions between employees and customers on brand performance.
This focus on the internal dimension of corporate branding to deliver the brand values to the external stakeholders has resulted in a set of questions regarding the relations between the internal and external dimensions of the corporate brand. Many theories and assumptions have been made about these interrelated dimensions of the brand. Most recent research on the internal branding processes focusses on the management-employees relation by the measurement of the link between organizational values and the individual values of the employees, by assessing concepts like organizational commitment, organizational identification, job satisfaction, employee behavior (Balmer, 2001; Punjaisri, K. et al, 2009; Yaniv and Farkas, 2005; Foster et al. , 2010; Mahnert and Torres, 2007; Harris and de Chernatony, 2001; Wallace and de Chernatony, 2009; Matanda and Ndubisi, 2013). Some attention has been given to only the external dimension focusing on the linkages between perceptions of the brand by external stakeholders (Kowalczyk and Pawlish, 2002). While only few have paid attention to the actual relations between employees and customers (de Chernatony, 1999; Yaniv and Farkas, 2005; Davies and Chun, 2002). Two of these studies made an important effort to contribute to the quantitative research to the different dimensions in corporate branding (Davies and Chun, 2002; Kowalczyk and Pawlish, 2002).
Davies and Chun (2002) used the Corporate Personality Scale (CPS) to measure employee perceptions and customer perceptions of the corporate brand image and identity of two department stores in the retail sector. This personification approach has regularly been used to understand corporate brand identity and image and is the only validated tool to measure both (Da Silva and Alwi, 2008). This tool measures the corporate’s personality and shows in what way stakeholders distinguish the brand in terms of human characteristics. They defined the brand’s personification metaphor in a scale with seven dimensions, assessed by 49 items on a five-point Likert scale from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’ (Davies and Chun, 2002). In extension Davies and Chun (2002) also measured employee satisfaction and customer loyalty to assess the relevance of the gaps between image and identity. Their study shows that even though companies have very different reputations, in terms of having high scores on different characteristics, they can be equally successful in performance. It also argues that a gap between the internal perception of the brand, identity, and the external perception of a brand, image, not necessary has to be negative. When there is a gap, having a identity stronger than image, it can be seen as more positive than vice versa as they argue that identity will lead image (idem). This would argue for the importance of a strong brand perception within the organization and thus the importance of internal branding management.
stronger than image of the corporate brand by consumers in relation to brand performance (2002). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
There is a positive effect of identity being stronger over image on brand performance.
Kowalczyk and Pawlish (2002) build on measurement tools as Reputation Quotient (RQ) and Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) to analyze the relation between the external perception of the brand and the corporate brand reputation. Their key contribution is the use of the OCP as measurement tool to measure the external perception. According to them the organizational culture of an organization plays an important role in generating an image to external stakeholders (Kowalczyk and Pawlish, 2002). Davies and Chun (2002) their study focusses on the integration of external brand characteristics within the company, while Kowalczyk and Pawlish (2002) focus on the way internal culture is perceived by customers. Kowalczyk and Pawlish argue this new measurement can be of great importance in research on brand perceptions (2002). The perception of culture offers additional insights on the relation between the internal and external dimension as it focusses on the influence of external perception of internal values. They propose further study of this linkage. This study will evaluate the ability of OCP to measure and compare the internal and external perception of the brand. Therefore, it will compare the measurements of OCP with that of CPS as the general accepted tool to measure brand perceptions of stakeholders.
2.3 The role of employees
Hatch and Schultz distinguish eight groups of stakeholders of the corporation, namely employees, customers, investors, suppliers, partners, regulators, special interests, and local communities (2003: 1042). Recent work seems to emphasize the importance of employees to corporate branding (idem). Therefore, a further focus on employees as the key stakeholders in contributing to the brand has developed, namely internal branding. Employees represent the organization and can be seen as corporate marketers (Balmer and Greyser, 2003). In addition, employees are considered as the most trusted information sources about organizations (Dortok, 2006). They are key in building relations with company’s stakeholders and they contribute to the meaning of the brand (Hatch and Schulz, 2003; Chong, 2007; Ind, 2003). They are not only a valuable source for building the corporate brand but also for differentiating it (Papasolomou and Vrontis, 2006). As Foster et al. put it “employees have the potential to make or break the corporate brand” (2010: 402). The alignment of employees with the brand values can add distinctive value to the organization’s sustainable
employee across the organization needs to understand the corporate brand values to ensure the consistent delivery of the brand promise (idem). All employees can make a brand come alive (Mitchel, 2002; Schultz and Chernatony, 2002). Chong argues that internal branding can transform employees into ‘walking embodiments’ of the core values of the brand (2007). A common sense of purpose and identity can unify and inspire employees in a way that they care and believe in the brand. They will be motivated to work harder and their loyalty to the company increases (Foster et al., 2010). This process of internal brand building increases consistent brand promise delivery (Punjaisri and Wilson, 2011). Thus, employees are argued to have a major influence on how external stakeholders perceive the corporate brand and make sense of its identity and image (idem),. Particularly, the behavior of customer-facing employees can influence customer perceptions (Davies and Chun, 2002). For this reason, this study differentiates, customer-facing employees referred to as front office employees, from, non-customer facing employees referred to as back office employees. Customer-facing employees are seen as employees that are directly in contact with customers. Especially in the service industry, employees are argued to have a great impact on how customers perceive the brand.
At the core of internal branding lies the argument that employees deliver the brand promise to external stakeholders, namely customers to improve brand perfromance. Especially, the customer-facing employees are able to deliver the brand to customers. So, direct contact between employees and customers will align the brand perception of customers with that of the employees. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
There is a positive effect of the number of contact customers have with the organization and the alignment of their brand perception with that of the front office employees.
There is a positive effect of the amount of contacts customers have with the organization and brand performance.
2.4 Brand perception
Perceptions of stakeholders are becoming more and more important for companies (Fombrun et al. 2000). Recent work emphasizes the importance of building a strong corporate brand to improve brand performance in an increasingly competitive marketplace (Chong, 2007; Hatch and Schultz, 2003). Consequently, corporate brands need to appeal at an emotional level to both internal and external stakeholders (Hallawell, 1999). A positive perception of the organization or brand is a high
This is why these last two decennia, the interest in corporate reputation increased, but due to the complexity of the concept more than 160 definitions haven been made (de Chernatony, 1999). Beyond the economic portion of brand reputation, Fombrun et al. (2000) suggest cultural aspects. According to him, reputation is closely aligned with notions of corporate character, personality, and culture. Subsequently, the measurement of personality and culture is proposed to be able to compare the corporate brand perceptions of the customers and employees.
Kowalczyk and Pawlish focus on the way internal culture is perceived by customers (2002). They argue that the perception of culture offers additional insights on the relation between the internal and external dimension as it focusses on the influence of external perception of internal values. In addition, it is argued that organizational culture is part of the unique selling proposition of a company to the outside world (Hatch and Schulz, 2001).
Davies and Chun use the personification approach (2002), which has regularly been used to understand external and internal dimensions of the corporate brand (Da Silva and Alwi, 2008). The corporate’s personality shows in what way stakeholders distinguish the brand in terms of human characteristics.
Recent literature often refers to concepts as identity and image when studying brand perceptions of stakeholders (Balmer, 2001; Dacin and Brown, 2002; Yaniv and Farkas, 2005; de Chernatony, 1999; Davies and Chun, 2002). Identity refers to the internal perception of the brand, while image refers to the external perception of the brand. In this study brand perception is measured as the perception of the brand as person and the perception of the culture of the organization. Both perceptions shape the internal and external perception of the brand.
Overall, it is argued that a strong corporate brand is of great importance for brand performance. On the condition that the brand perception is positive, a stronger brand perception is assumed to have a positive influence on brand performance.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
There is a positive effect of the strength of the brand perception on brand performance.
2.2.1 Corporate identity
Olins (1979) and Birkight and Stadler (1980) were one of the first researchers to develop a more interdisciplinary and broad understanding of corporate identity (Balmer and van Riel, 1997). Olins (1979) emphasizes the great difficulties of defining the concept of corporate identity, but argues for the need of better understanding of the concept. Although he fails in giving an explicit definition of
through its behavior, communications, and its use of symbolism to its internal audiences (idem.). It is about what makes a company internally different from others (Davies and Chun, 2002). Inspired by the general dictionary definition of identity, Rekom gives a very abstract definition of corporate identity as “what the organization is” (1997: 410). It is also defined as the reality and uniqueness of a company (Balmer and Gray, 1998). Corporate identity is commonly understood as to what members perceive, feel and think about their organization (Hatch and Schultz, 1997). It is the collective, commonly shared understanding of the core values and characteristics of the organization which are rooted in the behavior and the perception of its members (Albert and Whetten, 1985; Balmer and van Riel 1997). One difficulty of the corporate identity concept is that many existing influential conceptual models have an ‘outside in’ focus as they focus on the image/ reputation formation from the brand (2001). The corporate brand is perceived and interpreted by external stakeholders in terms of its image (Rekom, 1997), what Balmer calls ‘outside in’ focus (2001). Corporate identity itself is what its members, the employees, perceive it to be and is referred to as the ‘inside out’ focus (idem.).
2.2.2 Corporate image
According to Rekom (1997) corporate image always starts with an organization’s corporate identity. It reflects the ‘personality’ of a company (Dowling, 1986). The two concepts are inseparably intertwined and related to each other. Dowling (1986) defined image as a set of meanings by which a matter is known and through which people describe, remember and relate to it. It is a result of the mix of a person’s associations about an object. It is the mental picture that audiences have of an organization (Balmer and Gray, 1998). According to Hatch and Schultz (1997) image is generally defined as total images held by external constituencies. The image that audiences have can be formed by the intentions and influences of a wide range of actors (Dowling, 1993). Corporations find it more and more important to project an accurate and positive image to their external stakeholders (Balmer and Gray, 1998; Dowling, 1986). From the perspectives of stakeholders it is corporate image and reputation that matters the most to the company (Balmer and Gray, 1998). When focusing on customer as external stakeholder, it is argued that image can have a positive influence on customer behavior as corporate image can help to differentiate the product or service from others (Dowling, 1986). It is important for companies to know the perceived corporate image by the public to evaluate how the marketing concept has been implemented (Dowling 1986; Kotler,
awareness and knowledge of an organization, strengthens persons their brand perception in order to change their attitude towards the brand and change their behavior to increase sales (idem.).
2.2.3 Organizational culture
Culture is generally defined as the set of values, beliefs and norms shared by members of an organization (Kowalczyk and Pawlish, 2002). According to Hatch and Schultz (1997) identity is deeply rooted in the organizational culture. They argue that organizational culture can play an important role in generating an image to external stakeholders (2001). For this reason it is very interesting to measure how external stakeholders perceive internal phenomena of culture (Kowalczyck and Pawlish, 2002, Hatch and Schuktz, 1997). This way, it can be investigated not only how customers perceive the brand to be to the outside world, but also how they perceive the organization to be on the inside. There is a huge emphasis on the importance of a favorable and positive reputation of a brand (Einwiller and Will, 2002; Burmann, Zeplin and Riley, 2009). This can be achieved by differentiating and improving a brands image by strategic use of the whole organization, including it’s corporate identity and organizational culture (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002; Balmer, 2001).
2.2.4 Corporate Personality
Corporate personality refers to the perception of the corporate brand in term of human characteristics, see Appendix A. It is a strategy to measure the brand perception in terms that are more familiar to people.
2.5 Brand performance
Brand performance can be measured in many different ways. Recent work shows measurement variables as customer satisfaction, customer preference, customer loyalty and brand reputation as valid ways to measure brand performance (Gapp and Marrilees, 2006; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007; Harris and de Chernatony, 2001; Yaniv and Farkas, 2005).
2.5.1 Brand reputation
Corporate reputation indicates a value judgement about the company and is the result of consistent performance of the organization (Balmer and Gray, 1998). It is reputation that determines the willingness of stakeholders to either provide or withhold support (idem.).
2.5.2 Brand Loyalty
Customer loyalty
‘Loyalty’ is often used as a satisfaction measurement tool within marketing management (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). Customer loyalty refers to the likelihood of repurchase (Areni et al., 1999). It can be used as an indicator of brand performance. Often used measurement is to ask a customers to the degree of which a customer is satisfied, holds positive associations, or his or her degree of likelihood to recommend or repurchase the service or product of the organization.
Employee satisfaction
Employee satisfaction refers to the degree which an employee has positive emotions towards the ‘organization’.
2.6 Measurement tools
The recent development of validated and generic scales for assessing corporate brands or reputation has enriched the quantitative approach (Davies and Chun, 2002; Davies et al, 2001; Fombrun et al, 2000). These generic scales are measures that can be used to assess any target (Davies and Chun, 2002).
2.6.1 Organizational Culture Profile (OCP)
Kowalczyk and Pawlish (2002) state that corporate branding recognizes the importance of the external perception of internal phenomena such as culture. For this reason they strategically use the OCP as measurement tool for external customer perception of the brand’s internal culture. This way they opened up the use of the OCP for measuring brand perception of internal and external stakeholders.
Although personality is a widely accepted way to measure brand perceptions of both the internal and external dimensions. It measures only one perspective of how the brand is perceived. The Organizational Culture Profile, measures how people perceive the culture of the organization the be on the inside of the organization. Only employees truly experience the culture of the organization inside, but as it measures the perception is argued it can be used for both the internal and external dimension. This research shows examines if indeed the measurement of culture is a valuable tool to compare the internal and external perceptions of the brand.
2.6.2 Corporate Personality Scale (CPS)
Davies and Chun (2002) used personification as a measurement strategy to assess brand perception. Personifying an organization or a brand is often used measurement strategy (Bromley, 2000). The brand personality refers to whose root is brand as person. It is a useful metaphor to understand the complexity of what a brand is through the concept of something, a person, we are more familiar with (Davies and Chun, 2002). They defined the brand’s personification metaphor in a scale with seven dimensions, assessed by 49 items on a five-point Likert scale from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’ (Davies and Chun, 2002).
3 Contribution
3.1 Managerial relevanceThis research assesses the importance of the alignment of internal and external messages for successful internal branding. It examines the overall accepted assumption that any gap between the internal and external dimension should be minimized. The results of this study can help managers how to integrate external brand perceptions into their branding strategies. Furthermore, it will clarify whether Marketing, Human Resource and General managers should invest in internal branding strategies when intending to influence external brand perception to improve brand performance.
3.2 Academic relevance
The existing literature emphasizes the importance of employees in creating a strong brand but all stick to conceptual and explorative research. Recent literate offers some interesting goals and measures. This study will examine to what extend a gap between employee perceptions and customer perceptions of the corporate brand effect brand performance and it will empirically evaluate the argument that employees are key in delivering the brand to the customer. In addition to the more common used measurement of brand perception by the Corporate Personality Scale (CPS), this study will compare the personality measurement to the measurement by the new proposed measurement tool of brand perception, namely Organizational Culture Profile (OCP), proposed by Kowalczyk and Pawlish (2002).
4 Conceptual model
Because of the time constrains of a master thesis, the collected data was insufficient to empirically evaluate all proposed questions and arguments, a further explanation will be given in chapter five, the chapter on the analyses. Therefore the original conceptual model was adjusted.
This study seeks to provide empirical valuation of the importance of the alignment of internal and external perceptions of the brand by the use of Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) and Corporate Personality Scale (CPS) as measurement tools. At the core of this research is the examination of the importance of minimizing the gap between internal and external perceptions of the brand for better brand performance, measured in loyalty, satisfaction and reputation. Originally, this study would extend the research of Davies and Chun by examining their argument about the importance of identity to be stronger than image (2002). Due to data limitations and time constrains this examination was left out of further analysis. Despite this, the collected data shows some really interesting insights regarding the research question.
4.1 Research model
The research question is as follows:
“To what extend does a gap between employee perceptions and customer perceptions of the corporate brand effect brand performance?”
Based on the research questions and argued hypotheses, see figure 1 for the conceptual model.
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Based on the research question the following hypothesis can be tested to be able to answer the research question:
Hypothesis 1: There is a discrepancy between the brand perception of employees and customers. Hypothesis 2: There is a positive effect of the number of contact customers have with the organization and the alignment of their brand perception with that of the front office employees. Hypothesis 3: There is as positive effect of the alignment of brand perceptions between employees and customers on brand performance.
Hypothesis 4: There is a positive effect of amount of contacts customers have with the organization and brand performance.
Hypothesis 5: There is a positive effect of the strength of the brand perception on brand performance.
Level of contact between customers and
employees CPS H5 H4 Employee Brand perception + H2 + OCP + Level of alignment on CPS Brand performance: Brand reputation, Customer loyalty + H3 H1 Level of alignment on OCP + Customer Brand perception CPS + OCP H5
4.2 Method
This research uses the deductive approach, as it starts with a theoretically based definition of the construct and its dimensions (Hinkin, 1995). As a second step, the investigation continued doing a primary research. A survey strategy will be used to collect quantitative data to be analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. As the data in this research is quantifiable, the analyses will be based on quantitative data (Saunders et al., 2009). As this research will compare different populations groups at a single point time, it will be carried out using a cross-sectional survey design. This will allow a comparison of many different variables to test the above-hypothesized relationships and generalize the findings. Two different questionnaires, one for employees and one for customers, will be spread by mail.
4.3 Sample
The research population are the customers and employees of three different Dutch organizations within the financial service industry. In order to answer the research question, a questionnaire was constructed based on existing validated scales. This questionnaire will be distributed digitally through the HR/Marketing department of all three companies. With the distribution of the questionnaire the respondents were selected on two items: they had to be part-time or full-time employed or be a customer of one of the three selected companies. This research strives for as many respondents as possible, at least 50 responses per population group per company are needed to ensure the sample is large enough for analysis.
4.4 Measures
The questionnaire will ask respondents for their demographics, namely gender, education, position (nominal variable), age, and tenure (ratio variables). Other constructs will be measured by existing and validated measurement tools. Likert scales will be used on a 7-point scale (completely disagree, disagree, moderately disagree, neutral, moderately agree, agree, completely agree) at interval level (Fombrun and Gardberg, 2002). As it concerns a perception there was no alternative option offered, as a neutral judgement was possible within the scale offered. The questionnaire was directly translated into Dutch to ensure better understanding in the respondents. To ensure translation quality the back-translation procedure was used (Brislin, 1970). Some scales were shortened because using all items would make the questionnaire too long, causing the risk of a lower response or completion rate. The measures can be found in appendix A. The questionnaires can be found in Appendix F.
-
Organizational Culture Profile will be measured with 8 items of O’Reilly et al.’s (1991) scale.-
Corporate Personality Scale will be measured using Davies et al.’s (2001) scale, shortened to 31 items.-
Brand performance will be measured by brand reputation, employee and customer satisfaction and customer loyalty.-
Brand reputation will be measured with 25 items using Fombrun and Gardberg’s (2002) scale.-
Employee satisfaction will be measured by a 1 item scale of Currivan (1999). Customer satisfaction will be measured by a 1 item scale of Anderson et al. (1994).-
Customer loyalty will be measured with by a 2 item scale of Howen and Shiang-Lih Chen (2001).4.5 Statistical procedure
Regression analyses will be performed to test the hypothesized moderation and mediation effects between the variables. Any significant correlation will be discussed and lead to possible recommendations for HR-management, marketing management, and general management.
4.6 Strengths and limitations
This quantitative research allows the analyzing of a great number of variables of a great number of respondents. This enhances the generalization of the results. As the cross-sectional design is only measured at only one point in time, it will be difficult to find a proper explanation of relations that will be found. The use of a non-probability convenience sampling technique can limit the generalization of the results.
5 Research strategy
For this research, the strategy was to find at least three companies allowing the questionnaire to be send to at least 200 employees and customers. 29 companies were approached of which three scheduled face to face meetings. Only one allowed the research to be processed. Because of the limitation in time of this master thesis the further research was done based on the data collected by one organization. For this reason the data used for this research has some limitations as it can only be used for conclusion on this specific case. Despite this, the collected data shows some really interesting insights regarding the research question. To be able to make more general conclusions further research is necessary.
The survey for the employees was spread by a link through the internal mail to all employees of the company. The survey to the customers was spread through a link in the online customer community of the organization. These are customers that are actively communicating with the company about their products and services and may therefor be biased compared to more passive customers. For this reason the survey sample is not a perfect representation of the total of customers
The raw data was imported to SPSS Statistics Data Editor. Each survey was imported as separate data set, one of the consumers and one of the employees, and later merged into one dataset. The consumer data set contains 409 responses, including 197 cases with missing values and 24 data errors. This results in 188 reliable cases for analysis. The employee data set contains 368 responses, including 172 cases with missing values. Of the cases with missing values only 127 where missing relevant values. There were no other errors. This results in 241 reliable cases for analysis. This is quite a high level of drop out during the survey. This might be, because the survey took 10-15 minutes containing quite some difficult questions.
6 Results
6.1 Data analysisBefore the hypothesis can be tested, a data analysis has to be conducted.
6.1.1 Data errors
The data was cleaned from any errors. A frequency check showed that 197 cases in the consumer data set and 127 cases in the employee data set have missing variables. These were deleted from the dataset to keep the reliability and validity in place. The datasets were also filtered on responses with the same answer to all scale questions. Answers were forced upon each question. It might be that for this reason some respondents answered the same answer on all scale questions to get to the end of the survey. Because of this it could be assumed that surveys with the same answer to all scale questions are not reliable responses and therefore deleted from the dataset.
There were some negatively-keyed items. These are items that are phrased so that an agreement with the item represents a low level of the construct being measured. These make it possible to detect acquiescence biases, also known as the yea-saying bias, the tendency to respond in an indiscriminately positive or negative way. Two variables in the consumer data set were recoded. The two questions regarded reputation measurements, which were negatively asked questions and therefore needed to be reversely recoded. In both data sets the question about age had to be recoded to match the value to the actual number of age. In some cases respondents did not know to what answer they belonged and filled in the text box, with a customized answer. For the questions considering the job categories, I categorized as much of the texts of respondents by hand.
6.1.2 Reliability
Next, a reliability analysis was done, to see the extent to which the data collection techniques or analysis procedures yield consistent findings (Saunders et al., 2009). Several reliability analyses have been done using the datasets, see Table 1. Here, the reliability of different measurement items for one variable or construct have been tested. Both constructs to measure brand perception were used in academic research before. The construct Brand Reputation and Corporate Personality Scale were shortened to be sure the survey would not be too long. Personality has been measured on seven characteristics. The below tables shows the reliability tests of all constructs used, for further reliability details see appendix B. To improve the reliability of the variable ruthlessness, the item controlling was deleted. Furthermore, a new scale variables was computed accordingly. The
some weaknesses in reliability of these measurements. All other constructs have a Cronbach’s Alpha scale larger than 0.70, there for all scales have good reliability. All the Cronbach’s Alpha’s if deleted are between 0.567-1.000, but the variable Machismo which has a Cronbach’s Alpha if deleted variation between 0.330-0.763. These reliability results show no reason to delete any more items. All measurement constructs have been tested as reliably measurement constructs.
Table 1: Reliability analysis
To measure customer loyalty, customers were asked about the level of positive association, the level of satisfaction and the willingness of recommending the organization to a friend. These items have a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.930 and little differences in case any of the items were deleted. Therefor these three items are computed into one variable, namely customer loyalty.
The Corporate Personality Scale (CPS) and Organizational Culture profile (OCP) are both constructs that where used to compare perceptions of multiple stakeholders of an organization to each other. CPS focusses on the personality of the brand, while OCP focusses on the culture within the organization. They both measure a perspective of the brand, but a different one, as the on focusses on the perception of the organization inside and the other on the perception of the external brand. These constructs cannot directly be tested on reliability as these are measured by different variables and present different concepts, but the analysis shows that results on both constructs have similar differences between customers and employees, for that reason they seem indeed suitable for the comparison of perceptions of different stakeholders. A reliability test shows that both constructs
Variable of CPS Cronbach’s alpha Number of items Cronbach’s alpha if deleted
Agreeableness 0.909 8 0.895-0.911 Enterprise 0.923 7 0.903-0.919 Competence 0.787 5 0.714-0.793 Chic 0.791 6 0.728-0.792 Ruthlessness 0.895 3 0.783-0.891 Machismo 0.680 3 0.330-0.763 Informality 0.709 4 0.567-0.786
Other constructs Cronbach’s alpha Number of items Cronbach’s alpha if deleted
OCP 0.759 7 0.710-0.784
Brand reputation 0.932 21 0.924-0.947
Customer Loyalty 0.930 3 0.778-1.000
have similar scores on the mean differences between the employees and customers, with a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.812 and with no improving reliability in case if one item would be deleted, see Appendix B.6. Furthermore, the OCP offered similarly strong perception on the constructs as the absolute mean scores of both constructs are almost the same, see Appendix C.3. Here, it may be concluded that OCP is indeed a valuable measurement tool for the comparison of internal and external perceptions of the brand and organization.
It is interesting to see whether customers that are often in contact with the organization have more correlating perceptions of the organization as employees. For this reason, the question concerning the number of contact moments with the company in the last 3 months were recoded into three groups. One group that had only one contact moment, the other group that had 2-4 contact moments and the final group had 5 or more contact moments.
To be able to test any correlation or association effects between the two datasets, both were merged into one dataset manually and a new variable was added to distinguish both group of respondents, by employees (1) and customers (2).
Furthermore, the data was tested on the underlying distribution. Although not all data seems to be normally distributed with some Z-scores of the kurtosis and skewness scores beyond the minus two or plus two limit (Appendix D), it may be assumed that the data sets are normally distributed according to the central limit theorem. The central limit theory justifies the approach to data as to be normally distributed in case of sufficient numbers (John, 1995). It is mostly argued that the minimum number of cases to uphold this theory is 30 (Rumsey and Leistra, 2013). In this research all datasets or comparison subgroups are larger than 30 cases. The two main groups of comparison consist of 188 and 241 respondents.
6.2 Respondent analysis
Some general information was collected of both the employees and the customers. A summary is presented in the following tables and graphs. Both the customers and employees datasets are analyzed on potential biases, based on the descriptives of the respondents sets.
6.2.1 Employee respondents analysis
As Table 2 makes clear, there is only a small group representing marketeers. For this reason, this group is not a reliable representation for further analysis. Therefore, this study focusses on the “front office” and “back office” employees. “Front office” refers to the employees that have direct contact with customers. “Back office” are the employees that are not directly in contact with customers. Most comparisons will be done between the front office employees as they are in direct contact with the customers and represent the organization directly to the customers.
The average number of years working for the organization is quite high, namely 12,9 years. For this reason it is only logical that the overall satisfaction score is also quite high with a 5,8 score, as it can be assumed that you keep working for a company when you are satisfied with it. The overall satisfaction and high average of years working for the company may cause biases in the data set, but the variance in the data set shows there is a good representation of a wide range of scores on both these items.
Table 2: General statistics of employees Graph 1: level of contact with customers
General statistics: Employees
Variable Number Percentage
Total respondents 241 100% Number of men 132 55% Number of women 109 45% Front office 148 64% Back office 77 33% Marketeers 5 2% Operational 200 83% Management 31 12,9% Executive 10 4,1%
Variable Variance Average
Age 20-63 42
Years working for organization 1-38 12.91 Employees 2% 33% 64%
6.2.2 Customer respondents analysis
In the Table 3, the general statistics of the customers are presented. As the table shows the customer group of respondents contains far more men than women. The organization used is a financial institution, therefore it could be that men are over represented in the customer data set because of the traditional role of men to take care of the finance. For this reason there are potential biases in the data set. Overall, men are perceived to be less emotional and rather more rational (Goldenberg and Roberts, 2013). This might influence the ability of men to evaluate a company in terms of human characteristics. The customers are divided intro three levels of contacts. One group contains all customers that had zero to one contact moments with the company in the last three months, the second had two to five contact moments and the third five or more contact moments. Each group contains about 50 persons, which make this groups division relevant for further analysis as the numbers of each groups are still sufficient enough to be of representative value.
Table 3: General statistics of customers Graph 2: Level of contact with organization
General statistics: Customers
Name Number Percentage
Total respondents 188 100%
Number of men 165 88%
Number of women 23 12%
1 contact moment in last 3 months
49 26%
2-5 contact moments in last 3 months
82 44%
5 or more contact moments in last 3 months
57 30%
Variable Min-max Average
Age (years) 18-83 41
Number of contacts in last 3 months 1-50 6.38 Customer loyalty 1-7 4.75 Brand reputation 1.38-6.52 4.53 Customers 30% 44% 26% 1 2 t/m 4 5 or more
6.2 Hypothesis 1: Discrepancy
There is a discrepancy between the brand perception of employees and customers.
To test this hypothesis brand perception was measured by two constructs, the one construct is brand as personality, namely Corporate Personality Scale (CPS), and the other construct is the perceived culture of the organization, namely Organizational Culture Profile (OCP). As the tables below show there is a difference in brand perception between employees and customers on both constructs. A MANOVA tests shows the two groups of respondents score significant different on most items. The scores on Corporate Personality Scale are all significantly different, with a weak to modest effect of Partial Eta Squared scores between 0.040-0.145 (p<0.01), see Appendix C. The scores on Organizational Culture Profile show a significant difference on all variables but two, namely Decisiveness and Detail with a nonsignificant weak effect of 0.000-0.001 Partial Eta Squared (p> 0.4). All other variables the groups have a significant weak effect with Partial Eta Squared scores between 0.011-0.056 (p<0.01). Graph 3 and 4 below, show that the perceptions of both groups have the same tendency in almost all measurement variables of both constructs. It seems that employees have different brand perceptions as customers, but there is obviously a similar tendency. On both constructs, employees overall have a more extreme score on most measurement variables. Here it can be assumed that employees have a stronger brand perception than customers have. It could be argued that this is only logic as employees have a closer relationship with the brand. Whereas the employees have an more neutral score on ruthlessness, the customers experience more agreement on the brand to be ruthless. For this specific company as part of the financial service industry, this difference is not that surprising. For external stakeholders, the brand may be perceived as more ruthless, while working for the company seems to logically neutralize that perception.
Table 4: CPS mean scores Graph 3: Radar graph of CPS scores
!32
Corporate Personality Scale: Mean scores
VARIABLE OF CHARACTER MEAN SCORE ALL EMPLOYEES MEAN SCORE ALL CUSTOMERS Agreeableness 1,99 1,41 Enterprise 1,779 1,168 Competence 1,997 1,525 Chic -0,033 0,329 Ruthlessness -1,366 -0,415 Machismo 0,717 0,021 Informality 1,894 1,186 -1,5! -1! -0,5! 0! 0,5! 1! 1,5! 2! 2,5! Agreeableness! Enterprise! Competence! Chic! Ruthlessness! Machismo! Informality! Mean Score all employees Mean Scores all customers 0 -1,5! -1! -0,5! 0! 0,5! 1! 1,5! 2! 2,5! Agreeableness! Enterprise! Competence! Machismo! Informality! Mean Score all employees Mean Scores all customers 0
Table 5: OCP mean scores Graph 4: Radar graph of OCP scores
In sum, it can be concluded there are significant differences between the perceptions of employees and customers. In addition, it was found employees overall have a stronger perception on both the corporate personality and the organization culture construct.
6.3 Hypothesis 2: Number of contacts and alignment
There is a positive effect of the number of contact customers have with the organization and the alignment of their brand perception with that of the front office employees.
To test this hypothesis the employees and customers are grouped based on the level of contact with each other. The employees are divided into three groups, the “front office” employees that have direct contact with the customers, the “back office” employees that have no direct contact with the customers, and the marketeers, but as this group only contains of five employees this group will be left out of any further analysis. The customers are grouped, based on the number of contact moments in the last three months as shown in Table 6 and table 7.
Furthermore, the mean scores of all different customer and employee groups have been calculated, see again Table 6 and 7. These, also present whether significant differences where found between the mean brand perception of customers and front office employees. Most customer brand perceptions are significantly different of that of the front office employees. On all items, but three, there are significant differences. These three are all items of the Organizational Culture Profile
-1,5! -1! -0,5! 0! 0,5! 1! 1,5! 2! 2,5! Risk taking! Detail! Achievement! Aggressive! Supportive! High pay! Team ! Decisiveness! Mean score all Customers Mean score all Customers 0
Organizational Culture Profile: Mean
VARIABLE OF CULTURE
EMPLOYEES CUSTOMERS
Risk taking and innovative
1,380 0,88
Detail and precision orientation 1,040 0,980 Achievement orientated 1,690 1,160 Aggressive and opportunistic -0,400 0,050 Supportive and acknowledge performance 1,500 0,970
High pay and opportunistic for growth 0,120 0,390 Team orientated 1,660 1,060 Decisiveness 0,770 0,860 -1,5! -1! -0,5! 0! 0,5! 1! 1,5! 2! 2,5! Agreeableness! Enterprise! Competence! Chic! Ruthlessness! Machismo! Informality! Mean Score all employees Mean Scores all customers 0
seen in Graph 5 and Graph 6. Here, it also shows that the scores on all these three items lie close to the that of the front office employees.
There was only one significant difference found between the customer groups based on number of contacts, namely personality character machismo between customers that had two to five contact and customers that had five contacts or more with a mean difference of 0.589 (p<0.05). It is interesting to see that there is a significant difference between the customers that where in contact with the organization five or more times and front office employees on all items of the personality construct, while there is only one item of the organizational culture construct that is significantly different between these groups. As the group of marketeers only contains of five persons, the data represented by this group is not reliable and will be left out of any further analyses. Therefore, the results for the marketeers has been visualized in a broken line.
Table 6: Corporate Personality Scale: mean scores
* = There is a significant difference with the front office employees at a significance at the 0.01 level. ** = There is a significant difference with the front office employees at a significance at the 0.05 level.
Corporate Personality Scale: all mean scores
VARIABLE OF CHARACTER MEAN SCORES EMPLOYEES BACK OFFICE MEAN SCORES EMPLOYEES FRONT OFFICE MEAN SCORES
MARKETEERS MEAN SCORES CUSTOMERS 1 CONTACT MEAN SCORES CUSTOMERS 2-4 CONTACT MEAN SCORES CUSTOMERS 5 OR MORE CONTACT Agreeableness 0,637 0,628 0,750 1,500* 1,309* 1,477* Enterprise 1,903 2,049 1,820 1,127* 1,171* 1,199* Competence 1,615 1,870 1,471 1,635* 1,393* 1,619* Chic -0,184 0,068** -0,867 0,429 0,215 0,406* Ruthlessness -1,564 -1,249 -1,967 -0,405* -0,545* -0,237* Machismo 0,517 0,824** 0,433 0,180* -0,276* 0,313* Informality 1,897 1,888 2,050 1,316* 1,065* 1,186*
Graph 5: Corporate Personality Scale: mean scores
Table 7: Organizational Culture Profile: Mean scores
* = There is a significant difference with the front office employees at a significance at the 0.01 level. ** = There is a significant difference with the front office employees at a significance at the 0.05 level.
VARIABLE OF CULTURE MEAN SCORES EMPLOYEES BACK OFFICE MEAN SCORES EMPLOYEES FRONT OFFICE MEAN SCORES
MARKETEERS MEAN SCORES CUSTOMERS 1 CONTACT MEAN SCORES CUSTOMERS 2-4 CONTACT MEAN SCORES CUSTOMERS 5 OR MORE CONTACT
Risk taking and
innovative 1,240 1,460 1,100 0,890** 9,740* 1,060 Detail and precision
orientation 0,880 1,150 0,100 0,990 0,940 1,040 Achievement orientated 1,530 1,780 1,300 1,190* 1,010* 1,340** Aggressive and opportunistic -0,740 -0,230* -0,100 0,110 -0,060 0,150 Supportive and acknowledge performance 1,710 1,390** 1,900 0,850** 0,930* 1,150
High pay and opportunistic for growth
0,400 -0,020** 0,300 0,520** 0,300** 0,410
Team orientated 1,870 1,540* 1,900 1,010** 0,980* 1,240 Decisiveness 0,720 0,810 0,500 0,890 0,850 0,860
Corporate Personality Scale
mean scor e -2,5 -1,875 -1,25 -0,625 0 0,625 1,25 1,875 2,5
Agreeableness Enterprise Competence Chic Ruthlessness Machismo Informality
0 neutral Mean employees back office Mean employees front office Mean marketeers
