Leadership Branding
By
Brent Minkhorst
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Msc Business Administration – Marketing Management
H.M. Dijklaan 23 1171 TT Bahoevedorp
06 24803912
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ... 3
1 INTRODUCTION ... 4
2 LITERATURE REVIEW & HYPOTHESISES ... 8
3 PRE-STUDY & PRE-STUDY RESULTS ... 19
4 OPERATIONALISATION... 25
5 RESULTS ... 32
6 CONCLUSION... 38
7 RECOMMENDATIONS... 41
REFERENCES ... 44
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE PRE-STUDY... 49
APPENDIX B: FACTOR SCORES PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT PRE-STUDY ... 50
APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE... 55
APPENDIX D: FACTOR ANALYSIS PERSONALITY... 57
APPENDIX E: FACTOR ANALYSIS LEADERSHIP SATISFACTION... 64
APPENDIX F: MODEL SIGNIFICATION REGRESSION ANALYSIS ... 65
APPENDIX G: FACTOR ANALYSIS AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT... 69
APPENDIX H: FACTOR ANALYSIS PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT ... 70
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
This research has been executed in order to determine whether consumers use company leaders as motivation to purchase products, and if therefore company leaders could be used as some sort of marketing instrument. This has been
classified as leadership branding as an adoption from human branding in celebrity endorsements. This study was directed towards company leaders who represent a corporate brand (e.g. KLM, Philips and BMW). Furthermore, this research investigated which personality traits a company leader should encompass and which communication style they should adapt in leadership branding. Moreover, this research concentrated on differences between company leaders who represent hedonic or either utilitarian products.
Data was collected through street interviews, during social events, and was collected at a university in the north of the Netherlands.
1 INTRODUCTION
Over the past decades research on CEO leadership and organisational outcomes has flourished (Madlock 2008; Berson, Oreg & Divr 2007; Finkelstein & Hambrick 1996; Hambrick & Mason 1987). These studies indicate that CEO’s have a strong influence on organisational outcomes from an internal perspective. In order to achieve these positive outcomes a CEO needs strong communication competencies (Madlock 2008). This can increase employee satisfaction (Madlock 2008; Berson & Linton 2005; Berson, Oreg & Divr 2007), efficiency (Berson Oreg & Divr 2007) and can even lead to sales growth (Berson, Oreg & Divr, 2007).
Besides this internal view on leadership CEO’s also have a duty to communicate to the outside world from time to time (Welch 2008). During these
communication efforts the image from a CEO is shaped by outside stakeholders (Lievens, Van Hoye & Anseel 2007). When exposed to such efforts consumers alike shape their attitudes and opinions of a leader from an organisation (Lievens Van Hoye & Anseel 2007). It is plausible to state that a positive attitude and opinion of a company leader can lead to a purchase of the particular brand(s) he or she represents. However, this has been largely neglected in academic research. This statement implies that company leaders could be used as a marketing
These findings in human branding research raise the question whether company leaders can also be used to represent their brand(s), goods and services through the act of communication as they may thereby motivate consumers to buy their represented products.
Furthermore, celebrity endorsers are changed from time to time in order to reinforce or endorse core or extend values with the corporate brand (Blacket & Boad 1999). The substitution of a celebrity endorser is comparable in the world of senior management, where leading positions are frequently occupied by different people. For example, a CEO only stays in power for four and a half years on average (Welch 2008). In his article, Welch (2008) strongly posits the idea of consistency in brand management. This statement has also been implied by Park et al (1986) in their Brand Management Concept, where constant change can create resistance by consumers and eventually lead to a decrease in sales. An example of this is the departure of Bill Gates at Microsoft, which had a strong negative influence on their sales (Welch 2008). This consistency in leadership seems to be hard to achieve as leaders defect the company more often (Welch 2008). Furthermore, it is in people their nature to be reactant to change in their first reaction (Cummings & Worley 2005). Moreover, from organisational theory it is of great importance that company leaders align themselves with the
organisational culture in order to achieve favourable outcomes (Berson, Oreg & Divr 2007). However, this has not been researched in marketing literature, but the example of Microsoft indicates that leadership change can have its implications on customers. Therefore, tools are needed to assess company leaders in order to see if there is a fit between the represented brand and customer base whenever a leadership change occurs.
The before mentioned findings from leadership and human branding theory indicate that humans can be a tool as they influence consumers to certain
The purpose of this present study is to integrate the research streams of leadership theory and human branding, in order to deliver company leaders with a tool to asses their personal fit with the customer base to secure future profits. This extension of existing theory will be classified as leadership branding for the remainder of this study.
Furthermore, it is important to note that this research is only directed at corporate brands (e.g. Philips, KLM and Dell), as earlier research has indicated that for companies who use separate brands (e.g. Unilever and Proctor & Gamble) have no direct link with the parent brand in the perception of consumers due to the lack of corporate brand dominance (Berens & Van Riel 2005). Moreover, this study is specifically aimed at consumers of companies who supply with goods and
services for the consumer market. As in business markets other determinants (e.g. expert knowledge, reinforcement power) than human branding are an influence of buying behaviour (Kohli 1989). In the context of this research it is question if consumers use company leaders as a motivation to purchase products in order to investigate whether company leaders can deliver their contribution to sales.
Problem Statement
Research Objective. The objective of the research is to determine if consumers use company leaders of corporate brands as a motivation to purchase products and how this establishes among consumers.
Research Question. Do consumers use company leaders of corporate brands as a motivation to purchase products?
Preview
2 LITERATURE REVIEW & HYPOTHESISES
Personality Traits Effects & Leadership Satisfaction
From the leadership literature it is clear that the traits of leaders have an effect on organisation culture and employee satisfaction (Berson, Oreg & Divr 2007). However, Berson, Oreg and Divr (2007) have not extended these effects in his study on customer satisfaction, which implies a knowledge gap in leadership theory. Furthermore, from the human branding literature it is clear that a person’s personality traits and the selling idea form a construct (Kamins and Gupta 1994), which can lead to an endorsers’ brand identity (Uggla 2006), and eventually leads to purchase intentions (Till and Busler, 1998). However, Kamins and Gupta (1994) have not established which personality traits have a positive effect. Consequently, Aaker (2004a, b) concluded that a person can contribute to differentiation and relevance to a corporate brand, and can also add instant recognition and brand personality to the corporate brand identity. Moreover, as the personality traits of a person can construct a brand identity (Uggla 2006) it can increase satisfaction if an endorser is able to fulfil the needs of a customer
(Thomson 2006).
This discussion implies that the personality traits of a company leader might have an important effect on customer satisfaction, and will eventually contribute to the question how company leaders can deliver their contribution to sales. Furthermore, the former discussion indicates that company leaders might contribute to customer satisfaction. Within this study, this will be classified as leadership satisfaction, and is defined as a customers’ satisfaction with a current company leader as an overall evaluation of a leaders’ personality and communication style.
Moreover, current leadership and marketing theory can be extended with
Furthermore, Aaker (1997) developed, in a comprehensive study, a scale to rate brands on human traits. Brands can thereby be represented in the following traits: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. Lievens, Van Hoye and Schreurs (2005) found significant results by applying her model to rate organizations on the before mentioned factors. This indicates that Aaker’s scale can be extended to other fields of research. However, it is highly explorative which factors of Aaker’s scale (1997) have a positive effect on customer satisfaction. However, significant results will extend current marketing theory with the applicability of Aaker’s (1997) scale in other fields of research, and will determine which personality traits are of influence in leadership branding. However, it is of importance to account the difference between utilitarian and hedonic products within this study, as it has different effects on consumer behaviour (Dahr & Wertenbroch 2000). The difference between these types of products, according to Dahr & Wertenbroch (2000), is that hedonic products provide more experiential consumption, fun, pleasure and excitement (e.g. designer clothes, sport cars, luxury watches). While on the other hand, utilitarian products are primarily functional and instrumental (Dahr & Wertenbroch 2000), for example products like microwaves, personal computers and health insurances. Furthermore, it is highly explorative which factors of Aaker’s scale (1997) have a positive or negative effect on the relationship between personality trait effects and leadership satisfaction. Fortunately, Keller (2007) and Thomson (2006) provide a few guidelines which personality traits an endorser should encompass in human branding, and thereby giving an indication for company leaders. However, it should be noted that these guidelines are anecdotic with currently no empiric support whatsoever.
This might indicate a positive effect of the ruggedness personality trait from Aaker (1997) for hedonic products. Thirdly, in extending the scale of Aaker (1997) into other fields of research Lievens, van Hoye and Scheurs (2005) and Anseel (2007) have described competence as being able to deliver in regard to someone’s expectations. In the study of Lievens, van Hoye and Scheurs (2005) respondents rated organisations on the trait competence among the other traits, and have found positive results on this trait as long if the particular organisations were able to deliver regardless its type of offerings. This latter finding indicates that in the context of leadership branding the personality trait competence might have a positive effect on leadership satisfaction as long they are able to deliver in regard to customer’s expectations. However, this is regardless of the represented offerings and thus the nature of a product does not seem to have an effect in this matter. Fourthly, several facets of Aaker’s (1997) personality trait sophistication are based on looks (e.g. good looking, charming and glamorous), which can also be seen as attractiveness. Kahle and Homer (1985) and Keller (2007) support the notion that attractiveness is a positive influence in human branding for hedonic products. This indicates a possible positive effect of sophistication on leadership satisfaction. Finally, the personality trait excitement from Aaker (1997) is build around facets such as daring, spirited and imaginative. Furthermore, hedonic products should spark for example excitement (Dahr & Wertenbroch 2000), and is considered a facet of hedonism (Voss et al. 2003). This discussion therefore implies a possible positive effect of the personality trait excitement on leadership satisfaction. The former discussion has resulted in the following hypothesises:
H1a: The personality trait sincerity has a negative effect on leadership satisfaction when products of a hedonic nature are offered.
H1c: The personality trait competence has a positive effect on leadership satisfaction when products of a hedonic nature are offered.
H1d: The personality trait sophistication has a positive effect on leadership satisfaction when products of a hedonic nature are offered.
H1e: The personality trait excitement has a positive effect on leadership satisfaction when products of a hedonic nature are offered.
As described before, certain personality traits have different effects on leadership satisfaction for hedonic products. The former discussion also implied that certain negative effects for hedonic products can be positive for utilitarian products. Therefore, for some of the factors of Aakers’ scale (1997) the hypothesis needs to be formulated differently for utilitarian products. Yet again, the guidelines from Keller (2007) will therefore be used.
Firstly, Keller (2007) posits in his guidelines for celebrities that they should be sincere as utilitarian products should deliver what is promised, which indicates a positive influence on leadership satisfaction. Secondly, Keller (2007) claims that ruggedness had a negative impact in celebrity endorsements when utilitarian products are portrayed. This indicates a negative effect of the ruggedness
personality trait from Aaker (1997) for utilitarian products. Thirdly, as mentioned before the personality trait competence is based on the notion that an organisation is considered competent as long it is able to deliver in regard to someone’s expectations. This is regardless of the product on offer and indicates that the personality trait competence might have a positive effect in leadership branding for utilitarian products as well. Fourthly, several facets of Aaker’s (1997) personality trait sophistication are based on looks (e.g. good looking, charming and glamorous), which can also be seen as attractiveness (Kahle & Homer 1985). However, attractiveness is not a facet of utilitarian products, but rather for hedonic products as mentioned before (Voss et al. 2003). This indicates a possible
Finally, the personality trait excitement is not an item of utilitarian products as it not focuses on functionality (Dahr & Wertenbroch 2000) and is considered a facet of hedonic products (Voss et al 2003). This discussion therefore implies a possible negative impact of the personality trait excitement on leadership satisfaction. The former discussion has resulted in the following hypothesises:
H1f: The personality trait sincerity has a positive effect on leadership satisfaction when products of a utilitarian nature are offered.
H1g: The personality trait ruggedness has a negative effect on leadership satisfaction when products of a utilitarian nature are offered.
H1h: The personality trait competence has a positive effect on leadership satisfaction when products of a utilitarian nature are offered.
H1i: The personality trait sophistication has a negative effect on leadership satisfaction when products of a utilitarian nature are offered.
H1j: The personality trait excitement has a negative effect on leadership satisfaction when products of a utilitarian nature are offered.
Communication Style Effects & Leadership Satisfaction
However, no research has been done in the context of leadership branding and communication style taking consumers into account, which implies a knowledge gap in leadership and marketing theory. However, De Vries et al (2009) have provided a comprehensive scale to rate communication styles, but have not applied this in a business context. The dimensions preciseness, reflectiveness, expressiveness, supportiveness, emotionality, niceness, and threateningness form the acronym PRESENT-framework. In elaboration of their framework a
preciseness communication-style is defined by the fact that a person
communicates professional, precise, concise, and efficient, and pertains a well prepared image. Secondly, reflectiveness encompasses traits such as coolly, formal, melancholic and talking around someone. Thirdly, the dimension expressiveness is based on the characteristics extroverted, fluent, self-assured, articulate and energetic. Fourthly, supportiveness is built on the characteristics of communication such as sarcastic, cynical and mean. Fifthly, the communication-style emotionality encompasses traits such as stressed, bad-tempered, dejected and worked-up. Sixthly, niceness encompasses characteristics such as nice, friendly, cheerful, funny and understanding. Finally, the style of threateningness is based on the facets of abusive, roaring, booing, blackmailing and threatening the communication audience.
Furthermore, extensive literature review has not directed towards a difference in effect of communication styles for utilitarian or hedonic products. Differences in communication on this scale was for example only concentrated on media design (Hirschman 1986), package design (Limon, Kahle & Ulrich 2009), shopping context (Kim & Lennon 2008) and type of involvement (Voss & Spangenberg 2003). However, as prior research indicates certain differences for hedonic and utilitarian products in communication, it is still assumed that no difference occurs for utilitarian or hedonic products in leadership branding on the contrast of either a negative or positive effect. Reason is, for example, that a threatening
The effects may be stronger for a certain type of product, but can not be
accurately predicted, and will be determined by the results of this study. However, significant results in this matter will extend current knowledge in marketing theory, and will indicate directions for further research.
Moreover, in their study De Vries et al (2009) indicates that the dimensions supportiveness and reflectiveness reflect the negative aspects of someone’s communication style. This latter implies a highly probable negative effect of communication style on leadership satisfaction. Although the other factors are seen as positive by the De Vries et al (2009), the facets mentioned in the
dimensions threateningness and emotionality can be seen as negative in a business context (Berson, Oreg & Divr 2007, Madlock 2008). This implies a possible negative effect of these dimensions on leadership satisfaction. However, the facets mentioned in De Vries et al (2009) their framework in the dimensions preciseness, expressiveness and niceness might be seen as a positive influence on leadership satisfaction (Smith 2001, Madlock 2008). Thus:
H2a: Preciseness has a positive effect on leadership satisfaction
H2b: Reflectiveness has negative effect on leadership satisfaction
H2c: Expressiveness has positive effect on leadership satisfaction
H2d: Supportiveness has a negative effect on leadership satisfaction
H2e: Emotionality has negative effect on leadership satisfaction
H2f: Niceness has positive effect on leadership satisfaction
Leadership Satisfaction & Affective Customer Commitment
In a study by Matzler en Renzl (2007) confirmed that employee satisfaction leads to affective commitment to an organisation. Within this study affective
commitment is defined as the trust and reciprocity in a relationship (Gustafsson, Johnson & Roos 2005). Furthermore, scholars in the field of marketing have described affective commitment as a predictor of customer loyalty alongside customer satisfaction (Verhoef 2003, Gustafsson, Johnson & Roos 2005), but have not indicated a direct concept between customer satisfaction and affective commitment. Thomson (2006) supports this notion in a human branding context. Moreover, customer satisfaction is an overall evaluation of performance from an offering (Johnson & Fornell 1991), but herein leadership is not considered a facet of satisfaction. However, the former discussion indicates that company leaders can contribute to customer satisfaction. Within this study, this will be classified as leadership satisfaction, and is defined as a customers’ satisfaction with a current company leader as an overall evaluation of a leaders’ personality and
communication style.
Furthermore, Bowden (2009) conceptualizes the link between customer
satisfaction and affective commitment, but has not empirically tested this concept. Furthermore, Liang and Wang (2004) have established a link between satisfaction and cognitive commitment, but not on affective commitment. In coherence with the finding from Thomson (2006) that customers commitment themselves to celebrity endorsers and the theory from organisational theory on employee satisfaction and affective commitment, it is thereby plausible to assume that a positive relationship between leadership satisfaction and affective commitment might exist in leadership branding, thereby possibly closing on a knowledge gap in marketing theory. Thus:
Affective Customer Commitment & Purchase Intention
In order to answer the research question whether consumers use company leaders as a motivation to purchase products, it is imperative to know if their affective commitment leads to sales. Bowden (2009) proposes in her framework that affective commitment can lead to loyalty from consumers for repeated business. Furthermore, in many marketing studies customer loyalty has been identified for profitability and sales growth (e.g. Keiningham, Munn & Evens 2003, Seiders et al. 2005, Heskett et al. 1994, Szymanski & Henard 2001). Moreover, Thomson (2006) acknowledges that in human branding that commitment to an endorser can lead to loyalty. However, leadership theory shows a great knowledge gap in this field, and establishing a link between both constructs will be an extension towards current leadership theory knowledge. Furthermore, marketing scholars have investigated this link between both constructs in the context of loyalty programs (Rust, Zeithaml & Lemon 2000, Bolton, Kannan & Bramlett 2000, Verhoef 2003, Gustafsson, Johnson & Roos 2005), and Liang and Wang (2004) have
investigated this on the basis of functional en experimental benefits. These benefits can be related to the definitions of Dahr and Wertenbroch (2000), where utilitarian products provide functional benefits as hedonic products provide experimental benefits. The results from Liang and Wang (2004) indicate that when either functional or hedonic benefits are offered commitment leads to loyalty. This finding might indicate the same effect in leadership branding and that in a utilitarian and hedonic context the same positive relationship exists. Furthermore, the before mentioned scholars have not investigated whether company leaders have their contribution towards customer loyalty as well. Thus, this would close a knowledge gap in leadership and marketing theory.
Furthermore, this loyalty can be measured by purchase intention (Rust, Zeithaml & Lemon 2000), and has been established as a good predictor of business performance (Morgan & Rego 2006). Thus:
Moderating Variables
Furthermore, product involvement has an effect on celebrity evaluations (Lee & Thorson 2008) and product evaluations (Berens, Van Riel & Van Bruggen 2005). Moreover, product involvement occurs when an issue or object is related to the unique set of attitudes and values that comprise an individual's self-concept, and is related to the commitment of a brand (Warrington & Shim 2000). These findings indicate that product involvement with the goods and services that are represented by a company leader might have an effect on the relationship between leadership satisfaction and affective customer commitment. Finally, the level of involvement is also an indication how much knowledge a person holds regarding the object (Berens, Van Riel & Van Bruggen 2005). Thus:
H5: Product involvement has an influence on the relationship between leadership satisfaction and affective customer commitment.
Conceptual Model
The literature review has resulted in the following conceptual model (Figure 1):
3 PRE-STUDY & PRE-STUDY RESULTS
Pre-Study
Due to the objective of this study to investigate if a company leader is used as a motivation to purchase products by consumers a pre-study has therefore been conducted. The necessity of this pre-study is based on the methodology of Lee and Thorson (2008) and builds on the match-up phenomenon for comparison purposes. This is considered appropriate as the main focus of this study is to derive differences in leadership branding for utilitarian and hedonic products. The main goal of this pre-study is to select two company leaders for the remainder of this study who represent a hedonic and utilitarian product. However, it is important to note by following the methodology of Lee and Thorson (2008) that the generalizability of this complete study is limited to the selected company leaders and their represented products. On the other hand, by selecting two company leaders, who serve as a replication factor, does provide greater generalizability of the findings than selecting several company leaders (Lee & Thorson 2008).
Furthermore, this pre-study is qualitative in its nature as the purpose is to surface which company leaders are the most suitable for the match-up. The pre-study questionnaire encompassed five descriptions of famous Dutch company leaders. Respondents will be asked to rate the leader in question if they perceive him or her as a suitable leader for their respective companies. The use of this variable is based on the notion that suitability is an overall evaluation of satisfaction and commitment (Brant, Dooley & Iman 2008), which are subjects of study in this present research. It is therefore considered an appropriate measure for selection. Furthermore, respondents will be asked to indicate their involvement with the offered merchandise and the intention to purchase the products in question of the portrayed leader, which is based on the methodology of Lee and Thorson (2008). This is portrayed as the conceptual model for the pre-study (see figure 2).
This is of importance for hypothesizing the effects of brand personality traits on leadership satisfaction, as the nature of a product has different effects on
consumer behaviour (Dahr & Wertenbroch 2000), and thereby on the perceived congruity of the portfolio (Lee & Thorson 2008). Furthermore, Lee and Thorson (2008) found great importance in selecting their final celebrities in their proposed study on product involvement and purchase intention. By selecting a celebrity with the highest score on purchase intention Lee and Thorson (2008) were able to reach significant results due to familiarism of the object and this selection method will thereby be used in this pre-study as well. However, the distribution between low and high involvement needs to be equal in order to avoid a bias in the sample. For this study it is of importance to know what ‘a good leader’ should encompass when they are used as a marketing tool in order to develop a theory in leadership branding.
Data Collection
For this pre-study friends and relatives of the researcher were personally contacted to fill in a paper based questionnaire. Also, in order to create a
heterogeneous sample, undergraduate students of a Dutch university were asked to fill in the questionnaire as well.
In order to avoid an experience bias in the sample only respondents without prior knowledge of this study were selected to participate in this pre-study. This has lead to an analyzable sample of 38 respondents.
Results
In order to select the most suitable company leader for the remainder of this study, respondents were asked to rate five Dutch company leaders on their suitableness for their perspective companies, and to indicate their intention to purchase the represented products (for complete questionnaire see appendix A) on a five-point Likert scale. Means scores were calculated for both variables on all company leaders (see table 1).
The results show that four company leaders are seen as suitable, but however, in three of the four cases this does not directly leads to high purchase intentions. This might be due to the product involvement of respondents with the portrayed products (Lee & Thorson 2008). This has been accounted for within this study as well. The involvement of respondents was assessed by using McQuarrie and Munson’s Revised Personal Involvement Inventory (1991) including unimportant / important, irrelevant / relevant, means nothing / means a lot to me, and boring / interesting. For each company leader the variables were reduced into one factor by factor analysis, thereby still taking into account the unique effect of each variable on product involvement (Malhorta 2007).
TABLE 1: RESULTS COMPANY LEADERS
Company Leader Suitableness
For all factors the KMO-measure was above 0.5 (see appendix B), which indicates that factor analysis is an appropriate method of analysis. For each respondent the regression scores were calculated on each factor of product involvement for the perspective company leaders. In order to analyze the moderating effect of product involvement respondents with a regression score above 0 were classified as persons with a high product involvement, and
respondents with a score below 0 as low. After dividing the sample, means scores on suitableness company leaders and the purchase intentions were calculated for both groups (see table 2 & 3).
TABLE 2: RESULTS COMPANY LEADERS LOW PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT
Company Leader Product Involvement Low
Suitableness Purchase Intention N Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Johan Derksen 18 3,5000 1,1504 1,5000 1,1504 Jort Kelder 26 2,4231 1,3015 2,0769 1,0554 Hilmar Mulder 22 3,5455 0,9117 1,0000 0,0000
Annemarie van Gaal 17 3,8824 0,6002 1,1176 0,3321
Hans Breukhoven 20 4,4500 0,7592 2,8000 1,1965
TABLE 3: RESULTS COMPANY LEADERS HIGH PRODUCT INVOLVEMENT Company Leader Product Involvement High
Suitableness Purchase Intention
N Mean S.D. Mean S.D.
Johan Derksen 20 4,0500 0,8870 2,6000 1,7592
Jort Kelder 12 3,6667 0,7785 3,6667 0,7785
Hilmar Mulder 16 3,3750 0,7188 1,7500 1,4376
Annemarie van Gaal 21 4,2857 0,7838 2,3333 1,3904
However, it should be noted that in case of Hilmar Mulder respondents with a high involvement perceive her less suitable than with a low involvement, but still have higher purchase intentions due to their involvement.
Overall, the results show that a suitable leader does not necessary lead to high purchase intentions, but is moderated by product involvement. Three company leaders show a high suitableness, but two of them do not have high purchase intentions (table 3). This could be due to the nature of a product (Dahr & Wertenbroch 2000). Therefore, respondents were asked to indicate on bipolar scale if the represented product was perceived as either utilitarian or hedonic. The results show that all products are perceived as mainly hedonic (table 4).
This indicates the low purchase intentions for two of the three suitable leaders, as their represented products do not fulfil a basic need in life.
The overall selection of the company leader that will be used for the remainder of this study is based on the criteria, applying Lee and Thorson’s (2008) criteria, of highest mean scores on both variables overall, in the low and high product involvement group and equal distribution of respondents on the basis of product involvement. The results in tables 1 till 3 clearly show that Hans Breukhoven is the most appropriate company leader to use. However, it needs to be accounted for the remainder of this study that Hans Breukhoven represents a product which is perceived as hedonic.
TABLE 4: NATURE OF REPRESENTED PRODUCTS Company Leader Mean
Johan Derksen 3,8684
Jort Kelder 3,6053
Hilmar Mulder 3,5263
Annemarie van Gaal 3,4211
Hans Breukhoven 3,7895
4 OPERATIONALISATION
Research Method Survey
The results of the pre-test have indicated that Hans Breukhoven should be used as the example leader for hedonic products for this study. However, the data from the pre-study was not conclusive for selecting a company who represents products of a utilitarian nature. Therefore, a company leader, who represents products of a utilitarian nature, was selected at random by using the classifying criteria of Dahr and Wertenbroch (2000) for utilitarian products. This has ultimately lead to the selection of Gerard Kleisterlee, CEO of Philips.
Data was collected through street interviews, during social events, and at a university in the north of the Netherlands. Respondents were asked to fill in a paper based questionnaire answering questions regarding Hans Breukhoven and Gerard Kleisterlee.
In order to trigger respondents to fill in the questionnaire, respondents were able to win a prize. However, it should be noted that demographic data was not collected as it is not an influence in human branding (Kahle & Homer 1985, Lee & Thorson 2008). The sample was therefore not a valid representative sample of Dutch society. However, the questionnaire was distributed personally by the researcher among respondents. This ensured that most layers of Dutch society were represented in the sample based on age, sex and ethnicity, but was, however, not an accurate reflection of Dutch society. For example, men were slightly represented more in the sample than what is actually the case in the Netherlands (49.5% men, 50.5% women1). Furthermore, the questions used in the
questionnaire were designed by modifying questions from scholars in research areas of leadership, marketing and communication. The validity of the
questionnaire is thereby guaranteed and contributed to answer the research question. In total, 111 respondents have completed the questionnaire, where 107 have been useful for analysis, which is a justified amount to draw conclusions for the selected population (Malhorta 2007).
For the analysis stage of this study a significance level of 0.05 was used for testing all hypotheses. Due the nature of the scales not all hypotheses could be tested by the same statistical test.
Independent variables Personality traits
Respondents were asked to rate personality facets of Hans Breukhoven and Kleisterlee by using Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale (For questionnaire see appendix C). However, due to the nature of this study not all items of Aaker’s scale (1997) were used to be rated, but the items that were used had to be rated for both company leaders by all respondents. This is due to the fact that the
questionnaire will otherwise be too big, which can frustrate respondents and can eventually lead to a low response rate (Baarda & De Goede 2001). As the scale is unidimensional in its nature it is therefore sufficient to rate the factors or variables with a high loading2. As the study by Aaker (1997) has indicated that certain variables have a very high loading, respondents were therefore asked to rate only these items for both company leaders.
Communication Style
For rating the communication style of Hans Breukhoven and Gerard Kleisterlee respondents were asked to rate these leaders on communication factors
preciseness, reflectiveness, expressiveness, supportiveness, emotionality, niceness and threateningness from the scale developed by De Vries et al (2009). Due to possible unfamiliararity with the company leaders in question, respondents were handed fragments of press interviews from both company leaders. By these means respondents were then better able to rate the communication styles of the
presented company leaders.
2
However, due to the physical nature of the questionnaire (paper based)
respondents were only able to asses these press interviews, and the questionnaire does not account for the possible mediating effects of TV and radio. Moreover, the press interviews were taken from different sources in order to ensure that possibly all communication styles proposed by De Vries et al (2009) were
accounted for, and to ensure that respondents were better able to rate the different dimensions in communication styles.
Furthermore, to ensure a proper sample size and the unidimensional nature of the scale, respondents were only asked to rate the communication style on purely the before mentioned factors of De Vries et al (2009), as the items did not have a high loading independently.
Leadership Satisfaction
Satisfaction with Hans Breukhoven and Kleisterlee was measured by asking to which degree they are satisfied with Hans Breukhoven and Gerard Kleisterlee, and to which extent they manage their expectations. This measure has been derived from the study of Gustafsson, Johnson and Roos (2005), which lead to significant results.
Affective Customer Commitment
In order to measure affective commitment respondents were asked to indicate to which extent they feel trust and affection with Hans Breukhoven and Gerard Kleisterlee. For this measure the scale developed by Gustafsson, Johnson and Roos (2005) has been modified for this study.
Dependent Variable Purchase Intention
Moderating Variable Product Involvement
The product involvement of the respondents was assessed with the McQuarie and Munson (1992) Revised Personal Involvement Inventory (RPII). Respondents were asked to rate Hans Breukhoven and Gerard Kleisterlee on bipolar scales including unimportant / important, irrelevant / relevant, boring / interesting, means nothing / means a lot to me.
Plan of Analysis
Personality traits & leadership satisfaction
In order to prepare the data for testing the hypotheses in regard to the personality traits a factor analysis has therefore been conducted. This is considered an appropriate method for data preparation, because the interdependencies are accounted for within a factor and can be used for further testing (Malhorta 2007). First of all, the variables concerning the personality traits were selected to form the factors sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness. These were determined a priori due to prior research (see Aaker 1997). However, it should be noted that certain factors did not explain the required amount of variance (at least 60%) in contradiction to prior research (see appendix D), which implies the development of new factors within the research. However, the current standing hypotheses are then not able to be tested. The following factors have had an explained variance below 60 percent and should have been developed in different factors: Sincerity (37.52%), Excitement (34.31%), Competence
(54.80%), Ruggedness (58.24%) for the hedonic sample, and Sincerity (40.62%), Competence (52.84%), Sophistication (47.01%), Ruggedness (39.83%) for the utilitarian sample. However, the separate variables do have overall high loadings and could still be valuable for analysis (Malhorta 2007).
For the hedonic sample this constructed factor leadership satisfaction explained 81% of the variance and for the utilitarian sample 60% (see appendix E). This can be considered satisfactory for further analysis (Malhorta 2007).
Furthermore, a multiple regression analysis was considered the appropriate test in order to see the effects of personality traits on leadership satisfaction (Malhorta 2007). Moreover, the regression analysis that was conducted in order to test the personality trait effects on leadership satisfaction was a significant model for both samples by the use of an Anova test (Malhorta 2007). The Anova results showed p = 0.000 for the utilitarian sample, and p = 0.001 for the hedonic sample (see appendix F).
Finally, the factors that were entered into the model have been tested on multicollinearity by analyzing the tolerance and VIF scores. In order to detect multicollinearity between the factors the tolerance scores needed to be below 0.20 and the VIF scores above 5 (O’Brien 2007). Fortunately, the results show no signs of multicollinearity by the imposed rules of O’Brien (2007) for both samples (see tables 5 & 6, next chapter).
Communication style effects & leadership satisfaction
The variables preciseness, reflectiveness, expresiveness, supportivenss,
emotionality, niceness and threateningness from both samples were entered in a multiple regression analysis in order to test their effect on the construct leadership satisfaction, which is considered an appropriate test to investigate the
Leadership satisfaction & affective customer commitment
In order to investigate whether a positive relationship exits between leadership satisfaction and affective customer commitment a regression analysis has been conducted due to the nature of measures (both interval), which is considered appropriate (Malhorta 2007). However, before the test could be conducted a construct of affective customer commitment had to be formed by the means of a factor analysis for both samples. This has been found necessary to keep the data and test more manageable and can be considered an appropriate method for data preparation (Malhorta 2007). The variables concerning the affection and trust from the questionnaire have been entered into the equation and for both samples a single factor of commitment is considered appropriate (see appendix G).
Furthermore, for both samples the variables leadership satisfaction, affective commitment and the moderator product involvement (see paragraph product involvement) were entered into the equation for regression analysis. The next step was to test the model significance and the variables on multicollinearity. The Anova test shows a p-value of 0.000 for the both samples and thus the models are significant (see appendix F). Finally, both models show no signs of
multicollinearity between the variables with tolerance scores well above 0.2 and VIF scores under 5 (see tables 9 & 10 next chapter), which can be considered appropriate (O’Brien 2007).
Affective customer commitment & purchase intention
Product involvement
5 RESULTS
In this chapter the results will be discussed of the conducted analysis. Due to the nature of this study the results will first be discussed on the division of the nature of the product (hedonic and utilitarian). A complete overview of the results will be discussed in chapter 6.
Personality Traits Effects & Leadership Satisfaction
The regression analysis results of the personality traits effects on leadership satisfaction has shown insignificant results for hypothesis 1a, 1b and 1e (table 5), which are hereby rejected. This implies no significant effect of the traits sincerity, excitement and ruggedness on leadership satisfaction for company leaders who represent hedonic products. However, hypothesises 1d (α = 0.01) and 1c (α = 0.10) are found significant (table 5). Overall this implies a positive effect of the personality traits competence and sophistication on leadership satisfaction for company leaders who represent hedonic products. However, the dependent variable leadership satisfaction shows great insigficance within this model. Although it is still valid to retain this variable within this model as it is of importance to investigate the different effects from the independent variables (Cohen et al 2003). However, it should be noted that it is plausible to assume some effect of the personality traits, but it has a very marginal effect on leadership satisfaction.
TABLE 5: PERSONALTY EFFECTS FOR HEDONIC LEADERS
Variables
Unstandardized
coeffcients
Collinearty statistics
B S.D. t Sig. Tolerance VIF
Leadership satisfaction (DV) 5,39E-17 0,09 0,000 1,000
Sincerity 0,124 0,117 1,066 0,289 0,601 1,665
Excitement -0,138 0,134 -1,031 0,305 0,458 2,186
Competence 0,173 0,094 1,832 0,070 0,921 1,086
Sophistication 0,399 0,108 3,689 0,000 0,698 1,433
For leaders of utilitarian products the results of the regression analysis were more significant (see table 6). Significant results were found for the traits sincerity (α = 0.001), excitement (α = 0.05), sophistication (α = 0.10) and ruggedness (α = 0.10) and supported thereby hypothesis 1f, 1i and 1j. Hypothesis 1h was completely rejected and implies no effect of the personality trait competence on leadership satisfaction. However, the data suggests a positive effect of the trait excitement on leadership satisfaction, which is contrary expectations and hypothesis 1g is
thereby still rejected. Unfortunately, the data shows yet again an insignificant independent variable and therefore the effects of personality traits on leadership satisfaction are marginally (Cohen et al 2003). In conclusion, it is plausible to assume that the traits sincerity and excitement have a positive effect on leadership satisfaction, whereas sophistication and ruggedness have a negative effect for company leaders who represent utilitarian products.
Communication Style Effects & Leadership Satisfaction
The results of the regression analysis have shown some support for the
hypotheses. However, in contrast of expectations the results were not completely the same for the hedonic and utilitarian products. The analysis shows significant results for preciseness, supportiveness, emotionality, niceness and threateningness communication styles in a hedonic product context (all at α = 0.05, see table 7).
TABLE 6: PERSONALTY EFFECTS FOR UTILITARIAN LEADERS
Variables
Unstandardized
coeffcients
Collinearty statistics
B S.D. t Sig. Tolerance VIF
Leadership satisfaction (DV) 1,32E-16 0,069 0,000 1,000
In a utilitarian product context the results were significant for the styles
expressiveness, supportiveness and emotionality (both valid at α = 0.05, see table 8). Overall, this means no effect of the communication style reflectiveness on leadership satisfaction in neither a hedonic or utilitarian context, and hypothesis 2b is thereby fully rejected.
As mentioned before, in both contexts the results were not completely the same. As expected a supportive communication style has a negative effect on leadership satisfaction in a hedonic context, but in a positive effect in a utilitarian context. This has lead to the partial acceptance of hypothesis 2d.
TABLE 7: COMMUNICATION EFFECT FOR HEDONIC LEADERS
Variables
Unstandardized
coeffcients
Collinearty statistics
B S.D. t Sig. Tolerance VIF
Leadership satisfaction (DV) -3,816 0,614 -6,208 0,000 Preciseness 0,280 0,100 2,795 0,006 0,509 1,964 Reflectiveness -0,408 0,115 -0,356 0,723 0,570 1,754 Expressiveness 0,316 0,123 0,258 0,797 0,555 1,803 Supportiveness -0,359 0,154 -2,324 0,022 0,276 3,624 Emotionality 0,264 0,072 3,648 0,000 0,842 1,188 Niceness 0,875 0,107 8,191 0,000 0,388 2,580 Threateningness 0,179 0,069 2,602 0,011 0,682 1,466 DV = Dependent Variable
TABLE 8: COMMUNICATION EFFECTS UTILITARIAN LEADERS
Variables
Unstandardized
coeffcients
Collinearty statistics
B S.D. t Sig. Tolerance VIF
Thus, a supportive communication style has only a plausible negative effect when hedonic products are offered, whereas, a supportive communication style has a plausible positive effect when utilitarian products are offered. Furthermore, contrary to expectations an emotional communication style has a plausible positive effect on leadership satisfaction in a hedonic and utilitarian context and hypothesis 2e is thereby fully rejected. Moreover, a threatening communication style has shown a positive effect on leadership satisfaction when hedonic products are offered. This in contrast to expectations and has lead to the rejection of
hypothesis 2g. Furthermore, an expressive communication style has a negative effect on leadership satisfaction. Therefore, hypothesis 2c is rejected in a
utilitarian context. Finally, a precise and nice communication style has a positive effect on leadership satisfaction when hedonic products are offered, and
hypothesis 2a and 2f are hereby accepted for in a hedonic context. However, the data shows yet again an insignificant independent variable (see table 8) and therefore the effects of communication styles on leadership satisfaction are marginally in a utilitarian context (Cohen et al 2003).
In conclusion, it is plausible to assume that a precise, nice, emotional, threatening communication style can have a positive effect on leadership satisfaction, whereas a supportive style can have a negative effect in a hedonic context. An emotional and supportive communication style can have a positive effect on leadership satisfaction in a utilitarian context, whereas an expressive style can have a negative effect.
Leadership Satisfaction & Affective Customer Commitment
The results from the regression analysis show a positive relation between
context. However, it should be noted that in the hedonic context the data shows an insignificant dependent variable (see table 9), which implies a marginal positive relationship between leadership satisfaction and affective customer commitment (Cohen et al 2003).
Furthermore, in a utilitarian context a direct relationship between leadership satisfaction and affective customer commitment does not exist (see table 10), thereby rejecting hypothesis 3 in a hedonic context. However, the results show a positive relationship between leadership satisfaction and affective customer commitment moderated by product involvement (significant at α = 0.001, see table 10), thereby accepting hypothesis 5 in a utilitarian context.
In conclusion, it is plausible to assume that a positive relationship exists in leadership branding between leadership satisfaction and affective customer commitment. However, it should be noted that in a utilitarian context this relationship is moderated by product involvement, whereas product involvement has no effect in a hedonic context on this relationship.
TABLE 9: RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION & COMMITMENT HEDONIC CONTEXT
Variables
Unstandardized
coeffcients
Collinearty statistics
B S.D. t Sig. Tolerance VIF
Affective Commitment (DV) -0,003 0,830 -0,420 0,967
Leadership Satisfaction 0,534 0,830 6,450 0,000 0,999 1,001 Moderator Product Involvement 0,530 0,880 0,601 0,549 0,999 1,001
TABLE 10: RELATIONSHIP SATISFACTION & COMMITMENT UTILITARIAN CONTEXT
Variables
Unstandardized
coeffcients
Collinearty statistics
B S.D. t Sig. Tolerance VIF
Affective Commitment (DV) 0,193 0,084 2,308 0,023
Leadership Satisfaction -0,133 0,088 -1,499 0,137 0,807 1,239 Moderator Product Involvement 0,912 0,128 7,14 0,000 0,807 1,239
Affective Customer Commitment & Purchase Intentions
The results of the correlation analysis show that there is a positive relationship between affective commitment from customers and their purchase intentions for company leaders who represent hedonic products (see table 11). The results are significant at a 5% level and imply that it is plausible to assume that whenever customers are committed through affection, the more likely they are to purchase the represented product. However, in contrast to expectations the results show that for utilitarian products the relationship between affective commitment from customers and purchase intentions is negative (see table 11). This implies that it is plausible that leadership branding is not desired in a utilitarian context as it may not lead to a desired effect (e.g. increased sales).
However, this result might be due to product involvement or an established direct concept between leadership satisfaction and purchase intention. Therefore, correlation tests were conducted with new variables and the results can be found in appendix I. The results were significant, but still indicated a negative
relationship between affective customer commitment through the level of product involvement, leadership satisfaction and purchase intentions.
In conclusion, hypothesis 4 is only accepted for hedonic represented products and rejected for utilitarian represented products.
TABLE 11: RELATIONSHIP COMMITMENT & PURCHASE INTENTION Correlation Affective Customer Commitment & Purchase Intentions
Type of product Hedonic Utilitarian
Kendall's tau_B correlation 0,172 -0,148
Sig.(1 tailed) 0,012 0,031
6 CONCLUSION
The question that remains from this research is whether consumers use company leaders of corporate brands as a motivation to buy their represented products? The answer is twofold. Yes, for company leaders who represent corporate brands who deliver hedonic products (e.g. designer clothes, sport cars). No, for company leaders who represent corporate brands which deliver utilitarian products (e.g. microwaves, health insurances). This is largely due to the fact that commitment through affection from customers to company leaders, who represent utilitarian products, has negative effect on possible sales.
Furthermore, it is question how this commitment is established among customers. In leadership branding commitment is positively related to satisfaction of a company leader. In order to establish this satisfaction, company leaders need to encompass certain personality traits and adapt certain communication styles in the eyes of consumers. For company leaders who represent hedonic products they need to show competence and sophistication in their personality to their (potential) customers, because this is positively related to satisfaction of their leadership. Furthermore, they should adapt a communication style which reflects preciseness, supportiveness, emotionality, niceness and threateningness when appropriate. These aspects have a positive effect on leadership satisfaction, which in turn could lead to commitment from customers through affection. Eventually, this affective commitment to a company leader increases the likelihood of purchases from their represented products of a specific corporate brand. However, company leaders who represent utilitarian products, leadership satisfaction should be achieved slightly different in comparison with
an expressive style at all times. If consistent in these communication styles it will have a positive effect on leadership satisfaction. This in turn could lead to
commitment through affection from customers as this is positively related in a utilitarian context as well. However, this relationship only exists when consumers are involved with the product in question. Unfortunately, this affective
commitment to a company leader from customers does not necessarily lead to purchases of the represented product or brand, as commitment through affection is negatively related to the intention to purchase products of the represented
company.
Finally, the objectives of this research were to determine if consumers use company leaders of corporate brands as a motivation to buy their represented products. This has largely been established for company leaders who represent hedonic products of a corporate brand. Furthermore, a second objective was to investigate how this commitment establishes among consumers. First of all, this is commitment can be established by creating satisfaction with their current
leadership among consumers. Secondly, in order to create this kind of satisfaction company leaders should encompass certain personality traits, and adapt certain communication styles. In this way a company leader can use him or herself as marketing tool within a leadership branding context as these aspects of leadership are within their control. These aspects could in turn lead to sales through
leadership satisfaction and affective customer commitment when products are offered of a hedonic nature. In this perspective this study has achieved its objective.
These could have a positive effect on leadership satisfaction, which could in turn lead to commitment through affection. Therefore, this research has partially achieved its objective for company leaders who represent utilitarian products.
7 RECOMMENDATIONS
Directions for future research
This research has given indications for future research in certain fields of marketing. First of all, this study is seemingly the first to address the topic of leadership branding as an extrapolation of human branding. Thus it is of foremost importance that the results of this study are validated by other researchers in order to develop a comprehensive theory regarding leadership branding.
Secondly, certain communication styles are advised for company leaders to adapt. However, this study has not enlighten when which style is appropriate in certain situations, and further research is needed to enlighten on this issue.
Thirdly, this research has only measured satisfaction on the basis of the evaluation of company leaders and their products. In earlier research satisfaction has been seen as a customers’ overall evaluation of performance from an offering (Johnson & Fornell 1991). However, it is question, by the results of this study, whether leadership satisfaction might be a component or antecedent of customer satisfaction and further research is needed is to establish this assumption.
Fourthly, this study contributed greatly with the concept of leadership satisfaction and affective commitment. Researchers in the past have not been able to establish such a concept and this is a contribution for marketing theory in general. However, this study concentrated on leadership satisfaction and future research should
indicate whether such concepts exist in human branding or between customer satisfaction and affective commitment.
Limitations
The greatest limitation of this research concerns it generalizability. The results might provide some new insights in leadership theory, but the findings are limited to the company leaders and their represented products here.
Furthermore, limitations occurred in the questionnaire used to conduct this
research. First of all, to measure personality traits and communication style effects respondents were only asked to rate the example company leaders on the factors designed by Aaker (1997) and De Vries et al (2009) instead of the assigned facets of the factors. This was done to increase the probability of completion and amount questionnaires. However, this also implies a less comprehensive scale to test hypotheses. Secondly, the example leader for utilitarian products, Gerard
Kleisterlee, was randomly selected by the researcher and was not assessed in the pre-study. This might have lead to less reliable results due to unfamiliarism. Finally, respondents were asked to rate communication styles on the basis of press released interviews issued with the questionnaire, thereby not accounting for possible mediating effects of other media such as TV and radio.
Reflection
This is contrary of other research (Lievens, Van Hoye, Scheurs 2005) who established the applicability of Aaker’s scale in other fields of marketing. However, in leadership branding this might not be the preferred scale to assess whether a company leader has the desired personality traits.
Thirdly, the scale developed by De Vries et al (2009) has not been validated currently and might not have been the most useful scale to assess the
communication styles of company leaders, due to some insignificant results. However, other scales were not easily available and this scale is the most comprehensive in communication studies.
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, 34, no. 3 (Summer), 347-356.
Anderson, Eugene W. (1998), “Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth,” Journal of Service Research, 1, no.1 (Winter), 5–17.
Baarda, D.B. and M.P.M. de Goede (2001), Basisboek Methoden en Technieken, Stenfert Kroese: Groningen.
Berens, Guido, Cees B.M. van Riel and Gerrit H. van Bruggen (2005), “Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses: The Moderating Role of Corporate Brand Dominance”, Journal of Marketing, 69, no. 3 (Summer), 35-48.
Berson, Yair and Jonathan D. Linton (2005), “An examination of the relationships between leadership style, quality, and employee satisfaction in R&D versus administrative environments”, R&D Management, 45, no. 1 (Winter), 51-60.
Berson, Yair, Shaul Oreg and Taly Divr (2008), “CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 29, no. 5 (Autumn), 615 – 633.
Blackett, T. and B. Boad (1999), Co-branding the Science of Alliance, MacMillan: London.
Bolton, Ruth N., P.K. Kannan, and Mathew D. Bramlett (2000), “Implications of Loyalty Program Membership and Service Experiences for Customer Retention and Value,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (Winter), 95–108.
Bowden, Jana Lay-Hwa (2009), “The Process of Customer Engagement: A Conceptual Framework”, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice, 17, no.1 (Winter), 63-74. Brant, James, Rebecca Dooley and Stephen Iman (2008), “Leadership Succession: An Approach To Filling The Pipeline”, Strategic HR Review, 7, no. 4 (Spring), 17 – 24. Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris B. Holbrook (2002), “Product-class effects on brand commitment and brand outcomes: The role of brand trust and brand affect”, Journal of Brand Management, 10, no. 1 (Autumn), 33-58.
Cohen, Jacob, Patricia Cohen, Stephen G. West and Leona S. Aiken (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cummings, Thomas G. and Christopher G. Worley (2005), Organization Development
Dahr, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods”, Journal of Marketing Research, 37, no. 1 (Winter), 60-71.
De Vries, Reinout E., Angelique Bakker-Pieper, Robert Alting Siberg, Kim van Gameren and Martijng Vlug (2009), “The Content and Dimensionality of Communication Styles”,
Communication Research, 36, no 2 (Spring), 178-206.
Grohmann, Bianca (2009), “Gender Dimensions of Brand Personality”, Journal of
Marketing Research, 46, no. 1 (Winter), 105-119.
Gustafsson, Anders, Michael D. Johnson, and Inger Roos (2005), “The Effects of
Customer Satisfaction, Relationship Commitment Dimensions, and Triggers on Customer Retention,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (October), 210–218.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their
effects on organizations. Minneapolis/St. Paul: West Publishers & Co.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984), “Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers”, Academy of Management Review, no 9 (Autumn), 193– 206.
Heskett, James L., Thomas O. Jones, Gary W. Loveman, W. Earl Sasser Jr. and Leonard A. Schlesinger (1994), “Putting the Service-Profit Chain to Work,” Harvard Business Review, 72 (Spring), 164-174.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1986), “The Effect of Verbal and Pictorial advertising Stimuli On Aesthetic, Utilitarian and Familiarity Perceptions”, Journal of Advertising, 15, no. 1 (Winter), 27-34.
Johnson, Michael D. and Claes Fornell (1991), “A Framework for Comparing Customer Satisfaction Across Individuals and Product Categories,” Journal of Economic
Psychology, 12, no. 2 (Spring), 267–286.
Kahle, Lynn R. and Pamela Homer (1985) "Physical Attractiveness of the Celebrity Endorser: A Social Adaptation Perspective." Journal of Consumer Research 11, no. 4 (Spring), 954-61.
Kamins, Michael A. (1990), "An Investigation into the Match-up" Hypothesis in Celebrity Advertising: When Beauty May Be Only Skin Deep", Journal of Advertising 19, no. 1 (Winter), 4-13.
Keiningham, Timothy L., Tiffany Perkins Munn and Heather Evans (2003), “The Impact of Customer Satisfaction on Share-of-Wallet in a Business-to-Business Environment,” Journal of Service Research, 6, no. 1 (Winter), 37–50.
Keller, Kevin L. (2007), Strategic Brand Management. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Kim, Minjeong and Sharon Lennon (2008), “The effects of visual and verbal information on attitudes and purchase intentions in internet shopping”, Marketing & Psychology, 25, no. 2 (Winter), 146-178.
Kohli, Ajay (1989), “Determinants of Influence in Organizational Buying: A Contingency Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 53, no. 3 (Summer), 50-66.
Lee, Jung-Gyo and Esther Thorson (2008), “The Impact of Celebrity-Product Incongruence on the Effectiveness of Product Endorsement”, Journal of Advertising Research, 48, no. 3 (Autumn), 433-449.
Liang, Chiung-Ju and Wen-Hung Wang (2006), “Attributes, Benefits, Customer
Satisfaction and Behavioural Loyalty”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 14, no. (Winter), 65-83.
Lievens, Filip, Greet Van Hoye and Bernard Schreurs (2005), “Examining the
relationship between employer knowledge dimensions and organisational attractiveness: an application in a military context”, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 78, 553–572.
Lievens, Filip, Greet van Hoye and Filip van Anseel (2007), “Organizational Identity and Employer Image: Towards a Unifying Framework”, British Journal of Management, 18, no. 4 (Spring), 45-59.
Luo, Xueming and Christian Homburg (2007), “Neglected Outcomes of Customer Satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, 71, no. 2 (Spring), 133-149.
Madlock, Paul E. (2008), “The Link Between Leadership Style, Communicator
Competence and Employee Satisfaction”, Journal of Business Communication, 45, no. 1 (Winter), 61-78.
Malhorta, Naresh K. (2007), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Matzler, Kurt and Birgit Renzl (2007), “Personality Traits, Employee
McQuarrie, Edward F. and J. Michael Munson (1992), “A Revised Product Involvement Inventory: Improved Usability and Validity”, Advances in Consumer Research, 19, no. 1 (Winter), 108-115.
Misra, Shekhar and Sharon E. Beatty (1990), "Celebrity Spokesperson and Brand
Congruence: An Assessment of Recall and Affect." Journal of Business Research 21, no. 2 (Winter), 195-213.
Morgan, Niel A. and Lopo L. Rego (2006), “The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in Predicting Business Performance”, Marketing
Science, 25, no. 5 (Autumn), 426-439.
O’Brien, Robert M (2007), A Caution Regarding Rules of Thumb for Variance Inflation Factors, Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht.
Park, C. Whan, Bernard J. Jaworski and Deborah J. Maclnnis (1986), “Strategic Brand Concept-Image, Management”, Journal of Marketing, 50, no. 4 (Autumn), 135-145.
Rust, Roland T., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Katherine N. Lemon (2000), Driving Customer Equity: How Customer Lifetime Value Is Reshaping Corporate Strategy. New York: The Free Press.
Seiders, Kathleen, Glenn Voss, Dhruv Grewal, and Andrea Godfrey (2005), “Do Satisfied Customers Buy More? Examining Moderating Influences in a Retailing Context,” Journal of Marketing, 69, no. 3 (Autumn), 26–43.
Sheth. Jagdish N. and Atul Parvatiyar (1995), "Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets: Antecedents and Consequences." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, no 4. (Winter), 255-71.
Smith, Gareth (2001), “The 2001 General Election: Factors Influencing the Brand Image of Political Parties and Their Leaders”, Journal of Marketing Management, 17, no. 9/10 (Autumn), 989-1006.
Szymanski, David M. and David H. Henard (2001), “Customer Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, no. 1 (Winter), 16–35.
Thomson, Matthew (2006), “Human Brands: Investigating Antecedents to Consumers' Strong Attachments to Celebrities”, Journal of Marketing, 70, no. 2 (Summer), 104-119.
Till, Brian D. and Michael Busler (1998), "Matching Products with Endorsers:
Till, Brian D. and Michael Busler (2000), "The Match-Up Hypothesis: Physical Attractiveness, Expertise, and the Role of Fit on Brand Attitude, Purchase Intent and Brand Beliefs." Journal of Advertising, 29, no. 3 (Spring), 1-13.
Uggla, Henrik (2006), “The corporate brand association base: A conceptual model for the creation of inclusive brand architecture”, European Journal of Marketing, 40, no.7/8 (Winter), 785-802.
Verhoef, Peter C. (2003), “Understanding the Effect of Customer Relationship
Management Efforts on Customer Retention and Customer Share Development,” Journal of Marketing, 67, no. 4 (Autumn), 30–45.
Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg and Bianca Grohmann (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude”, Journal of Marketing Research, 40, no. 3 (Summer), 310-320.
Warrington, Patti and Soyeon Shim (2000), “An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between Product Involvement and Brand Commitment”, Psychology & Marketing, 17, no. 9 (Autumn), 761-782.
Wegener, Duane T., Richard E. Petty & Stephen M. Smith (1995), “Positive Mood Can Increase or Decrease Message Scrutiny: The Hedonic Contingency View of Mood and Message Processing”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, no. 1 (Summer), 5-15.
