internal brand building

7/30/2019 Internal Brand Building

1/24

Internal brand building andstructuration: the role of

leadershipChristine Vallaster

Marketing Department, University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany, and

Leslie de ChernatonyBirmingham Business School, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK

Abstract

Purpose The paper aims to clarify the relationship between organisational structures and

individual brand supporting behaviour. It proposes modelling the social transformation process andoutlining why and how leadership is important throughout the internal brand building process. Thestudy aims to expand the domain of corporate branding by including a broader range of humanresource and leadership-related aspects than is normally found in the branding literature.

Design/methodology/approach The paper opted for an exploratory study using the open-endedapproach of grounded theory, including 30 depth interviews and one expert group discussion withemployees representing middle and senior management having mainly a marketing and corporatecommunications background. The data were complemented by documentary analysis, includingbrand documents, descriptions of internal processes, and copies of employee magazine articles.

Findings The paper provides empirical insights about how change is brought about duringinternal brand building. It suggests that successful leaders act as integrating forces on two levels:integrating the elements of corporate identity structures, and mediating between the corporatebranding structures and the individual.

Research limitations/implications Because of the chosen research approach, the researchresults may lack generalisability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposedpropositions further.

Practical implications The paper includes implications for the development of a powerful brandimage, the development of brand ambassadors and for managing the balance between stability andchange.

Originality/value This paper fulfils an identified need to study how brand-supportive behaviourcan be enabled.

Keywords Brand management, Corporate branding, Leadership, Social change

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

Internal brand building as a process to align staffs behaviour with a corporate brandsidentity is receiving increasing attention (e.g. de Chernatony, 2001; Keller, 1999; LePlaand Parker, 1999; Macrae, 1996; Mitchell, 2002; Tosti and Stotz, 2001). In order toreduce the gap between the desired corporate brand identity and that perceived by thecompanys stakeholders (e.g. Urde, 1994; Harris and de Chernatony, 2001; Balmer andSoenen, 1999), it is frequently pointed out that employees play a crucial role.Brand-consistent behaviour supports the development of a coherent brand image, andis considered one of the crucial success factors in corporate brand management.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Internal brandbuilding

761

Received October 2004Revised March and

November 2005Accepted December 2005

European Journal of Marketing

Vol. 40 No. 7/8, 2006

pp. 761-784

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0309-0566

DOI 10.1108/03090560610669982
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htmhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm


2/24

Despite this interest, the discussion of how brand-supportive behaviour can beachieved remains mainly normative.

Corporate structures have been identified as a driving force to enable employeesbehave in a manner which achieve strategic goals (Hatch and Schultz, 2001).

Structures are defined as the resources and rules employees draw upon everyworking day (Giddens, 1979). The corporate branding literature frequently pointsout that company structures, expressed by corporate identity, are forces tosuccessfully merge the corporate culture with management processes and systems,so that organisational thinking, behaviour and corporate design are aligned withcorporate culture (e.g. Balmer and Greyser, 2002; Balmer and Gray, 2003; Rode,2004; Birkigt et al., 1993). In detail, the artefacts associated with corporate culture(Ind, 1997), symbolic graphic design (e.g. Sarasin, 1993), corporate behaviour(Lingenfelder and Spitzer, 1987; Daft and Noe, 2001), and internal corporatecommunication (Balmer and Gray, 1999) support the integration of individualsbehaviour with the desired brand identity.

Despite the contribution of structures helping align individuals behaviour withthe defined corporate brand identity, structural conditions are open for individual(mis-)interpretation due to different employees perceptions. As such, drawing onOrtmann and Sydow (2001), corporate branding structures may not be able tofacilitate consistent individual brand behaviour. The question remains as to how toalign individual behaviours with the desired brand identity. We believe thatleaders throughout the organisation should play a crucial role in two ways: First,they are responsible for coherently and consistently defining and driving acorporate brands identity. Second, leaders mediate between organisational

structures and individuals. By doing so, leadership facilitates internal brandbuilding through initiating and facilitating behavioural changes consistent with thedesired brand identity.

The objectives of this paper are twofold. Drawing on the philosophical principles ofGiddens structuration theory, it seeks to clarify the relationship betweenorganisational structures and individual brand supporting behaviour. We seek tobuild on these concepts, complementing the framework with Archers (1995) work onmorphogenetics, to model the social transformation process to understand why andhow leadership is important throughout the internal brand building process. As part ofthese objectives we considered the implications of temporal dynamics on themanagement of corporate brands, which we believe are not adequately addressed inthe marketing literature. Our work expanded the domain of corporate branding toinclude a broader range of human resource and leadership-related aspects thannormally found in the branding literature.

The paper opens by presenting a framework regarding the key factors in internalbrand building, i.e. corporate branding structures, the individual, leadership and thechange inherent in internal brand building. Building on structuration theory, we offer aconceptual framework for understanding the influence of corporate structures andleadership on individual behaviour. Subsequently, the research data gained throughqualitative research is presented. The insights serve as the basis for developing our

propositions regarding the role of structures and leadership during internal brandbuilding. The paper concludes with directions for future research.

EJM40,7/8

762


3/24

2. Structuration and internal brand buildingOne of the aims of internal brand building is aligning individuals behaviours with thebrands espoused identity (Tosti and Stotz, 2001). An impressive body of corporatebranding literature has added credence to the view that structures, expressed by

corporate identity, facilitate the integration of individuals behaviours with the desiredbrand promise (Balmer and Gray, 2003; de Chernatony, 2001; Aaker and

Joachimsthaler, 2000; LePla and Parker, 1999; Hatch and Schultz, 2001). However, asOrtmann and Sydow (2001) observe, the problem remains of forecasting the extent towhich structures bring about the required change processes. To provide furtherinsights to this problem we draw on the structuration theory of Giddens (1976, 1979,1984a, b) as our starting point.

2.1. Developing a structurationist framework: corporate branding structures, leadershipand internal brand buildingAdopting Giddens (1979, 1984b) structuration theory as a sensitizing device, we

define corporate branding structures as rules and resources which employees can drawon to appreciate how they should act in a brand supporting manner.Crucial to the idea of structuration is that structure is both the medium and outcome

of the day-to-day conduct in which actors engage. Social systems reproduce relationsbetween the organisations actors. However, actors do not create social systems, theyreproduce or transform them in the continuous flow of conduct, drawing on structuralfeatures of social systems.

Structural properties of social systems place limits upon the options open to anactor, which vary according to contexts. In this sense, structure is both enabling andconstraining, in virtue of the inherent relation between structure and agency. Forinstance, an organisations corporate culture defines the corporate brand identity andstandards for individual behaviour. If relevant, corporate culture should enhance the

consistency of brand supporting behaviour (Rode, 2004; de Chernatony, 2001; Hatchand Schultz, 2001), by defining vision and brand goals of the organisations. At thesame time, corporate culture should also prevent brand-inadequate behaviour. Anotherexample is corporate design, which embraces all the visual aspects of the corporatebrand (Ind, 1992; Sarasin, 1993). This is usually specified in brand manuals, staffdesign brand communications. In this sense, corporate design enables brand consistentcommunication yet restricts employees creativity.

The link between interaction and structure is constituted by modalities ofstructuration i.e. the rules of legitimation, signification and resources of domination.Actors draw upon the modalities of structuration, reconstituting their structuralproperties, thereby modifying social structures. In the same way as formal andinformal communications across all levels and functions help minimise

miscomprehension about the brands promise (Thomson et al., 1999), the brandpromise at the same time contributes to the reproduction of brand supportingcommunication.

Figure 1 depicts Giddenss (1984a) theory and identifies its key conceptual elementsin the language of structuration theory. Structure is the framework for organisinginteraction through signification, domination (control), and legitimation (moralauthority). Interaction involves communication and the exercise of power andsanctions. The relationships between the elements of interaction and structure are


763


4/24

mediated by the modalities of structuration which include interpretive schemes,facilities, and norms.

Structures of signification are the rules constituting meaning; employees draw oninterpretive schemes driven by their goals to shape their communication. Thus, in aninternal brand building context, the meaning of a particular brand claim, piece ofinformation, or behavior becomes shared over time. For example, the act of wearingsimilar black suits may come to signify professionalism, although there is no reasonwhy such an act should carry such implications.

Structures of domination are asymmetries in resources such as knowledge, financialassets, and technology that employees of different hierarchical levels draw on toexercise power during the internal brand building process. A typical example is foundin information asymmetry between top management and sales staff, hindering internalbrand building initiatives.

Structures of legitimation are the norms that enable employees to justify their

behaviour. A typical example is the legitimation structure imposed by formalinformation flows. These procedures provide guidelines that direct behaviour andimpose sanctions for inappropriate brand behaviour.

Structural constraints do not operate independently of the motives agents have forwhat they do. However, acts have unintended consequences, which go beyond thosesituations and might systematically feed back to be the unacknowledged conditions offurther acts (Giddens, 1984a; Walgenbach, 1995; Ortmann et al., 1997). For instance,drawing on OReilly and Chatman (1986), one may argue that the greater the fitbetween brand values and the individual, the more likely it is that the attitudes andbehaviours of employees are consistent with the brands promise. Let us assume it wasdecided to develop personnel-selection criteria that are in line with brand values. Theapplication of such criteria may result in more formalised selection procedures, with

increased recruitment costs as potentially a greater pool of applicants need to bescreened according to their brand matching personality.

Giddens view of structuration offers a conceptual mechanism for explaining thereproduction of social structure. However, Archer (1995) raises the question: Why dosome forms of social reproduction succeed and become institutionalised, and others donot?. Why, for instance, should one internal brand building system takes its placesuccessfully in organisational life, and not another? The theory of structuration cannotanswer this question and we need to explore the role of leadership and changes.

Figure 1.Dimensions of the dualityof structure

EJM40,7/8

764


5/24

2.2. Leadership and changeTo explore the issue of social transformation and the role of leaders in this process, wedraw on Archers morphogenetic approach. Archer (1995), like Giddens (1984a),stresses that the incorporation of time is crucial to the examination of the interplay

between structure and agency. In her criticism of Giddens, she claims that structureand agency cannot work on different time intervals. Morphogenetic analysis centersaround three-part cycles of structural conditioning, social interaction and structuralelaboration. As this causal chain unravels over time, agents activities have to beconsidered as necessary but not sufficient conditions for structural change. Archerdistinguishes between corporate agents and primary agents, whereby corporateagents maintain or re-model the socio-cultural system and its institutional parts whilstprimary agents work within them. Actions by both types of agents constrain andenable one another; change is mediated through alterations in agents situations. If wecombine Archers conceptualisation of agents with Giddens conceptualisation of socialpositions as specific intersections of signification, domination and legitimation, theleader as someone who is vested with a collection of rules and resources and plays akey role reproducing or transforming social/organisational structures. Strategicallyplaced actors seek reflexively to regulate the overall conditions of system reproduction,either to keep things as they are or to change them (Giddens, 1984a). However, asArcher (1995, p. 75) stresses, social change is the result of aggregate effects producedby primary agents in conjunction with emergent properties generated by CorporateAgents and thus does not approximate to what anyone wants and society is reliantupon actors wanting change yet rarely changes in the way anybody wants. Animportant point compatible with both Archers morphogenetic approach andGiddens structuration theory is that in this process, not only is structuretransformed, but also agency becomes something different.

The literature indicates that leadership influences the alignment of individual

behaviour along corporate brand identity. However, it is unclear how leaders maybring about behavioural brand-adequate changes. Given this knowledge gap weembarked upon qualitative research.

3. Research methodologyWriters such as Locke (2003) suggest that it is particularly appropriate for qualitativeresearchers to be explicit about their beliefs and purposes. To that end, the perspectiveadopted throughout this research is essentially post-positivist (Guba and Lincoln,1994). Literature on the interaction between corporate structures and brand supportingbehaviour is mainly of a normative nature. Also, the role of leadership and brandalignment is not clear. The methodological task was to find a way to examine corporatebranding structures, individual behaviour and leadership to assess whether leadership

encourages changes to facilitate brand-supporting behaviour, or to explore whether theattention paid to leadership was relatively unimportant and that corporate brandingstructures played much stronger roles. This goal, of learning how an organisationregulated brand adequate behaviour (versus testing detailed a priori hypotheses),called for an exploratory study using the open-ended approach of grounded theory(Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

After contacting numerous companies and conducting preliminary interviews withtwo consulting experts on internal brand building processes, nine companies (one of


765


6/24

whom was located in Austria, the others have their headquarters in Germany) werewilling to participate. The companies differed in terms of size (ranging from 100 to400,000 employees) and operated in business to business (B2B) services, and businessto customer (B2C) sectors. At the time of investigation, the firms were at different

stages of their internal brand building processes.In total, 30 depth interviews and one expert group discussion were carried out with

employees representing middle and senior management having mainly a marketingand corporate communications background. These lasted from 45 to 70 minutes. Thedata were complemented by documentary analysis, including brand documents,descriptions of internal processes, and copies of employee magazine articles. Thecombination of methods was considered useful as the nature and range of theparticipants opinions were not known in advance (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Patton,2002).

Interviews were semi-structured, designed to elicit open ended descriptions aboutthe internal brand building process, challenges difficulties and actions to alignbrand-adequate individual behaviour. We explored issues of leadership, regarding

behaviours and actions associated with internal brand building. Following thegrounded approach, the content of each interview developed as the research processunfolded. Table I gives an indication of the research questions that we used in theproject. All interviews were tape recorded and subsequently transcribed.

For analysis, we followed the four-stage interactive process as depicted by Asif andSargeant (2000). Specifically we identified and coded distinct categories of meaning inthe data. This concerned issues, processes and relationships as they relate to corporatestructures, individual behaviour and leadership. The next stage was to move from adescriptive to a conceptual level of analysis. Rather than employing software, we usedcharts and network diagrams to organise the data and to generate a series oftheoretical memos. From this, we derived hypothesis regarding the relationshipsbetween corporate structures, individual behaviour and leadership, which were tested

Research question Topics/codes for analysis

Warm-up questionWhat is the current stage of internal brand building? Current stageWhat was it that triggered the attempt of making the company tobecome more brand conscious? Starting pointHow did you communicate this to your people? CommunicationWhat was their initial reaction? Reaction from employeesWhat major challenges occurred so far? Challenges (type a)What was the approach that you and your colleagues followed to solvethe problem?

What did you do in your role as leader? Leadership What structures and processes did you change (if any)? How didyou change them? Structures

How did you or what made you recognize that your efforts hadsome impact? ControlWhat were major disappointments that experienced throughout thisinternal brand building process? Challenges (type b)How would you describe the changes that happened in the minds (andhearts) of your employees? Individual changes

Table I.Topics from the interviewprotocol

EJM40,7/8

766


7/24

and refined as further emerged from the interviews. In the stage of writing up, drawingand verifying, we used the theoretical memos to explore and explain the relationshipsbetween the theoretical categories. Conclusions were tentative until they were fullygrounded in the data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

4. Research results the emerging themesThe two core themes that emerged related to structural conditions that manifest thesource of a brands identity and the leader as energiser for internal brand building.Each of these themes will be reported, based on the resulting sub-themes.

4.1. Establishing coherent structural conditions that manifest the source of the brandsidentityThe research results indicate that for successful internal brand building, leaders needto establish corporate structures (corporate culture, corporate design, corporate

communication and corporate behaviour) which convey coherent and consistentbrand-related messages for staff. As employees are one of the key stakeholders towhom a company communicates its corporate identity, in line with Hatch and Schultz(2003, 2001, 1997) and Schultz et al. (2000), we found that successful internal brandbuilding rests on a foundation of interplay between strategic vision, organisationalculture and corporate identity. Such coherency seems to be an important considerationto stimulate employees commitment with the brand.

For ease of appreciation we divided the following section along the four structuralelements of corporate identity (i.e. corporate culture, corporate design, corporatebehaviour and corporate communications):

4.1.1. Corporate culture. Comments from interviewees indicate that corporateculture is a helpful platform to develop the corporate brand and communicate its

promise to employees. Authors such as Aaker (1996) and de Chernatony and Drury(2005) argue that successful brands capitalise on the congruency betweenorganisational culture and the values of the company: there is a synergy betweenbrand and culture. The Corporate Design Manager of a B2B company stated:

Our recently developed corporate brand stands in a metaphorical relationship with the worldof an architect. Our company is considered as the architect of the modern global society.This is the smallest common element of everything that we do.

In parallel, the corporate culture had changed as is evident in their statement, Wefurther innovate and design the future. By drawing on this every employee isprovided with a framework for their own brand related behaviour. Such coherencybetween the defined corporate brand identity and corporate culture was widely

acknowledged as a key component of the firms overall corporate branding strategy.This provides a framework to leverage the brands identity into the minds and heartsof the employees and to rationalise the firms branding strategy.

A strong organisational culture may also contribute to assimilating differentunderstandings of the brands promise, due to the increasing social and functionaldiversity of people responsible for branding issues (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001).This argument was confirmed by the brand manager of a global B2B conglomeratewho reported:


767


8/24

You can go to Plastics China and there you meet Japanese colleagues of the Aircraft Enginesunit . . . they all talk the same language. Not only do you speak English, but you use the sameabbreviations, you plan according to the same operating cycles. In fact, all our business unitsplan in the same way and at the same time. This synchronization leads to the consequence

that managers can lead areas that they have never worked in.The resulting institutionalised rules for behaviour have a strong social function thattells people about appropriate behavior along the defined brand identity. For instance,the General Manager of a sports company located in Austria remarked that one of thebrand values is open mindedness. Daily business manners, such as switching intoEnglish as soon as a non-native German speaker enters the discussion, regulate thebehaviours among employees.

Corporate culture is the carrier of stories and gossip that spread information aboutvalued behaviour and heroic myths around the organisation (Sackmann, 2002). Atthe time of the investigation, one B2B company had almost five years of experience inchanging their employees mindsets from a very technically oriented company to a

strongly customer-focused one. Asked about the triggering event that finally broughtthe project into being, rumour has it that once the chief executive learned about thedisastrous results of a customer satisfaction survey, he smashed his fist on the tableand yelled We have to change something here. This travelled through the companyas gossip and underlined the importance of that firms Customer Value First project.

4.1.2. Corporate design. Creating what was also often referred to as part of thetonalities of the corporate brand identity also requires consistency with what thebrand promises. A coherent interlocking with the corporate culture was consideredcrucial as the intrinsic value of the brand through the corporate design not onlycontributes to conveying who the firm is, but also the very base of all the strategicexternal communications (see also Ruge, 1999). While authors such as Balmer (2001)write that there is still a strong association of corporate identity, branding or

marketing with graphic design or logo, our findings revealed that research participantswere well aware that corporate design is an important part although not the only one

of internal branding building.Considered as problematic were politics and time-related issues involved in

adapting the various corporate design aspects to changes resulting from the corporateculture.

At the time of research, the process of internal brand building carried out by anenergy producer was at the stage where the CEO and 1st tier leaders were about todecide on the logo and colour of its external appearance. The initial suggestions madefrom four advertising agencies were judged insufficient by the 1st tier management.However, there was one agency involved whose owner was closely connected with theCEO, who had clear expectations as to how the corporate design should look. Although

external consultants and 1st tier leaders recommended both a different agency andcolour as well as general appearance to choose, it was the CEO who took the lone pathof deciding against all suggestions made. This relates to Esch and Wicke (1999) whowrite that the form and content of corporate design elements are mainly determined bythe top management team (TMT). Although the graphic design is usually created byadvertising or communication agencies (Bergler, 1963), it is the TMT who carry theresponsibility of how the company values and its aims are perceived by the externalaudience. While this may provoke some unorthodox approaches to decision making, it

EJM40,7/8

768


9/24

is ultimately a style of leadership that reflects how people in an organisation relate toeach other.

A change of corporate design that is consistent with what the brand promises wasfrequently reported to be undertaken on a gradual basis, due to cost and manpower

issues. However, even if a complete change of the corporate design aspects takesseveral months or years to be finalised, our research shows that coherency in evenseemingly minor design facets can improve the process of internal brand building byenhancing an employees identity to the organisation. The CEO of a cosmeticscompany reported that no salary statement is distributed without a company letter thatstates the brand claim or some brand-related information. The reappraisal of acompanys history, the continuous use of the same pictures, the same logo or the sameclaim not only allows employees to acknowledge and recognise the brands promise,but also to internalise its values and identity. The brand manager of a German sportscompany stated:

In our company, sports facilities are offered around the clock for those who want to

escape from office. The intention is to live the thought of the Olympic village on asmaller scale.

Furthermore, brand-related symbols such as words (or language in general), signs, andobjects can be read and interpreted by members of the organisation while they oftenare not clear to outsiders. These stipulate identification with the brand and theorganisation. Thus we found evidence that corporate design reinforces the brandidentity and could act as a visual element encouraging brand alignment. In her studyquestioning entrepreneurs about their views on corporate branding, Rode (2004) foundconfirming evidence that if implemented in a coherent company-specific manner the corporate design contributes in enhancing corporate identity.

4.1.3. Corporate behaviour. Although it is suggested in the literature that corporate

behaviour, including personnel selection, development and incentive structures, shouldbe managed in line with the brands promise (e.g. Ind, 2001, 2003; Mitchell, 2002;

Joachimsthaler, 2002; LePla et al., 2003; Burmann and Zeplin, 2005) not all the replieswere consistent with this. A brand manager at a sports company was sceptical:

Whatever a persons strengths and weaknesses are, I do not think it is useful to pretend

when something does not exist. For instance, one of our brand values is innovative. Isimply cannot see how and why for instance, our book clerk should live this value . . .

Responding to the question How would you describe your typical employee?, thehuman resources manager of a snowboard company located in Austria repliedcritically:

I dont like the word typical. What is typical anyway? We do not consist of standardizedand uniform people.

This stands in sharp contrast to the statement of the vice president of atelecommunications company:

I am the brand and my values guide the selection process. In fact, in almost everycase it is me who makes the final decision to hire a person or not.

Also, the sales manager of a B2B company reported:


769


10/24

I no longer search for the best people in terms of who had the best grading for graduation,but for those who best represent our attitude that all our activities need to be for the best forour customers.

Thus some of the respondents questioned the assumption that the practice of aformalised brand-adequate personnel selection procedure is universal. Our resultsshowed that this process is managed implicitly and in most cases staff are selectedintuitively on values that fit the respective company culture. This is proclaimed bythe General Manager of a snowboard firm located in Austria:

Our brand values are not written down, neither are they formalised. And yet, a great majorityof our employees are active in sports a passion that is consistent with what we stand for. Itseems to be an unwritten law that we do not search for couch potatoes.

He further contended that the brand image seems to pre-select potential staff asmost of the employees who apply for a job have a similar character they share thepassion for snowboarding.

Our research indicates that a coherent integration of corporate values into thepersonnel selection process remains a key normative requirement. One reason may be alack of understanding amongst human resource managers about the effect of brandson employees (see, e.g. Schultz, 2003; Blumenthal, 2004; Tomczak and Brexendorf,2003), i.e. a strong brand triggers identification and commitment with the company.

Company-tailored salary and incentive structures aim to attract potential employeesand to motivate (Coulter, 2001). Even though Sackmann (1990) argues that thesepresent guidelines about brand supportive behavior, rewarding employees on the basisof supporting brands values and identity through appropriate brand behaviour wasnot a common practice in the companies contacted. Fears that such controllingmechanisms erase individuality were frequently surfaced. A typical comment camefrom the marketing manager of a sports firm:

We dont want to be perceived as a sect. . .

we dont want to control our people. . .

we donthave (and dont intend to install) negative sanctions for employees who do not behavebrand-adequately . . . we dont want them to lose their personality . . .

In only one B2B company it was reported that the degree to which customer orientationwas implemented was measured on a two-year basis by carrying out acustomer-satisfaction survey. The sales director of the automotive section reportedthat bad results have an adverse effect on bonuses:

This may be perceived as a rather drastic method by others, but for our company culture theterm customer orientation is something that really needs to be lived. And if people feel theconsequences (including me by having less money), it ensures that our employees are awareof the importance we [the top management] place on the project Customer Value First.

Professional development seems to be managed more in line with the defined brandvalues. In a sports shoe-producing company, employees visit the production process aspart of their training. At the production line people do not sit there to entertainvisitors, they really produce shoes of all kind football shoes, special shoes for topathletes, etc. Talking about my own experience: I was emotionally touched once Iunderstood how much manual and finicky work is needed to produce one single shoe. Ithink this stirred the first emotional charge with our brand, reported the brandmanager. Training and workshops were considered as useful tools to enhance

EJM40,7/8

770


11/24

employees understanding of the brand identity. Such two-way communicationencourages the audience to participate, which facilitates the development of intuitivelylived brand-committed behaviour (Tosti and Stotz, 2001; Ballantyne, 2003; Harris andde Chernatony, 2001). However, the development of such brand behaviour requires

repeated exercises in concrete working situations. For this to be achieved, intervieweesmentioned that utmost importance needs to be paid to using simple language whenexplaining corporate brand values. The sales director for B2B products reported:

When launching the project Customer Value First, the first problem was that people sitting at

the production site did not understand the term because it was English. So we found a

German translation which we hung up as a big poster in the production area and we

collected customer letters in which they gave us compliments for the work or in which they

wrote a complaint. The effect was fantastic: Our employees stood in front of these billboards

and started talking about customers, their expectations, and so on. Suddenly the abstract

term Customer Value First became meaning for them.

4.1.4. Corporate communication directed towards employees and external stakeholdersCorporate communication is defined as the information flow to transmit the definedcorporate identity which targets staff as well as external stakeholders (Birkigt et al.,1993; van Riel, 1995; Lingenfelder and Spitzer, 1987). However, in-depth interviewsrevealed that there is often a gap between what is decided by top management asregards corporate culture, design, behaviour and what is internalised by staff. Themajority of participants confirmed that many internal brand-building efforts fail to beeffectively implemented due to a lack of convincing communication. One of the B2Bcompanies was in the midst of communicating the newly defined corporate brandidentity to their global subsidiaries. Their corporate communication manager reported:

Our communication colleagues worldwide (approx. 1,000 employees) have now been made

aware of the corporate branding issue. Adding our top people, these are about 6,000 out of400,000 employees. And thats our problem. For all other people . . . the topic corporate

branding is only written on paper as is with many other topics. The question is How to

initiate behavioural changes? or How can we ensure that behavior is strongly channelled

along the newly defined brand values?.

Although the company employed a wide range of communication tools, includingbrand books, brand fact sheets, videos and a musical group that travelled throughoutthe firm, there was great concern that what was defined at the top was not reachingemployees further down the hierarchy.

To support the internal brand building process, information from externalstakeholders should ideally travel up the organisation. This is required to get a feeling

of how the desired brand identity converges with the perceived brand image. It wasfrequently pointed out that there must be continuous auditing of both the brand imageand the internal process of brand building: The need for success is the sword ofDamocles in every branding initiative. The brand strategy is useless if the companydoes not earn money, if it does not sell what the customer wants. The ability foradaptation, the capability of regularly reflecting about what is being done and itsprojection to the future is extremely important, noted the brand manager of a B2Bcompany. To achieve this, companies need brand-information loops and employees


771


12/24

who have the ability to act as information carriers between the company and externalstakeholders. A Financial Officer in a sports company recalled:

I used to travel a lot to our Italian market. There I was part of a lot of events and parties.Those trips were very stimulating as you meet people personally and dont just talk withthem on the phone. The brand-related stimuli I gained during those journeys stronglyaffected my thinking and behaviour and I also reported them to colleagues within thecompany.

Employees should be able to judge if there is a misfit between the internal and externalbranding campaign and take any corrective action they feel to be necessary. This helpscorporate brand identity to evolve (Kapferer, 2004).

To make sure that brand-related information travels within the company,structures must be permeable. Even though internal power struggles were reported toinhibit information flow, it is the leader who needs to show sensibility towards externalforces and customer expectations in order to fulfil the role of being a guardian of thebrand.

By integrating corporate structures with a platform that may be the source of thecorporate brands identity, the structural conditions for employees to be able to behavein line with the brand values necesitate synchronisation. However, successful internalbrand building needs more than this, i.e. changes in individual behaviour requiretriggering emotional facets of an employee. The question still remains: Where does theenergy come from to initiate behavioural changes consistent with the brand identity?

4.2. The leader as energiser for internal brand buildingBased on our research, we postulate that leaders play an active role during the brandbuilding process when it comes to translating the brands promise into action.Leaders not only influence the internal brand building process via verbal

communication, but also through non-verbal communication, experienced in theirsocial interactions. Successful internal brand building conceives employees asbrand-related information carriers.

4.2.1. The role of communication and social interaction. There is evidence topostulate that successful leaders are those who consistently and repeatedlycommunicate messages to employees about the brand identity and commitment toliving the brands promise. Leaders need a consciousness for organisationalcommunication. This is reflected in Paul Watzlawicks statement One cannot notcommunicate (Watzlawick et al., 2000, p. 56). Each type of communication includes acontent and relationship-aspect. The multi-level nature of this relationship amongstcommunicating members needs to be considered in daily organisationalcommunication (Cole, 2001). While the symbolism of top management speeches doesnot guarantee the desired change, they are important expressions of a companysvalues and priorities. The communication manager of a B2B company reported:

During one of these events one top manager said: What we need at the moment are managersand employees who do not only have a passion for business, but also a passion forSunrise[1]. These are powerful words. However, the way he talked to us was very boring he more or less re-read the statements.

He clarified why the way the message delivered is so important:

EJM40,7/8

772


13/24

It should be wired to say We are the greatest, we are the champions Sunrise. Credibilityincreases only if one supports and underlines these statements with business issues, i.e. facts,company and/or branding goals. The statement And we are going to kill the others!! isdefinitely not the right way.

This is in line with Stephenson (2004) who claims that open, non-contradictory andreliable communication facilitates the development of trust and credibility of thebrands promise, which is represented by leaders.

The leaders verbal communications need to be complemented by non-verbalcommunication that places the leadership responsibility for corporate branding highon the companys agenda (see also Asif and Sargeant, 2000; de Chernatony andSegal-Horn, 2001; Thomson et al., 1999). Non-verbal communication elements such asdress-codes, the way colleagues are addressed, etc. are subtle techniques that may havean effect encouraging employee behaviour supporting the brand promise. By so doingleaders act as facilitators between structures and individuals, creating a frameworkthat encourages brand supporting employee behaviour. In detail, non-verbalcommunicative behaviours including showing commitment, living brand values andidentity, and trusting and enabling employees, were surfaced as crucial leadershipbehaviours. Our research suggests that truly committed managers considerthemselves part of the internal brand building process and work diligently tocontinuously progress the internal brand building process. Such managers activelylearn from anyone who might provide valuable insight, including their followers. Also,it was frequently pointed out that talk does not count for much. Eloquentlyphilosophising about commitment will lead to failure . . . you need to live the brandvalues was an often mentioned credo. All interviewees also highlighted that to trustemployees to live their brands identity requires a radically different understanding ofleadership. Enabling rather than controlling needs to be the focus. I cannot control allmy employees and yet there is truth in the saying that the lower the management

level, the more your employees require strong guidance, said the senior vice presidentof a telecommunication company.These leadership behaviours facilitate internal brand building processes and

channel the energy necessary for change processes. Strong, highly visible supportfrom senior leaders, coupled with an organisational structure, are critical.

5. Discussion structuration of internal branding and leadershipThrough grounded theory we have insight about internal brand building as seen in thecompanies interviewed. Couching the findings within the structuration-basedframework we adopted, and linking them to knowledge in the area of corporatebranding and leadership, the following emerges:

5.1. Implications for a structuration-based approach towards internal brand buildingThe core of external corporate branding are rules and resources inherent in corporatebranding structures that influence employees perceptions of the corporate brand.These are mediated by scripts that may be thought of as plans for recurrent patternsof action (Barley, 1989, p. 53). Corporate branding therefore links individuals to thestructure of the organisation by fusing the objective with the subjective. Hatch andSchultz (2003) argue that a corporate brand is a set of symbols that allows stakeholderto make their own meaning in the context of their world. Hence, the work setting is


773


14/24

likely to redefine the brands promise. For instance, the project Customer Value Firstthat triggered the internal brand building efforts in this B2B company was givendifferent meanings by employees: Whereas top management knew what was meant bythis term and attached importance to the project, leaders lower in the hierarchy, as well

as their employees, were unfamiliar with its content. As symbols and meanings aresubjective, there is great difficulty aligning individual mental models. The way diverseorganisational members perceive and act upon corporate branding structures maydiffer due to their social and functional background, and can ultimately result ininconsistent brand-related understandings. Adopting the structuration perspective, asintroduced in the earlier part of this paper, facilitates analysis of the underlyingmechanism for such individual processes:

The model of structuration of corporate branding conceptualises corporatebranding as individual and social structuration processes. From the perspective of theindividual, the structuration process leads to (re)production and modification ofcorporate branding anchors which act as reference points for individual behaviour. Bycontrast, from the perspective of social structures it leads to (re)production andmodification of rules and resources of corporate brand structures. The mediators inthis process are schemas and corporate branding scripts which are the crossroads ofsignification, legitimation, and dominance (see Figure 2).

Leaders are as are all other organisational members either enabled orconstrained by corporate structure. Although some may have more access to resourcesdue to their hierarchical position within a company, we believe actions related tointernal brand building are pervasive for the entire organisation only if the leadershiproles are filled by all those who have responsibility for a specific brand-related area andare leading other employees.

5.2. Integrating corporate identity structures: implications for the development of apowerful brand imageOur research reveals that successful internal brand building projects are characterisedby a high degree of coherency and consistency of corporate identity structures,facilitated by leadership. If leaders fail to integrate them, every corporate brandingeffort is bound to fail. The case of British Airways as depicted by Hatch and Schultz(2003) tells the story of repositioning the company from being the worlds favouriteairline to being the worlds favourite airline. To engage its global market more fully,British Airways decided to work with a variety of changes in the corporate structure,including a change of corporate design (e.g. replacing the British flag by a morecontemporary symbol that retained the red and blue colours of the British flag withoutactually displaying the Union Jack), and they had the vision (to go global), culture

(service-oriented) and image (the worlds favourite airline) in place. However, thecorporate branding efforts were unsuccessful due to dissonance between the revampedexteriors of the airplanes, with their message of inclusive diversity, and the interior,where an aggressively deferential service culture signalled the continued dominance oftraditional Britishness within the company culture:

The lessons learned from BA is that it is the relationships between vision, culture and images,not the elements themselves, that determine the success of corporate branding efforts (Hatchand Schultz, 2003, p. 1057).

EJM40,7/8

774


15/24

This example shows that consistency and coherence between the corporate identityelements (i.e. corporate culture, corporate design, corporate communication and

corporate behaviour) are crucial for successfully developing a corporate brands image.An example of great coherency of corporate brand elements is that of Walt Disney: Theparks are well kept and strive to be as magical as the company wants its brand imageto be. There are no limits when buildings and sets are designed for the parks as thecompany strives to reach perfection, quality, and satisfaction with every new addition.The parks follow a strict code when it comes to customer service to ensure that anyperson who walks through the gates finds a happy, welcoming world where theirinteractions are met with a smile.

We posit that successful leaders are those who adopt a holistic understanding ofthe corporate brand, considering it as the total sum of organisational signs that aretransferred to its audiences: through the core values for which the organisationstands (Ind, 1997), the behaviour of employees (Duncan and Moriarty, 1998;Bergstrom et al., 2002; Tomczak and Brexendorf, 2003), all symbolic representationsregarding graphic designs (e.g. Abratt, 1989; Balmer, 1995; van Riel and Balmer,1997), and finally, via all corporate communication for internal and externalstakeholders (Argenti, 1998; Jablin and Putnam, 2001). From the above discussion wederive the following proposition:

P1. Successful leaders act as integrators between the elements of corporateidentity structures in order to develop a powerful brand image.

Figure 2.Structuration of internalbranding and the role of

leadership


775


16/24

5.3. Integrating corporate branding structures and individual behaviour: Implicationsfor the temporal dynamics on the facilitation of brand ambassadorsLeaders initiate and facilitate change consistent with a brands identity by acting asmediators between corporate branding structure and individual behaviour. Leaders do

this by interlinking corporate branding structures and individual brand-adequatebehavioUr so that individual and organisational structure can shape and be shaped byone another. Based on our research we argue that successful leaders are enablers of thebrands identity and manage the organisational signals in line with defined brandartefacts.

Employees, just as consumers, want to be engaged in experiences that let themtouch and feel the brand. Leaders need to help employees become aware that thereare multiple touchpoints where customers come in contact with their brand (Davisand Dunn, 2002). One of the common elements of those touchpoints is employeebehaviours. Whether experienced when talking to the receptionist, or the contactperson on the phone, a consistent corporate brand supportive behaviour of employeeswill immerse customers in the brand.

It is the leaders task to allow employees to correctly interpret their brands identityin their behaviour at each touch-point. Employees need to see and feel leadershipssupport of the brand and the human touch cannot be overemphasised (Vallaster andde Chernatony, 2005). This, we argue is crucial for the stipulation of an emotionalattachment with the organisation, the corporate brand.

A notable body of literature is focusing on the bonds that form between employeesand their organisation (e.g. van Dick, 2001; Mowday, 1998; Steers, 1977; Meyer andAllen, 1997). In particular, the works by Meyer and Allen (1984) plus Allen and Meyer(1990) have been influential in conceptualising commitment, distinguishing betweenaffective, continuance and normative commitment. In their meta-analysis ofantecedents, correlates, and consequences Meyer et al. (2002) found that affective

commitment has the strongest and most favourable correlation with organisationalrelevant outcomes such as organisational citizenship behaviour.

Using this analogy, Burmann and Zeplin (2005) consider brand-citizenshipbehaviour as resulting from a strong, emotionally characterised desire to fulfil thecorporate brands promise. For this to occur, there must be a moral and emotionalbound between the organisation and employees that goes beyond a normalrelationship. We argue that employees need to have a particular feeling of belonging toan organisation. Such identification is strongly related to the concept of internalisation.Through internalisation, employees incorporate the core values of a brand into theirown value system (Burmann and Zeplin, 2004, 2005) and are therefore more likely towork towards the success of the organisation, because in doing so they are behaving ina manner consistent with their own values (Meyer and Allen, 1991, p.76). Employees

develop an inner conviction that the corporate brands promise is important and addsvalue to the consumers (de Chernatony and Segal-Horn, 2001, Thomson et al., 1999).

Drawing on this theoretical basis, internal brand building as a process of changealigning individual behaviour along the defined corporate brand identity is related toleadership. Leaders need to show how employees can become brand ambassadorsthrough their work as participants in a corporate branding system, rather than assumeit as an act of faith. This, we argue, may facilitate the development of brandcommitment, i.e. the antecedent of brand-supportive behaviour:

EJM40,7/8

776


17/24

P2. Leaders act as mediators between corporate branding structures andindividuals during the process of internal brand building.

P3. Leaders facilitate employee brand commitment by acting as a role model,

communicating in a manner supporting the desired brand identity.

5.4. Monitoring the corporate brands identity on a time axis: implications for managingthe balance between stability and changeOur results provide evidence that structural information is the basis for reflection byorganisational members and for the subsequent evolution of the brands identity.Employees who work at the interface company stakeholder always receive someform of feedback when reproducing the brand identity (Farmer et al., 1998). Ifemployees know what the brands identity is all about, unfavourable feedback to theway the brand identity is executed (e.g. if customer needs are not targeted) may resultin threatening the legitimacy of the brand. However, such brand-relevant informationprovided by consumers and/or other company stakeholders will travel up the

organisational hierarchy only if permeable structures support information flow and ifemployees are enabled to critically reflect upon the usefulness of brand-related stimuli.We therefore propose that it is the leaders role to establish control mechanisms that

surface gaps between brand activities perceived from an internal and externalperspective. Through tools such as a brand-control cockpit or brand-score cards (e.g.Linxweiler, 2001), effective gathering and analysis of information that allow fordecisions regarding changing vs retaining elements of the brands identity is possible.However, our research revealed that most companies are still far away from installingsuch comprehensive control systems. Although there is huge data available, littledirectly relates to branding. Hence, a comparison between different business areas,countries or external versus internal brand perspective is often not possible.

P5. Leaders should design permeable corporate branding structures whichallow for regular check-ups between internal and external brand building.

Successful internal brand building is dependent on leadership and the structuralsystem in which it is placed. Depending on the definition of responsibilities, rules andresources supporting acceptable brand-related behaviour, leaders and employees havedifferent frameworks for brand-adequate experience and hence, behaviours.

6. Conclusion and future researchThe aim of this paper was to provide insights about internal brand building based on astructuration theory perspective. It couples an analysis of the behaviour of employeeswith an investigation of corporate brand-related structures and associated rules andresources.

Transformation from one mode of structuration to another (i.e. changes duringinternal brand building processes) requires leadership. This is because the introductionof new structural properties (new rules and resources that enable internal brandbuilding) occurs at a critical juncture where the existing institutional orders mediatingthe action of leaders and employees alike are called into question. However, theresearch revealed that structural properties can be changed by leaders (i.e. agents inpositions of authority) thereby altering the basis on which the organisational repertoireis mediated and produced. In fact, leaders serve as catalysts for internal brand building


777


18/24

program initiatives, and related resources for brand-related information, knowledgeand networking.

Further research is needed to understand how corporate branding structures are(re)produced in group interactions by looking more closely at schemas and scripts that

emerge from social interaction. There is also a need for a greater understanding of therole of the leader in internal brand building. We believe that current texts on internalbrand building have neglected the contribution of communication and interaction infacilitating brand-adequate behaviour. There are however exceptions. For instance,Smith and Peterson (1988), in addition to Smith et al. (1996) carried out leadershipstudies that took into account interpretive structures and complex social processes.They reported the importance of domination, social interaction and social ties whenunderstanding leadership processes. The focus on social processes towards leadershippresents a shift away from the dominant idea (in fact, the idea experiences a rebirthwith the contemporary celebration of transformational or charismatic leadership, see,e.g. Kark et al. 2003) that the agency of a leader is seen as the cause for social processeswithin organisation (Resch et al., 2005).

Our understanding of leadership in the context of internal brand building is one thatis strongly influenced by the relational perspective (Dachler, 1992, 1988; Dachler et al.1994). In an attempt to facilitate the development of a shared understanding of thecorporate brands identity, the myth of leader as a doer is replaced by being anenergiser, supporter, enabler or even an accelerator or decelerator to avoidusing the terms of coach, mentor or moderators (Manella, 2005). There is no bestpractice approach towards leadership during internal brand building. However, wenoted the attention needed for issues that may or may not have an influence on how therelationships between employees and leaders take place. We never know howemployees evaluate realities or judge relationships. Hence, we never know exactlyhow others will behave. Through feedback leaders need to learn about relevant

relationships in a specific context. For instance, internal brand building is a strategicmatter that needs to be developed from and supported by top management.Consequently the structural issues of power that mediates superior-subordinaterelations cannot be ignored when analyzing internal brand building processes. In fact,their social position enables leaders to design brand-supporting corporate structuresthat subtly enable (restrain) brand (in)adequate behaviours. Nevertheless, it is abalancing act for leaders to learn how and what do to that keeps the internal brandbuilding process ongoing.

Researching the propositions advanced in this paper should allow researchers andpractitioners alike to develop a grounded understanding of prerequisites (at anorganisational as well as individual level) for facilitating change during internal brandbuilding processes.

We propose that action research/action learning (ALAR) could provide a fruitfulapproach to exploring internal brand building processes. This methodology isparticularly suited for exploring leadership processes and individual learning as itlooks at changes on an individual as well as group/organisational level (Kemnis andMcTaggert, 1988). ALAR acknowledges that people as social beings, (re)constitutereality continuously and actions and social relations are socially constructed (Kemnisand McTaggert, 1988). It fits nicely with our understanding of internal brand buildingand leadership as a structured change processes.

EJM40,7/8

778


19/24

Note

1. Company name is changed for anonymity reasons.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Stronger Brands, Free Press, New York, NY.

Aaker, D.A. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000), Brand Leadership, Free Press, New York, NY.

Abratt, R. (1989), A new approach to the corporate image management process, Journal of

Marketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 63-76.

Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance

and normative commitment to the organization, Journal of Occupational Psychology,

Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Archer, M. (1995), Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Argenti, P.A. (1998), Corporate Communication, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.Asif, S. and Sargeant, A. (2000), Modelling internal communications in the financial services

sector, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 3/4, pp. 299-317.

Ballantyne, D. (2003), A relationship-mediated theory of internal marketing, European Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 1242-60.

Balmer, J.M.T. (1995), Corporate branding and connoisseurship, Journal of General

Management, Nos 21, Autumn, pp. 21-46.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing. seeing

through the fog, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 248-91.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (1999), Corporate identity and corporate communications:

creating a strategic advantage, Corporate Communications: An International Journal,

Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 171-6.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003), Corporate brands: what are they? What of them?,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 972-98.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2002), Managing the multiple identities of the corporation,

California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 72-87.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Soenen, G.B. (1999), The acid test of corporate identity management,

Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 69-92.

Barley, S. (1989), Careers, identities, and institutions: the legacy of the Chicago School of

Sociology, in Arthur, M., Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B. (Eds), Handbook of Career Theory,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 41-65.

Bergler, R. (1963), Psychologie des Marken- und Firmenbildes, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,Gottingen.

Bergstrom, A., Blumenthal, D. and Crothers, S. (2002), Why internal branding matters: the case

of Saab, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 133-42.

Birkigt, K., Stadler, M.M. and Funck, H.J. (1993), Corporate Identity: Grundlagen, Funktionen,

Fallbeispiele, 10th ed., Verlag Moderne Industrie, Landsberg/Lech.

Blumenthal, D. (2004), For the end of brand balderdash and the beginning of a real future,

Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 177-9.


779


20/24

Burmann, C. and Zeplin, S. (2004), Innengerichtetes identitatsbasiertes Markenmanagement

State-of-the-Art und Forschungsbedarf, LIM Arbeitspapier 7, Universitat Bremen,

available at: www.lim.uni-bremen.de/index.php4?pageID 340 (accessed 22 September

2004).

Burmann, C. and Zeplin, S. (2005), Building brand commitment: a behavioral approach to

internal brand building, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 279-300.

Cole, K. (2001), Kommunikation klipp und klar. Besser verstehen und verstanden werden, 3rd ed.,

Beltz Verlag, Weinheim and Basel.

Coulter, M. (2001), Entrepreneurship in Action, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Dachler, H.P. (1988), Constraints on the emergence of new vistas in leadership and management

research: an epistemological overview, in Hunt, J.G., Baliga, B.R. and Dachler, H.P. (Eds),

Emerging Leadership Vistas, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 261-85.

Dachler, H.P. (1992), Management and leadership as relational phenomena, in van Cranach, M.,

Doise, W. and Mugny, J. (Eds), Social Representation and the Social Basis of Knowledge,

Haupt, Bern, pp. 169-78.Dachler, H.P., Pless, N. and Raeder, S. (1994), Psychologie der Fuhrung: Fragen und Antworten

im Spannungsfeld unterschiedlicher Wertvorstellungen und Menschenbilder,

Psychoscope, Vol. 15, pp. 7-10.

Daft, R.L. and Noe, R.A. (2001), Organisational Behavior, Harcourt College, Orlando, FL.

Davis, S.M. and Dunn, M. (2002), Building the Brand-driven Business Operationalize Your

Brand to Drive Profitable Growth, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.

de Chernatony, L. (2001), From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation Strategically Building and

Sustaining Brands, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.

de Chernatony, L. and Drury, S. (2005), Internal brand factors driving successful financial

services brands, School Working Paper Series, Birmingham Business School,

Birmingham.

de Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S. (2001), Building on services characteristics to develop

successful services brands,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17 Nos 7/8, pp. 645-69.

Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S.E. (1998), A communication-based marketing model for managing

relationships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 1-13.

Edwards, T. (2000), Innovation and organizational change: developments towards an

interactive process perspective, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 12

No. 4, pp. 445-62.

Esch, F.R. and Wicke, A. (1999), Herausforderungen und Aufgaben des Markenmanagement,

in Esch, F.-R. (Ed.), Moderne Markenfuhrung. Grundlagen innovative Ansatze

praktische Umsetzungen, Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 3-55.

Farmer, B.A., Slater, J. and Wright, K.S. (1998), The role of communication in achieving shared

vision under new organizational leadership, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 10

No. 4, pp. 219-35.

Giddens, A. (1976), New Rules of Sociological Method. A Positive Critique of Interpretative

Sociologies, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Giddens, A. (1979), Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in

Social Analysis, University of California Press, Berkley, CA.

EJM40,7/8

780


21/24

Giddens, A. (1984a), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Polity,

Cambridge.

Giddens, A. (1984b), Interpretative Soziologie. Eine kritische Einfuhrung, Campus, Frankfurt.

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine, Chicago, IL.

Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994), Competing paradigms in qualitative research, in

Lincoln, Y.S. (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,

pp. 105-17.

Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001), Corporate branding and corporate brand performance,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 441-56.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (1997), Relations between organizational culture, identity and

image, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 356-65.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2001), Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand,

Harvard Business Review, February, pp. 128-34.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2003), Bringing the corporation into corporate branding, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1041-64.Ind, N. (1992), The Corporate Image: Strategies for Effective Identity Programmes, Kogan Page,

London.

Ind, N. (1997), The Corporate Brand, Macmillan, London.

Ind, N. (2001), Living the Brand: How to Transform Every Member of Your Organization into a

Brand Champion, Kogan Page, London.

Ind, N. (2003), Inside out: how employees build value, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10

No. 6, pp. 393-402.

Jablin, F. and Putnam, L. (2001), Organizational Communication, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA and

London.

Joachimsthaler, E. (2002), Commitment: Mitarbeiter Die vergessene Zielgruppe furMarkenerfolge, Absatzwirtschaft, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 28-34.

Kapferer, J.N. (2004), The New Strategic Brand Management, Kogan, London/New York, NY.

Kark, R., Shamir, B. and Chen, G. (2003), The two faces of transformational leadership:

empowerment and dependency, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 246-55.

Keller, K.L. (1999), Brand mantras: rationale, criteria and examples, Journal of Marketing

Management, Vol. 15 Nos 1-3, pp. 43-51.

Kemnis, S. and McTaggert, R. (1988), The Action Research Planner, Deakin University Press,

Victoria.

LePla, J.F. and Parker, L.M. (1999), Integrated branding: Becoming Brand-driven Through

Company-wide Action, Quorum Books, London.

LePla, J.F., Davis, S.V. and Parker, L.M. (2003), Brand Driven: The Route to Integrated Brandingthrough Great Leadership, Kogan Page, London.

Lingenfelder, M. and Spitzer, L. (1987), Determinanten der Realisierung und Wirkungen einer

Corporate Identity, Working Paper No. 62, Mannheim, University of Mannheim.

Linxweiler, R. (2001), BrandScoreCard, Sehnert, Gro-Umstadt.

Locke, K. (2003), Grounded Theory in Management Research, Sage, London.

Macrae, C. (1996), The Brand Chartering Handbook, EIU/Addison-Wesley, Harlow.


781


22/24

Manella, J. (2005), Wie ein relationales Fuhrungsverstandnis zu kultivieren ist, in Resch, D.,

Dey, P., Kluge, A. and Steyaert, C. (Eds), Organisationspsychologie als Dialog Inquiring

Social Constructionist Possibilities in Organizational Life, Pabst Science Publishers,

Lengerich, pp. 122-31.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1984), Testing the side-bet theory of organizational commitment:some methodological considerations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3,pp. 372-8.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), A three-component conceptualization of organizational

commitment, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and

Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), Affective, continuance, and

normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and

consequences, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 20-52.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage,

Beverly Hills, CA.

Mitchell, C. (2002), Selling the brand inside, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 99-105.

Mowday, R.T. (1998), Reflections on the study and relevance of organisation commitment,

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 387-401.

Ortmann, G. and Sydow, J. (2001), Strukturationstheorie als Metatheorie des strategischen

Managements Zur losen Integration der Paradigmenvielfalt, in Ortmann, G. and Sydow,

J. (Eds), Strategie und Strukturation. Strategisches Management von Unternehmen,

Netzwerken und Konzernen, Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 421-48.

Ortmann, G., Sydow, J. and Windeler, A. (1997), Organisation, Strukturation, Gesellschaft: Die

Ruckkehr der Gesellschaft in die Organisationstheorie, in Ortmann, G., Sydow, J. and

Turk, K. (Eds), Theorien der Organisation: Die Ruckkehr der Gesellschaft, Westdeutscher

Verlag, Opladen, pp. 315-54.OReilly, C. III and Chatman, J. (1986), Organizational commitment and psychological

attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization of prosocial

behaviour, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 492-9.

Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed., Sage Publications,London.

Resch, D., Dey, P., Kluge, A. and Steyaert, C. (2005), Organisationspsychologie als Dialog

Inquiring Social Constructionist Possibilities in Organizational Life, Pabst Science

Publishers, Lengerich.

Rode, V. (2004), Corporate Branding von Grundungsunternehmen Der erfolgreiche Aufbau der

Unternehmensmarke, in Koch, L., Kollmann, P and Witt, T. (Eds), Reihe

Entrepreneurship, Verlag Gabler, Wiesbaden.Ruge, H.-D. (1999), Aufbau von Markenbildern, in Esch, F.-R. (Ed.), Moderne Markenfuhrung:

Grundlagen innovative Ansatze praktische Umsetzungen, Gabler, Wiesbaden,pp. 165-84.

Sackmann, S. (2002), Unternehmenskultur, Luchterhand, Neuwied.

Sackmann, S.A. (1990), Moglichkeiten der Gestaltung von Unternehmenskultur, in Lattmann, C.

(Ed.), Die Unternehmenskultur: ihre Grundlagen und ihre Bedeutung fur die Fuhrung der

Unternehmung, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 153-88.

EJM40,7/8

782


23/24

Sarasin, W. (1993), Planung und Durchfuhrung von CI-Projekten: Vorgehensweise und

Checkliste, in Birkigt, K., Stadler, M.M. and Funck, H.J. (Eds), Corporate Identity:

Grundlagen, Funktionen, Fallsbeispiele, Verlag Moderne Industrie, Landsberg/ Lech,

pp. 579-92.

Schultz, D.E. (2003), So you want to be a branding guru?,Marketing Management, Vol. 12No. 2,pp. 8-9.

Schultz, M., Larsen, M.H. and Hatch, M.J. (2000), The Expressive Organization: Linking Identity,

Reputation, and the Corporate Brand, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Smith, P.B. and Peterson, M.F. (1988), Leadership, Organization and Culture: An Event

Management Model, Sage, London.

Smith, P.B., Peterson, M.F. and Wang, Z.M. (1996), The manager as mediator of alternative

meanings: a pilot study from China, the USA and UK, Journal of International Business

Studies, Vol. 27 Nos 1, First Quarter, pp. 115-37.

Steers, R.M. (1977), Antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 46-56.

Stephenson, C. (2004), Rebuilding trust: the integral role of leadership in fostering values,honesty and vision, Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 68 3, January/February, pp. 1-5.

Thomson, K., de Chernatony, L., Arganbright, L. and Khan, S. (1999), The buy-in benchmark:

how staff understanding and commitment impact brand and business performance,

Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 8 No. 15, pp. 819-35.

Tomczak, T. and Brexendorf, T. (2003), International Branding Wie viel Brand Manager hat

ein Unternehmen wirklich?, personlich Die Zeitschrift fur Marketing und

Unternehmensfuhrung, January-February, pp. 58-9.

Tosti, D.T. and Stotz, R.D. (2001), Brand: building your brand from the inside out, Marketing

Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 28-33.

Urde, M. (1994), Brand orientation a strategy for survival, Journal of Consumer Marketing,

Vol. 11, pp. 18-32.

Vallaster, C. and de Chernatony, L. (2005), Internationalisation of services brands: the role of

leadership during the internal brand building process, Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 21 Nos 1-2, pp. 181-203.

van Dick, R. (2001), Identification in organizational contexts: linking theory and research from

social and organizational psychology, International Journal of Management Reviews,

Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 265-83.

van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication, Prentice-Hall, Harlow.

van Riel, C. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and

management, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 340-56.

Walgenbach, P. (1995), Die Theorie der Strukturierung, Die Betriebswirtschaft, Vol. 55 No. 6,

pp. 761-83.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H. and Jackson, D.D. (2000), Menschliche Kommunikation. Formen,Storungen, Paradoxien, Huber Verlag, Bern.

Further reading

Balmer, J. (1998), Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing, Journal of

Marketing Management, Vol. 1 No. 14, pp. 963-96.


783


24/24

About the authors

Christine Vallaster obtained her doctorate degree (PhD) in Marketing on strategy-making by

multicultural workgroups from the Leopold Franzens University, Innsbruck, Austria. There, she

researched and lectured for more than two-and-a-half years before she visited the marketing

department at IAE, Universidad Austral (Argentina) as a research and teaching fellow. FromAugust 2003 to October 2004, she was granted the prestigious Alexander von

Humboldt-research award in Germany. She is now a research fellow sponsored by the

German Scientific Community (DFG). Her focus of research interest is internal brand-building

processes, culture, leadership, and branding issues. She is currently at the Department of

Marketing, University of Giessen (Germany). For her research, she received several awards such

as the doctoral dissertation award by the Academy of Marketing Science (AMS). She was also

honoured as one of the finalists for the Gunnar Hedlund Award sponsored by the Stockholm

School of Business and Economics in 2001. Additionally, she works as a consultant. Christine

Vallaster is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] de Chernatony is Professor of Brand Marketing and Director of the Centre for Research

in Brand Marketing at Birmingham University Business School. With a doctorate in brand

marketing, he has a substantial number of publications in American and European journals and

is a regular presenter at international conferences. He has several books on brand marketing, the

two most recent being Creating Powerful Brands and From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation,both published by Elsevier. A winner of several research grants, his two most recent grants have

supported research into factors associated with high performance brands and research into

services branding. He was Visiting Professor at Madrid Business School and is currently

Visiting Professor at Thammasat University, Bangkok and University of Lugano, Switzerland.

Leslie is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing and Fellow of the Market Research

Society. He acts as an international consultant to organisations seeking more effective brand

strategies and has run acclaimed branding seminars throughout Europe, Asia, America and the

Far East.

EJM40,7/8

784

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

internal brand building

Documents