Glosario

The framework described above provides a theoretically valid account of the relationship between a unique and attractive corporate identity and the behaviour of employees. However, in order to maintain the integrity of the framework, it is necessary to operationalize all the relevant terms and concepts – including identity and attractiveness – through the lens of Social Identity Theory.

3.3.1 Conceptualizing corporate identity

Although the antecedents and consequences of identification have been studied extensively, very few researchers have applied this lens to the study of corporate identity. Therefore, in order to develop a preliminary view of the construct, it is useful to refer to the original statements of Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) and Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, 1987).

When viewed through the lens of Social Identity Theory, corporate identity is a cognitive construct that exists in the minds of employees. More specifically, it refers to

described in terms of ‘shared social norms of fact and value’ (Turner, 1987). ‘Facts’ refer to the substantive attributes of the organisation, which are objectively real and readily apparent to people inside and outside the organisation. ‘Values’ refer to the judgements employees make about those objective attributes. These are entirely subjective and susceptible to in-group bias. As a result, the perceptions of insiders and outsiders are likely to be similar, but their evaluation of the organisation’s identity may be very different; since identity is defined in terms of ‘fact’ and ‘value,’ the construct can only be understood by studying the perspective organisational insiders – in other words, employees.

Social Identity Theory suggests that the views of individual employees are likely to be very similar to one another, but they need not be identical. For example, Tajfel and Turner (1979) describe a social group as:

‘a collection of individuals who perceive themselves to be members of the same social category, share some emotional involvement in this common definition of themselves , and achieve some degree of consensus about the evaluation of their group and of their membership of it’ (emphasis added).

Therefore, identity appears to be a complex and somewhat paradoxical phenomenon; Scott and Lane (2000) explain that ‘organisational identity, although variously perceived, has a reality independent of individual members’ and they go on to say that ‘its significance depends on a collective audience, among whom there is some level of consensus – albeit how much remains in question.’

In short, Social Identity Theory suggests that corporate identity is an organisation level construct that exists in the minds of individual employees. This seemingly paradoxical view of identity helps to explain how individual employees are able to think and act in similar ways (Dutton and Ducherich, 1991). However, from a research standpoint it also raises two important questions. First, when studying corporate identity as an

employee in order to be considered part of the organisation’s identity? If not, is it sufficient for an attribute to be perceived by one employee, by two employees, by the majority of employees? Second, what level of variation can be accepted within a particular organisation before it can no longer be considered a single ‘social group’? 3.3.2 Understanding how current employees evaluate the identity of their own organisation

The original statement of Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) suggests that current employees will seek to frame the comparison with other organisations in such a way that their own organisation may be construed as ‘positively distinct’ from comparable organisations, and it specifies three ways in which they can do this.

First, employees can strategically select the attributes on which the organisations are compared; by using their organisation’s strengths as the basis for comparison, they can maximize the probability of a favourable outcome. This does not mean that the choice of attributes is entirely determined by the preferences of employees. In fact Turner argues that such comparisons must be made ‘on the dimensions and in terms of the values deemed as relevant and important by society.’ However, Social Identity Theory suggests that employees will seek to assign greater ‘evaluative significance’ (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) to the strengths of their own organisation.

Second, employees can change the value (positive or negative) assigned to a specific attribute; if one of the organisation’s defining attributes is construed as unattractive by people outside the organisation, employees may collectively re-construe it as attractive, thereby enhancing the perceived attractiveness of the organisation’s identity.

this allows them to define the frame in such a way that it only includes organisations with which their own organisation will compare favourably (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Elsbach and Kramer, 1996).

As a result, the attributes that employees consider most attractive are likely to be different in each organisation. From a practical standpoint this implies that efforts to become an ‘employer of choice’ are unlikely to have the desired effect on employee behaviour or on their willingness to support the corporate brand. From a research standpoint it suggests that each organisation must be studied separately. Therefore, the organisation becomes the primary unit of analysis rather than the individual employees.

3.3.3 Deconstructing the research question

In order to explain what makes an organisation attractive to its employees, it is necessary to address the following three questions:

(1) What are the dimensions (and sub-dimensions) of corporate identity, when seen through the lens of Social Identity Theory?

(2) What are the dimensions (and sub-dimensions) of corporate identity that employees consider attractive?

3.4 CONCLUSION

The framework developed in this chapter shows that a unique and attractive Corporate Identity can motivate employees to align their behaviour with that identity. It is rooted in the well-established principles of Social Identity Theory, supported by extensive research, and directly relevant to the challenges faced by corporate brand managers. However, before this framework can be applied in practice, it is necessary to explain what is meant by a ‘unique and attractive corporate identity’ in the context of Social Identity Theory. In the following chapter I describe and justify the methodology that I used to do this.

4. METHODOLOGY

In order to address the research question through the lens of Social Identity Theory, it was necessary to develop a methodology that was consistent with the principles of this theory. This methodology also had to be consistent with the philosophical assumptions on which the theory is based, and with the objective of the proposed research. In this section I elaborate on these requirements, and describe the research design that was developed to meet them.