By incorporating theory and research from all three areas reviewed above – Corporate Identity, Employer Branding, and the Social Identity Approach to Organisational Identification – it is possible to provide an empirically valid account of the relationship between a unique and attractive corporate identity and the behaviour of employees. However, in order to do so, it is necessary to first identify the points of intersection between the three areas of literature.
3.2.1 Links between the Three Areas of Literature
(1) When seen through the lens of Social Identity Theory, Organizational Identity is conceptually identical to Corporate Identity and to the internal Component of Employer Brand Image.
Organisational Identity versus the Internal component of Employer Brand Image
Like organisational identity, employer brand image is a ‘perceptual phenomenon’ (Knox and Freeman, 2006) that exists in the mind of the individual employee. More specifically, both terms represent a set of shared beliefs about the essential characteristics of an organization. One apparent difference between the two concepts is that employer brand image has typically been associated with issues related employment, while organisational identity relates to the organisation as a whole. This distinction rests on the assumption that employees mainly care about issues related to employment. However, Social Identity Theory suggests that employees also have a personal stake in the successes and failures of the organisation as a whole (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). This means that the scope of the employer brand is as wide as the scope of organisational identity, so that the two concepts are one and the same.
Corporate Identity vs. Organisational Identity
As explained previously, corporate and organisational identity may be distinguished on the basis of conceptualization (substantive versus cognitive), locus of analysis (organisation versus individual), and research focus (marketing versus organisational behaviour). However, Social Identity Theory helps to bridge these differences.
Conceptualization:
According to Social Identity Theory, employees’ perceptions of their organisation’s identity shape their behaviours in such a way that those perceptions become self- fulfilling. As a result, the cognition of employees ‘more or less directly reflects’ the substantive attributes of the organisation. (Turner, 1987) As discussed in the Methodology chapter, this does not necessarily mean that the two are identical. However, since it is impossible to directly experience objective reality (Turner, 1987), it
is neither necessary nor useful to distinguish between the substantive attributes that constitute Corporate Identity and employees’ perceptions of those attributes.
Locus of Analysis:
A fundamental premise of Social Identity Theory, as well as the more recent Self Categorization Theory, is that employees can incorporate the identity of the organisation within their own concept. This identity is a ‘socially structured field within the individual mind’ (Turner, 1987) which allows employees to think and act as ‘exemplars or representatives’ of the group. Therefore, Turner (1987) argues that ‘psychologically speaking, ‘they do not “represent,” they “are”’ the organisation. Research Focus:
Social Identity Theory describes the cognitive and behavioural consequences of perceived membership in a social group. In doing so it directly addresses a variety of issues related to organisational behaviour. It also explains how employees can be motivated to align their behaviour with the identity of the organisation and to communicate that identity to external stakeholders, which has been acknowledged as a critical challenge in the context of corporate marketing. Therefore, a conceptualization of identity that is based on the principles of Social Identity Theory should be relevant to the interests of Organisational Behaviour theorists as well as marketers.
(2) Organisational Identity is the foundation for organisational identification. Since organisational identity is conceptually identical to both Corporate Identity and the internal component of Employer Brand Image are conceptually identical, it follows that either one of these constructs can also influence organisational identification.
(3) According to Social Identity Theory, the two main antecedents of organizational identification are perceived attractiveness and differentiation. (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Dutton et al, 1994) This prediction is based on extensive experimental evidence and has been repeatedly confirmed in an organizational context.
(4) Research has shown that organizational identification can have a significant on impact on the attitudes and behaviour of employees. For example it has been shown to promote organizational citizenship behaviour (van Dick et al, 2005; Haslam et al, 2000), which may be considered an extreme example of employee motivation; employees go beyond the requirements of their jobs in order to support the goals of the organization. It has also been shown to improve employee retention (Cole and Bruch, 2006; Tyler and Blader, 2000) and, most importantly, to align the behaviour of the employee with the objectives and identity of the organization. (Dutton and Dukerich, 1991)
(5) The behaviours associated with organizational identification can have a direct impact on marketing outcomes. For example employee motivation may enhance employee performance, and therefore improve customer relationships. (Ambler and Barrow, 1996) Employee retention allows the firm to maintain the pool of human skills and knowledge which are needed to co-create customer value. (Vargo and Lusch, 2004), and as long as the firm’s consumer brand is aligned with the identity of the organization, behaviours that reflect the identity of the brand will also be consistent with the brand promise made to consumers.
3.2.2 Summary of Links
In short, research shows that a unique and attractive organisational identity, as seen through the lens of Social Identity Theory, can strengthen organisational identification. Research also shows that organisational identification motivates employees to align their behaviour with the identity of their organisation and promotes a range of behaviours that may support the corporate brand. Since Corporate Identity and the internal component of the employer brand are identical to organisational identity, in this theoretical context, it follows that a unique and attractive corporate identity or employer brand should also shape employee behaviour in the same way.