Modalidad de pago de Matrícula y Arancel A.1) Modalidad de Pago de Matrícula

An examination of the service branding literature shows that service firms actualise their promises to their customers, when they deliver a service which is consistent with the promises they make to their customers through marketing activities (Sirianni et al. 2013; Brodie et al. 2006). The actualisation of service brand promises occurs through employee behaviour during their interaction with customers (King and Grace 2012). Research focusing on organisational behaviour has been broadly identified two

102

distinctive roles for employees known as in-role and extra-role behaviour (Mackenzie et al. 2011; Morhart et al. 2009; Vey and Campbell 2004).

Employee in-role behaviour is defined as standards prescribed by the organisation to perform a job, which might be either written in behavioural codices, manuals, display rules, and so forth, or unwritten (Morhart et al. 2009; Turnley et al. 2003; Van Dyne and LePine1998). Van Dyne and LePine (1998) argue that in-role behaviour affects employee performance and leads reprimand or financial consequences for the employee. Employee extra role behaviour, on the other hand, is defined by Organ (1988) as “individual behaviour that in the aggregate aids organisational effectiveness, but that is neither a requirement of the individual’s job nor directly rewarded by the formal system” (p. 101). Van Dyne and LePine (1998) contend that supervisors evaluate extra-role behaviour as being more valuable compared to in- role behaviours, because constant changes in external environments restrict anticipation or specification of all desired employee behaviours.

Extra role behaviour has been broadly conceptualised into two different types of behaviours. The first type is behaviours that enhance the interpersonal and cooperative relationship in the organisation called affiliation oriented (Mackenzie et al. 2011). The second is a kind of encouraging behaviour where employees tend to make suggestions to improve something, or make things happen in the organisation known as voice or challenge oriented behaviours (Mackenzie et al. 2011; Choi 2007; Dewett and DeNisi 2007; Van Dyne and LePine1998; Van Dyne et al. 1995). Mackenzie et al. (2011) argue challenge-oriented behaviours may disrupt interpersonal interactions and decrease unit or organisational performance, because they affect status quo.

Given the negative effect of challenge-oriented behaviours, Mackenzie et al. (2011) suggest both challenge oriented behaviour and affiliation-oriented behaviours are important to influence organisational outcomes. Mackenzie et al. (2011) argue that in an organisation affiliation-oriented behaviour may moderate some of the potentially dysfunctional effects of challenge-oriented behaviours. Mackenzie et al. (2011) find challenge-oriented behaviours are more positively related to workgroup task performance when affiliation-orientation is high. Further, previous research on the relationship between different types of extra-role and in-role behaviours shows extra-role and in-role behaviour are highly correlated (Van Dyne and LePine 1998). Further, on this point, Piercy et al. (2006) propose that an interaction of extra-role and in-role behaviours contribute to the higher employee performance, meaning that extra-role and in-role behaviours complement each other.

Given the importance of brand and brand equity and the crucial role employees play to increase brand equity, some researchers have focused their efforts on

103

understanding the drivers and consequences of employee in-role and extra-role brand building behaviour (King and Grace 2012; Baumgarth and Schmidt 2010; Morhart et al. 2009). Morhart et al. (2009) raise the importance of TFL to motivate employees to exhibit brand building behaviour through in-role and extra-role brand related behaviours. In their view, this is the leaders’ duty to motivate employees to support the brand values through their daily practices. Morhart et al. (2009) support the view that the extra-role brand building behaviour is a form of challenge oriented behaviour, where employees come up with new ideas and suggestions to develop the brand. The measure of extra role brand building behaviour in Morhart et al.’s work focuses on the extent employees share their suggestions, opinions, and ideas with their supervisor to elevate the brand value. The items Morhart et al. (2009) used to measure extra role brand building behaviour are consistent with the conceptualisation of challenge-oriented behaviours raised by Mackenzie et al. (2011). In Mackenzie et al.’s (2011) view challenge oriented behaviours aim to develop and improve the workgroup performance. However, Van Dyne and LePine (1998) take the view that dealing environmental changes is ongoing and argue that challenge oriented behaviours are more suitable to cope with constant changes in external environments. Given the constant changes and increasing complexity of the business environment challenge-oriented behaviours seem critical to develop in the service firm.

To identify antecedents of employee extra-role behaviour, King and Grace (2012) consider certain organisational factors and personal factors (focused relationship orientation, organisational socialisation, employee receptiveness, and brand commitment) as the predictor of employee extra-role brand building behaviour. Both Morhart et al. (2009) and King and Grace (2012) argue that employees should be trained to demonstrate extra-role brand building behaviour. However, while Morhart et al. (2009) believe leaders train employees, King and Grace (2012) believe organisational socialisation trains employees to behave as a brand champion and demonstrate extra-role brand building behaviour. The other point of departure in the work of Morhart et al. (2009) and King and Grace (2012) is what constitutes extra-role brand building behaviour. While Morhart et al. (2009) only focus on challenge oriented behaviour aspect of employee extra role brand building behaviour, King and Grace (2012) measure extra role brand building behaviour as the combination of challenge oriented behaviour, affiliation oriented behaviour and participation behaviour.

Among the studies that explore the antecedents and consequences of employee brand building behaviour, the work of Baumgarth and Schmidt (2010) is interesting in a sense that they introduce employee in-role and extra-role behaviours as the components of internal brand equity. Baumgarth and Schmidt (2010) identify

104

antecedents and consequences of internal brand equity in the B2B context. Particularly, in their view brand orientation, internal commitment, brand knowledge, and brand involvement are the antecedents of internal brand equity, and they focus on the customer based brand equity as the outcome of internal brand equity. Similar to Morhart et al. (2009), Baumgarth and Schmidt (2010) draw attention to the importance of establishing a brand-oriented mindset. While Morhart et al. (2009) focus on the importance of leadership to establish that mindset, Baumgarth and Schmidt (2010) focus on brand oriented culture. Further, and Baker et al. (2014) believe brand knowledge dissemination is an important determinant of employee behaviour towards the brand. Baumgarth and Schmidt (2010) work is different from the work of Morhart et al. (2009) and King and Grace (2012), because they explicitly focus on how in-role and extra-role behaviours are related to a very important outcome of organisation, known as the customer based brand equity. However, Baumgarth and Schmidt (2010) in a similar fashion to King and Grace (2012) view extra-role brand building behaviour as combination of challenge-oriented behaviour and supportive behaviour.

Using multi-source data from the employees, managers, and customers of a business-to-business firm in the hospitality industry, Baker et al. (2014) support the contention that if service providers desire brand-consistent performance that is observable to managers and customers, they have to make an extra effort to communicate brand-specific information to employees. Similar to Baumgarth and Schmidt (2010) and King and Grace (2012) extra-role brand building behaviour in view of Baker et al. (2014) is a combination of challenge oriented behaviour and supportive behaviour.

The literature review in this section highlights the importance of employees and their behaviour in improving organisational and individual performance. Specifically, the review of literature on the employee brand building behaviour shows the important role of creating a mindset that assists employees to internalise brand values and support brand values through leadership, training, culture, and brand information dissemination. Further, the literature review on employee brand building behaviour shows that the combination of in-role and extra-role behaviour is necessary to achieve organisational goals (Mackenzie et al. 2011; Piercy et al. 2006). Among extra role behaviour, challenge oriented behaviours seems more appropriate than other types of extra role behaviour (e.g., affiliation) as they are sources of changes in the organisation. A close examination of the literature on employee brand building behaviour shows that employee brand building behaviour create the value for the service firm (Biedenbach et al. 2011; Baumgarth and Schmidt 2010) through developing brand equity and relationships with customers (Sirianni et al. 2013; Brexendorf and Kernstoc 2007;

105

Brodie et al. 2006). However, no research to date has investigated how employees brand oriented behaviour is employed to develop organisational capabilities that enable a firm to actualise their promises. An analysis of the employee brand building behaviour literature shows that even though employee brand building behaviour creates value for the service firm, the process of how the value is created is not well understood as hardly research has been examined it.

3.6. Conclusion

One of the key reasons driving the interest in PSFs is the unique output they provide – knowledge intensive business services in the form of service solutions, as such: studying their organisational characteristics becomes more important and imperative. The literature review presented here in Chapter Three sought to integrate the service solution literature and service branding literature to form a base for the theoretical foundation that fit the specific characteristics of solution providers. In the first part of the literature review in this chapter, the solution literature was reviewed and the definitions of solution were discussed. Further, attention was given to the resources that go toward providing a solution. The literature review shows that relational resources and knowledge resources are the dominant or priority resources for firms in the solution businesses. However; the literature does not address at which level cooperation with customer does not negatively affect the superiorty of service solution. Further; the solution literature has never explored how much knowledge are required to develop superior service solution to customers and how the application of knowledge can be facilitated across the solution provider. The appropriate application of relational and knowledge resources are necessary to provide superior service solutions for customers and enhance their market position.

To maintain market position, service branding in the B2B context seems to act as a suitable platform. It is evident from the literature review that transformational leaders who support brand values are more successful to improve employee behaviours to support the brand. The literature review identified that the combination of extra role and in-role brand building behaviour are more useful to improve employee performance. It was identified through literature review that to cope with high velocity markets, challenge oriented behaviours are more appropriate, because employees are often the one who come up with suggestions that may increase the firms’ ability to cope with changes. However, the solution literature never identified how leaders and employees who are brand oriented contribute in providing superior service solution and maintain market position.

106

While the literature review here attempted to acknowledge the contributions others have made to the knowledge pool relevant to the topic, it tries to form the foundation for the development of the theoretical framework and, as such, the development of a theory of PSFs solution superiority in Chapter Four. To conclude this chapter and set the scene for the Chapter Four, attention is drawn to the claim by Greenwood et al. (2006, p. 5) that “PSFs are different from many organizations from which much current organizational theory was (and still is) derived”. The theory

development in Chapter Four focuses on the interplay between CCSP, service solutions and the foundational processes embedded in people, knowledge and brand equity domain. This domain, however, seems an appealing starting point to develop theory focusing on PSFs and the delivery of service solutions.

107