The concept of mindsharing is important because it entails that something is recognised in a manner that is familiar and identifiable in a similar manner collectively (Aaker, 1996; Engelberg & Kirby, 2001). In order to understand mindsharing, and how it may occur in the individual staff member’s perception of their organisation, it is essential to familiarise oneself with how branding functions. As expressed by Engelberg and Kirby (2001, p. 10), “an organ- ization's identity is reflected by how different parts of the organization work together to sup- port each other and function to deliver what branding promises.” Kotler (1997, p. 443) de- fines a “brand” as a “name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors”. In this way, organisations build their brands for the purposes of distilling their corporate identity (Balmer, 2010; Urde & Greyser, 2015). It is possible for the success of an organisation to be dependent on the perception of its brand, and recent studies have illustrated that healthcare organisations may be especially prone to this occurrence (Indounas & Arvaniti, 2015).
Brand perception is a vital factor, since it manifests one’s innate mental image of what the brand signifies. This is entirely separate from brand identification, as that illustrates how well someone identifies with a particular brand and to what extent that brand reinforces a personal identity (Dunn, 2004). In this way, mindshare branding, serves as a concretisation of this phenomenon, as it seeks to establish a common idea within a certain concept so that it can be perceived in a similar fashion by everyone who experiences it (Holt, 2004). Hence, mindshar- ing may be used to determine if and how a company brand is collectively perceived amongst the staff (Engelberg & Kirby, 2001; Holt, 2004; Matiatou, 2015; Potalivo, 2014). Mindshare branding leans mainly on tacit, abstract associations in one’s personal mind that is perceived in a similar manner from person to person (Heding, Knudtzen, & Bjerre, 2016). Often, mind- sharing refer to a customer’s perception of a particular brand (Engelberg & Kirby, 2001; Lundstrom, 2009). However, it is important to remember that there is a difference between mindsharing used in consumer culture and brands, as opposed to how it is used in the man- agement of brands (Bengtsson & Ostberg, 2006). As such, mindsharing may in terms of brand management also pertain to how staff and/or stakeholders perceive a company brand (Gill, 2013; Hamidizadeh & Sanavi Fard, 2016; Peirson-Smith & Hancock, 2017). Thus, brand perception is to a large extent dependant on symbolic, non-product, characteristics (Bravo, Montaner, & Pina, 2012; O’Cass & Frost, 2002).
2.3.2 The Four Steps towards Mindsharing
Some researchers will contend that mindsharing is influenced by communicating the brand promise through sharp design and repeated, consistent verbal communication (Ross, 2010). Other researchers believe mindsharing is secured by exploring the question itself rather than being certain about one’s answer, so that one stimulates a collective thinking process
there exists different interpretations of mindsharing, is because it is difficult (if at all possible) to measure in any strict numbers, and may thus take on a more abstract concept (Holt, 2016; Stevens, 2003). To this effect, there is some contrasting academic support for the notion that mindsharing is actually built up incrementally through a series of different phases and that it occurs across different segments (Acuña, 2012; J. Griffin, 2009; Krishnan et al., 2013). As such, there are several steps involved in consolidating a brand forming experience. According to Aaker’s (1996) and Azevedo’s (2005) brand model, a successful brand has to be able to distinguish itself from other brands by reflecting the identity in a way that resonates in a comparable manner throughout the organisation.
The first step is Brand Strategic Analysis (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000; Cravens & Piercy, 2013; Ghodeswar, 2008). This stresses the importance of analysing the underlying market drivers for the brand (e.g. the needful aspects for build a brand in that particular space).
The second step is Brand Identity (Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000; De Chernatony & Dall’Olmo Riley, 1998; J.-N. Kapferer, 2012). This refers to the character of brand and the values it personifies. As such, it considers the individual’s desired positioning of the brand as opposed to its de facto positioning (or perception thereof).
The third step is Brand Operationalising (Davis & Dunn, 2002; Upshaw & Taylor, 2000; Vallaster & de Chernatony, 2005). This step considers the concrete actions taken towards forming a brand. These measures are multidisciplinary and holistic in nature. They encom- pass various factors such as different forms of interactions, activities and operations.
The fourth and final step is Post-Implementation Reflection (Aaker, 1996; Cravens & Piercy, 2013). This is a form of self-analysis in which the organisation is internally analysed by re- flecting on how the outcomes matched the original aspirations. The outcomes may provide insights for assisting future strategies/approaches. Specifically, the resolution of this final step may lead to alterations on existing brand strategies, formation of new brands and/or discon- tinuation of existing brands.
In order to achieve a full mindshare, it must exist in and across all stages of the brand build- ing process (Acuña, 2012; Almquist & Roberts, 2000). Failure to secure mindsharing at any stage does not entail the abortion of the brand formation process, but the brand’s mindsharing attributes will be impaired, or ruined.
2.3.3 Conclusion
By securing full mindshare among one’s staff, one may ensure that the organisation has a vision that is shared collectively, which in turn will markedly lessen the risk of it counteract- ed by staff member’s self-serving motives. A full mindshare will also help strengthen the organisation’s competitive edge since it may be used as a planning base to further an organi- sation’s internal, as well as external, intellectual partnership development (Dealtry, 2005). Moreover, it is vital for mindshare to exist amongst the leadership at all levels, so that they may easily come to agreement on what it is that needs to be changed and how to continuously
improve efforts that affect strategic priorities. To this end, one cannot garner management mindshare if the individuals do not believe that continuous improvement efforts will positive- ly influence the organisation’s performance (Sarkar, 2011).
Still, the collective consciousness of mindsharing is, of course, promoted by environments that elicit cooperation (Gill, 2013). This is especially so when it comes to entrepreneurial endeavours undertaken as part of a team, as it helps reinforce the idea already from the outset, through the creation/start-up process (Acuña, 2012; Gill, 2013; Laubacher, 2012; Santos & Spann, 2011).
2.4 COLLECTIVE ENTREPRENEURSHIP (PROCESS)