Licensed under Creative Common Page 1

International Journal of Scientific Research

http://journalijsr.com/ Vol. I, Issue 1, 2016

THE EFFECT OF CORPORATE IDENTITY ON STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION IN PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN KENYA

PETER KIBE NGUGI

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology.

Dr.Hellen Mberia

Kinoti Dean School of Communication and Development Studies JKUAT Kenya.

ngugi.leoking@gmail.com Abstract Many public schools experience all manner of crisis resulting to reputational damage, low morale and depressed enrollment. This ultimately causes withdrawal of vital stakeholder support and instability culminating to poor performance. Intense pressure from stakeholders for schools to deliver underscores the need for literature on strategic corporate communication as a tool to manage corporate identity and brand re-construction. This study sought to establish the effect of Corporate Identity Management (CIM) on Stakeholder Satisfaction. The case study used quantative research method set in a corelational design targeting a sample size of n=452 stakeholders apportioned as 367 students, 30 parents from the community, 40 teachers and 15 principals identified through stratified and purposive sampling methods. The sampling frame constituted the 20 public secondary schools in Kinangop Sub-county which had enrolled students for 2014 KCSE exams. The questionnaire was the main data gathering instrument. Data collected and analyzed found a significant correlation between CI and stakeholder satisfaction. It can therefore be concluded that CI affect stakeholder satisfaction. The study recommends that schools invest more resources in strategic corporate communication and a communication officer be posted at the Ministry of Education county headquarters to establish a communications department. Further research is also recommended to determine how categorization of schools and resource allocation contribute to a low or high CI index hence causing a corresponding level of stakeholder satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the respective schools. Key words: Corporate Communication, Corporate Identity (CI), Stakeholders, Stakeholder Satisfaction (SS), Corporate Identity Management (CIM), Stakeholder Management, Strategic Management, Strategic Corporate Communication, Corporate Branding.

Licensed under Creative Common Page 2

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS TSC Teachers Service Commission NGO Non-Governmental Organization KCSE Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education MOE Ministry of Education PR Public Relations KDF Kenya Defence Forces WIPO World Intellectual Property Organization KENGEN Kenya Electricity Generating Company CI Corporate Identity SS Stakeholder Satisfaction CIM Corporate Identity Management QASO Quality Assurance & Standards Officers CSR Corporate Social Responsibility USA United States of America CORD Coalition of Reforms and Democracy VI Visual Identity CC Corporate Identity MB Management Behaviour MC Market Conditions INTRODUCTION Corporate communication management helps to ventilate and harmonize toxic corporate relations in daily transactional engagements and more importantly promote the company as a brand. Mohamad et al (2007) assert that identity, image and reputation are the main agenda of organizations through corporate communication activities because publics look at products and services that are offered by the organization as a bundle package. Mohamad et al (2007) also point out that, “Organizations have realized that a strong identity can help them align with the marketplace, attract investment, motivate employees and serve as a means to differentiate their product and services. Thus, many organizations are striving to develop a distinct and recognizable identity.” All stakeholders contribute to a corporation’s image. The company strategically crafts an

ideal identity then a communicated identity while other contributors to a company’s image

who include: media, opinion leaders, labor unions, environmental organizations, and other NGOs shape up the actual identity. (Olins 1989), “it is a primary task of the corporate communications department to maintain and build this identity to accord with and facilitate the attainment of business objectives.”PR officers should particularly enlist the support of

media to articulate their agenda in order to sway public opinion and appeal to other key stakeholders. Balmer and Greyser (2003) observe that many companies proactively choose to create media attention and use it as a tool for identity construction and strengthening, and also to reinvent their images under the pressure of new technology.

Licensed under Creative Common Page 3

They correctly point out that the media has the power to produce and diffuse meanings a corporation holds, therefore giving stakeholders a negotiation of the organizational identity. Corporate communication managers must not only endear the company to the tradional media but also keenly watch the online communities whose discourse has the potential to harm their organizations. Schiller (2007) as cited in Young & Flowers (2012) explains, “In

times of crisis, while corporate communication executives are preparing manicured statements, customers are [simultaneously] blogging, e-mailing and posting photos out of rage and desperation because the very people who should be listening to them aren’t.”Further they note, “social media allow stakeholders to control when, where, and

how reputational meanings are born and disseminated as an organization’s reputation is

built on the stories formed by stakeholders and spread within networks” (Aula, 2011).” Public schools in Kenya do not oftenly use the mainstream media for self advertisement in identity construction. Although public schools are not motivated by profit gain, they are no lesser organizations which must engage seriously in identity and brand management like other corporates that invest heavily in corporate identity management. According to Safon (2009) and Vidaver-Cohen (2007) as cited in (Tshabangu 2012), corporate

communication has been adapted in the field of educational management in the

anticipation that if a school has a good reputation, it would have good communication with

its stakeholders. Little known schools have shot into national limelight after a wind fall of academic excellence like Wie Wei High school in West Pokot in Kenya that emerged in the top ten merit list nationally in 2010 KCSE exams thus attracting unprecedented media attention. But with the ranking of schools now officially banned by the Ministry of Education in Kenya (MOE), academic excellence; previously amplified by media publicity will only be one among other key contributors to a good reputation index for a school. Schools that are not delivering are doomed to collapse due to lack of stakeholder support. Marken (1995) notes, “corporate image should not only be projected but also protected so

that the image is not destroyed.” The Teachers Service Commission (TSC) in Kenya has introduced performance appraisal system for teachers as a tool for maintaining standards in schools. Quality Assurance & Standards Officers (QASO) on inspection tours also look for verifiable indicators of a functional school like curriculum implementation and evaluation records, management and fiscal records besides image propping visual and attitudinal identities like motto, vision & mission statements and other quality statements. QASO understands that if managed strategically, corporate identity can help schools develop a competitive edge over competitors (Olins, 1995). Mohamad et al (2007) summarize the important symbiotic relationship between CI and stakeholder relationship thus, “The identity of the corporation

must be so clear that it becomes the yardstick against which its products and services, behavior and action are measured; the identity cannot be simply a slogan, a collection of phrases: it must be visible, tangible and all embracing. Everything that the organization does must be an affirmation of its identity.”Mohamad et al (2007) seem to support this position thus, “Every organization is unique and its identity must spring from organization’s

Licensed under Creative Common Page 4

own roots, its personality, its strengths and its weaknesses.” University and other

education institutes must shape a market offering that attracts investment, which comes from tuition and fees, grants and contracts, donors, state funding, and other activities (Dirks, 1998). Indeed, few schools take corporate communication seriously as a tool for strategic management and a means to influence their constituent stakeholders in spite of its importance citing cost factor but several have taken into the use of social media because it is cheap. However, it is a standard practice to use school symbols, uniforms, quality statements to express values and traditions, service charters and strategic plans to guide on management and staff behaviour which help to create a school brand. New students are taken through a rigorous form of indoctrination in the name of orientation which aims at inculcating the schools’ unique culture. New students also sign up to adhere to a certain code of conduct. Schools thus acquire and nurture unique cultures which identify them from the rest; thus serving as powerful identifying tools that propel them to excel in diverse fields and maintain high standards. Russell Abratt & Nicola Kleyn(n.d) says that an organisation that seeks to create positive reputations amongst its various stakeholder groups must understand the dimensions on which stakeholders evaluate reputation including, but not limited to, the organization’s performance, its products and services, its

citizenship activities, service, innovation, the workplace, governance and ethics.

Statement of the Problem Globally, trends show emerging competition among education providers with the view of education seen as a social service changing to a commodity for sale. Mohamad et al (2007) observe, “Institutions compete for clients who happen to be the students” while

westley (1997) remark that due to global competition and the new information technologies in the USA, the state found itself under pressure to decrease commitment to higher education passing the burden to consumers who pay for it; advertising and other technologies of consumption being the trends that show this commodification.Dubey (2007) note, free education was the main goal of the Indian constitution but the reality remains that the education shops exist in innumerable numbers. In Kenya today, there is an influx of cheap day schools which perform well.Mwaka and Njogu (2014) say that Free Day Secondary Education has produced dramatic effects in Kenya because enrollment more than doubled between 2003 and 2009. These day schools compete for students from the same catchment area among themselves and with other giant schools which is a major factor prompting all schools to rethink of their selling points. Older and better established schools are reeling from devastating crisis that seriously threaten their survival as education organizations. Nyakundi and Ogonyo (2012) confirmed that despite the MOE efforts to provide safety standards and guidelines, educational institutions in Kenya have a long standing history of ghastly disasters. Others face disruptive management wrangles like Starehe Boys as reported on Daily Nation (March 12, 2014). Mahon (2002) as cited in (Tshabangu 2012 )stress that the reputation of public schools has been spiraling downwards as negative publications and reports

Licensed under Creative Common Page 5

create images of public schools as unsafe and ineffective in the education of children. Local newspapers report stories on violence, arson, drugs, alcohol, and pregnancy making parents to turn to other alternatives to educate their children (Buchen, 2003) as cited in (Tshabangu,2012). re more The growth of private and mission schools which a

stable is also upsetting the competitiveness of the traditional academic giants. A bad reputation results to a low morale for staff and students. Other stakeholders also often withhold their crucial support demanding for solid performance as a condition for continued support. Gray and Balmer (1998) argue that the corporation’s reputation can

influence the willingness of consumers to either provide or withhold support for the company and its products. Schools must pay more attention to their corporate identity and deliberately respond to the interests of their key constituents of stakeholders to make them satisfied. Klein (1999) as cited in (Tshabangu 2012 )confirms this indicating that an

organization with a solid reputation earns the benefit of doubt in times of crisis . There is a reluctance in embracing modern communication technology and marketing methods by principals of public schools oblivious of the fact that schools that cut out an image of success become popular while those that are non-performing collapse losing their human and financial resources as well as goodwill until they are forced to either improve or close down (Gorard, Taylor& Fitz, 2003) as cited in (Tshabangu 2012.)The

problem in Kenya is that public schools are not properly funded to allow for adequate

professional consultancy on strategic communication management and the use of

advertisement in elaborate PR campaigns to win over stakeholder support. Erdman (2002) and Rips (2000) as cited in (Tshabangu 2012 )remark that competition amongst

schools is the solution to the problems of public schooling .There is also a wrong mentality

that schools as social amenities require only teachers to talk and chalk failing to appreciate the value of other inputs like strategic corporate communication. Dirks (1998) observe, “with regard to the creativity of marketing, higher education generally has not

permitted the professional marketer to participate in shaping its practices.” This is the

case with other institutions in the public education sector in general.

General objective The overall objective of this study was to examine the effect of CI components on stakeholder satisfaction in public secondary schools.

Specific objectives The specific objectives were as stated below: 1. To determine the effect of visual identity markers on stakeholder satisfaction in public secondary schools. 2. To establish the effect of corporate traditions on stakeholder satisfaction in public secondary schools. 3. To investigate the effect of staff attitudes on stakeholder satisfaction in public secondary schools. 4. To assess the effect of marketing strategies on stakeholder satisfaction in public secondary schools.

Licensed under Creative Common Page 6

LITERATURE REVIEW

Strategic Management Today the practice of strategic management is a must tool to help light up the path through which company decision making will follow. Grunig and Repper (1992) view strategy as an approach, design, scheme or system that directs the course of action in a specific situation; the means to achieve the ends. According to Balanced Scorecard Institute (2014), a strategy Management Group Company, a strategic plan is a document used to communicate with the organization the organization’s goals, the actions needed to

achieve those goals and all of the other critical elements developed during the planning exercise. Strategic planning projects the future growth prospects while strategic management plots current direction and decision making path. Harvard Graduate school of Education (2007) state that Strategic planning process provides direction to all elements of the company and drives decisions and actions and employees at all levels who articulate their roles in the implementation and execution of the strategic plan and is an essential first step in the development of a results-based accountability system; defined as the process of addressing the following questions: Where are we? What do we have? Where do we want to be? How do we get there? Wango G.M (2009) opines that a successful strategy adds value over the long run by consistently meeting the needs of the organization such as a school and company with the aim of meeting stakeholder expectations. He adds, “Strategic planning activities include meetings and other communication among the organization's leaders and personnel to develop a common understanding regarding the competitive environment and what the organization's response to that environment (its strategy) should be.” In

conclusion, the overall purpose of strategic planning and management process is to establish strategic options that are robust to develop your strategic intent, (Wango G.M, 2009). The strategic intention in CIM is to achieve stakeholder satisfaction for your brand. Smith (2009) recognize this need thus, “Strategic corporate communication is cooperation

between public relations and marketing to communicate the reputation of the organization to the right stakeholders because corporate planning simply recognizes that stakeholders might place limits on the progress of the organization.”

Corporate communication Corporate communication simply refers to all forms of communication generated by a company meant for all its publics that serve as a bridge; both internally and externally using a combination of verbal, non verbal, written, electronic and digital communication to enhance understanding, control relations, transact business and getting feedback. Van Riel (1995) defines corporate communication as the integration of three components. The

Licensed under Creative Common Page 7

first element is management communication which refers to “managers’ communication to their employees with the purpose of developing a shared vision of the company within the organization aiming; to establish and maintain trust in the organization’s leadership; to

initiate and manage change and to empower and motivate employees,” (Pincus et. al, 1991).The second component is marketing communication which comprise of “all forms of

communication that support sales of particular goods or services,” (Van Riel, 1995).The

third element is external organizational communication “initially referred to as public

relations, but now sub-divided into activities such as public relations, public affairs, environmental communications, labour market communications, investor relations and internal communications,”(Melewar, Bassett and Simões, 2006). Communication targets some or all stakeholders. Those who are or become more aware and active can be described as publics. Grunig and Hunt (1984), distinguish publics as stakeholders that face a problem or have an issue with the organization. To prevent stakeholders from developing into publics, organizations must manage relationships to keep stakeholders satisfied. ‘Publics form when stakeholders recognize one or more of the consequences (of the behaviour of the organization) as a problem and organize to do something about it or them’ (cited in Tench, R et al, 2006). The corporate communication manager’s primary objective is to use communication to make an attractive brand by creating an appealing CI to the internal and external stakeholders and the publics to view the company favourably. This pleasurable experience is achieved through building messages that combine the company vision, mission, core values and other brand identities to reach the stakeholders through strategic use of public relations and advertising. The communicator has a range of media tools like: newsletters, product or event videos, press releases, CSR activities, special events planning and road shows. Albesa (2007) advice, the business environment is fundamentally characterized by a context of multichannel interaction and the company should respond with an integrated strategy of multichannel contact. New media technologies such as corporate websites, text messaging and social network sites make it easier to supplement general media with more personal and interactive communication vehicles in real time. Hollenssen S. (2003) says that there is a demographic shift from physical to online communication.

Corporate Identity Corporate identity is strategic as Schmidt (1995) found, “Identity is now widely recognized

as an effective strategic instrument and a means to achieve competitive advantage.”

There is evidence to support the notion that a favourable corporate reputation gives an organization a competitive advantage (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990). This position is supported by Van Riel (1995) who comments that organizations consider the transmission of a positive image as an essential precondition for establishing a commercial relationship with target groups. The most obvious way of recognizing CI is through visual marks and advertisement. CI answer questions like “who are we as a company?” and “where do we

want to go?” CI is pre-conceived, consciously and strategically created but at times it’s

Licensed under Creative Common Page 8

caused through accidental and stimulus reaction. Barnett, Jermier and Lafferty (2006) pointed out that concepts such as identity, image and reputation are still often used interchangeably. Csordás (1994) remark, “Corporate identity

and corporate image are not the same, the former has to do with the self presentation of the company to the public, and the latter is about the resulting perceptions by the public.”

The overall effect of the two amounts to a corporate reputation. A corporate reputation being the sum total image of a company in the eyes of both internal and external publics over time. According to Van Riel (1997), reputation is the highest appreciation from the eyes of the publics. Organizational identity consists of current practices, history, values and behaviour emanating from inside the organisation from internal stakeholders. It is actual, positive or negative perception expressed as “who/what do we believe we are?”

Organizational image is temporal impression of the organization built inside external stakeholders’ minds and is a desired positive perception expressed as “what/who do we

want others to think we are?”Corporate reputation is built over time on both internal and external stakeholders and can be positive or negative. It is actual perception expressed as “what are we seen to be?” (Walker, 2010). " CI structure”, consists of three concepts: monolithic brands for companies which have a single brand, a branded identity in which different brands are developed for parts of the organization or for different product lines, and an endorsed identity with different brands which are (visually) connected to each other, (Olins, 1989) e.g. JKUAT and ZETECH college as an affiliate. Royal Media Services TV station and a cocktail of fourteen radio stations “that cover different groups of the diverse Kenyan communities” is a good

example of a branded identity with many product lines. A few education organizations operate as a group of schools offering diverse products lines like kindergarten, primary, secondary and tertiary institutes some with independently branded identities and others with endorsed identities.

Figure 2.1. Royal Media Services Products Source: Royal Media Services products CI in most models is composed of three elements: Corporate design referring to logos, uniforms, corporate colours etc.;Corporate branding referring to advertising, public relations, information, etc.; and Corporate behavior comprising of internal values, norms, beliefs, attitudes etc. Csordás (2008) comment in respect to CI that, “process models; in

general, introduce the “image formation process”: the way corporate Philosophies,

personalities are translated into CI, leading to the formation of an (ideally) favourable image, reputation, which in turn, results in creating a competitive advantage.” Mohamad et al (2007) borrow the constructs used by Melewar and Jenskin (2002).

Melewar and Jenskin Model Melewar and Jenskin (2002) model helped to explain on the four independent variables that define CI in this study. Melewar and Jenskin (2002) model use four sub-constructs to

SULWE FM

Licensed under Creative Common Page 9

measure corporate identity in organizations namely: communication and visual identity; behaviour; corporate culture; and market conditions. Fig 2.2: Melewar and Jenskin (2002) CI mix Source: Mohamad et al (2007) Fig 2.2: Melewar and Jenskin (2002) CI mix Source: Mohamad et al (2007) Communication and visual image touch on corporate visual image; corporate communication; architecture, location and uncontrollable communication. Corporate visual identity of the organization is reflected by five main components such as corporate name; symbol and/or logotype; typography; colour; and slogan (Dowling, 1986; Olins, 1995).The component of behaviour consists of management behaviour and employee behaviour. Corporate Culture is the commonly held and relatively stable beliefs, attitudes and values that exist within the organisation (Williams et al., 1993).The component of market conditions involves the nature of the industry and marketing strategy. Melewar and Jenkins (2002) model resembles that of Schmidt (1995) in content with the exception of “products/services,” (Csordás, 2008).

Conceptual Framework In this study, a strong corporate identity was assumed to positively affect the stakeholders’

satisfaction with a company products and services. Satisfaction is reflected through actions and attitudes of stakeholders that indicate whether the customers are happy or not with a good or services.CI components are brand markers that customers use to recognize a product they are

Licensed under Creative Common Page 10

Figure2.3 Conceptual Framework

Visual markers Corporate name Logo type Colour schemes Slogan

Staff attitudes Favorable Unfavorable

Corporate culture Core values Mission and vision Beliefs

Marketing strategies Nature of Industry players PR Campaigns Marketing mix (4ps)

Independent Variables

Licensed under Creative Common Page 11

satisfied with through which loyalty and commitment is created. The four variables in this model amount to a CI mix that is broad based aimed at addressing diverse needs of the stakeholders. If you manipulate one or all independent variables in the CI mix you are supposed to get a corresponding effect on the dependent variable which in this case is the stakeholder satisfaction. Visual corporate symbols inspire change and plant positive ideas among organizations stakeholders. They are visual images of who an organisation is recognized to be and a conduit for pleasant experience. Corporate culture is the sum total of the organizational climate. Management and staff attitudes can be positive or negative hence promoting or impeding on the organizational goal. Market conditions refer to the prevailing level of competiveness. If there are more alternatives for the same product or service the degree of rivalry is higher among the vendors. The Marketing practices help to create more loyal and committed stakeholders to your brand.

Research Methodology The research study was a one shot case study of how schools communicate to stakeholders through CI features resulting to either satisfaction or dissatisfaction. A case study makes an in-depth investigation, “of an individual, group, institution or phenomenon

(Mugenda & Mugenda, 1999).” This study used descriptive design set in a co-relational model to explain the relationship between CI and stakeholder satisfaction. Mugenda & Mugenda (1999) state that corelational method describes in quantitative terms the degree to which variables are related which is expressed as a correlation coeffient (r). The quantative method entailed collecting data to measure CI effects on stakeholders’

satisfaction using questionnaires. Mugenda & Mugenda (1999) assert that quantative design produce discreet numerical or quantifiable data.The questionnaire used to assess the effect of CI in schools was designed by the researcher in line with the model developed by Melewar and Jenskin (2001). Melewar and Storrie (2001) found that this model is suitable for companies in the service sector. The items in the questions represented the four components of CI namely: visual markers, behaviour, and corporate culture and market conditions. The sample size of this study was a combined group of four stakeholders namely: students, principals, teachers and parents adding to n = 452 respondents. According to the Creative Research Systems sample size calculator (online survey software, 2014), a population of 8000 students requires a sample size of 367 students at a margin of error of ±5 and 95% confidence level. Therefore stratified sampling was done from the 20 public schools for a total of n=367 students respondents distributed as follows: extra county schools (A=75=21%), county schools (B=47=12%) and district schools (C=250=67%). Mugenda & Mugenda (1999) state that the goal of stratified random sampling is to achieve desired representation from various sub-groups in the population. The share size of each school was calculated based on the percentage ratio of the school category and the individual school population. The researcher requested for a group of best performing students distributed evenly from every form per school whose number was determined by the sample share of that school. Another group of: n=15 principals (one per school), n=40 teachers (teaching within the sub-county, preferably games teachers and deans of academics per sample school) and n=30 local schools community parents (PTA officials

Licensed under Creative Common Page 12

in local schools and residing within the sub-county) was picked using purposive sampling method. This latter group of 100 stakeholders picked using purposeful sampling method to meet the criterion of principals, teachers, and local schools community parents was used to compare on the general trends, check on the accuracy of students’ responses at face

value as well as measure their satisfaction of the local schools as stakeholders in their own right. Purposive sampling allows a researcher to use cases that have the required information with respect to the objective of the study (Mugenda and Mugenda, 1999).Percentages were used to describe the effect of the CI features on the stakeholders’ satisfaction. Weighted mean was employed to describe their effect on cluster groups. Pearson Correlation was used to describe in quantitative terms the degree to which variables were related. Regression analysis was employed to determine the degree t o which independent variables may predict the dependent variable.

Findings and Discussions The set of items that measured the particular variables were aggregated to form an index of (0-100).CI which was the independent variable had four items that were measured using 10-12 elements each and the dependent variable which was the stakeholder satisfaction index measured from all the above items plus two other stand alone items. The summary of study variables was as follows:

Visual identity (VI) and Effect The first component of CI was Visual Identity was measured using the following 12

elements:

Table 4.3: Components of VI measured and effects Total No Yes

Count % Count % Count % 1. Applied & Liked Logo(colours, typography, or symbols )

72 16.6 362 83.4 434 100.0

2. Applied & Liked staff uniforms

178 53.8 153 46.2 331 100.0

3. Applied & Liked students uniforms

16 4.2 368 95.8 384 100.0

Licensed under Creative Common Page 13

4. Applied & Liked colours and uniqueness of uniforms

51 14.2 307 85.8 358 100.0

5. Applied & Liked unique physical appeal (buildings, gate, landscaping e.t.c)

60 21.7 217 78.3 277 100.0

6. Applied & Liked other paraphernalia like branded pens, diary, note books e.t.c

180 57.5 133 42.5 313 100.0

7.Helps to get sponsored /am inspired to donate or partner with the school

108 35.9 193 64.1 301 100.0

8.Am attracted to enroll a child 124 44.1 157 55.9 281 100.0

9.I join in events or participate in school activities

41 11.1 328 88.9 369 100.0

10.I form long time association /work or relate with school

65 21.0 245 79.0 310 100.0

11.Am proud and secure to be a member

45 11.9 333 88.1 378 100.0

12.I do not like any association 272 79.8 69 20.2 341 100.0

NB: Yes means features are Applied & Liked while No means either not applied or a dislike. The definition of corporate identity coined by van Riel (1995) as the behaviour, communication and symbolism of an organisation and also supported by Baker and

Licensed under Creative Common Page 14

Balmer (1997) and Grunig (1993) lead us to the first variable which is VI. Corporate visual identity of any organization is reflected by five main components namely: corporate name; symbol and/or logotype; typography; colour; and slogan, (Dowling, 1986) and Olins (1995). Olins (1989) add that when symbolism is used through these VI aids, it guarantees consistent quality standards and contributes to the loyalty of customers. It should boost loyalty of employees which is necessary for reputation building in educational institutions (Grandison & Sloman, 2005) as cited Tshabangu (2012). Gregory

and Wiechmann (1999) also stipulate that when a company needs to break from the past or be established in a particular market or adopt a new look after an acquisition; a change in the corporate name may also help in changing the corporate image.VI components create emotional attachment. Educational organizations must be emotionally appealing which implies respectability, appreciation and trust, (Tshabangu, 2012). A workplace environment which is conducive for effective learning in a school comprise of the following key components: a physical environment that is welcoming; a social environment that promotes communication and interaction among stakeholders; and effective environment that promotes a sense of belonging and self-concept; an academic environment that promotes learning and self-fulfillment, (Modin &Östberg, 2007) as cited Tshabangu

(2012).Some schools splash over quality statements in their compound to inspire stakeholders which they refer to as a “talking compound.” Management Behaviour (MB) and Effect The second component of CI was Management Behaviour which was measured using the

following ten elements:

Licensed under Creative Common Page 15

Table 4.4: Components of MB measured Total No Yes

Count % Count % Count % 1.School has a motto 39 8.8 402 91.2 441 100.0

2.Has a school anthem/slogan 258 61.3 163 38.7 421 100.0

3.Has a school mission 135 35.0 251 65.0 386 100.0

4.Has a school vision

155 40.4 229 59.6 384 100.0

5.School has core values 133 40.8 193 59.2 326 100.0

6.School has good performance

97 22.7 330 77.3 427 100.0

7.School has good discipline /Stability

50 11.5 385 88.5 435 100.0

8.School has positive staff attitude

80 18.6 350 81.4 430 100.0

9.School has innovative management style

123 30.6 279 69.4 402 100.0

10.School has excellent communication methods

195 49.6 198 50.4 393 100.0

The aggregate of management style and staff behaviour translate into a corporate culture. Klein (1999) comments that it is especially important that employees‟ beliefs and attitudes be quantified because reputation starts within the organization and a corporate reputation is not purely something for stakeholders at the annual meeting. It is rooted in trust and is ethically shaped over time as reflected in the healthy attitude those employees have towards the organization. A loyal educator and a learner who identify themselves with the school can recommend the school to others as nice place to work or receive education,

Licensed under Creative Common Page 16

Tshabangu (2012). Department of Basic Education (2010) as cited Tshabangu (2012) point out that respect, trust and appreciation are affected when educators experience times of frustrations with teaching as it is a very demanding job caused by educational policies that are not sensitive to what educators experience and feel and the curriculum that is poorly designed or unfair. Fullman (2003) as cited Tshabangu (2012) and Marken (2002) maintain that an investment in people will result in a positive change which, in turn, will create an effective climate. The challenge that is faced by the Department of Education in South Africa in ensuring that educators are appreciated so that they can stay loyal in their tasks is a better reward system for those who are exceptionally good educators and who go an extra mile (Department of Basic Education, 2010). Mathibe (2007) as cited in Tshabangu (2012) pronounces that school managers in South Africa are not properly trained and skilled for school management and leadership. Levine (2006) as cited in Tshabangu (2012)

concludes that in the 21st century, there is a growing realization that leadership is expert profession that necessitates definite training. Bush (2008) and Lumby, Crow and Pashiardis (2008) as cited in Tshabangu (2012) mention that there is a growing body of evidence that effective preparation makes a difference to the quality of leadership and to school and learner outcomes. Kruger (2003) as cited in (Tshabangu, 2012 )also confirms

that there is a high teacher attrition rate in schools that are poorly managed with low

learner pass rate. Peterson (2002) as cited Tshabangu (2012) enlightens on five practices common to leaders who can get extraordinary things done: they model the way; inspire a shared vision; challenge the process; enable others to act; and encourage the heart.

Corporate culture (CC) and Effect The third component of CI was Corporate Culture which was measured using the

following ten elements:

Table 4.5 Components of CC measured Total No Yes

Count % Count % Count % 1.School generates respect, admiration esteem and confidence from stakeholders

33 7.8 390 92.2 423 100.0

2.School has values that obeys the laws, transparency and respects people and the environment

35 8.3 387 91.7 422 100.0

Licensed under Creative Common Page 17

3.School supports good causes that benefits society and environment

49 12.2 353 87.8 402 100.0

4.School working environment benefits and good treats its employees

61 15.0 346 85.0 407 100.0

5.School has excellent leadership, which is innovative, and seeks to overcome challenges constantly

68 16.1 354 83.9 422 100.0

6.School treats customers courteously, communicates with them and takes care of their safety and health

81 19.7 330 80.3 411 100.0

7.School stands behind its educational products and services with good price and good quality that meet customer satisfaction

93 24.4 288 75.6 381 100.0

8. School contributes actively and voluntarily to the social, economic and environmental improvement of the society.

85 22.1 300 77.9 385 100.0

9.School delivers on its targets/promises 83 20.5 322 79.5 405 100.0

10.School utilizes its resources prudently

76 18.9 327 81.1 403 100.0

Licensed under Creative Common Page 18

According to Yes Magazine (2013); the best companies develop core values that impact on their company culture, brand, and business strategies, making them quite unique. Corporate culture in a school basically refers to work and learning environment. A good workplace environment as observed by researchers has caring as the core element (George & Thomas, 2000) as cited in Tshabangu (2012) and also school safety (Sanders, 2004) as cited in Tshabangu (2012). Tshabangu (2012) notes, in an effective school, the people will operate more like a community than an organization and all stakeholders feel good about the decisions made, they commit to the plan of action developed resulting to less absenteeism and the quality of work produced is of greater significance which produces a learning environment for students that is more conducive. Department of Basic Education (2010) as cited in (Tshabangu, 2012 state, a positive attitude will increase respectability of the school. According to Steyn et al. (2008), positive attitudes always call for positive responses. Well developed policies create an environment where educators and staff members enjoy their work (Fullman, 2003). According to Modin and Östberg (2009) as cited in (Tshabangu 2012 organizational climate can be measured

using the properties of the work environment, perceived directly or indirectly by the people

who live and work in this environment. In a school, potential learners look for a “great

organization” that has at its core an appealing culture and inspiring values, Einwiller and

Will (2002) as cited in (Tshabangu 2012 .Hatch &Schultz (2001 )also established the

importance of alignment between the vision, culture (capabilities) and image (expecta-tions) of an organization in order to build a strong brand and solid reputation.

Market conditions (MC) The fourth component of CI was Market Conditions which was measured using the

following ten elements:

Table 4.6: Components of MC measured and effects Total No Yes

Count % Count % Count % 1.Competitive in academic performance

12 2.8 421 97.2 433 100.0

2.Competitive in discipline and stability

78 19.7 317 80.3 395 100.0

3.Competitive in quality of staff

169 49.1 175 50.9 344 100.0

4.Competitive in management and motivation

92 25.1 275 74.9 367 100.0

Licensed under Creative Common Page 19

5.Competitive in facility/resource

123 35.4 224 64.6 347 100.0

6.Competitive in sports 46 11.1 369 88.9 415 100.0

7.Competitive in students admission

162 48.1 175 51.9 337 100.0

8.School use new media innovations in stakeholder management communication

260 63.4 150 36.6 410 100.0

9. School ever invited a prominent personality to grace any of its corporate events?

92 21.6 333 78.4 425 100.0

10.School uses sms/phone, internet/ intranet and broadcast / print media

156 39.0 244 61.0 400 100.0

Schools are not adequately investing in modern communication technologies as revealed above. Only 37% of schools have embraced new media in stakeholder management. Referring to Universities management, Dirks (1998) observe, “with regard to the creativity

of marketing, higher education generally has not permitted the professional marketer to participate in shaping its practices.” Erdman (2002) and Rips (2000) as cited in (Tshabangu, 2012 )remark that competition amongst schools is the solution to the

problems of public schooling .They add that reputable schools on the one hand enjoy

more frequent positive media coverage.

Level of Stakeholder Satisfaction (SS) As mentioned earlier, the stakeholder satisfaction index was measured from all the above four items and separately through rating the strategic value of each customer and then their degree of stakeholder satisfaction with the school as displayed in the graphs:

Licensed under Creative Common Page 20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Teachers

Principals

Parents

students

Figure 4.4 Strategic value of each stakeholder to the school as rated by each respondents These perception indices were based on the four stakeholder respondents of whom they thought was the most important customer of the school. You are cautioned that, “In

developing a corporate identity and the corporate brand, it should be recognized that some stakeholders are more important than others, Russell Abratt & Nicola Kleyn (n.d).”The degree of stakeholder satisfaction measured without correlating to CI elements had an aggregate Mean of yes=46% and No=56%.When correlated against CI variables, it hit a high of positive 82.7%. This means that there is a high degree of subjectivity when level of satisfaction is measured as a standalone variable.

Figure 4.5 level of stakeholder satisfaction

Meech (1996) advise that it should be routine management practice to review the corporate identity periodically. Feldman et al (2014) found that, greater knowledge of stakeholder perceptions about the organization will help define a sort of reputational platform and organizations should have the capacity to diagnose how their constituents perceive them, to configure an optimistic strategy for managing corporate reputation, more so, acknowledge the different dynamics of their environmental surroundings and learn who its key constituents are and what they want and expect from it (Preble, 2005).Know your stakeholders well; an organization’s stakeholders being those who use its products and services, earn its wages, and share its environment (Heath, 2001) and always remember that they will be satisfied to the extent that their overall experience with the company has provided adequate value (i.e., benefits) in relation to the resources that they have given up over the course of the relationship, (Garbarino& Johnson, 1999).These

Licensed under Creative Common Page 21

stakeholders will play important roles as advocates, sponsors, partners and as agents of change (IPSOS MORI, 2001),so provide good service to them to increase the likelihood of an exchange relationship in the future (Alexander &Paul Miesing (n.d). Corporate reputation of an organization is therefore considered a key variable in improving the organization’s attractiveness and its capacity for retention of both clients and investors,(Feldman et al ,2014).

Descriptive Analysis The overall descriptive analysis of variables was as follows: Table 4.7

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Visual identities 456 .00 100.00 71.3754 19.18926

Corporate Culture 453 .00 100.00 69.3028 21.30926

Management behaviour 443 .00 100.00 85.1166 22.47098

Market conditions 447 .00 100.00 70.2995 20.94756

Stakeholder Satisfaction index 437 .00 100.00 82.6850 24.51412

A mean of above 70% for all the four CI components show a high level of application in schools or a high positive response by stakeholders resulting to a high SS index of 83%. Absence or low application of CI components and negative perceptions towards some CI features would similarly yield a low SS index.

Correlations In order to test the hypothesis on relationships, Pearson correlation coefficient was used. In regard to visual identity and stakeholder satisfaction, the relationship was found to be significant and positive at (r=0.257, p<0.001).Corporate culture was found to be positively correlated to visual Identity at (r=0.296, p<0.001).Management behaviour was found to be positively correlated to corporate culture at (r=0.275, p<0.001) and market conditions was found to be positively correlated to management behaviour at (r=0.259,P<0.001). Mohamad et al (2007) study using simple regression analysis also found that there was a significant positive relationship between corporate identity and corporate reputation (r = 0.734, p < .005), meaning that there was a direct relationship between corporate identity and corporate reputation indicating that corporate identity had a high correlation with corporate reputation cumulatively amounting to satisfaction or dissatisfaction because reputation is the highest appreciation from the eyes of publics, (Van Riel (1997).

Licensed under Creative Common Page 22

Russell Abratt & Nicola Kleyn(n.d) says that an organisation that seeks to create positive reputations amongst its various stakeholder groups must understand the dimensions on which stakeholders evaluate reputation including, but not limited to, the organization’s

performance, its products and services, its citizenship activities, service, innovation, the workplace, governance and ethics. CI as proved is therefore a cocktail of variables that generate pleasant feelings among stakeholders.

Regression To test joint relations, a multiple regression model was fitted to the data with stakeholders satisfaction (Y) index as the dependent variable and the others as the independent

Table 4.8:Correlations

Stakeholder Satisfaction

index Visual

identities Corporate

Culture Management behavior

Market conditions

Stakeholder Satisfaction index

Pearson Correlation 1 .257** .343** .496** .168**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 437 436 434 435 434

Visual identities

Pearson Correlation .257** 1 .296** .307** .182**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 436 456 452 442 446

Corporate Culture

Pearson Correlation .343** .296** 1 .275** .140**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .003

N 434 452 453 440 444

Management behaviour

Pearson Correlation .496** .307** .275** 1 .259**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 435 442 440 443 439

Market conditions

Pearson Correlation .168** .182** .140** .259** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .003 .000

N 434 446 444 439 447

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Licensed under Creative Common Page 23

variable (X).The model was found to be significant: FC 4,423=46.97, p<0.001) with r2=0.308 implying that the four variables jointly explained 30.8% of variation in stakeholder satisfaction. The model below sum up the regression analysis: (r=0.257, p<0.001). (F (4,423)=46.97,p<0.001). The regression model is: Y=19.45+0.097VI+0.23CC*+0.458MBP*+0.021MC Where: Y= stakeholders satisfaction, VI=visual identities, CC=corporate culture, MB= management behaviour, MC=market conditions In this model, only CC and MB are significant predicators at (t=4.602,p<0.001) and t=9.521,p<0.001).For 1 unit increase in CC,Y increases by 0.23 units and 1 unit of MB Y increases by 0.458.Visual identity contributes 9.7% and market conditions contribute 2.1% to stakeholder satisfaction. Mohamad et al (2007) study found similar results where all the four corporate identity components were significant predictors of corporate reputation at F (4, 491) = 213.62, p < .05 and R2 =0.635. Communication and visual identity had t(496) = 7.576, p <0.05, behaviour had t(496) = 7.020, p < .05, corporate culture had t(496)=5.695, p>0 .05 and market condition had t(496) = 2.684, p < 0.05 showing significant impact of corporate identity with almost 63.5% variance in corporate reputation. The table below sum up the model.

Table 4.10:Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

T Sig. B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 19.452 5.394 3.607 .000

Visual identities .097 .057 .074 1.691 .092

Corporate Culture .230 .050 .200 4.602 .000

Management behaviour .458 .048 .424 9.521 .000

Table 4.9:Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .555a .308 .301 20.42759

a. Predictors: (Constant), Market conditions, Corporate Culture, Visual identities, Management behaviour

Licensed under Creative Common Page 24

Market conditions .021 .049 .018 .432 .666

a. Dependent Variable: Stakeholder Satisfaction index

The results confirm the hypothesis that CI indeed affects stakeholder satisfaction. Visual identity, management behaviour, corporate culture and market conditions were all found to have significant relationship on how the stakeholders feel and view any one given school as evidentially adduced above. The four CI variables jointly explained 30.8% of variation in stakeholder satisfaction in this study, meaning that even if a company has a superb product 31% of its market share will be determined by the strength of its CI. Mohamad et al (2007) conclude that, “Organizations have realized that a strong identity

can help them align with the marketplace, attract investment, motivate employees and serve as a means to differentiate their product and services hence many organizations are striving to develop a distinct and recognizable identity.”

Conclusion The overall objective of the study was to examine the effect of CI components on stakeholder satisfaction in public secondary schools. This study concludes that strategic management of all the four CI components should be employed to manage the school brand. The strategic management of reputation assumes that it is possible to measure the construct through time and improve on its score so this way the organization is able to monitor the relationships between itself and its different stakeholders ( Tkalac & Vercic,2007) as cited Tshabangu (2012).Review regularly which component of CI need to be improved. Meyer (2000) supports this position that in order to move with confidence towards its vision, the organization must know how it is perceived and positioned today. Sarstedt & Schloderer (2010) as cited Tshabangu (2012) and Smith, & Wang (2010) agree that external signals of brand image (such as corporate reputation rankings) could provide value-relevant information to the market, as well as help organizations measure their performance from an outside perception. The bottom line in this exercise should be to attain a positive reputation because a favourable corporate reputation is more likely to be associated with superior performance (Baden-Fuller & Hwee, 2001, Roberts & Dowling, 2002, Kitchen & Laurence, 2003, Brammer & Millington, 2005). The study further concludes that a modern school should be run on the principles of a model corporation where communication becomes paramount in reaching out to key stakeholders. Safon (2009) and Vidaver-Cohen (2007) as cited in (Tshabangu 2012 )

assert that corporate communication has been adapted in the field of educational management in the anticipation that if a school has a good reputation, it would have good communication with its stakeholders. School principals should know that a positive reputation is a strategic resource for building credibility and support among different stakeholders (Melewar, 2003). The study finally concludes that the level of management skills of the principals as the CEOs in schools is cardinal in the formulation a CI that brings out the desired level of stakeholder satisfaction. Among all the stakeholders, management behaviour of the

Licensed under Creative Common Page 25

principal seems to be the most crucial. The principal must manage other staff and learner behaviour to produce the desired school culture while at the same time attract other stakeholders. However, Bush and Oduro (2006) as cited Tshabangu (2012) cautions that throughout Africa, there is no formal requirement for principals and school managers to be trained. School managers are often hired on the basis of a successful record as educators with the embedded supposition that this provides an adequate starting point for school leadership. Van der Westhuizen et al.(2004) as cited Tshabangu (2012) indicate that a

range of changes in the education system have rendered many school principals ineffective in the management of their schools with many of the serving principals lacking basic management training prior to and after their entry into school management. Secondary school managers will find this study an invaluable tool in navigating through the murky waters of declining perception index on public schools. Indeed, it is inevitable for any corporate communication manager to think CI due to increased competition and effects of commodification of education.

Recommendations The results of this study recommend a strong broad based CI for schools in order to promote stability and improve on school performance. Appealing visual corporate symbols become a conduit through which pleasant stakeholder experience is shared and exchanged. A good corporate culture promotes a desirable organizational climate that makes performance thrive. A well entrenched corporate culture also helps school weather through the varying storms of crisis. Klein (1999) as cited in (Tshabangu, 2012 )confirms

this indicating that an organization with a solid reputation earns the benefit of doubt in times of crisis. Your marketing practices should deliberately appeal and help to create more loyal and committed stakeholders to your brand as a school. Essentially, it is the way you organize curriculum implementation, staff and learner behaviour, physical appeal, your choice of corporate events and the profile of endorsers to associate with as a school that will stir a positive response. Management and employees who are carriers of corporate culture have a strong influence on stakeholder satisfaction; therefore managers should rise above partisan interests and subjective evaluation of performance. Bass and Rigg (2006) as cited Tshabangu (2012) indicate that leadership matters because effective leaders make a difference in people lives, a situation which empowers followers and teaches them how to take appropriate actions so as to facilitate change. In this regard, empowerment according to Elmore (2000) as cited Tshabangu (2012)occurs through: the provision of staff

development opportunities addressing emergent needs; the provision of support collaboration among educators; coaching relationships; encouraging and supporting programme design, so that educators are involved in redesigning instructional programmes; and growth and development to staff development programmes. As a matter of fact, if every time you effect internal staff changes and then confidence levels of the school fluctuate like the share price in the stock market, it means that your CI structure is weak or you just had an exceptional staff member or manager. The results of this study supported by literature on CIM reviewed earlier therefore lead to the following recommendations on what schools need to do to their CI so that they can be viewed

Licensed under Creative Common Page 26

positively by their stakeholders. First, schools strategic plans should pay particular attention to all the four components of corporate identity. Define the organization’s strategic intent and allow for the development and implementation of a specific reputational strategy (Cornelissen, 2011).” Wango G.M

(2009) advise that, “Strategic planning activities include meetings and other

communication among the organization's leaders and personnel to develop a common understanding regarding the competitive environment and what the organization's response to that environment (its strategy) should be. Managers should specifically and deliberately invest more resources in communicating clearly on elements of corporate culture and stipulating clearly on the acceptable standard of management behavioral practices. If possible develop an internal code of ethics and communication policy. CC and MB as shown in this study are at the core of a firm’s identity and will largely affect stakeholder satisfaction. Note, even with a good product, the four CI variables will jointly account for 31% of stakeholder satisfaction. It helps to have a strong corporate identity which is broad based in order to attain objectivity and stability. Level of satisfaction measured objectively against CI components was high at 83% than against individual whims at 46%.In your corporate communication strategies avoid promoting partisan interests. Secondly, when crafting a school communication strategy make the parents and students appreciate other stakeholders’ contribution as you also massage their bloated ego of self

importance. All stakeholders sampled appreciated the students and their parents as being the most valued strategic clients of the school. Teachers and management, who are key internal stakeholder, were less appreciated. This is a misnomer because they are the carriers of corporate culture and management behaviour; elements which were proved to be significant predicators of stakeholder satisfaction. Obviously, their disaffection affects other stakeholders’ well being. Georgina, (2006) as cited Tshabangu (2012) discovered

this when she remarked that the extent to which the school communicates with parents determines their involvement in the activities of the school and that parents can choose any school they like because there are not any compulsory laws regarding schooling (Rips, 2000; Rawls, 2001) as cited Tshabangu (2012). In order to realize school goals,

emphasize on the key roles played by all the stakeholders . Regular corporate events and

team building sessions can help. Although school success is influenced by many people,

school principals remain the most important factor in this success (Xaba, 2007) as cited in Tshabangu (2012). Werner (2002) as cited Tshabangu (2012)contends that leadership is

based on the ability to empower followers. In essence, this implies that Schools with principals should play role of activating, directing, guiding, mentoring, educating, assisting and supporting all staff so that they focus on a shared vision, strategy and set of intended aims (Prinsloo, 2003) as cited Tshabangu (2012). Thirdly, the government should consider posting a communication officer at the Ministry of Education county headquarters to establish a communications department or use a pool of experts for schools because reputation may be influenced by a variety of outside sources besides communication and signaling from inside the company (Brown, Dacin, Pratt & Whetten, 2006, Einwiller, Carron & Korn, 2010) as cited Tshabangu (2012). If

Licensed under Creative Common Page 27

resources allow, engage a professional corporate communication strategist and media experts. Kitchen (1997) emphasizes that public relations should be a strategic function in order to achieve a representative corporate identity .Balmer and Greyser (2003) observe that many companies proactively choose to create media attention and use it as a tool for identity construction and strengthening, and also to reinvent their images under the pressure of new technology. The incidences are often spoken about long after they happened making it difficult for these schools to recruit good learners and staff members (Hanson,& Childs, 1998) as cited Tshabangu (2012).Schools need to up their game in corporate communication in stakeholder management. Fourthly, in a school marketing promotion, pay particular attention to discipline status, school fees charged, academic performance, quality of sporting and location of the school. You may also target the undecided clients who may join you because of a good name/prestige or involuntary admission. Engage mainstream media and professional marketers in the promotion. Do regular market research on your level of competitiveness. Gray and Balmer (1998) argue that the corporation’s reputation can influence the

willingness of consumers to either provide or withhold support for the company and its products. School management should move beyond chalk and talk. Appreciate trends in education where competition for quality education as a product is a reality. Finally, provide enough resources and competent managers to enable schools embrace modern strategic management practice. Schools that cut out an image of success become popular while those that are non-performing collapse losing their human and financial resources as well as goodwill until they are forced to either improve or close down (Gorard, Taylor& Fitz, 2003) as cited in (Tshabangu 2012 .)Only 50% of the stakeholders

sampled felt that their schools have excellent communication methods. A paltry 37 %

confirmed that their schools ever use any new media in management communication . Areas Requiring Further Research In particular, it should be investigated on how the ministry’s categorization of schools and

funding is responsible for low perception index of some schools hence creating stakeholder dissatisfaction. A research on how private and mission schools manage their images should also be conducted. In the era of new media, it is important to establish how modern digital media technologies are being used by schools to increase their online visibility and enhance brand management. REFERENCES Abratt, R. (1989), “A new approach to the corporate image management process”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol 5 No. 1, pp63-76.

Akhilosh, D. (2007). Commercialization of education in India. Policy, law and Justice.APH publishing Corporation.

Licensed under Creative Common Page 28

Albesa, J. (2007)."Interaction channel choice in a multichannel environment, an empirical study." International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 25 Iss: 7.

American Center for Progress: Coalition for Communities Schools’ report 2012.Available on www.americanprogress.org

American Corporation for National and community Service (n.d): School Stakeholders. http://www.blueprintforchangeonline.net/pages/stakeholders/identifying.php

Anderson, E. W., Claes F., and Donald R. L. (1994), "Customer Satisfaction, Market Share, and Profitability: Findings from Sweden." Journal of Marketing,58 (3), 53.

Argenti, P.A., &Druckenmiller, B. (2004),“Reputation and the Corporate Brand”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol.6 No.4, Pp.368-374.

Aula, P. (2011). Mesh worked reputation: Publicists’ views on the reputational impacts of online communication. Public Relations Review, 37, 28-36.

Baden-Fuller, C., & Hwee, S. (2001). Building reputations: the role of alliances in the European Business School scene. Long Range Planning, 34 (6), 741-755. Bahamonde, Isabelle V & Bellido A new approach for measuring corporate reputation .ISSN 0034-7590 © RAE | São Paulo | V. 54 | n. 1 | jan-fev 2014 | 53-66

Baker, M. D., Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Visual identity: trappings or substance? European Journal of Marketing.Vol. 31.366-382.

Balmer, J.M.T. & Gray, E.R. (2003). “Corporate Brands: What Are They? What of Them?”

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, P. 972.

Licensed under Creative Common Page 29

Balmer, J.M.T. &Greyser, S.A. (2003).Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives on Identity, Image, Reputation, Corporate Branding, and Corporate-Level Marketing.Routledge, London.

Balanced Scorecard Institute Report (1998-2014).A strategy Management Group Company.

Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2002). Managing the multiple identities of the corporation. California Management Review, 44 (3), 72-86. Percy Marquina Feldman | Rolando Arellano.

Barnett, M. L., Jermier, J. M., Lafferty, B. A. (2006). Corporate reputation: the definitional landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 9 (1), 26-38.

Bertalanffy, L.v. (1969). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications.

Bhattacharya, C.B. &Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company identification: a framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies.”Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 76-89.

Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2005). Corporate reputation and philanthropy: an empirical analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61 (1), 29-44. Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G., & Whetten, D. (2006). Identity, intended image, construed image, and reputation: an interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (2), 99-106. Christopher S. A., &Miesing, P.(n.d). How Important Are Stakeholder Relationships?King’s

College, State University of New York At Albany. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Attribution Theory as a Guide for Post-Crisis Communication Research.Public Relations Review, 33, 135-139. Cornelissen, J. (2011). Corporate communication: a guide to theory and practice. 3rd Edition. London: Sage Publications Ltd. © RAE | São Paulo | V. 54 | n. 1 | jan-fev 2014 | 53-66

Licensed under Creative Common Page 30

Cornelissen, J. &Elving, W.J.L. (2003). Managing corporate identity: an integrative framework of dimensions and determinants. Corporate Communications: An International Journal.Vol. 8 (2).pp 114-120. Croteau, D. &Hoynes, W. (1997)."Industries and Audience".Media/Society. London: Pine Forge Press. Csordás T. (2008) “Corporate Identity with Special Regards To the Human Factor,” University of Miskolc.Department of Human Resources. Daily Nation:Wednesday, March 12, 2014.Heads roll after Starehe posts poor KCSE results. Nation Media group. Retrieved from http://www.nation.co.ke/news/k Starehe- Boys-Centre-Paul-Mugo-Forced-leave/-/1056/2241790/-/4jqrqaz/-/index.html Dirks, A. L. (1998).Higher Education in Marketing Theory.Published On-Line By Author Retrieved from (Http://Webhost.Bridgew.Edu/Adirks/Ald/Papers/Mktheor.Htm). Bridgewater, MA. Accessed [Date]. Donaldson, T. &. Preston, L. E. (1995), "The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications."Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), 65-91. Dowling, G. R., (1986). Managing your corporate images.Industrial Marketing Management.15.2. Einwiller, S. A., Carroll, C. E, & Korn, K. (2010). Under what conditions do the news media influence corporate reputation? The roles of media dependency and need for orientation. Corporate Reputation Review, 12 (4), 299-315. Georges, N. (2011). Working strategically with reputation management. Cartel sesión presented at Primera Conferencia Latinoamericana de Reputación Corporativa, Cartagena, Colombia. October. Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corporate reputation: seeking a definition. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6 (1), 24-30. Gregory, A. (2007). Involving stakeholders in developing corporate brands: the communication dimension. Journal of Marketing Management, 23 (1-2), 59-73. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31 (5–6), 356–365. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand? Harvard Business Review, 79 (2), 128-34. Feldman, P. M | Bahamonde R. A | Bellido I. V.A new approach for measuring corporate

Licensed under Creative Common Page 31

reputation .ISSN 0034-7590 © RAE | São Paulo | V. 54 | n. 1 | jan-fev 2014 | 53-66 Fombrun, C.J & Shanley, M. (1990). “What’s In a Name? Reputation Building and

Corporate Strategy.”Academy Of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, Pp. 233-58. Fombrun, C.J. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard Business School Press, and Boston, MA. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. N Y: Basic Books. Garbarino, E. & Mark S. J. (1999)."The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships."Journal of Marketing, 63 (2), 70-87. Gerbner, G & Gross, L (1976).Living with television: The violence profile.Journal of communication, 26(2), 172-199. Good Paster (1991). Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis. Gray, E.R. &Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Managing corporate image and corporate reputation.” Gregory, J.R. &Wiechmann, J.G. (1999).Marketing Corporate Image, NTC Business Books, New York, NY. Grunig, J. E. & Hunt, T (1984).Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Grunig, J. E. and Repper, F. C. (1992) Strategic management, publics and issues, in Grunig, J. E. (ed.) ‘Excellence in public relations and communication management New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher Hammer, R.K., Douglas (eds.) (2009). Media/Cultural Studies.Critical Approaches New York, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, Oxford, Wien, 2009.XLVIII, 644 pp., num. ill. Harvard Graduate school of Education in a research project ( 2007).Retrieved from Here are the top 10 best-performing CEOs across the globe.htm on Nov 27 2014. Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (1997).“Relations between Organizational Culture, Identity

and Image.”European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, No. 5/6, pp. 356-365. Heath, R.L. (Ed.). (2001). The Handbook of Public Relations. London: Sage. Hollenssen s. (2001).Global marketing. HongWei He, J M.T.&Balmer, (2013). "A grounded theory of the corporate identity and

Licensed under Creative Common Page 32

corporate strategy dynamic: A corporate marketing perspective." European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47 Iss: 3/4, pp.401 – 430. Hovland, C, & Sheriff, M (1961).Social Judgment Theory: assimilation, contrast effect in communication and attitude change.Westport .Green wood. IPSOS MORI (Nov 2009).Understanding your stakeholders.A best practice guide for the public sector. Social Research Institute. Jefkins, F. (1998).Public Relation. London: Prentice Hall. Kothari, C.R (2004, 2008). Research Methodology .New Age Publishers .New Delhi. Kitchen, P., & Laurence, A. (2003). Corporate reputation: an eight-country analysis. Corporate Reputation Review, 6 (2), 103-117. Kitchen, P. J 1997 (ed) Public Relations; Principles and Practice London: Thomson Learning. Kitchen P J and Schultz D E(200). Raising the Corporate Umbrella: Corporate Communications in the 21st century (2002), Corporate Reputation Review, Vol 5 Numbers 2 & 3, pp266-268, Henry Stewart Publications. Mahon, J. F., & Wartick, S. L. (2003). Dealing with stakeholders: how reputation, credibility and framing influence the game. Corporate Reputation Review, 6 (1), 19-35. Mahon, J. F. (2002). Corporate reputation: a research agenda using strategy and stakeholder literature. Business & Society, 41 (4), 415-445. Melewar, T. C., Matrix Uniforms (6 Dec 2013). Building a Corporate Identity through Branded Uniform.9 Montrose Avenue, Hillington Park, Hillington, Glasgow, G52 4LA Marken, G. A. (1995). Corporate image….to project and protect. Public Relations Quarterly.Vol.39 (4).47-48. Marcella M. &Kagema N. (2014).The Effect of Expanding Access of Day Secondary Schools: Evidence from Kenya.International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 2 No. 1 January2014. Mary J. H. & Majken S. (2001). Bringing the corporation into Corporate branding.European Journal of Marketing Vol. 37 No. 7/8, 2003pp. 1041-1064q.MCB UP Limited 0309-0566 DOI 10.1108/03090560310477654 Meech, P (1996) “Corporate identity and corporate image,” in L’Etang, J. & Pieczka, M.

Critical Perspectives in Public Relations, International Thomson Business Press

Licensed under Creative Common Page 33

Melewar, T C and Saunders J (2000) ‘Global corporate visual identity: using an extended

marketing mix’, European Journal of Marketing, 34 (5/6):538-550 Melewar, T. C., Basset, K. and Simões (2006) “The role of communication and visual identity in modern organisations”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal,

Vol. 11, No.2, pp. 138-147. Meyer, S. (2000). Currency of character: unlocking the energy source of reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 3 (1), 81-82. Mc Quail D. (1987): Mass Communication Theory. London. Melewar, T.C. & Storrie, T., (2001).Corporate identity in the service sector.Public Relations Quarterly.pp 20-26. Melewar, T. C. & Jenkins, D. E., (2000a).Defining corporate identity – the search for a holistic model.Advanced Issues in Marketing.Warwick Business School. Melewar, T.C. & Jenkins, D.E., (2002b). Defining the corporate identity construct. Corporate Reputation Review.Vol 5 (1).pp 76-91. Moingeon, B. &Ramantsoa, D.B., (1997). Understanding corporate identity: The French school of thought. European Journal of Marketing.Vol. 31. (5-6). pp 383-395. Mugenda.O&Mugenda.R (1999).Research methods.Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Nairobi. Nyakundi, zablonOgonyo (2012).Implementation of safety standards and guidelines in public secondary schools in Marani district, Kisii County, Kenya. National Brand Audit for Brand Kenya Board Report (2014).SBO Research Ltd, SBO House, Kindaruma Rd, off Ring Rd Kilimani.Website: https://www.sboresearch.co.ke Nizar S., Norizan M. K & Heung-Ja H. (2006).The effect of corporate branding dimensions on consumers’ product evaluation: A cross-cultural analysis. European Journal of Marketing Vol. 40 No. 7/8, 2006 pp. 825-845 q Olins, W., (1989).Corporate identity: Making business strategy visible through design. London: Thames and Hudson. Olins, W., (1995).The New Guide to Identity. Wolf Olins. Gower. Aldershot. Petty &Cacioppo (1986).The elaborate likelihood model of persuasion. San Diego. Academic Press.

Licensed under Creative Common Page 34

Pincus, J. D., Robert, A. P. R., Rayfield, A. P. R., DeBonis, J. N. (1991). “Transforming

CEOs into Chief Communications Officer.”Public Relations Journal, November. Post, J. E., Preston, L. E.& Sybille Sachs (2002), "Managing the Extended Enterprise: The New Stakeholder View," California Management Review, 45 (1), 6-28. Preble, J. F. (2005). Toward a comprehensive model of stakeholder management. Business and Society Review, 110 (4), 407-431. Programme for International Student Assessment (n.d). Public and Private Schools. How management and funding relate to their Socio-economic Profile.http://www.oecd.org/pisa/50110750.pdf Quirke, B (2000) Making the Connections: Using Internal Communication to turn Strategy into Action. Aldershot: Gower Publishing Ltd. Roberts, P., & Dowling, G. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (12), 1077-1093. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th edition). New York, NY: Royal Media Services. Rauka 20014. Citizen TV. Kenya Russell Abratt, Nicola Kleyn(n.d). Corporate Identity, Corporate Branding And Corporate Reputations: Reconciliation And Integration. Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0566 DOI 10.1108/03090560610670016 Sample Size Calculator -a public service of Creative Research Systems survey software (2014). Retrieved from http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm Schiller, M. (2007, March 5). Crisis and the web: How to leverage the Internet when a brand takes a hit. Adweek, 48(10), 16. Schmidt, K., (1995). The Quest for Corporate Identity. London: Cassell Singapore Ministry education (2014). Available on http://www.moe.gov.sg/compass/resources/stakeholders-in-education/ Smith, R.D. (2009). Strategic Planning for Public Relations 3rd Ed. New York: Taylor and Francis. Schultz, M., Hatch, M. J., & Larsen, M. H. (2000). The expressive organisation: linking identity, reputation, and corporate brand. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Smith, K. T, Smith, M., & Wang, K. (2010). Does brand management of corporate reputation translate into higher market value? Journal of Strategic Marketing, 18 (3), 201-

Licensed under Creative Common Page 35

221. Steyn, B. (2003). From strategy to corporate communication strategy: a conceptualisation. Journal of Communication Strategy, 8 (2), 168-183. Szeles P. (1997), “Azegységesvállalatiarculatelméleteésgyakorlata”, Reklámvonal ’97, p

p.10-14.29 (10) pp 99-103. Tshabangu, M.J. (2012).The essence of reputation management in public schools. Retrieved: dspace.nwu.ac.za/bitstream/handle/.../Tshabangu_Joseph_Chapter_2.pdf?... Tkalac, A., & Vercic, D. (2007). Reputation as matching identities and images: extending Davies and Chun’s (2002) research on gaps between the internal and external perceptions of the corporate brand. Journal of Marketing Communications, 13 (4), 277-290. United Nations Population Fund (2010). Tench, R. &Yeomans, L. (2006). Exploring Public Relations. England: Pearson Education Limited. Trademarks.http://www.sun.ac.za/english/corporate-identity/about/what-is-corporate-identity Corporate identity retrieved on 10th August 2014. Van Riel, C.B.M., (1995). Principles of Corporate Communication. Prentice Hall: London. Van Riel, C.B.M., (1997). Research in corporate communication: An overview of an emerging Field. Management Communication Quaterly.Vol 11 (2). 288-309 Wie Wei High school West Pokot KCSE (2010). Retrieved from: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWGQic2_fMk) Walker, K. A. (2010). A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: definition, measurement, and theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 12 (4), 357-387. Wango, G.M (2009), School Administration and Management: Quality Assurance and Standards in Schools. Waterschoot, W. V. & Van Den Bulte, C. (1992). The 4 P Classification Of The Marketing Mix Revisited. Journal of Marketing, 56(October 1992), 83-93. Westley Shumar (1997).College for Sale: A Critique of the Commodification of Higher Education .Routledge Falmer.USA.Amazon.com Williams, A., Dobson, P. D., Walters, M., (1993).Changing Culture: New Organizational Approaches.2nd Edition.Institute of Personnel Management. London

Licensed under Creative Common Page 36

Wilson, D. (2002). Top teams and strategy in a UK university.Journal of Management Studies.Vol. 39 (3).pp 355-382. Young, C. L., & Flowers, A. (2012).Fight viral with viral: A case study of Domino’s

Pizza’s crisis communication strategies. Case Studies in Strategic Communication, 1, article 6. Available online: http://cssc.uscannenberg.org/cases/v1/v1art6 YFS, YES Magazine, Young & Fabulous (2013).2020 Yes Magazine.