Lisensi ini mengizinkan setiap orang untuk menggubah ...kc.umn.ac.id/10053/5/LAMPIRAN.pdf · 109 BE: Saya bekerja disni dari tahun 1990, jadi saya kena tuh jaman-jamannya rebranding

Team project ©2017 Dony Pratidana S. Hum | Bima Agus Setyawan S. IIP

Hak cipta dan penggunaan kembali:

Lisensi ini mengizinkan setiap orang untuk menggubah, memperbaiki, dan membuat ciptaan turunan bukan untuk kepentingan komersial, selama anda mencantumkan nama penulis dan melisensikan ciptaan turunan dengan syarat yang serupa dengan ciptaan asli.

Copyright and reuse:

This license lets you remix, tweak, and build upon work non-commercially, as long as you credit the origin creator and license it on your new creations under the identical terms.

108

LAMPIRAN

TRANSKRIP IN DEPTH INTERVIEW

Waktu : Kamis, 23 Agustus 2018

Tempat : Accounting Office The Sultan Hotel & Residence Jakarta

Narasumber : Bapak Edom (Chief Accounting The Sultan Hotel &

Residence Jakarta)

Inisial:

FE : Fanny Eunike

BE : Bapak Edom

FE : Selamat Sore Bapak Edom. Sebelumnya saya ingin memperkenalkan diri,

nama saya Fanny Eunike Febe, saya dari kampus Universitas Multimedia Nusantara

ingin melakukan penelitian skripsi saya. Apa bapak bersedia untuk saya wawancara

sebelumnya?

BE : Iya.

FE : Baik, sebelumnya kalau boleh tahu bapak memegang jabatan apa di hotel

ini?

BE : Saya sebagai book keeper dan pay master.

FE : Kalau boleh dijelaskan book keeper itu seperti apa perananannya ya pak?

BE : Book keeper itu chief accounting.

FE : Bapak sudah berapa lama bekerja di Sultan Hotel?

Pengaruh internal brand..., Fanny Eunike Febe, FB UMN, 2019

109

BE : Saya bekerja disni dari tahun 1990, jadi saya kena tuh jaman-jamannya

rebranding dari Hilton ke Sultan pada tahun 2006.

FE : Baik. Saya ingin mengetahui Sultan Hotel dalam citra perusahaan sendiri.

Menurut bapak citra perusahaan di hotel ini mempengaruhi tidak untuk mengikat hati

karyawan disini?

BE : Tidak juga sebenarnya. Saya yang bekerja di Sultan Hotel tidak begitu

melihat brand perusahaan ini secara penuh untuk saya tetap berada disini. Karena

saya lebih melihat dari pengalaman hotel ini yang telah menangani event besar seperti

KTT ASEAN, dll. Kita memang dari brand bias dikatakan masih sedikit kalah

dengan hotel-hotel lain.

FE : Jadi menurut bapak apa sih yang menjadi salah satu faktor karyawan tetap

disini?

BE : Saya pribadi banyak mendapatkan pengalaman kalau banyak karyawan yang

telah keluar dari hotel ini dan balik lagi kesini pada akhirnya karena mereka merasa

lebih nyaman untuk bekerja disini. Menurut saya sih itu karena lingkungan

kekeluargaan yang tinggi sehingga membuat karyawan merasa nyaman. Mereka

karyawan bekerja dengan happy, satu sama lain saling medukung, atasannya dengan

bawahannya seirama saling membantu juga. Pernah ada pekerja yang keluar dan

kembali lagi kesini walaupun basic salary lebih besar di perusahaan tersebut. Karena

ada motivasi dari manajemen disini.

FE : Jadi, menurut bapak apakah nilai-nilai perusahaan yang menjadi faktor

utama dari pengaruh-pengaruh yang membuat karyawan merasa senang bekerja

disini?


110

BE : Ya betul sekali.

FE : Apakah menurut bapak bekal perusahaan ini untuk mengikat karyawan

dalam menyampaikan visi dan misi perusahaan dikatakan cukup?

BE : Ya, masih kuat. Sebelumnya hotel ini memang telah melakukan rebranding

dari brand Hilton menjadi Sultan. Namun tingkat occupancy masih tinggi dan masih

diminati banyak tamu.

FE : Kalau untuk rutinitas setiap pagi atau setiap periode, apakah ada semacam

department meeting pak untuk pihak manajamen melakukan penyampaian informasi-

informasi seputar hotel ini?

BE : Ya, kita mempunyai morning briefing yang diadakan oleh manajerial dan

harus hadir tingkat dept head dan assistant dept head. Disana kita melakukan briefing

apa yang baru dan apa yang akan datang mengenai informasi seputar hotel yang

disampaikan oleh general manager kita pak Fintan. Dari morning briefing disana

nantinya para manajer akan meneruskan informasi terkini mengenai hotel ke para

bawahannya. Hal ini dilakukan untuk menghindari miss communication yang ditakuti

seenarnya ketika tamu hotel nanya mengenai event di hotel dengan random karyawan

dan karyawan tersebut tidak bias menjawab. Karena pada dasarnya kan tamu hotel

tidak bisa membedakan karyawan yang berada di operation atau bukan. Jadi kita

harap dengan adanya morning briefing karyawan dapat mengetahui jelas mengenai

informasi-informasi terkini mengenai hotel.

FE : Tapi sejauh ini apakah hal itu efektif dilakukan pak, sehingga karyawan

dapat dengan baik menyampaikan maksud dan tujuan perusahaan kepada tamu hotel?

BE : Sejauh ini sih saya melihat bawahan saya ketika saya menyampaikan hasil

dari morning briefing ke mereka tidak ada masalah ya. Maksudnya mereka paham


111

mengenai informasi terkini tentang hotel. Jadi ketika GM melakukan inspeksi

dadakan kadang tuh suka ke sini, beliau langsung menanyakan random mengenai

informasi baru tentang hotel ke bawahan saya dan alhamdullilah saya tidak melihat

kalau bawahan saya sampai tidak bisa menjawab sih.

FE : Baik. Pertanyaan terakhir pak, apa bapak merasa bangga terhadap

perusahaan ini sebagai perusahaan tempat bapak bekerja?

BE : Saya bangga, karena saya merasa orang melihat “Oh karyawan mantan Hotel

Hilton ya” nah saya disitu merasa bangga karena penuh dengan pengalaman. Selain

itu saya juga merasa senang jika saya terus bekerja disini karena disini memberikan

saya banyak peluang untuk berkembang dan belajar, tidak kaku. Juga jika ada mantan

karyawan Sultan Hotel yang keluar dan mendapatkan pekerjaan di perusahaan lain

dengan jabatan yang lebih tinggi berarti kan Sultan Hotel telah menghasilkan calon

pekerja yang baik dan handal untuk perusahaan-perusahaan diluar sana.

FE : Baik pak, terimakasih untuk waktunya sekali lagi terima kasih banyak

ya Pak Edom.


112


Tempat : HRD Office The Sultan Hotel & Residence Jakarta

Narasumber : Bapak Kris (Personel Clerk The Sultan Hotel & Residence

Jakarta)

Inisial:

FE : Fanny Eunike

BK : Bapak Kris

FE : Selamat Sore, Pak Kris, saya Fanny dari Universitas Multimedia Nusantara

ingin melakukan wawancara untuk kepentingan penelitian skripsi saya. Apa bapak

bersedia untuk diwawancarai?

BK : Ya, saya bersedia.

FE : Baik. Pak Kris kalau boleh tau bapak berada di bagian apa bekerja disini?

BK : Saya dibagian administrasi.

FE : Menurut bapak apa sih yang membuat karyawan tertarik untuk bekerja

disini?

BK : Ya menurut saya sih mereka mau bekerja disini karena mereka melihat ini

hotel termasuk bintang lima.

FE : Lalu menurut bapak sendiri brand perusahaan saja yang menjadi faktor

utama untuk karyawan mau berada disini atau memang ada faktor lain seperti budaya

perusahaan yang membuat karyawan nyaman?


113

BK : Menurut saya sih emang mereka mau bekerja aja sih. Ada beberapa

karyawan yang keluar dari Sultan Hotel lalu mereka balik lagi kesini karena mereka

merasa nyaman bekerja disini.

FE : Walau gaji yang mereka dapatkan lebih sedikit pak?

BK : Ya, walau mereka dapat lebih kecil daripada hotel yang lain.

FE : Baik. Bapak kalau boleh tahu sudah bekerja disini berpa lama?

BK : Saya sebenarnya dari tahun 2000 cuma untuk diangkat jadi staffnya tahun

2003.

FE : Lalu apa yang membuat bapak nyaman?

BK : Lingkungan kekeluargaannya disini yang saya suka, saya juga sebagai

pengurus musholla juga mau membangun hubungan silaturahmi antara karyawan

disini.

FE : Berarti bukan melulu dari kompensasi dan benefit yang diberikan hotel?

BK : Bukan, walau hotel lain bisa kasih lebih dari disini. Tapi rasa senang saja

yang saya dapat bekerja disini.

FE : Pertanyaan terakhir pak, apa bapak bangga terhadap perusahaan ini?

BK : Ya, saya bangga bekerja disini. Walaupun benefit yang saya dapat mungkin

kecil, tapi saya tidak liat itu sih yang penting saya nyaman bekerja disini itu aja sih.

FE : Baik pak, terimakasih untuk waktunya atas wawancara hari ini.


114

BK : Iya, sama-sama.


115


Tempat : HRD Office The Sultan Hotel & Residence Jakarta

Narasumber : Ibu Titis (Employee Relations Manager The Sultan Hotel &

Residence Jakarta)

Inisial:

FE : Fanny Eunike

IT : Ibu Titis

FE : Selamat Sore Bu Titis, saya Fanny dari Universitas Multimedia Nusantara,

ingin melakukan wawancara untuk penelitian saya. Apa ibu bersedia diwawancarai?

IT : Yes, saya bersedia diwawancarai.

FE : Baik. Kalau boleh tahu sebelumnya apa jabatan ibu di hotel ini?

IT : Saya sebagai employee relations manager.

FE : Baik. Saya ingin mengetahui bu, menurut ibu apakah faktor citra perusahaan

menjadi faktor utama dalam membuat karyawan stay disini untuk bekerja dilihat dari

competitor hoteal bintang lima lain di Jakarta?

IT : Sebagai bekas dari Hilton International Hotel saya yakin tidak banyak

perubahan yang terjadi dari segi pelayanan, namun memang dari segi fasilitas yang

tidak secanggih hotel-hotel lain mungkin kita cukup tertinggal dari kompetitor

lainnya seperti bangunan, dll.

FE : Lalu, apakah ibu memiliki persepsi lain mengenai faktor lain yang menjadi

dasar mengapa karyawan senang dan bangga bekerja disini atau bisa dilihat misal dari

nilai dan budaya perusahaan?


116

IT : Ya, menurut saya kebanyakan karyawan disini mencari kenyamanan bekerja,

walaupun benefit yang ditawarkan diluar sana jauh lebih besar. Tapi when it comes to

kenyamanan mereka bakal pilih disini untuk bekerja. Walau banyak juga karyawan

yang berpindah ke hotel lain namun kembali lagi kesini.

FE : Menurut ibu apa yang membuat mereka kembali lagi kesini?

IT : Karena mereka ingin membuat diri mereka tuh, self esteem nya tuh ada,

mungkin dia berprinsip disana dia jadi orang nomor dua tapi kalo disini menjadi

orang nomor satu why not.

FE : Berarti tadi ibu sudah menyinggung ya sedikit mengenai mungkin di

perusahaan ini memberikan…

IT : Memberikan kesempatan untuk improve, development.

FE : Kesempatan untuk improve, development. Jadi menurut ibu itu merupakan

salah satu faktor untuk Sultan Hotel menumbuhkan rasa kebanggaan tersendiri akan

nama hotel ini ke para karyawan.

IT : Iya, karna pada dasarnya profesional-profesional itu tidak mencari fasilitas

tapi yang terutama tantangan, ketika mereka sudah tidak lagi tertantang ditempat

yang lama, dia berusaha mencari tantangan yang lainnya dan itu mereka bisa

dapatkan disini. Karena mereka berpikir dengan local brand pasti tantangannya lebih

banyak karena dia harus mandiri. Kalau brand international mereka semuanya sudah

disuapin lah istilahnya, semuanya sudah disiapkan, marketingnya sudah disiapkan,

ibaratnya kita duduk manis aja deh.

FE : Baik. Kalau boleh tahu ibu sudah bekerja disini dari tahun?


117

IT : Saya sudah bekerja di hotel ini dari tahun 1990, ini sudah hotel ketiga saya.

FE : Baik, sudah dari tahun 1990 berarti sudah lama sekali ya bu, apa ibu

bertahan di hotel ini hingga saat ini dipengaruhi oleh loyalitas ibu atau ada faktor-

faktor lain?

IT : Saya lebih condong kepada, karena ini sudah hotel ketiga, saya sudah pernah

di dua brand international yang lain tapi yang berbeda disini adalah suasana

kekluargaannya yang tidak saya dapatkan di dua hotel sebelumnya.

FE : Baik bu, pertanyaan terakhir apakah ibu sendiri bangga terhadap perusahaan

ini?

IT : Iya, sangat bangga. Temen-temen saya yang satu management trainee semua

sudah tidak disini dan mereka semua sudah jadi rata-rata ada di area director bukan

hanya unit aja tapi sudah merambah ada yang regional, ada yang nasional. Tapi buat

saya dengan saya kerja nyaman itu yang jelas saya merasa lebih sehat karena saya

bekerja dengan hati. Stresnya berbeda dengan kita, stress pasti ada tapi karena kita

happy, ya kita can deal with it gitu, tapi kalo stres tinggi untuk mengejar amount

tertentu tapi kita tertekan, buat saya itu ujung-ujungnya menyiksa diri sendiri dan

saya tidak bias deal dengan situasi seperti itu.

FE : Baik, sudah selesai bu Titis wawancara kita hari ini, sekali lagi terima kasih

banyak untuk waktu yang diluangkannya.

IT : Iya, Fan. Sama-sama.


118

Waktu : Kamis, 27 September 2018

Tempat : Operator Office The Sultan Hotel & Residence Jakarta

Narasumber : Pak Suyanto (Operator Officer The Sultan Hotel & Residence

Jakarta)

Inisial:

FE : Fanny Eunike

PS : Pak Suyanto

FE : Selamat Sore Pak Yanto, saya Fanny dari Universitas Multimedia Nusantara,

ingin melakukan wawancara untuk penelitian saya. Apa bapak bersedia

diwawancarai?

PS : Iya, bersedia.

FE : Bapak sudah bekerja ditempat ini sudah berapa lama?

PS : 23 tahun.

FE : 23 tahun. Berarti bapak mengalami jaman-jaman Hilton ya?

PS : Iya. Tahun 2007.

FE : Terjadi rebranding kan pak, dari Hilton berubah ke Sultan, kira-kira apa sih

pak perubahan yang signifikan dari rebranding itu. Karena kan dilihat Hilton itu

international brand terus tiba-tiba berubah jadi u;tan Hotel, local brand gitu kan.

Berarti manajemennya berubah dong, pindah tangan. Menurut bapak pribadi

bagaimana?


119

PS : Menurut aku sih yang berubah itu gaji, jaman Hilton itu ada semacam

kompensasi Namanya married increase tunjangan buat keluarga. Nah itu yang

membedakan gaji. Tapi kalau sekarang ga ada beda tuh orang lama sama yang baru

masuk, sama, ga ada beda. Ya, tapi mau gimana ya, udah peraturannya begitu dari

atas kita bisa apa, yasudah jalani aja.

FE : Berarti saya bisa mengatakan nih pak kalau misalkan bapak lebih nyaman

ketika manajemennya dipegang oleh Hilton disbanding Sultan nih pak?

PS : Iya, karena semuanya serba disiplin dan semua pekerjaan itu dihargai.

FE : Disiplin, disiplinnya kayak gimana nih pak?

PS : Disiplinnya ya, kan otomatis karyawan disiplin dong karena sudah sesuai

dengan apa yang mau didapat.

FE : Karena perusahaan juga kasih benefitnya ga nanggung-nanggung buat

karyawan.

PS : Iya, otomatis disiplin sekarang itu disiplin kepaksa jadi ga ikhlas gitu

displinnya, ya kan, karena terpaksa, kayak saya kan terpaksa karena harus ngasih

makan anak istri, kalo saya protes percuma juga ga di follow up. Karena kalau aku sih

mending punya lahan sedikit daripada masalah banyak, akrena otomatis aja contoh

kayak di stewarding liat piring pecah, gelas pecah, toh ga peduli, gaji sama, kontrak

dan karyawan lama, jadi itu sebernernya otomatis aja langsung loyalitas kita

berkurang.

FE : Kalau bentuk apresiasi yang diadakan dari perusahaan untuk karyawan apa

ada pak?


120

PS : Ada, kayak sultanee of the month, tapi kan itu bergilir, kayak judi, ya kan,

itu reward tapi itu arisan menurut saya, ga dinilai dari kinerja bener-bener. Sekarang

kita liat sultanee of the month kayak best of the best karyawan, tapi rata-rata yang

dapet tidak menunjukan kalau mereka tuh yang terbaik.

FE : Jadi menurut bapak apa sih yang harus diubah dari manajemen ditempat ini?

PS : Ya, kayak yang kemarin acara thankyou day, acara makan-makan itu.

Harusnya menurut saya ga perlu ada acara seperti itu, mending revenue dari Asian

Games dibuat kompensasi ke karyawan daripada dibuat acara makan-makan. Karena

ga semua bias hadir acara itu kan, kayak saya di operator 24 jam, ga bias tuh lama-

lama diluar, makan siang aja ga sampe sejam, apalagi ikut acara itu. Jadinya kan yang

ga bias ikut kesel sendiri dan ga ada manfaatnya buat kita yang ada dibagian vital

hotel.

FE : Oh baik, Jadi menurut bapak bentuk apresiasi apa sih yang seharusnya tidak

diubah ketika adanya rebranding perusahaan?

PS : Seperti family day dulu kan diadakan setiap tahun, tapi kalau sekarang kan

enggak. Nah ini kan jadi mengurangi rasa kita punya loyalitas ke perusahaan ya,

jadinya males. Tapi kalau kata saya juga sih ga perlu lagi diadain cara macem itu ya,

ketauan hotel kasih kita sembako, beras sekarung gitu, ketauan lebih bermanfaat.

FE : Jadi menurut bapak, bapak lebih bangga ketika bekerja di hotel ini dengan

nama Hilton atau Sultan?

PS : Hilton lah, iya, kan semua itu biasa dilihat, contoh sebagai GM di hire kesini

bisa ga mereka membawa hotel ini menjual datengin revenue, gitu kan. Jadi ada sense

of belonging nya itu tinggi ketika kita emang suka dengan brand perusahaan.


121

FE : Baik, pertanyaan terakhir pak, apa bapak merasa mau untuk loyal kepada

perusahaan ini pak dengan bapak bekerja semaksimal mungkin?

PS : Ya, sama yang saya bilang tadi, saya loyal kepaksa, karena tuntutan hidup

makanya saya terus disini, bekerja dengan hotel ini, walau saya lebih nyaman

sebelum rebranding, itu sih.

FE : Baik, Pak Suyanto wawancara kita sudah selesai, terimakasih atas waktunya

pak sekali lagi.

PS : Iya, Fanny.


122

Waktu : Senin, 8 Oktober 2018

Tempat : Timekeeping Office The Sultan Hotel & Residence Jakarta

Narasumber : Pak Giono (Timekeeper The Sultan Hotel & Residence

Jakarta)

Inisial:

FE : Fanny Eunike

PG : Pak Giono

FE : Selamat Pagi, Pak Giono, saya Fanny dari Universitas Multimedia Nusantara

ingin melakukan wawancara untuk kepentingan penelitian skripsi saya. Apa bapak

bersedia untuk diwawancarai?

PG : Iya.

FE : Bapak sudah bekerja disini sudah berapa lama pak?

PG : 17 tahun. Kalau digabung daily worker pas disini 18 tahun, saya masuk

tahun 2000.

FE : Berarti bapak kena jamannya rebranding dong?

PG : Iya, saya kena tuh jadi Sultan, tapi sebenernya saya ga terlalu pengaruh sih

sama perubahan brand itu.

FE : Tapi apa bapak ngga merasakan perubahannya gitu, kan kalau jaman Hilton

manajemen udah oke, kalau Sultan sekarang bagaimana?


123

PG : Oh kalau jaman dulu sih (Hilton) manajemennya lebih rapi, kalau sekarang

kayaknya lebih gaya bebas lah. Kalau dulu bener-bener semuanya dipikirin gitu loh.

Mungkin karena international kali ya jadi manajemennya lebih teratur gitu lah.

FE : Selain itu apa sih pak yang berbeda dari rebranding ini yang bapak rasakan?

PG : Cara kerjanya sih, kalau sekarang kan satu orang bisa megang banyak

peranan, kayak kitchen sampe ke tamu gitu, pokoknya dirambah semuanya kalo kerja

sekarang. Kalau dulu kan tertata gitu.

FE : Kalau sekarang bapak lebih senang bekerja dibawah Hilton atau Sultan?

PG : Ya, saya sih lebih seneng bekerja pas jaman Hilton ya, mungkin karena lebih

enak aja gitu manajemennya teratur menurut saya dan emang ada nama kan.

FE : Bapak sendiri klau boleh pilih lebih bangga bekerja ketika orang tahu bapak

kerja di Hilton atau Sultan dan kenapa?

PG : Ya jelas Hilton, karena kan udah international dan saya juga ngerasa lebih

oke dengan manajemen Hilton, pembawaan kerja juga enak ke karyawan, jadi kita ga

ada kata kerja awur-awur gini sih semua dipegang, gitu sih.

FE : Baik pak Giono wawancara kita sudah selesai, terimakasih atas waktunya ya

pak.

PG : Oke.


124

Waktu : Selasa, 9 Oktober 2018

Tempat : Housekeeping Office The Sultan Hotel & Residence Jakarta

Narasumber : Pak Giono (Housekeeping Attendent The Sultan Hotel &

Residence Jakarta)

Inisial:

FE : Fanny Eunike

PS : Pak Sofyan

FE : Selamat Pagi, Pak Sofyan, saya Fanny dari Universitas Multimedia

Nusantara ingin melakukan wawancara untuk kepentingan penelitian skripsi saya.

Apa bapak bersedia untuk diwawancarai?

PS : Selamat Pagi. Iya.

FE : Bapak sudah bekerja di Sultan berapa lama pak?

PS : 30 tahun lebih 3 bulan.

FE : Wow, lama banget dong ya pak.

PS : Iya saya udah lama disini.

FE : Berarti bapak kena dong masa-masa jayanya Hilton?

PS : Iya, saya kena masa Hilton dimana sekitar ada 2000 karyawan lebih dan

sekarang tinggal 400-500an karyawan aja.

FE : Kalau ga salah denger nih pak, dulu Hilton itu hotel nomor satu di Jakarta,

bener ga sih pak?


125

PS : Iya, betul. Dulu kita kalo kepenuhan tamu itu, bukan kita buang ya, tapi kita

kasih ke hotel lain karena saking banyaknya. Occupancy nya terlalu tinggi, kita ga

nampung lalu kita sebar ke hotel-hotel lain.

FE : Occupancy tinggi pada saat itu apa karena ada event besar pak seperti Asian

Games kemarin?

PS : Ngga, ngga, emang rutinitas. Dulu emang kita termasuk hotel yang nomor

satu, lalu mulai ada saingan itu pas ada Grand Indonesia, hotel Kempinski, Mulia,

muncul.

FE : Tapi dulu kompetitor kita cuma Borobudur kalo ga salah ya pak?

PS : Iya, Mandarin, Borobudur. Karena Borobudur itu hampir mirip kayak kita

luas. Menangnya kita aja di pusat kota deket bandara, dll. Fasilitas hotel pun masih

lengkap, masih ada executive club.

FE : Berarti otomatis dong karyawan-karyawannya dapat benefitnya tinggi juga?

PS : Pada saat itu kita merasakan kesejahteraanya bagus. Karena apa, untuk

makan karyawan aja yang masakin dari pihak hotel. Teratai (employee cafetaria)

yang masakin karyawan hotel. Menunya pun beragam ada susu, ada softdrink,

lengkap, ada susu kemasan lengkap. Jadi hampir setiap hari tuh menunya hampir

lebih dari restoran sekarang.

FE : Kalau dari segi gaji karyawan, bonus?

PS : Dulu kita setiap akhir tahun kita dapet bonus, masalah service dulu kita

dipatok. Jadi gini untuk service dalam satu tahun penuh kita di flat, jadi sesuai

keputusan PKB service kita bulan ini sampai kesepakatan baru misal 500 ribu flat


126

setahun dan sisanya dikumpulin selama setahun, lalu dibagi-bagi sisa kelebihan

service itu menjadi bonus. Tapi kalo untuk bonusnya beda lagi kita dapat satu kali

basic.

FE : Kalau jamannya Sultan bagaimana pak?

PS : Iya otomatis ada perubahan, ada yang dikurang-kurangi, ada penutupan

executive club, pengurangan karyawan. Juga untuk masalah kesehatan dulu kan kita

pakai jaminan perusahaan, sekarang pakai asuransi.

FE : Pak setelah terjadinya rebranding ini kan banyak kompetitor kita yang

mungkin jauh lebih bagus diluar sana, apa bapak masih bangga bekerja disni?

PS : Kalau saya sih masih bangga, walau meang benefitnya emang lebih dikit.

Kalau elu mau nyari duit jangan kerja di Sultan tapi kalau mau nyari kenyamanan

buat bekerja disini tempatnya.

FE : Baik, apa bapak setelah pergantian brand merasa bekerja terpaksa pak karena

banyak benefit karyawan yang dipangkas oleh manajemen sekarang?

PS : Kalo perubahan sih ngga ya, karena kita bekerja juga diranah yang sama,

yang berbeda mungkin profesionalitasnya. Kalau dulu orang-orang yang bekerja di

Hilton itu memnag yang dikelasnya. Nah bayangkan aja dulu yang sekelas Pak Dafri

adalah room boy sekarang dia jadi executive housekeeper. Nah kita bisa liat kan,

kalau sekarang karyawan banyak ga profesional kerjanya. Makanya saya sempet

bilang Pak Ismail kan anak baru yang lagi training ini attitude nya kurang, anak

bapak ini dateng ga ada salamnya padahal kita kerja disini kan di hotel yang

diutamakan kan hospitality.


127

FE : Baik, kalau bapak boleh pilih bapak lebih senang bekerja pada payung

Hilton atau Sultan?

PS : Payung Hilton lah, karena satu lebih dikenal dan kedua lebih profesional.

FE : Lalu benefitnya ke bapak apa?

PS : Otomatis sih kalo linknya bagus tamu ga perlu kita nyarinyari, otomatis

occupancy tinggi sendiri. Perbandingan langit dan bumi kalo sama Sultan.

FE : Menurut bapak Sultan Hotel masih bisa bersaing ga?

PS : Bisa, bisa sekali tinggal kita rewind aja hal-hal yang harusnya ada tapi

dihilangkan. Karena pada dasarnya yang membuat berjaya hotel ini adalah karyawan-

karyawannya kalo kita bisa ikat karyawan bangga sama kita ya bakal sangat bisa

bersaing lagi hotel ini dengan kompetitor lain kita.

FE : Baik pak, terimakasih atas wawancaranya, wawancara ini sudah selesai.

PS : Iya, sama-sama Fan.


128

Waktu : Jumat, 19 Oktober 2018

Tempat : Housekeeping Office The Sultan Hotel & Residence Jakarta

Narasumber : Pak Rusli (Housekeeping Attendent The Sultan Hotel &

Residence Jakarta)

Inisial:

FE : Fanny Eunike

PR : Pak Rusli

FE : Selamat Siang Pak Rusli, saya Fanny dari Universitas Multimedia

Nusantara, ingin melakukan wawancara untuk penelitian saya. Apa bapak bersedia

diwawancarai?

PR : Iya, bersedia.

FE : Bapa sudah berapa lama kerja disini?

PR : Sudah 23 tahun.

FE : Berarti bapak join kesini tahun?

PR : Tahun 1995, masih jaman Hilton, masih jaya-jayanya, kesehatan langsung

jaminan perusahaan .

FE : Menurut bapak setelah pergantian manajemen ketika rebranding apa yang

berubah sih pak?

PR : Untuk tamu sih ga ada masalah sih, paling sekarang tamu kebanyakan tamu

lokal sekarang.


129

FE : Lalu dampak yang bapak rasakan apa sih setelah rebranding?

PR : Ya, paling sih asuransi kesehatan aja sih, udah ga ada jaminan perusahaan

lagi.

FE : Baik, lalu kira-kira pak setelah rebranding ini kekuatan brand Sultan masih

ada ga sih pak?

PR : Masih ada, karena kita masih unggulin fasilitas kita, lahan kita yang besar,

kalo lain-lainnya sih biasa aja.

FE : Lalu kalau untuk segi perubahan karyawan kalau dibanding ketika Hilton

dengan Sultan ada perubahan ga pak?

PR : Wah kalah, jauh kalah, manajer training dulu ngajarin kalo anak baru

bagaimana melayani tamu. Tapi kan kalo sekarang engga, liat aja sekarang anak baru

ga tegur sapa, greetings nya kurang, dulu atasan sama bawahan aja saling tegur sapa

kalau sekarang mah engga, bener-bener kita diajarin.

FE : Jadi program training jaman Hilton sama Sultan jauh berbeda ya pak?

PR : Iya beda banget, mungkin sih karena dulu kan kita ikut memantau ya kalau

sekarang kan bener-bener cuma training manajer aja yang punya program. Ini kan

sebenernya masih bertahan karena kita yang orang-orang lama yang bawa service

bagus karena pernah kena training pada jaman Hilton yang bagus, jadi anak-anak

baru kan ga paham apa yang tamu tahu.

FE : Lalu kalau untuk briefing apa ada pak di tempat ini?


130

PR : Iya kalo briefing kan kita pergantian shift, jadi pagi apa kendalanya, apa

kekurangannya, nanti siang dilanjutin. Pokoknya cara briefing di jaman Hilton sama

sekarang masih sama.

FE : Baik, setelah pergantian brand bapak sendiri masih bangga ga sih dengan

nama Sultan?

PR : Masih bangga, kita jangan melupakan yang dulu walaupun untuk

kesejahteraan berkurang.

FE : Ketika nama Sultan dipuji orang apa bapak merasa bangga juga jadi kayak

seakan-akan bapak yang dipuji juga?

PR : Iya saya bangga, karena saya masih punya rasa memiliki sama hotel ini.

FE : Bapak ngerasa ga kalo komitmen bapak saat bekerja pada saat di Hilton dan

Sultan berbeda?

PR : Kalo saya sih sama aja, ga ada perbedaan, karena kan kita punya keluarga,

cuma ya disayangkan asuransi kesehatan aja sih.

FE : Pertanyaan terakhir, bapak mau tetap ingin bekerja disini ga sampai akhir

umur produktif bapak?

PR : Iya saya mau, disyukuri aja lah karena kan kalo bukan karena hotel ini saya

juga ga mungkin bisa nguliahin anak, dll.

FE : Baik, terimakasih pak atas waktunya, wawancara kita sudah selesai.

PR : Iya.


131

TRANSKRIP MINI FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

Waktu : Selasa, 6 November 2018

Tempat : Security Office The Sultan Hotel & Residence Jakarta

Narasumber :

1. Pak Nurcahyono (Safety & Security Manager The Sultan Hotel & Residence

Jakarta)

2. Ibu Fanni (Safety & Security Secretary The Sultan Hotel & Residence Jakarta)

3. Pak Charlie (Safety & Security Coordinator The Sultan Hotel & Residence

Jakarta)

Inisial:

FE : Fanny Eunike

PN : Pak Nurcahyono

IF : Ibu Fanni

PC : Pak Charlie

FE : Selamat Siang bapak dan ibu, saya Fanny dari Universitas Multimedia

Nusantara, ingin melakukan wawancara untuk penelitian saya. Apa bapak dan ibu

bersedia diwawancarai?

PN, IF, PC : Ya.

FE : Dalam diskusi kali ini saya ingin membahas mengenai perubahan-perubahan

yang terjadi setelah ada rebranding di hotel ini. Menurut bapak ibu sendiri apa sih

perubahan yang signifikan terjadi?


132

IF : Kalau saya kan udah ada di hotel ini dari tahun 2005, kena tuh pas jamannya

berubah nama dari Hilton ke Sultan. Sebenernya ga banyak perubahan cuma ya

sistemnya berubah, kalo yang dulu kita ngerasa banyak dikasih benefit sama

perusahaan sekarang udah engga lagi mungkin juga karena lepas dari nama Hilton

kali ya jadi kita mandiri cari pemasukannya.

PN : Iya, saya juga liat gitu sih dulu jaman Hilton mba, kita mah kayak istilahnya

berarti banget sampe-sampe dulu kan dari menu makan siang enak kita dapet. Terus

juga program training disini kan di support banget kayak kita ngadain training untuk

security minta datengin alat-alat keamanan ga perlu susah nunggu approve lama dari

atasan, karena emang udah tahu untuk operasional di security. Kalo sekarang kan

alat-alat kita udah tua dari jamannya Hilton, mau ajuin pergantian alat aja susah.

IF : Haha, pak Nur jangan jelas-jelasan banget dong.

FE : Oh begitu ya pak, kalo missal bapak sendiri ada rasain perbedaan komitmen

kerja ga selama di bawah payung Hilton dan Sultan?

PN : Jelas mba, tapi sih sebenernya saya kerja sama-sama komitmen karena saya

kerja sesuai bidang saya cuma ya rasa komitmennya aja beda gitu kalo pas Hilton dan

Sultan, tapi saya tetap kerja dengan sepenuh hati.

PC : Saya juga sama gitu, kalo misal dibilang profesional banyak dulu kita temuin

di Hilton kalo sekarang kan bawahan juga kebanyakan cuma temporary worker jadi

kita mau bener-bener ngajarin mereka eh tiba-tiba mereka keluar, jadi ya komitmen

sih pasti masih ada cuma tingkatannya aja beda kalo pas jaman Hilton dulu.

IF : Setuju, sama pak Charlie, tingkatannya yang beda, komitmen sih masih sama

karena bagaimana pun kan ini tempat kita cari nafkah ya pak, jadi harus sepenuh hati

walaupun feel nya beda pas jaman Hilton.


133

FE : Haha tingkatan komitmen ya pak, baik, kalau tadi pak Nurcahyono sempat

menyinggung soal training program, menurut bapak ibu perubahan dalam training

program yang diselenggarakan pada jama Hilton dan Sultan apa ada perbedaan?

PN : Iya mba ada, kalau menurut saya lebih efektif yang dulu, jadi kan kalau dulu

training manager memang kasih kebebasan kepala tiap divisi untuk rangkai program

training untuk divisinya masing-masing, pokoknya kita diikutsertakan lah dalam buat

programnya. Tapi kalo sekarang kan engga semua training manager yang pegang

padahal yang paham kebutuhan training dilapangan kan ya kepala divisinya masing-

masing, gitu aja sih paling.

PC : Saya pun juga rasa lebih paham ketika dapet program training Hilton dulu,

efektif aja keliatannya dibanding yang sekarang.

FE : Baik, pertanyaan terakhir ya bapak ibu. Menurut anda masing-masing apa

masih mempunyai rasa kebanggaan tersendiri untuk bekerja di hotel ini sekarang?

IF : Kalau saya masih bangga meskipun sudah banyak berubah ya beberapa lini

manajemenenya.

PN : Masih bangga saya mba. Bagaimanapun kan hotel ini pernah kasih

pengalaman yang bagus ya walau udah berganti brand ya kita terima sama-sama

membangun lah intinya seperti itu.

PC : Bangga kok, cuma ya saya ga bisa bilang bangganya saya sama dengan

Hilton, cuma intinya masih bangga.

FE : Baik, terimakasih bapak ibu atas waktunya, diskusi hari ini sudah selesai,

sekali lagi terimakasih.


134

Uji Variabel X Internal Brand

Uji Validitas Pretest


135

Variabel X Internal Brand

Uji Realibilitas Pretest

Uji Variabel Y1 Employees’ Brand Identification



136



Uji Variabel Y2 Employees’ Brand Commitment



137



Uji Variabel Y3 Employees’ Brand Loyalty



138




Uji Validitas Maintest


139


Uji Realibilitas Maintest




140






141






142




Internal branding: an enablerof employees’ brand-supporting

behavioursKhanyapuss Punjaisri

Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University,Nottingham, UK, and

Heiner Evanschitzky and Alan WilsonDepartment of Marketing in Strathclyde Business School,

University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to understand the internal branding process from theemployees’ perspective; it will empirically assess the relationship between internal branding andemployees’ delivery of the brand promise as well as the relationships among their brand identification,brand commitment and brand loyalty.

Design/methodology/approach – On a census basis, a quantitative survey is carried out with 699customer-interface employees from five major hotels.

Findings – Internal branding is found to have a positive impact on attitudinal and behaviouralaspects of employees in their delivery of the brand promise. As employees’ brand commitment doesnot have a statistically significant relationship with employees’ brand performance, it is not regardedas a mediator in the link between internal branding and employees’ brand performance. Furthermore,the study shows that brand identification is a driver of brand commitment, which precedes brandloyalty of employees.

Practical implications – A number of significant managerial implications are drawn from thisstudy, for example using both internal communication and training to influence employees’brand-supporting attitudes and behaviours. Still, it should be noted that the effect of internal brandingon the behaviours could be dependent on the extent to which it could effectively influence their brandattitudes.

Originality/value – The results provide valuable insights from the key internal audience’sperspectives into an internal branding process to ensure the delivery of the brand promise. Itempirically shows the relationship between internal branding and the behavioural outcome as well asthe meditational effects of employees’ brand identification, commitment and loyalty.

Keywords Brand management, Brand identity, Brand loyalty, Customer service management

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionService branding heavily relies on employees’ actions and attitudes (de Chernatony andDall’Olmo Riley, 1997). Service employees become central to the delivery of abrand promise at each service encounter. Because of their influences on customers’brand perception, a service organisation needs to ensure that their employees aredelivering the service at the quality level promised by its brand. Despite the importanceof the consistent delivery of the brand promise, that service brands involve humaninteractions poses the problem of unpredictability for the process of service branding.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1757-5818.htm

Internalbranding

209

Journal of Service ManagementVol. 20 No. 2, 2009

pp. 209-226q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1757-5818DOI 10.1108/09564230910952780


Internal branding has recently been proposed as an enabler of an organisation’ssuccess in delivering the brand promise to meet customers’ brand expectations set byvarious communication activities (Drake et al., 2005). A number of authors (Boone,2000; Buss, 2002) have witnessed the steady growth of internal branding’s popularityamong corporate giants such as Southwest, Sears, BASF, IBM and Ernst and Young.These examples reflect the power of an informed workforce committed to deliveringthe brand promise. Recently, the “internal branding” concept has captured the interestof both academics and practitioners. Most of the studies focused on the perspective ofmanagement and consultants although employees are considered targeted internalaudience of an internal branding campaign. Moreover, while some studies haveprovided empirical evidence for the link between internal branding and employees’brand commitment (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005), some have focused on the relationshipbetween internal branding and employees’ brand loyalty (Papasolomou and Vrontis,2006a, b). However, the literature has argued for the influence of internal branding onemployees’ brand-supporting behaviours (Boone, 2000; de Chernatony and Cottam,2006; de Chernatony and Segal-Horn, 2001; Hankinson, 2002; Kotter and Heskett, 1992).However, that internal branding could shape employees’ behaviour is largely based onthe assumption that when employees understand and are committed to the brandvalues inherent in the brand promise, they will perform in ways that live up tocustomers’ brand expectations. Therefore, this link still necessitates the empiricalevidence. This study aims to understand the internal branding process from theemployees’ perspective; it will empirically assess the relationship between internalbranding and employees’ brand performance in terms of their delivery of the brandpromise as well as the relationships among different brand attitudes (i.e. brandidentification, brand commitment, and brand loyalty). To achieve its objectives, aquantitative survey conducted with 699 customer-interface employees from five majorhotels was carried out.

2. Effects on employees’ attitudes and behaviourAs some authors (Olins, 1995; O’Loughlin et al., 2004) have argued for the importanceof service brands to keep the promise made to customers, the central role of serviceemployees in service branding is emphasised. They are argued for their influences oncustomers’ brand perceptions (Berry and Lampo, 2004). The Services MarketingTriangle which has been promoted by a number of authors (Bitner, 1995; Gronroos,1990; Kotler, 1994) also emphasises the importance of keeping the brand promise thatis proposed to customers. The three important components include the company, theprovider, and the customers. The company engages itself in any activities to set upcustomers’ perception and make promise to customers. Delivering the promise dependson employees who, during service encounters, determine whether the promise is keptor broken. To ensure that their employees are able to deliver the brand promise, thecompany needs to engage in any activities that aid their employees in their ability todeliver on service promise such as recruiting, training, motivating, rewarding andproviding equipment and technology (Zeithaml et al., 2006). With the good internalservice quality, employees are satisfied which leads to customer satisfaction andloyalty are secured. The result is healthy service profit and growth. This is captured inthe Service Profit Chain model of Heskett et al. (1994).

JOSM20,2

210


Internal branding has emerged as to assist an organisation in promoting the brandinside, namely to employees (Ahmed and Rafiq, 2003) with an aim to ensure thecongruence between internal and external brand messages (Mitchell, 2002). That is, itensures that brand messages (i.e. brand promise) are transformed by employees intoreality that reflect the customers’ expected brand experience (Boone, 2000).

Some authors (Drake et al., 2005; Mitchell, 2002) purport that the creation of internalbranding is through the practice of internal marketing (IM). The review of differentauthors’ proposition of an IM mix (Ahmed et al., 2002; Berry and Parasuraman, 1991;Gummesson, 1991; Tansuhaj et al., 1991), provide support to recent studies (Punjaisriand Wilson, 2007; Vallaster and de Chernatony, 2006) within the internal brandingcontext that argue for the coordination between HR and internal communicationdisciplines to successfully achieve internal branding’s objectives.

Both IM and internal branding have argued for their effects on employees’ brandcommitment. Woodruffe (1995) argues that internal marketing is a means for creatinginternal commitment among employees by adopting the marketing concept internally.Similarly, recent authors within the internal branding context (Aurand et al., 2005;Burmann and Zeplin, 2005) argue that internal branding engenders a sharedunderstanding of a brand across an organisation; an effective internal brandingcampaign induces employees’ brand commitment. Thomson et al. (1999) havesupported that an effective internal communication of a brand with employeesenhances their intellectual (understanding) and emotional engagement (commitment)with a brand. Similarly, authors (Guest, 1995; Storey, 1995; Tyson, 1995) from the HRdomain state that creating employee commitment is at the heart of HRM.

Furthermore, the study from the internal communications literature concurs that aneffective internal communications could engender employees’ commitment and loyalty(Asif and Sargeant, 2000; Steers, 1977). Baum (1995) argues that an effective employeedevelopment programme forming part of the HRM is related to a decrease in staffturnover. Recently, the study in the banking sector of Papasolomou and Vrontis (2006a,b) has supported that internal branding using internal communications and trainingenhances employees’ loyalty.

Drawing upon the social identity theory, Ashforth and Mael (1989) argue that socialidentification stems from the distinctiveness and prestige of a group, and the salienceof outgroups. Internal branding could engender employees’ brand identification,reflecting their sense of “oneness” because it is about communicating to employees(Bergstrom et al., 2002) the brand values, which are unique to a specific brand and/orcompany making it differentiated from the others (de Chernatony, 2001).

Similar to Homburg and Stock (2005) who have applied the balance theory within arelationship setting involving three entities: an employee, a customer for whom theemployee is responsible, and the company, this study believes that employeesrepresent one entity. Management communicating the brand messages throughinternal branding form the second entity, whereas the brand and/or company isanother entity in the triad. According to the balance theory of Heider (1946, 1958), anindividual desires to maintain consistency among a triad of linked attributes. Anunbalanced relationship system would cause tension that it needs to move towards abalance state. Therefore, an employee may change his/her attitude toward the object tobe consistent with his/her leader, rebalancing the system. As such, the balance theorycould explain why internal branding is argued to influence employees’ brand attitudes.

Internalbranding

211


When employees find themselves holding different attitudes toward the brand fromtheir management, they would try to regain the balance system. Therefore, as internalbranding creates a shared understanding of brand values (de Chernatony andSegal-Horn, 2001), employees would align their brand attitudes with theirmanagements’.

However, due to the dearth of research in the internal branding concept, there arefew studies that empirically depicted the influences of internal branding on employees’brand attitudes (i.e. brand identification, brand commitment and brand loyalty). Fewer,if any, have been done to provide empirical evidence of the link between internalbranding and employees’ brand-supporting behaviour although several authors haveassumed that committed workforce who understand brand values would be enabled todeliver on customers’ brand expectations set by the brand promise (Allen, 2000; Kotterand Heskett, 1992; Rucci et al., 1998). Therefore:

H1. Internal branding has a positive impact on employees’ brand identification.

H2. Internal branding has a positive impact on employees’ brand commitment.

H3. Internal branding has a positive impact on employees’ brand loyalty.

H4. Internal branding has a positive impact on employees’ brand performance indelivering the brand promise.

3. The roles of brand identification, brand commitment and brand loyalty inthe internal branding processThe studies of internal branding (Papasolomou and Vrontis, 2006a, b; Punjaisri andWilson, 2007) have purported that internal branding and/or its tools (i.e. training andinternal communications) could induce employees’ brand identification, brandcommitment, and brand loyalty. However, it is noted that only the study ofPunjaisri and Wilson (2007) has made a distinction among the three attitudes; otherstudies did not investigate these attitudes within one study. This is brought into theinterest for this paper as the literature has revealed the confusion of the term“commitment” (Allen and Meyer, 1990). For example, identification, and loyalty arebelieved, by some authors (Legge, 1995; Mowday et al., 1982; Porter et al., 1974), toconstitute employee commitment – affective commitment, in particular. Some authorshave, on the contrary, considered them as separate constructs (Loveman, 1998;Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Silvestro, 2002).

A group of authors (Benkhoff, 1997; Peccei and Guest, 1993) have criticised theassumption of Porter et al. (1974) that identification, extra effort and desire to remain arethe components of commitment. These authors believe that components should beconsidered as separate concepts. From the organisational behaviour literature, Ashforthand Mael (1989) argue that although some authors may equate organisationalcommitment with organisational identification and/or the latter is the facet of the former,their review of the frequently used measure of commitment suggests that identificationis not presently defined by commitment. The study of Mael (1988) that themeasurements of identification and commitment supported that these two constructsare differentiable. According to this group of authors, identification refers to a sense ofbelonging to the group and a perception of being intertwined with the group’s fate; theysee themselves as personifying an entity (Mael and Ashforth, 1992, 1995; Tolman, 1943).

JOSM20,2

212


For example, employees who identify themselves with the brand perceive the successor failures of the brand as their own (James et al., 1977). They take pride in their groupmembership and this is likely to trigger behaviour that enhances an external image ofthe brand and its organisation (Oakes and Turner, 1986). Kelman (1958) and O’Reillyand Chatman (1986) consider identification with the brand identity as a driver of brandcommitment. Similarly, brand identification is argued to be an antecedent ofemployees’ brand commitment, which is defined as “the extent of psychologicalattachment of employees to the brand, which influences their willingness to exert extraeffort towards reaching the brand goals” (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005, p. 284).Therefore:

H5. Employees’ brand identification has a positive relationship with employees’brand commitment.

The term “commitment” has been used extensively in the internal branding context(Ind, 2001). Most research (Benkhoff, 1997; Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2006)has explored employees’ loyalty in terms of length of service, resonating with thecontinuance or calculative commitment construct. Loyal employees are found toexhibit a relatively stable and conscious tendency to engage in a relationship with theiremployer (Bloemer and Odekerken-Schroder, 2006). Similarly, Reichheld (1996)conceptualises loyalty as a willingness to remain with the present company.Employees’ loyalty is critical to the capability of service organisations to respondeffectively to customer needs. It drives down costs through reduced recruitment andtraining expenditures and all the cost efficiencies which accrue from skilled workerswho are up to speed and familiar with both the tasks at hand and their customers,thereby improving an organisation’s profits (Reichheld, 1996; Reichheld and Sasser,1990; Rust et al., 1995). In agreement with other studies within marketing (Brown andPeterson, 1993) and within organisational behaviour (Reichers, 1985; Labatmedieneet al., 2007), Pritchard et al. (1999) argue that commitment is a key precursor to loyaltyor retention. As such:

H6. Employees’ commitment has a positive relationship with employees’ brandloyalty.

Ultimately, internal branding aims at inducing employees’ behavioural changes tosupport the delivery of the brand promise (Ahmed et al., 2003; Boone, 2000; Drake et al.,2005). Although a number of authors support this argument, there is a lack of empiricalevidence to affirm the link between internal branding and employees’ brandperformance in delivering the brand promise. In general, most publications in theinternal branding context from both internal communications and human resourcesassume that, when committed employees make an effort to deliver on the brandpromise, they fulfil the expectations of customers towards the brand (de Chernatonyand Segal-Horn, 2003). However, the assumption that employees’ brand attitudesinfluence their behaviours in supporting the delivery of the brand promise is yet to besupported empirically. The recent study of Punjaisri and Wilson (2007) depicted themediating effect of the three attitudes on the link between internal branding’s tools andemployees’ brand performance. However, they investigated the influences of thesetools separately despite supporting the coordination between training and internalcommunications. Therefore:

Internalbranding

213


H7. Employees’ brand attitudes mediate the relationship between internalbranding and employees’ brand performance in delivering the brand promise.

Figure 1 depicts the conceptual model 1 that this study examines.

4. Method4.1 MeasuresMeasures for the key constructs were developed from prior literature. The eight-itemscale of brand identification was adapted from different studies (Herrbach et al., 2004;Mael and Ashforth, 1992; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Shamir et al., 1998). Theeight-item scale captures the sense of belonging of employees to the brand and theirsense of pride and ownership. The scale used by Mohr et al. (1996) was adopted by thisstudy to measure employees’ brand commitment. The four-item scale of brandcommitment reflects their emotional attachment to the brand. Boselie and van derWiele (2002) provided the scale to measure the loyalty of employees to the brand,giving a three-item scale which measures their intention to stay with the brand. Thefive-item scale of brand performance of this study was adapted from previous research(O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986; Williams and Anderson, 1991), measuring the extent towhich employees deliver the brand promise. The ten-item scale of internal brandingwas adapted from Punjaisri and Wilson (2007) to measure employees’ perceptionstowards orientation, training, group meeting and daily briefing.

All constructs have been measured with reflective measurement models, suggestingthat the latent constructs cause the measured variables (Hair et al., 2006). All itemsinclude five-point Likert scales ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” asit is a widely used scale for measuring attitudes (Kinnear and Taylor, 1996) andrespondents readily understand how to use the scale (Malhotra and Birks, 2000). Toassess the validity of the scales, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the attitudesand performance scales was performed (Appendix 1). Further analysis assessingdiscriminant validity suggested some cross-loadings. Therefore, five items (I1, I7, C1,L1 and BP5) were deleted. When removed, the discriminant validity was satisfied(Appendix 2). Another CFA was conducted as a second-order factor analysis for the

Figure 1.The proposedconceptual model

INT’BRANDING

OrientationGroup

MeetingBriefing

BRANDCOMMITMENT

BRANDPERFORMANCE

BRANDLOYALTY

BRANDIDENTIFICATION

TrainingConceptual

Model

JOSM20,2

214


internal branding construct. The goodness-of-fit of this model based on the CFI value is0.952, in line with the RMSEA value at 0.066 and the TLI value at 0.930. Table Iprovides the correlation matrix of all constructs studied.

4.2 SampleHypotheses were tested from data collected from 699 customer-interface employeesfrom five major hotels in Thailand. The questionnaires were sent out on a census basisto employees from three different departments (food and beverage, housekeepingand front office) as they were considered to be at the interface between the brand andcustomers. Out of 747 questionnaires distributed, 699 were returned, givingthe response rate of 94 per cent. The high response rate was due to the interest ofthe hotels’ senior management teams. Owing to some missing data, only 680questionnaires were considered appropriate for further analysis. The size of the sampleand the missing data pattern (there was no concentration in a specific set of questions)justified the deletion of the missing-data questionnaires. Moreover, according toJohnson and Wichern (2001), when variables have less than 15 per cent missing data,they are likely to be deleted.

The measurement invariance was also tested since there were five samples fromfive different hotels. Following the procedure suggested by Steenkamp andBaumgartner (1998, p. 83; Figure 1), it is noted that configural, metric and scalarinvariance are given. Hence, the five data sets can be combined for further analysis.

5. ResultsThe structural equation modelling was conducted using AMOS 7.0. The result of fitstatistics of the model is represented in Table II.

The conceptual model’s results as shown in the table above are used to assess themain effects in the internal branding and brand promise delivery model.The goodness-of-fit statistics revealed that the model fits the data reasonably well:The x 2/df value of 2.5 indicates a satisfactory level as it is below the recommended 3.0(Bollen and Long, 1993). Other representative indexes also suggest that the results ofthe structural model analysis are a good fit of the proposed model to the data: GFI is0.927, AGFI is 0.910, CFI is 0.941, RMSEA is 0.047. Although the CFI is lower that the

Brand identification Brand commitment Brand loyalty Brand performance

Internal branding 0.702 * 0.642 * 0.490 * 0.526 *

Brand identification 0.714 * 0.593 * 0.488 *

Brand commitment 0.499 * 0.384 *

Brand loyalty 0.393 *

Note: *Statistically significant at 0.01 level

Table I.Correlation matrix of

study constructs

Model x2 df p GFI TLI CFI RMSEA AIC BIC

Conceptual model 654.937 262 0.000 0.927 0.933 0.941 0.047 780.937 785.954Table II.

Fit statistics of model

Internalbranding

215


revised cut-off value of 0.95, the CFI value above 0.9 is considered as reasonablywell-fitting (Hair et al., 2006). In fact, the CFI value of this research’s model is close to0.95; Hu and Bentler (1995) have recently advised that a cut-off value “close to” 0.95 isacceptable.

Structural analysis results provide a goodness fit of the model tested to the data, asindicated by the various fit indices (CFI ¼ 0.94, TLI ¼ 0.931, RMSEA ¼ 0.048). As canbe seen from Table III, internal branding has positive and significant impacts onemployees’ brand identification (0.72, p , 0.01), brand commitment (0.24, p , 0.01),and brand loyalty (0.32, p , 0.01), lending support for H1, H2 and H3. Also, H4 issupported as the result suggests the positive and significant influence of internalbranding on employees’ brand performance (0.37, p , 0.01).

Also, the result suggests that employees’ brand identification has a significant effect onemployees’ brand commitment (0.55, p , 0.01). Similarly, employees’ brand commitmentis found to have a positive influence on employees’ brand loyalty (0.32, p , 0.01), lendingsupport to bothH6 andH7.H8 involves testing the mediating effects of employees’ brandattitudes in the link between internal branding and employees’ brand performance.Following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) argument for testing steps of mediating effects, theresult reveals that the first two steps of the mediating model are fulfilled. That is, internalbranding has a significant relationship with employees’ brand performance (the outcome)and employees’ brand attitudes (the hypothesised mediators). However, the focal modelsuggested that brand commitment did not have a significant relationship with the extentto which employees aligned their behaviours with brand values to deliver the brandpromise. Therefore, brand commitment is not considered either a full or a partial mediatorin this particular relationship. On the contrary, employees’ brand identification and brandloyalty are significantly related to employees’ brand performance in an equation thatcontains both internal branding and the hypothesised mediators (brand identification andbrand loyalty). Therefore, both employees’ brand identification and brand loyalty fulfilthree conditions, thereby suggesting that they mediate the total effect that internalbranding exerts on employees’ brand performance. However, because the relationshipbetween internal branding and employees’ brand performance remains significant, bothbrand attitudes of employees partially mediate this particular relationship. In other words,the total effect of internal branding towards employees’ brand performance is elevated inthe situation of having high levels of employees’ brand identification and brand loyalty.

Path Conceptual model

Internal branding ! brand identification 0.724 *

Internal branding ! brand commitment 0.241 *

Internal branding ! brand loyalty 0.320 *

Brand identification ! brand performance 0.193 * *

Brand commitment ! brand performance 20.048Brand loyalty ! brand performance 0.114 * *

Internal branding ! brand performance 0.370 *

Brand identification ! brand commitment 0.554 *

Brand commitment ! brand loyalty 0.315 *

Note *Significant at 0.01 level; * *significant at 0.05 level

Table III.Path coefficients of theconceptual model

JOSM20,2

216


This is because, while internal branding has a direct impact on the extent to whichemployees behave in a way that supports the delivery of brand promise, part of itsinfluence is through the level of its success in enhancing the employees’ perceptionsthat they are part of the brand’s success and/or failure (brand identification), and theirintention to stay with the brand (brand loyalty). The result, thus, lends partial supportto H7.

6. Discussions and managerial implicationsThe literature has recently introduced the internal branding concept as an enabler ofemployees’ delivery of the brand promise through its influences on their attitudes andbehaviours. This study provides empirical evidence supporting that internal brandingthat coordinates training and internal communications has a positive impact onemployees’ brand identification, brand commitment, and brand loyalty. In particular,employees’ brand identification was found to be influenced most by internal branding.This study supports previous studies that internal branding exerts certain degrees ofimpacts on the extent to which employees identify with, are committed to, and loyal tothe brand. Also, this study provides empirical evidence supporting the assumption thatinternal branding exerts certain degrees of influences on the extent to which employeesbehave in ways that are consistent with the delivery of the brand promise.

In line with past studies in different disciplines (i.e. marketing, and organisationalbehaviour), the result dictates the relationships among employees’ brand attitudes.Employees’ brand identification is found to positively influence employees’ brandcommitment (Allen and Meyer, 1990), which is a precursor to brand loyalty (Brown andPeterson, 1993; Reichers, 1985). As such, although these attitudes are distinct, they are,somehow, related constructs. The model that takes account of the relationshipsbetween brand identification and brand commitment, and between brand commitmentand brand loyalty has better goodness-of-fit index than those that take no account ofthese relationships. Another implication for researchers within the internal brandingcontext is the mediating effects of employees’ brand identification and brand loyalty onthe link between internal branding and their brand performance.

The implication of this study to management is that it is important that internalbranding includes knowledge from both marketing in terms of internal communicationand human resource in terms of training and/or employees’ development programmes.On one hand, management should attempt to use internal branding to enhance theiremployees’ brand performance. On the other, they can deploy internal branding toenhance their employees’ brand attitudes as well as its distinctiveness to enhance theirpride towards the brand to enhance their commitment. It is important for managementto be informed that training programmes to develop and enhance employees’brand-related understanding and skills need to be conducted on an ongoing basis.Although this requires corporate effort and investment, this study has shown that brandtraining along with effective internal communication could ensure that staff can deliveron the brand promise. Management could use two-way communication, daily briefing,group meeting, notice boards and corporate magazine to communicate any brandmessages to staff. Training programmes could contain general skill improvement andbrand-specific skills to enhance employees’ brand performance. Not only do thesemechanisms enhance employees’ ability to deliver on brand promise, but they alsoinduce employees’ identification with, commitment, and loyalty to the brand.

Internalbranding

217


Furthermore, this study suggests that management can expect their employees’commitment when they are successful in inducing employees’ brand identification.Similarly, they could influence employees’ brand loyalty when they are successful insecuring employees’ brand commitment. All these positive brand attitudes, again, couldbe influenced partly by effective and successive internal branding programmes. Itshould be noted that the recruitment process is also important as well as training.However, according to Punjaisri and Wilson (2007), recruiting employees whose valuesfit with the organisation’s as proposed by some authors (de Chernatony, 2001) wasfound to be difficult by the participating management. Therefore, probation period wasin use to ensure that any staff who passed this period would fit with the organisation.Therefore, any brand training they would participate in the future would not turn themaway from the brand and its organisation. This, thus, could explain why trainingprogrammes and internal communication that constitutes internal brandingprogrammes were found to have a positive influence on employees’ brand promisedelivery.

Furthermore, as employees’ brand identification and loyalty act as a partialmediator in the link between internal branding and employees’ brand performance,management are encouraged to pay attention to their employees’ attitudes toward abrand as influenced by internal branding. This is because the mediating effectssuggest that part of the total effect that internal branding has on employees’ delivery ofthe brand promise is through its effect on their identification and loyalty. Wheninternal branding effectively influences employees’ brand identification and loyalty,their brand performance can be more effectively influenced than when internalbranding does not successfully influence their attitudes. Still, management could makeuse of internal branding to directly shape their employees’ behaviour to ensure thatthey deliver the brand promise as expected.

7. Future research directionsThis study adds to the current knowledge that internal branding has both attitudinaland behavioural impacts on employees’ delivery of the brand promise. While most ofthe existing research focused on management’s and brand consultants’ perspectives,this study has looked at the perspectives of customer-interface employees’ who areconsidered the key audience of an internal branding programme. Also, it hassuccessfully provided empirical evidence showing the link between internal brandingand employees’ brand-supporting behaviours, which was previously based on a mereassumption that when employees are committed, they will deliver on the promise. Asthis study measured all three attitudes together, it could also identify the relationshipsamong these attitudes and how they mediated the strength of internal branding’s effecton employees’ brand behaviours.

However, it should be acknowledged that this study focused on the hotel industry,which is one among several types of industries in the service sector. Some serviceindustries may have a specific nature which is not shared by the others, therebylimiting the generalisability of this study to other service industries.

As the study used cross-sectional survey data, it neglected possible time-lag effects.Particularly, the hotel industry is affected by high- and low-season of travelling.Therefore, the cross-sectional study could neglect the influence of the different seasonsin the industry on the success of internal branding campaigns. Also, it was carried out

JOSM20,2

218


in Thailand, entailing the issues of culture specific. Therefore, replications of therelationships suggested in this study in different service industries and culturalcontexts would help clarifying the boundary conditions for generalisations to theory.Moreover, longitudinal data would improve an understanding of the mechanismsinfluencing different attitudes of employees and their behaviours in delivering thebrand performance.

References

Ahmed, P.K. and Rafiq, M. (2003), “Internal marketing issues and challenges”, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 1177-86.

Ahmed, P.K., Rafiq, M. and Saad, N.M. (2002), “Internal marketing, organizational competencies,and business performance”, Proceedings of the American Marketing AssociationConference, Vol. 13, pp. 500-1.

Ahmed, P.K., Rafiq, M. and Saad, N.M. (2003), “Internal marketing and the mediating role oforganisational competencies”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 1221-41.

Allen, D. (2000), “The ACID TestTM – a communication tool for leadership teams who want tointeract with the whole organisation”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 5 No. 4,pp. 257-66.

Allen, N. and Meyer, J. (1990), “The measurement of antecedents of affective, continuance andnormative commitment to the organisation”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63No. 1, pp. 1-18, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼16&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼20&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Asif, S. and Sargeant, A. (2000), “Modelling internal communications in the financial servicessector”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 3/4, pp. 299-317, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼20&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Aurand, T.W., Gorchels, L. and Bishop, T.R. (2005), “Human resource management’s role ininternal branding: an opportunity for cross-functional brand message synergy”, Journal ofProduct & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 163-9.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.

Baum, T. (1995), Managing Human Resources in the European Tourism and Hospitality Industry:A Strategic Approach, Chapman and Hall, London.

Benkhoff, B. (1997), “Disentangling organizational commitment: the dangers of the OCQ forresearch and policy”, Personnel Review, Vol. 26 Nos 1/2, p. 114, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼37&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Bergstrom, A., Blumenthal, D. and Crothers, S. (2002), “Why internal branding matters: the caseof Saab”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 133-42, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼41&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Internalbranding

219


Berry, L.L. and Lampo, S.S. (2004), “Branding labour-intensive services”, Business StrategyReview, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 18-25, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼45&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. (1991), Managing Services, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Bitner, M.J. (1995), “Building service relationships: it’s all about promises’”, Journal of Academyof Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 246-51.

Bloemer, J. and Odekerken-Schroder, G. (2006), “The role of employee relationship proneness increating employee loyalty”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 4,pp. 252-64.

Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (1993), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Boone, M. (2000), “The importance of internal branding”, Sales & Marketing Management,Vol. 152 No. 9, pp. 36-8.

Boselie, P. and van der Wiele, T. (2002), “Employee perceptions of HRM and TQM, and theeffects on satisfaction and intention to leave”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 12 No. 3,pp. 165-72.

Brown, S.P. and Peterson, R.A. (1993), “Antecedents and consequences of salesperson jobsatisfaction: meta-analysis and causal effects”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30No. 1, pp. 63-77, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼59&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Burmann, C. and Zeplin, S. (2005), “Building brand commitment: a behavioural approach tointernal brand building”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 279-300,available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼64&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Buss, D. (2002), “In good company”, Brandweek, Vol. 20, May, pp. 28-30.

de Chernatony, L. (2001), From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation, Butterworth-Heinemann,Oxford.

de Chernatony, L. and Cottam, S. (2006), “Internal brand factors driving successful financialservices brand”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 5/6, pp. 611-33.

de Chernatony, L. and Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1997), “The chasm between managers’ andconsumers’ view of brands: the experts’ perspectives”, Journal of Strategic Marketing,Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 89-104, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼71&hid¼22&sid ¼ 4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

de Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S. (2001), “Building on services characteristics to developsuccessful services brands”, Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 17 Nos 7/8, pp. 645-69,available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼74&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

de Chernatony, L. and Segal-Horn, S. (2003), “The criteria for successful services brands”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1095-118.

Drake, S.M., Gulman, M.J. and Roberts, S.M. (2005), Light their Fire, Dearborn, Chicago, IL.

Gronroos, C. (1990), Service Management and Marketing, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.

Guest, D. (1995), “Human Resource Management, Trade Unions and Industrial Relations”,in Storey, J. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: Still Marching on or Marching Out? AndHuman Resource Management. A Critical Test, Routledge, London.

Gummesson, E. (1991), “Marketing orientation revisited: the crucial role of the part-timemarketer”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 60-75, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼77&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

JOSM20,2

220


Hair, J.F. et al. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Saddle River, NJ.

Hankinson, P. (2002), “The impact of brand orientation on managerial practice: a quantitativestudy of UK’s top 500 fundraising managers”, International Journal of Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 30-44.

Heider, F. (1946), “Attitudes and cognitive organization”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 21, pp. 107-11.

Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York, NY.

Herrbach, O., Mignonac, K. and Gatignon, A-L. (2004), “Exploring the role of perceived externalprestige in managers’ turnover intentions”, The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 1390-407, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼80&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Heskett, J.L. et al. (1994), “Putting the service-profit chain to work”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 164-72, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼85&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Homburg, C. and Stock, R.M. (2005), “Exploring the conditions under which salesperson worksatisfaction can lead to customer satisfaction”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 5,pp. 393-420.

Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1995), “Evaluating model fit”, in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), StructuralEquation Modelling: Concepts, Issues and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,pp. 76-99.

Ind, N. (2001), Living the Brand, Kogan Page, London.

James, L.R., Hartman, A., Stebbins, M.W. and Jones, A.P. (1977), “Relationships betweenpsychological climate and a VIE model for work motivation”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 30No. 2, pp. 229-54, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼86&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Johnson, R.A. and Wichern, D.W. (2001), Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 5th ed.,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kelman, H.C. (1958), “Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitudechange”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 51-60.

Kinnear, T. and Taylor, J. (1996), Marketing Research – An Applied Approach, McGraw-Hill,New York, NY.

Kotler, P. (1994), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control,8th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kotter, J. and Heskett, J. (1992), Corporate Culture and Performance, Free Press, New York, NY.

Labatmediene, L., Endriulaitiene, A. and Gustainiene, L. (2007), “Individual correlates oforganizational commitment and intention to leave the organization”, Baltic Journal ofManagement, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 196-212.

Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management: Rhetoric and Realities, Macmillan, London.

Loveman, G. (1998), “Employee satisfaction, customer loyalty, and financial performance:an empirical examination of service profit chain in retail banking”, Journal of ServiceResearch, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 18-31.

Mael, F. (1988), Organizational identification: construct redefinition and a field application withorganizational alumni, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University,Detroit, MI.

Mael, F.A. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992), “Alumni and their alma mater: a partial field test of thereformulated model of organizational identification”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 102-23.

Internalbranding

221


Mael, F.A. and Ashforth, B.E. (1995), “Loyal from day one, biodata, organizational identification,and turnover among new comers”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 309-33,available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼94&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Malhotra, N.K. and Birks, D.F. (2000), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, European ed.,Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow.

Mitchell, C. (2002), “Selling the brand inside”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 99-105.

Mohr, J. et al. (1996), “Collaborative communication in interfirm relationships: moderating effectsof integration and control”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 103-15, available at:http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼94&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Mowday, R., Steers, R. and Porter, L. (1982), Employee-Organisation Linkages: The Psychology ofCommitment, Absenteeism and Turnover, Academic Press, London.

O’Loughlin, D., Szmigin, I. and Turnbull, P. (2004), “Branding and relationships: customer andsupplier perspectives”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 218-30,available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼100&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

O’Reilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization of prosocial behavior”, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 492-9.

Oakes, P. and Turner, J.C. (1986), “Distinctiveness and the salience of social categorymemberships: Is there an automatic perceptual bias towards novelty?”, European Journalof Social Psychology, Vol. 16, pp. 325-44.

Olins, W. (1995), The New Guide to Identity, Gower, London.

Papasolomou, I. and Vrontis, D. (2006a), “Building corporate branding through internalmarketing: the case of the UK retail bank industry”, The Journal of Product and BrandManagement, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 37-47.

Papasolomou, I. and Vrontis, D. (2006b), “Using internal marketing to ignite the corporate brand: thecase of the UK retail bank industry”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, p. 177.

Peccei, R. and Guest, D. (1993), “The dimensionality and stability of organizational commitment:a longitudinal examination of cook and wall’s (1980) organizational commitment scale(BOCS)”, London School of Economics, discussion paper 149, Centre for EconomicPerformance, London.

Porter, L., Steers, R., Mowday, R. and Boulian, P. (1974), “Organisational commitment, jobsatisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 59, pp. 603-9.

Pritchard, M.P., Havitz, M.E. and Howard, D. (1999), “Analyzing the commitment-loyalty link inservice contexts”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 333-48.

Punjaisri, K. and Wilson, A. (2007), “The role of internal branding in the delivery of employeebrand promise”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 57-70, available at:http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼105&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Reichers, A.E. (1985), “A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 465-76, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼108&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

JOSM20,2

222


Reichheld, F. (1996), The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force Behind Growth Profits and LastingValue, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Reichheld, F. and Sasser, W.E. Jr (1990), “Zero defections: quality comes to service”, HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 68 No. 5, pp. 32-40, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼111&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Rucci, A.J., Kirn, S.P. and Quinn, R.T. (1998), “The employee-customer profit chain at Sears”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 83-97, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼111&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Rust, R., Zahorik, A. and Keiningham, T.L. (1995), “Return on quality (ROQ), making servicequality financially accountable”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 58-79, availableat: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼114&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Shamir, B., Zakay, E. and Popper, M. (1998), “Correlates of charismatic leader behavior inmilitary units: subordinates’ attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors’ appraisalsperformance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 387-409, available at:http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼118&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Silvestro, R. (2002), “Dispelling the modern myth: employee satisfaction and loyalty drive serviceprofitability”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 1,pp. 30-49.

Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), “Assessing measurement invariance incrossnational consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25, pp. 78-90.

Steers, R. (1977), “Antecedents and outcomes of organisational commitment”, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 46-56, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼124&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Storey, J. (1995), “Human resource management: still marching on or marching out?”, HumanResource Management: A Critical Text, Routledge, London.

Tansuhaj, T., Randall, D. and McCullogh, J. (1991), “Applying the internal marketing conceptwithin large organizations: as applied to a Credit Union”, Journal of Professional ServicesMarketing, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 193-203.

Thomson, K., de Chernatony, L., Arganbright, L. and Khan, S. (1999), “The buy-in benchmark:how staff understanding and commitment impact brand and business performance”,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 819-35.

Tolman, E.C. (1943), “Identification and the post-war world”, Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, Vol. 38, pp. 141-8.

Tyson, S. (1995), Human Resource Strategy, Pitman, London.

Vallaster, C. and de Chernatony, L. (2006), “Internal brand building and structuration: the role ofleadership”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 761-84.

Williams, L. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment aspredictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviour”, Journal of Management,Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 601-17, available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid¼128&hid¼22&sid¼4df5388e-447a-4c61-abae-1e7265720e74%40sessionmgr2

Woodruffe, H. (1995), Services Marketing, M&E Pitman, Marchfield, MA.

Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. and Gremler, D.D. (2006), Services Marketing: Integrating CustomerFocus Across the Firm, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, Singapore.

Internalbranding

223


Appendix 1. Reliability and validity tests of each measurement scale

Construct scale itemsFactor

loadingsCFI

valueCompositereliability

Average varianceextracted

Brand identification 0.983 0.88 0.60I am proud to tell others that I am partof hotel X (I1) 0.584I feel a sense of ownership for this hotelX (I2) 0.573My sense of pride towards the hotelbrand is reinforced by thebrand-related messages (I3) 0.692I view the success of the brand as myown success (I4) 0.785Hotel X is like a family to me (I5) 0.845I feel belonging to this hotel X (I6) 0.783When I talk about this hotel X, Iusually say “we” rather than “they” (I7) 0.580When someone praises this brand, itfeels like a personal compliment (I8) 0.673Brand commitment 0.987 0.85 0.59My commitment to deliver the brandincreases along with my knowledge ofthe brand (C1) 0.644I am very committed to delivering thebrand promise to our hotel guests (C2) 0.837I have a minimal commitment to thishotel (R) (C3) 0.729I do not feel emotionally attached tothis hotel (R) (C4) 0.534Brand loyalty 1.00 0.70 0.44I will be happy to spend the rest of mycareer in this hotel chain (L1) 0.639I do not have an intention to change toanother hotel chain at this moment (L2) 0.610My intention to stay is driven by thefact that I am competent in deliveringthe brand promise (L3) 0.822Brand performance 0.983 0.88 0.60The quality level of my services meetsthe brand standards of hotel X (BP1) 0.632Sometimes, I neglect aspects of the job Iam obligated to perform (R) (BP2) 0.381I can successfully fulfill responsibilitiesspecified in my job descriptions (BP3) 0.691I effectively fulfil the promise that thebrand has with customers (BP4) 0.825I always handle customers’ specificrequests within a standard set for thebrand (BP5) 0.762Table AI.

JOSM20,2

224


Appendix 2. Pairwise assessment of the discriminant validity

Figure A1.The discriminant validity

of “ identification andcommitment” pair

AVE (0.60) > Square of Correlation (0.50)

BRANDIDENTIFICATION

I8

I2

I3

I4

I5

I6

C3

C2

C4

BRANDCOMMITMENT


of “identification andloyalty” pair

BRANDIDENTIFICATION

I2

BRANDLOYALTY

L2

L3


I3

I4

I5

I6

I8


of “commitment andloyalty” pair


BRANDLOYALTY

L2

L3

C2

C3

C4

BRANDCOMMITMENT


of “ identification andperformance” pair


BRANDIDENTIFICATION

I2

BP3

BP4

BRANDPERFORMANCE

BP1

BP2I3

I4

I5

I6

I8

Internalbranding

225


About the authorsKhanyapuss Punjaisri is a PhD graduate from Strathclyde Business School in Universityof Strathclyde. She is currently a Lecturer in Marketing at Nottingham TrentUniversity. Khanyapuss Punjaisri is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Heiner Evanschitzy is Professor of Marketing at University of Strathclyde. He was assistantand associated professor at the Marketing Centre Muenster, University of Muenster (Germany).He was also visiting professor at the Florida Atlantic University (USA). Heiner Evanschitzycurrently serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Business Research and IndustrialMarketing Management.

Alan Wilson is Professor and Head of the Department of Marketing. He has also been a ViceDean of the Strathclyde Business School. Before joining the Department in 1988, he was a seniorconsultant within a London-based marketing consultancy practice and prior to that an AssociateDirector of a leading London-based marketing research agency. He is currently a member of theGoverning Council of the Market Research Society and chairs the Society’s ProfessionalDevelopment Advisory Board.

Figure A5.The discriminant validityof “commitment andperformance” pair


BP3

BP4

BRANDPERFORMANCE

BP1

BP2C2

C3

C4

BRANDCOMMITMENT

Figure A6.The discriminant validityof “loyalty andperformance” pair


BP3

BP4

BRANDPERFORMANCE

BP1

BP2L2

L3

BRANDLOYALTY

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

JOSM20,2

226


Internal branding process:key mechanisms, outcomes and

moderating factorsKhanyapuss Punjaisri

Hull University Business School, University of Hull, Hull, UK, and

Alan WilsonDepartment of Marketing, University of Strathclyde Business School,

University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

Abstract

Purpose – This study seeks to focus on front-line service employees and their views of internalbranding and the extent to which personal and job-specific factors impact on the success of internalbranding in the reinforcement of brand identification and brand loyalty among service employees.

Design/methodology/approach – The research, based on a multiple case study representing thehotel industry in Thailand, involved the completion of 30 in-depth qualitative interviews withcustomer-interface employees followed by a quantitative survey with 680 customer-interfaceemployees located in five major hotels.

Findings – Corporate service brands need to coordinate internal branding activity to enhance theiremployees’ identification with, commitment to, and loyalty to, the brand. The relationships betweenthe concepts of identification, commitment and loyalty of employees are determined. Personalvariables such as age, education, and length of service as well as situational factors regarding theirwork environment are found to have moderating effects on the effectiveness of the internal brandingprocess.

Practical implications – The paper highlights the importance of internal branding on employees’brand identification, commitment and loyalty. However, management should also be aware that theimpact of internal branding would not be constant across all employees within an organisation.Personal variables such as age, educational background, and length of service with the brand shouldalso be taken into account. The impact of internal branding on an employee’s attitudes and behaviourare heightened when employees are satisfied with their workplace. As such, internal branding cannotbe looked at in isolation and is unlikely to be successful if the work environment is not conducive to theemployees and the brand values.

Originality/value – Much of the work on internal branding is conceptual and based on small-scalestudies undertaken with management or consultants. This paper provides empirical evidence from thefront-line service employees’ perspective on the relationships between internal branding and brandidentification, brand commitment, brand loyalty and brand performance. It also provides an empiricalinvestigation of potential moderators for internal branding.

Keywords Corporate branding, Employees, Internal branding, Brand commitment, Brand identification,Thailand

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionBalmer (2009) indicates that corporate marketing allows the synthesis of a myriad ofcorporate-wide concepts such as corporate identity, corporate image, corporate branding,corporate reputation and corporate communications. These are encompassed within the

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

Internalbranding process

1521

Received March 2008Revised November 2008Accepted February 2010

European Journal of MarketingVol. 45 No. 9/10, 2011

pp. 1521-1537q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0309-0566DOI 10.1108/03090561111151871


corporate marketing mix (Balmer and Greyser, 2006), which relates to the six elementsor the 6Cs of corporate marketing: corporate identity (character), corporatecommunications (communications), stakeholders (constituencies), covenant(corporate brand promise), corporate image and reputation (conceptualisation) andorganisational cultures (culture). This paper focuses on the management of thecorporate brand promise in service organisations, an activity that needs to takeaccount of each of the other elements of the corporate marketing mix and in particularinternal stakeholders.

In a service organisation, the delivery of the corporate brand or “brand covenant”(Balmer and Gray, 2003) is frequently dependant on staff effectively delivering the corevalues of the company to the customer. Indeed, De Chernatony (2002) postulates thatservice staff are the embodiment of the corporate brand through the adoption ofbehaviours that support a predetermined and common set of brand values. Internalbranding activities are therefore seen (Cleaver, 1999) as being as important as externalbranding activities in communicating and delivering the brand promise to thecustomer. This communicated promise needs to reflect the uniqueness of the corporatebrand (Ingenhoff and Fuhrer, 2010) in order to ensure a corporate brand’s virtue as asource of an organisation’s competitiveness (Balmer, 2001).

Despite the growing interest in internal branding, there has been very little researchundertaken on the subject from the employees’ perspective. The focus has tended to beon the perspectives of management and brand consultants, looking at the issue from atop-down viewpoint. Therefore, this study focuses on front-line employees and theirperceptions of internal branding influencers and the extent to which personal and workenvironment factors moderate the success of internal branding in the reinforcement ofbrand-supporting attitudes and behaviours among employees. The research, based ona multiple case study representing the hotel industry in Thailand, involved thecompletion of 30 in-depth qualitative interviews with customer-interface employeesfollowed by a quantitative survey with 680 customer-interface employees located infive major hotels.

Corporate branding, internal branding and the employeeAs corporations are trying to eliminate any “corporate dissonance”, the alignmentbetween what is communicated with external and internal constituencies isincreasingly emphasised (Powell and Dodd, 2007). Indeed, the “corporate marketingvortex” of Balmer (1998) suggests that a corporate brand is an explicit promisebetween an organisation and its key stakeholder groups. Einwiller and Will (2002)define corporate branding as the systematic planned management of behaviour,communication and symbolism in order to attain a favourable and positive reputationwith target audiences for an organisation. The behaviour element relates to thebehaviour of employees and they are seen as having a major influence on how externalstakeholders perceive the corporate brand and make sense of its identity and image(Anixter, 2003; Hatch and Schultz, 2001; Mitchell, 2002). As such, close alignment of theemployees with the organisation’s brand values may provide an organisation with asustainable competitive advantage (Pringle and Thompson, 2001). Stuart (2002) statesthat “the more employees identify with the organisation [. . .] the more employees arelikely to uphold that identity in their actions” (p. 30). Internal branding aims to achievethis alignment by promoting the brand inside an organisation through the practice of

EJM45,9/10

1522


internal marketing (Drake et al., 2005). It requires not only input from marketingpersonnel but also from those in the Human Resource discipline. Although a universaldefinition has not yet been proposed, various authors agree that internal branding isabout ensuring that the brand promise is transformed by employees into reality,reflecting the espoused brand values that set customers’ expectations (e.g. Aurand et al.,2005; Boone, 2000; De Chernatony and Cottam, 2006; King and Grace, 2008; Mahnertand Torres, 2007). As such, the definition adopted in this paper is that internalbranding describes the activities undertaken by an organisation to ensure that thebrand promise reflecting the espoused brand values that set customers’ expectations isenacted and delivered by employees.

Employees’ brand identification and brand commitmentBalmer (2001) argues for the need of total commitment across all employees of anorganisation if a corporate brand is to be truly differentiated and successful. Whenstaff have a clear understanding of brand values, they are more likely to beintellectually and emotionally engaged with the brand (Thomson et al., 1999). Asinternal branding strives for a shared understanding of brand values across theorganisation, recent studies have found it has a positive influence on employees’ brandcommitment (Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007; Punjaisri et al., 2008). That is, committedemployees can better fulfil the brand promise because of their emotional attachment tothe brand (Thomson et al., 1999). Furthermore, the organisational identification and theorganisational commitment theories have purported that when staff’s values arealigned with the organisation’s, or the brand’s (in this study), their desire to maintainmembership or brand loyalty will be enhanced (e.g. Dutton et al., 1994; Van Dick, 2001).A recent study by Papasolomou and Vrontis (2006) has found that internal brandinginfluences employees’ brand loyalty and their willingness to remain with the brand(Reichheld, 1996). It is further noted that authors view brand identification as aprecursor to commitment (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005) and to loyalty (Brown andPeterson, 1993; Pritchard et al., 1999).

However, the effectiveness of internal branding on creating brand-supportingattitudes and behaviours may be moderated by a range of factors relating to theindividual (personal factors) and the work environment. Factors such as age (Simonsand Enz, 1995), length of service (Van Woerkom et al., 2002) organisational climate(Steers and Porter, 1983), supervisory support (Susskind et al., 2007) and perceivedautonomy (Tomer, 2001) have all been explored in relation to motivation but have notbeen examined in relation to their impact on internal branding and the resultantemployee brand identification and employee brand loyalty. Therefore this study set outto explore the views of service employees in a service industry with respect to theiridentification, commitment and loyalty to the corporate brand as a result of internalbranding activities taking account of the employees’ personal and job specific(situational) characteristics.

MethodologyA case study approach representing the hotel industry in Thailand was chosen using amix of qualitative and quantitative research. Although a case study approach isfrequently criticised for a lack of generalisability and rigour (Yin, 1994), it can generatea richness of information that helps to generate and expand theories and concepts


1523


(Gummesson, 1991). Furthermore, the mixed methodologies together with the criticalreview of literature allow data triangulation, which is known to neutralise thelimitations and biases of any single method (Creswell, 2003).

Qualitative phaseThe qualitative research used in-depth interviews with 30 customer-interfaceemployees in six major hotels in key tourist provinces in Thailand. Please refer toAppendix 1 (see Table AI) for the profile of participating customer-interfaceemployees. This phase was to validate the constructs found during the literaturereview as well as to define the parameters to be measured during the quantitativephase. The findings from this research also assisted in the design of the quantitativequestionnaires.

The participating hotels were selected based on their quality standards rated bystars. Four- and five-star hotels were selected because they are more likely to make aneffort to maintain their promised brand experience and standards. Due to the focus ofthe research, employees from three departments (food and beverage, housekeeping,and front office) were considered to be the key informants as they are in constantinteraction with customers and other stakeholders. Each interview lasted from one toone hour and a half and was taped and transcribed to reduce the risk of observer bias(Voss et al., 2002). Content analysis was used to analyse the data. Based on Miles andHuberman’s (1984) framework, the transcripts were studied several times to identifycommon themes, leading to the generation of notes in a matrix format.

Quantitative phaseFollowing this, the quantitative research phase was conducted to investigate theformal relationships among constructs. At this phase, only five hotels granted access.However, the qualitative findings suggested no significant differences between thesefive hotels and the hotel that refused to take part.

SampleThe survey was conducted with customer-interface employees from the threedepartments (food and beverage, housekeeping and front office) in the five hotels. Thequestionnaires were distributed to each hotel individually and respondents wereassured of their anonymity. Of the 797 questionnaires sent out, 699 were returned,giving a response rate of 94 percent. A total of 19 questionnaires were discarded as aresult of missing data, leaving 680 to be included in further analysis. The measurementinvariance was tested since there were five samples from five hotels. Following theprocedure suggested by Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998, p. 83) (Figure 1), it isnoted that configural, metric, and scalar invariance were given. Hence, the five datasets were successfully combined for further analysis.

MeasuresThe questionnaire used a five-point Likert scale, as it is one of the most common waysof measuring attitudes (Wilson, 2006). Measures for the key constructs (i.e. identification,commitment, loyalty, performance, work environment, internal branding) wereadapted from prior literature (e.g. Mael and Ashforth, 1992; Mohr et al., 1996: O’Reillyand Chatman, 1986; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007). Please refer to Appendix 2 (see

EJM45,9/10

1524


Table AII) for the assessment of the validity and reliability of the scales using aconfirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Further analysis testing discriminant validitysuggested some cross-loadings. Therefore, five items (I1, I2, I7, L2, and BP2) weredeleted. When removed, the result was satisfied (see Appendix 3, Table AIII) for thediscriminant validity test and correlations of the constructs). Another two CFAs wereconducted as a second-order factor analysis for the work environment and internalbranding constructs. Both have the CFI value range from 0.941 to 0.952, in line with theRMSEA value at 0.066, suggesting reasonable fit models.

The analysis of reliability of scale using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was performedusing SPSS. The result suggested adequate to very good scale reliability (Appendix 4,see Table AIV).

Figure 1.The proposed frameworkbased on the outcome ofqualitative data analysis


1525


Qualitative research findingsInternal branding’s influences on employees’ delivery of brand promiseAnalysis of interview transcripts stressed the importance of coordinating internalcommunications (marketing) with ongoing training programmes (HR). Internalcommunications were considered as a key to “give” them “an idea about the brand”(R30) whereas training “coaches and educates how to enact the espoused brand valuesas proposed by the brand promise” (R1).

The attitudinal outcomes of internal branding, namely brand identification, brandcommitment, and brand loyalty raised during the literature review were found duringthe in-depth interviews. All respondents expressed their sense of belonging to thebrand as they all used “we” to represent their brand and regarded themselves as thebrand (e.g. We are in the same family, we are brand P [R22]). In total, 25 showed theirsense of pride towards the brand (e.g. I am proud to tell anyone that I work for brand S[R28]). Similarly, 20 informants revealed their emotional attachment (e.g. I loveworking with brand O [R17]). Many put this down to internal branding, “we are keptreinforced about brand values” (R27) and 17 of the respondents claimed that theystayed with the hotel because of internal branding that enhance their knowledge, skills,and capabilities: “It’s been enhancing my skills and overall knowledge. I don’t see whyI should leave brand M” (R14). Furthermore, informants attribute their delivery of thebrand promise to the practice of internal branding: “Both training and internalcommunications make me appreciate the brand and its values. I know how to deliver[. . .] our brand promise and its importance” (R13). Besides, they also contend thatbecause they interpreted their brand’s success as their own, they expressed theirintention to deliver on the brand promise as guided by the brand standards that wereconstantly reinforced through internal communications and training: “as we feel we areS, we will surely work and do things for the success of it [. . .] training andcommunications across the organisation help us provide services that are in line withthe brand’s values, expected by our management and customers” (R26).

Personal and work environment factors as perceived challenges to the promise deliveryThe importance of the work environment was addressed during the interviews: “Thework environment is good. I feel that I can and want to stay here” (R2). Respondentsreferred to such factors as relationships with colleagues and leaders, recognitionschemes, and perceived autonomy. When employees feel that they get support fromtheir colleagues and management through recognition schemes and certain degrees ofperceived autonomy, they believe that they “can deliver the brand promise effectivelyand efficiently” (R7). For example, “we have good leaders who understand, trust, and,when we excel, reward us. This makes us feel happy and love to work here... andmotivated to achieve what we hold dear to – our brand P’ (R23). Hence, these factorswere also found to enhance employees” attitudinal responses towards the brand,namely brand identification, commitment, and loyalty.

Personal factors, namely age, educational background, and length of service, werefound to have impact on employees’ brand-supporting attitudes and behaviour. In linewith the study of Simons and Enz (1995), employees of age over 30 years old tended toexpress their intention to be more loyal than the younger counterparts. Similarly, thelonger they worked with the brand, the higher their expressed emotional attachmentand intention to stay with the brand. However, those who have higher education

EJM45,9/10

1526


qualifications seemed less loyal: “although I love and am proud of working here, Icannot say how long I will stay ” (R3).

Figure 1 represents the framework that was derived from the full qualitativefindings and the literature.

Quantitative research findingsA LISREL model using AMOS 7.0 was generated to formally investigate the potentiallinkages between the constructs identified in Figure 1. Figure 2 reveals estimatedcoefficients of the relationships among all constructs for the model. The goodness-of-fitstatistics revealed that the model fits the data reasonably well: The x 2/df value of 2.5indicates a satisfactory level as it is below the recommended 3.0 (Bollen and Long,1993). Other representative indexes also suggest that the results of the structural modelanalysis are a good fit of the proposed model to the data: GFI is 0.927, CFI is 0.941,RMSEA is 0.047. Although the CFI is lower that the revised cut-off value of 0.95, theCFI value above 0.9 is considered as reasonably well fitting (Hair et al., 2006). In fact,the CFI value of this research’s model is close to 0.95; Hu and Bentler (1995) haverecently advised that a cut-off value ‘close to’ 0.95 is acceptable.

The direct and indirect influences of internal branding on employees’ brand-supportingbehaviourThe result of a LISREL analysis reveals that internal branding has a significant effecton employees’ brand performance (0:37; p , 0:001). It also indicated a positiveinfluence of internal branding on employees’ brand identification (0:72; p , 0:001),brand commitment (0:24; p , 0:001), and brand loyalty (0:32; p , 0:001). Although theeffect of internal branding on employees’ brand performance was less than on brandidentification.

Following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) argument for testing steps of mediating effects,the analysis depicted the mediating effect of employees’ brand identification and brand

Figure 2.Relationships between

internal branding,employees’ brand

attitudes (e.g. brandidentification, brand

commitment, and brandloyalty), and employees’

brand performance


1527


loyalty, explaining that part of the internal branding’s total effect on employees’delivery of the brand promise was through its influence on these two brand concepts.This suggested that both brand identification and brand loyalty acted as partialmediators in this link whereas brand commitment exerted no mediating effect becauseit did not have a significant relationship with the extent to which employees performthe delivery of the brand promise. As the two brand attitudes act as partial mediatorsin the link between internal branding and employees’ brand performance, it isimportant to acknowledge the direct impact that internal branding still exerts onemployees’ brand performance. However, because part of its influence is through brandidentification and their intention to remain with the brand (brand loyalty), the totaleffect of internal branding towards employees’ brand performance becomes greaterwhen these two attitudes are positive. In addition, the LISREL analysis revealed thatemployees’ brand identification positively influenced employees’ brand commitment(0:55; p , 0:001), which was a precursor of employees’ brand loyalty (0:32; p , 0:001).

Moderating influences of work environment and personal factorsAfter confirming the influences of the relationships among different constructs,moderating effects were tested. Based on the literature review and the qualitativefindings, two sets of moderators were found:

(1) Personal variables consisting of age, educational background, and length ofservice (these were all assessed separately).

(2) Situational factors comprising the relationships with their leaders and theirpeers, their perceptions towards rewarding and remuneration schemes, andperceived autonomy (these were all assessed as one parameter).

To investigate the moderating effects, this study followed the steps for moderatorexamination as suggested by Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002). The total sample wasdivided into high and low groups according to the median of individual moderatingfactors (Yi and Jeon, 2003).

The work environmentWith regard to the findings presented in Table I, it can be noted that all variables showall effects – they moderate the effect of internal branding on all measured constructs(brand identification, brand commitment, brand loyalty, and brand performance). Inparticular, the results suggested that the strength of internal branding’s effects on allthree attitudes of employees toward a brand (bhighsatisfaction ¼ 0:39 for the effect onbrand identification; bhighsatisfaction ¼ 0:11 on brand commitment; bhighsatisfaction ¼ 0:17on brand loyalty) was heightened when employees were satisfied with their workenvironment. This is in line with the qualitative results. For example,remuneration/rewarding schemes influenced not only their decision to apply for ajob but also their intention to stay. Indeed, the results resonated with a number ofprevious studies that consider a good work environment as an enhancer of the effect ofthe training programmes by increasing employee identification (e.g. House, 1971;Tyagi, 1982), and commitment (De Chernatony, 2002).

On the contrary, less satisfied employees attributed their brand performance moretoward internal branding than more satisfied employees (blowsatisfaction ¼ 0:19). That is,

EJM45,9/10

1528


Wor

ken

vir

onm

ent

Path

sH

igh

sati

sfac

tion

Low

sati

sfac

tion

x2

Dx

2ðd

f¼

1Þ

Inte

rnal

bra

nd

ing

!B

ran

did

enti

fica

tion

0.38

5a0.

306a

1094

.555

90.3

37*

*

Inte

rnal

bra

nd

ing

!B

ran

dco

mm

itm

ent

0.10

6b0.

095b

1058

.265

54.0

47*

*

Inte

rnal

bra

nd

ing

!B

ran

dlo

yal

ty0.

167a

0.15

6a10

61.7

2457

.506

**

Inte

rnal

bra

nd

ing

!B

ran

dp

erfo

rman

ce0.

135b

0.19

1a10

46.6

1442

.396

**

Dx

2ðd

f¼

4Þ:1

34:5

73*

*

Ag

eY

oun

gO

ldx

2Dx

2ðd

f¼

1ÞIn

tern

alb

ran

din

g!

Bra

nd

iden

tifi

cati

on0.

376a

0.42

6a10

56.1

5769

.734

**

Inte

rnal

bra

nd

ing

!B

ran

dco

mm

itm

ent

0.17

9a0.

023c

1069

.344

82.9

21*

*

Inte

rnal

bra

nd

ing

!B

ran

dlo

yal

ty0.

213a

0.10

5c10

60.9

1474

.491

**

Inte

rnal

bra

nd

ing

!B

ran

dp

erfo

rman

ce0.

181a

0.21

8a10

22.8

2936

.406

**

Dx

2ðd

f¼

4Þ:1

39:3

32*

*

Ed

uca

tion

Low

Hig

hx

2Dx

2ðd

f¼

1ÞIn

tern

alb

ran

din

g!

Bra

nd

iden

tifi

cati

on0.

434a

0.36

6a11

05.7

8458

.846

**

Inte

rnal

bra

nd

ing

!B

ran

dco

mm

itm

ent

0.08

1b0.

129b

1086

.787

39.8

49*

*

Inte

rnal

bra

nd

ing

!B

ran

dlo

yal

ty0.

158a

0.20

7a10

86.5

4839

.610

**

Inte

rnal

bra

nd

ing

!B

ran

dp

erfo

rman

ce0.

286a

0.00

0c10

86.6

1039

.672

**

Dx

2ðd

f¼

4Þ:8

6:79

5*

*

Len

gth

ofse

rvic

eS

hor

tL

ong

x2

Dx

2ðd

f¼

1ÞIn

tern

alb

ran

din

g!

Bra

nd

iden

tifi

cati

on0.

353a

0.49

3a10

95.6

7648

.210

**

Inte

rnal

bra

nd

ing

!B

ran

dco

mm

itm

ent

0.14

3a0.

021c

1092

.788

45.3

22*

*

Inte

rnal

bra

nd

ing

!B

ran

dlo

yal

ty0.

134a

0.24

5a10

90.9

1943

.453

**

Inte

rnal

bra

nd

ing

!B

ran

dp

erfo

rman

ce0.

172a

0.20

4a10

78.4

0830

.942

**

Dx

2ðd

f¼

4Þ:8

4:89

4*

*

Note

s:

** S

ign

ifica

nt

at0.

01le

vel

.aS

ign

ifica

nt

at0.

01le

vel

;bS

ign

ifica

nt

at0.

05le

vel

Table I.Results of multigroup

analysis: workenvironment, age,

education, and length ofservice as moderators


1529


employees who were dissatisfied with their workplace needed to be influenced more byinternal branding.

Age of EmployeesThe links between internal branding and employees’ brand identification and betweeninternal branding and employees’ brand performance were stronger with employeesover the age of 30 (boldworker ¼ 0:43 for identification; boldworker ¼ 0:22 for performance)in comparison with employees of less than 30 years (byoungworker ¼ 0:38;boldworker ¼ 0:18). However, the links between internal branding and brandcommitment and between internal branding and brand loyalty are found to bestronger when employees are younger (byoungworker ¼ 0:18 and byoungworker ¼ 0:21respectively). Both the literature (e.g. Simons and Enz, 1995) and the qualitativefindings suggested that older workers generally tended to have a higher commitmentand loyalty towards their brand; therefore, they may feel that their commitment andloyalty are less strongly influenced by internal branding.

Education of employeesEducation was also found to moderate the effect of internal branding on employees’brand attitudes and brand performance. In particular, less educated employeesattributed their brand identification and performance more towards internal brandingthan their well-educated counterparts (bloweducation ¼ 0:43 and (bloweducation ¼ 0:29respectively). The qualitative findings explained that well-educated employeesperceived themselves as contributing to the success of the brand; thus, they did notneed to be so strongly influenced by internal branding. Furthermore, less-educatedemployees may need internal branding to further reinforce the behaviours that wereappropriate for the delivery of the brand promise. The effect of internal branding onemployees’ brand commitment and brand loyalty was stronger for employees who werewell educated (bhigheducation ¼ 0:13 and bhigheducation ¼ 0:21 respectively). Thequalitative findings found that employees having lower educational attainment weregenerally loyal no matter what internal branding was undertaken, whereas employeeswith higher levels of knowledge were ambitious for career advancement and internalbranding was needed to reinforce the value of being loyal to the their current hotel brand.

Length of serviceFinally, the length of service was found to moderate employees’ brand identification(blongservice ¼ 0:49), loyalty (blongservice ¼ 0:25), and performance (blongservice ¼ 0:20).The longer an employee had been with an organisation, the greater the impact internalbranding had on their on-brand behaviour.

Discussion and implicationsWhile most of the existing research has focused on management’s and brandconsultants’ perspectives, this study has looked at the perspectives ofcustomer-interface employees’ who are considered as the key audience of internalbranding activities. Focusing on these employees, it has been possible to provideempirical evidence showing the link between internal branding and employees’brand-supporting behaviours, which was previously only based on conceptualthinking. As this study measured employees’ brand identification, commitment, and

EJM45,9/10

1530


loyalty together, it also identifies the relationships among these concepts and how theymediated the strength of internal branding’s effect on employees’ brand behaviours.Among the three brand concepts, an employee’s sense of belonging or “oneness” isinfluenced most by internal branding. Internal branding also directly impacts onemployees’ brand performance and ability to deliver the brand promise. This concurswith past studies (e.g. O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986) that demonstrated that employeeswho identify with the brand will have an emotional attachment to the brand. Similarly,an employee’s commitment is positively related to their brand loyalty measured interms of their intention to stay with brand.

Therefore internal branding is critical to the success of a service organisation and inparticular to the success of the corporate brand (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002).Furthermore, Balmer and Greyser (2006) consider corporate branding as “tightlycoupled to corporate marketing” (p. 7). Therefore, this study furthers that internalbranding, which engenders employees’ cognitive and emotional engagement with thebrand, is key to the success of coherent corporate-level marketing. However,management should also be aware that the impact of internal branding would not beconstant across all employees within an organisation. This study has successfullymanaged to reveal the moderating effects of personal and situational factors on internalbranding. Although various articles in the internal branding realm have depicted thebenefits of internal branding, they have not explored the factors that could hinder itssuccess. In particular, attention should be paid toward how employees perceive theirwork environment. The relationships that employees have with their peers and leaders,the level of perceived autonomy, and their perceptions toward payment andreward/recognition schemes could limit the effectiveness of internal branding. Theimpact of internal branding on an employee’s attitudes and behaviour are heightenedwhen employees are satisfied with their workplace. Indeed, management can learn fromthis study that their efforts towards internal branding are also perceived by their staff asbeing about the relationship between management and their employees, the recognitionschemes that they implement, and finally, through the level of flexibility that they allowtheir staff to have during the service delivery. As such, internal branding cannot belooked at in isolation and is unlikely to be successful if the work environment is notconducive to the employees and the brand values. That is, internal branding needs towork together with other corporate marketing elements (i.e. corporate communications,culture, corporate identity, and corporate image and reputation) as well as otherdisciplinary frameworks (i.e. management, and human resources).

Personal variables such as age, educational background, and length of service withthe brand should also be taken into account. While older employees might require moresignificant internal branding effort to enhance their identification with the brand, theirbrand-supporting behaviour might need less support than is the case for their youngercolleagues. Furthermore, employees with lower educational qualifications may not seethemselves as contributing to the success of the brand. This may mean that stronginternal branding efforts may be required to communicate the interdependencybetween the brand’s success and the less educated employee’s role in the delivery of thebrand promise. When they consider themselves as contributing to the success of thebrand, their motivation to deliver the brand message is likely to be enhanced. Finally,the longer an employee stays with the brand, the more the organisation needs internalbranding to reinforce employees’ brand identification, intention to stay, andperformance. This may stop employees becoming tired of the brand and questioning


1531


its relevance to them. Effective internal branding is needed to enhance their pride in thebrand and their willingness to deliver on the brand promise.

Future research directionsAlthough this study has identified the importance of internal branding, it has onlyfocused on the hotel industry in Thailand, which may not be representative of all serviceorganisations, suggesting that there is a need for researchers to extend this research intoother service industries and other national cultures to enrich internal brandingknowledge in the wider service sector. The hotel industry is also affected by employingtemporary staff during peak-periods, as a result this cross-sectional study, may haveneglected the impact of these seasonal shifts in staffing on the effectiveness of internalbranding. A longitudinal study may offer opportunities to improve understanding of theimpact of temporary versus permanent employees on the perceived value and influenceof internal branding. Moreover, longitudinal data would improve understanding of theongoing and long-term influence of mechanisms on the attitudes of employees and theirbehaviours in delivering the sustainable brand promises.

References

Anixter, J. (2003), “Transparency or not? Brand inside: brand outsideTM – the most obvious yetoverloaded next source for the brand’s authentic evolution”, in Ind, N. (Ed.), BeyondBranding, Kogan Page, London.

Aurand, T.W., Gorchels, L. and Bishop, T.R. (2005), “Human resource management’s role ininternal branding: an opportunity for cross-functional brand message synergy”, Journal ofProduct & Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 163-9.

Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing”, Journal ofMarketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 963-96.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: seeingthrough the fog”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 248-91.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2009), “Corporate marketing: apocalypse, advent and epiphany”, ManagementDecision, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 544-72.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003), “Corporate brands: what are they? What of them?”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 972-97.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2006), “Integrating corporate identity, corporate branding,corporate communications, corporate image, and corporate reputation”, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 730-41.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.

Bollen, K.A. and Long, J.S. (1993), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Boone, M. (2000), “The importance of internal branding”, Sales and Marketing Management,Vol. 9, September, pp. 36-8.

Brown, S.P. and Peterson, R.A. (1993), “Antecedents and consequences of salesperson jobsatisfaction: meta-analysis and causal effects”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30,February, pp. 63-77.

Burmann, C. and Zeplin, S. (2005), “Building brand commitment: a behavioural approach tointernal brand building”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 279-300.

Cleaver, C. (1999), “Brands as the catalysts”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 5,pp. 309-12.

EJM45,9/10

1532


Creswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches,2nd ed., Sage Publications, London.

Dabholkar, P.A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2002), “An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service:moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors”, Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 184-97.

De Chernatony, L. (2002), “Would a brand smell any sweeter by a corporate name?”, CorporateReputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 114-32.

De Chernatony, L. and Cottam, S. (2006), “Internal brand factors driving successful financialservices brand”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 5/6, pp. 611-33.

Drake, S.M., Gulman, M.J. and Roberts, S.M. (2005), Light Their Fire, Dearborn, Chicago, IL.

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organisational images and memberidentification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 239-63.

Einwiller, S. and Will, M. (2002), “Towards an integrated approach to corporate branding –an empirical study”, Corporate Communications, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 100-9.

Gummesson, E. (1991), “Marketing orientation revisited: the crucial role of the part-timemarketer”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 60-75.

Hair, J.F., Black, B., Babin, B. and Tatham, R. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed., PrenticeHall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2001), “Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand?”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 128-34.

House, R.J. (1971), “A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness”, Administrative Science Quarterly,16 September, pp. 321-38.

Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1995), “Evaluating model fit”, in Hoyle, R.H. (Ed.), StructuralEquation Modelling: Concepts, Issues and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,pp. 76-99.

Ingenhoff, D. and Fuhrer, T. (2010), “Positioning and differentiation by using brand personalityattributes”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 83-101.

King, C. and Grace, D. (2008), “Internal branding: exploring the employees’ perspective”, Journalof Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 15, pp. 358-72.

Mael, F.A. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992), “Alumni and their Alma Mater: a partial field test of thereformulated model of organizational identification”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 102-23.

Mahnert, K.F. and Torres, A.M. (2007), “The brand inside: the factors of failure and success ininternal branding”, Irish Marketing Review, Vol. 19 Nos 1-2, pp. 54-63.

Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1984), Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of NewMethods, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.

Mitchell, C. (2002), “Selling the brand inside”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 99-195.

Mohr, J., Fisher, R.J. and Nevin, J.R. (1996), “Collaborative communication in interfirmrelationships: moderating effects of integration and control”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60No. 3, pp. 103-15.

O’Reilly, C. III and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychologicalattachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization of prosocialbehavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 492-9.

Papasolomou, O. and Vrontis, D. (2006), “Building corporate branding through internalmarketing: the case of the UK retail bank industry”, Journal of Product & BrandManagement, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 37-47.

Powell, S. and Dodd, C. (2007), “Managing vision and the brand within the creative industries”,Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 394-413.

Pringle, H. and Thompson, M. (2001), Brand Spirit, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.


1533


Pritchard, M.P., Havitz, M.E. and Howard, D. (1999), “Analyzing the commitment-loyalty link inservice contexts”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 333-48.

Punjaisri, K. and Wilson, A. (2007), “The role of internal branding in the delivery of employeebrand promise”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 57-70.

Punjaisri, K., Wilson, A. and Evanschitzky, H. (2008), “Exploring the influences of internalbranding on employees’ brand promise delivery: implications for strengtheningcustomer-brand relationship”, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 407-24.

Reichheld, F. (1996), The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force behind Growth, Profits and LastingValue, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Schultz, M. and de Chernatony, L. (2002), “Introduction: The challenges of corporate branding”,Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 109-13.

Simons, T. and Enz, A.C. (1995), “Motivating hotel employees”, Cornell Hotel and RestaurantAdministration Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 20-7.

Steenkamp, E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), “Assessing measurement invariance incross-national consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 78-90.

Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1983), Motivation and Work Behavior, McGraw-Hill, New York,NY.

Stuart, H. (2002), “Employee identification with the corporate identity”, International Studies ofMarketing and Organization, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 28-33.

Susskind, A.M., Kacmar, K.M. and Borchgrevink, C.P. (2007), “How organizational standards andcoworkers support improve restaurant service”, Cornell Hotel and RestaurantAdministration Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 370-80.

Thomson, K., de Chernatony, L., Arganbright, L. and Khan, S. (1999), “The buy-in benchmark:how staff understanding and commitment impact brand and business performance”,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 819-35.

Tomer, J.F. (2001), “Understanding high-performance work systems: the joint contribution ofeconomics and human resource management”, Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 30 No. 1,p. 63.

Tyagi, P.K. (1982), “Perceived organization climate and the process of salesperson motivation”,Journal of Market Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 240-54.

Van Dick, R. (2001), “Identification in organisational contexts: linking theory and research fromsocial and organisation psychology”, International Journal of Management Review, Vol. 3No. 4, pp. 265-83.

Van Woerkom, M., Nijhof, W.J. and Nieuwenhuis, F.M. (2002), “Critical reflective workingbehaviour: a survey research”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 26 Nos 8/9,pp. 375-83.

Voss, C., Tsikniktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. (2002), “Case research in operations management”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 195-219.

Wilson, A. (2006), Marketing Research: An Integrated Approach, 2nd ed., Financial Times/Prentice Hall, Harlow.

Yi, Y. and Jeon, H. (2003), “Effects of loyalty programs on value perception, program loyalty, andbrand loyalty”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 229-40.

Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Further reading

Rousseau, D.M. (1998), “Why workers still identify with organisations”, Journal ofOrganisational Behaviour, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 217-33.

EJM45,9/10

1534


Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Job position Hotel Department Sex

Housekeeping supervisor (R1) D Housekeeping FBanquet manager (R2) F&B MCommunication centre officer (R3) F/O FSales reception co-ordinator (R4) F/O FReservation supervisor (R5) F/O FHousekeeping supervisor (R6) H Housekeeping FF&B supervisor (R7) F&B MF&B officer (R8) F&B MF&B server (R9) F&B MGuest history officer (R10) Residence FGuest contact assistant manager at cafe (R11) M F&B FAssistant F&B personnel (R12) F&B FGuest contact supervisor at restaurant (R13) F&B FSales executive (R14) Services FBell boy (R15) Services MGuest service officer (R16) O F/O MRoom attendant (R17) Housekeeping MWaiter (R18) F&B MConcierge officer (R19) F/O FPorter (R20) F/O MRoom maid (R21) P Housekeeping FGuest relations officer (R22) F/O FF/O supervisor (R23) F/O MHostess (R24) F&B FServer (R25) F&B FCafe captain (R26) S F&B FChinese restaurant captain (R27) F&B FBusboy (R28) F&B MGuest relations officer (R29) F/O FBusiness centre officer (R30) F/O F

Table AI.Profile of informants

from six hotels

TR OR GM BR BI BP BL BC

Training 1Orientation 0.682 1Group meeting 0.618 0.477 1Briefing 0.614 0.59 0.465 1Brand identification 0.635 0.484 0.522 0.496 1Brand performance 0.406 0.441 0.44 0.389 0.492 1Brand loyalty 0.62 0.518 0.468 0.447 0.701 0.43 1Brand commitment 0.657 0.464 0.519 0.449 0.674 0.468 0.705 1AVE * 0.505 0.505 0.625 0.503 0.576 0.535 0.535 0.506

Note: *None of the squared correlations between any pair of constructs is larger than the AVE

Table AII.Correlations and test of

discriminant validity


1535


Appendix 3

Critical ration

Average VarianceExtracted

(AVE)

Brand identification 0.871 0.576My sense of pride towards the hotel brand is reinforced by thebrand-related messagesI view the success of the brand as my own successHotel X is like a family to meI feel I belong to this hotel XWhen someone praises this brand, it feels like a personalcomplimentBrand commitment 0.803 0.506My commitment to deliver the brand increases along with myknowledge of the brandI am very committed to delivering the brand promise to our hotelguestsI have a minimal commitment to this hotelI don’t feel emotionally attached to this hotelBrand loyalty 0.695 0.535I will be happy to spend the rest of my career in this hotel chainMy intention to stay is driven by the fact that I am competent indelivering the brand promiseBrand performance 0.820 0.535The quality level of my services meets the brand standards of HotelXI can successfully fulfil responsibilities specified in my jobdescriptionsI effectively fulfil the promise that the brand has with customersI always handle customers’ specific requests within a standard setfor the brandSecond order factor “internal branding”Training 0.803 0.505Training gives me appropriate skills in relation to delivering thebrand promise based on the brand standardsI am usually drawn towards messages made of colourful andattractive materialsMy hotel informs employees in an excellent way about things thatare relevant to themI feel encouraged to come up with new and better suggestions ofhow to do thingsOrientation 0.671 0.505Orientation programme triggers my inspiration to appropriatelyfulfil the brand promise deliveryI like the orientation kit and/or brand manuals of my hotel brandGroup meeting 0.769 0.625During the group meeting, I am clearly informed of the brandmissionI clearly understand my role in relation to the brand mission, afterattending the group meetingBriefing 0.666 0.503Briefings contain all essential information for me to provideservices according to the brand expectationsThe brand mission and its promise are constantly reinforcedduring the briefing

Table AIII.Reliability and validitytests of eachmeasurement scale

EJM45,9/10

1536


Appendix 4

About the authorsKhanyapuss Punjaisri is a Lecturer in Marketing at the University of Hull in the UK. Shecompleted a PhD at the University of Strathclyde Business School in the area of servicesmarketing, focusing on the hotel industry in Thailand. Her special research interest is inbranding, namely, corporate branding, internal branding, and service branding. KhanyapussPunjaisri is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Alan Wilson is Professor of Marketing at the University of Strathclyde Business School. Hespecialises in the marketing of services and has been invited to deliver lectures and seminars onservices marketing in a variety of countries throughout the world, to both student and executiveaudiences. He is a co-author of the book: Services Marketing: First European Edition (2008) withValarie Zeithaml, Mary Jo Bitner and Dwayne Gremler.

Construct Alpha coefficients

Internal branding 0.828Brand identification 0.868Brand commitment 0.776Brand loyalty 0.668Brand performance 0.816Situational factors (work environment) 0.811

Table AIV.Cronbach’s alpha for each

scale


1537

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints


Kepada Yth

Bapak/Ibu Karyawan The Sultan Hotel & Residence Jakarta

Di Tempat

Dengan hormat,

Saya Fanny Eunike mahasiswa Universitas Multimedia Nusantara, Fakultas Bisnis,

Program Studi Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia, sedang melaksanakan penelitian

mengenai “Pengaruh Internal Brand terhadap Employees’ Brand Identification,

Employees’ Brand Commitment, dan Employees’ Brand Loyalty di The Sultan

Hotel & Residence Jakarta”. Untuk kelengkapan data penelitian kami, Bapak/Ibu

terpilih sebagai responden untuk memberikan pendapat sebagai masukan guna

mengetahui kinerja karyawan yang terjadi di lapangan.

Dalam menjawab kuesioner yang diberikan, Bapak/Ibu dimohon untuk memberikan

jawaban yang sejujurnya sesuai dengan keadaan yang sebenarnya dan tidak terdapat

jawaban yang benar ataupun salah dalam pengisian kuesioner ini. Adapun jawaban

Bapak/Ibu berikan dalam kuesioner ini sama sekali tidak berpengaruh terhadap karir

Bapak/Ibu di perusahaan karena setiap jawaban yang telah Bapak/Ibu berikan akan

terjamin kerahasiannya sesuai dengan kode etik penelitian.

Besar harapan kami Bapak/Ibu bersedia untuk mengisi kuesioner ini. Atas

ketersediaannya kami mengucapkan terima kasih.

Hormat kami,

Fanny Eunike


Petunjuk Pengisian Kuesioner

1. Responden diharapkan membaca terlebih dahulu deskripsi setiap pertanyaan

sebelum memberikan jawaban.

2. Pada bagian “Data Diri Responden”, responden dapat memberikan tanda

silang (X) pada pilihan yang disediakan atau isi jawaban yang kosong jika

jawaban tidak tersedia.

3. Pada bagian “Internal Brand”, “Employees’ Brand Identification”,

“Employees’ Brand Commitment”, dan “Employees’ Brand Loyalty”

responden dapat memberikan jawaban dengan tanda silang (X) pada salah

satu pilihan jawaban yang tersedia dan hanya menjawab satu jawaban di

setiap pertanyaan. Contoh:

4. Di setiap alternatif jawaban terdapat pembobotan nilai sebagai berikut:

- Sangat Tidak Setuju (STS) : 1 - Tidak Setuju : 2 - Netral : 3 - Setuju : 4 -

Sangat Setuju (SS) : 5

5. Responden dapat memeriksa kembali jawaban yang telah diisi untuk

memastikan setiap jawaban telah terisi dengan lengkap.

6. Data responden dan semua informasi yang diberikan akan terjamin

kerahasiaannya sesuai dengan kode etik penelitian, oleh karena itu dimohon

untuk memberikan jawaban pada setiap pertanyaan secara objektif.

Per

~ Data Di


Divisi : __________________________

● Jenis kelamin:

1. Pria

2. Wanita

● Pendidikan terakhir:

1. SMA/Sederajat

2. D1 -D4

3. S1

4. S2

5. S3

6. Lainnya: _______

● Lama bekerja di perusahaan ini:

1. Kurang dari 1 tahun

2. 1 tahun - 3 tahun



5. Lebih dari 10 tahun

● Status di perusahaan saat ini sebagai:

1. Staff

2. Manager

3. Supervisor

4. Lainnya: _______

~ Emotional Mana

gement Ability ~


No. Pertanyaan Nilai

STS TS N S SS

Internal Brand

1. Kegiatan training memberikan saya

keterampilan yang sesuai dengan

hubungan untuk menyampaikan maksud

dan tujuan dari brand hotel ini ke para

tamu.

2. Saya Hotel tempat saya bekerja memberitahu

para karyawannya mengenai hal-hal

yang berkaitan dengan pekerjaan

mereka dengan cara yang tepat.

3. Saya s Selama mengikuti group meeting, saya

diinformasikan dengan jelas mengenai

tujuan perusahaan

4. Saya Saya diberikan semua informasi yang

penting mengenai hotel tempat saya

bekerja ketika mengikuti briefing

harian, sehingga saya dapat

memberikan service sesuai ekspektasi

perusahaan.



STS TS N S SS

Employees’ Brand Identification

1. Saya bangga dalam memberitahu ke

orang lain bahwa saya merupakan

bagian dari hotel ini.

2. Saya Saya memiliki rasa kepunyaan atas

tempat saya bekerja saat ini.

3. Saya Tempat saya bekerja saat ini adalah

seperti sebuah keluarga bagi saya.

4. Ketika seseorang memuji brand

perusahaan ini, saya merasa seperti saya

yang sedang dipuji.


STS TS N S SS

Employees’ Brand Commitment

1. Saya sangat berkomitmen dalam

menyalurkan janji brand perusahaan

kepada para tamu hotel kami

2. Saya mempunyai rasa komitmen yang

tinggi pada hotel ini


3. Saya merasa melekat secara emosional

pada hotel ini

4. Komitmen saya untuk menyampaikan

merek perusahaan meningkat seiring

dengan pengetahuan saya terhadap

merek perusahaan ini


STS TS N S SS

Employees’ Brand Loyalty

1. Saya akan senang untuk menghabiskan

umur produktif saya untuk tetap bekerja

di jaringan hotel ini.

2. Saya tidak memiliki intensi untuk

berpindah ke jaringan hotel lain untuk

saat ini

3. Intensi saya untuk tetap berada di hotel

ini karena didukung oleh fakta bahwa

saya kompeten dalam menyampaikan

janji perusahaan kepada customer

4. Saya merasa dapat merespon secara

efektif kebutuhan tamu hotel karena

saya memiliki rasa loyalitas kepada

hotel ini.




Fanny Eunike FebeH U M A N R E S O U R C E S T U D E N T

Fixing error joint closure 12 cores of fiber opticControlling UPS Stabilizer

work experience

Data Transmission Intern | PT Telkom Tbk (2014)

Business Mathematics Business Statistics 1Business Statistics 2

Management Laboratory Asst. | Univ.Multimedia Nusantara (2016-2018)

Focusing in On the Job Training Program(recruitment OJT candidates, preparing trainees'allowance, preparing trainees' absenteism, andtrainees' administration needs) Focusing in Training & Development scope(preparing monthly training calendar, preparingmonthly report training, and documentation trainingactivity)

Human Resource Intern | The Sultan Hotel &Residence Jakarta (July 2018 - January 2019)

education

As Best Trainee of Back Office Departments

On the Job Training Program - The Sultan Hotel Hotel & Residence Jakarta

Jul 2018- Jan 2019

Certified Human Resources from BNSP under third party (LSP MSDM Indonesia)

Sertifikasi Profesi Manajemen SDM

Jan 2019

Human Resources Management - Business Management

Universitas Multimedia Nusantara - Human Resource Management

2015-May 2019

Mentor in Character Building UMN

2016

Treasurer of Sunday School Tiberias Karawaci

2016-Now

skillsTeam Management Management TimeMentoring

Public SpeakingProject ManagementCoaching

achievements

organization experienceCoor. Safety & Health(Focation)

PIC OMB UMN

Secretary of UBIZ

2017

2017

2017

I do most observing and adjusting thingswhereas it's a new thing or required to learn.One of the ways I adjust things that i get byteaching others make me obtain lastingknowledges. I believe every learning that Itake is more than challenge and benefit for me,but also is a passion that comes from inside ofmyself

personal profile

Cluster Pesona Dewata, PD 1/8-9, Dasana Indah, Tangerang - [email protected] - 08950 3643 512


Documents

Lisensi ini mengizinkan setiap orang untuk menggubah ...kc.umn.ac.id/10053/5/LAMPIRAN.pdf · 109 BE: Saya bekerja disni dari tahun 1990, jadi saya kena tuh jaman-jamannya rebranding