International Journal of Hospitality Management 35 (2013) 348–359
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Hospitality Management
jou rn al hom ep age: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i jhosman
That’s not my job”: Exploring the employee perspective in theevelopment of brand ambassadors
ina Xionga, Ceridwyn Kinga,∗, Rico Piehlerb
School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Temple University, 1810 North 13th Street, Speakman Hall 306, Philadelphia, PA 19122, United StatesChair of Innnovative Brand Management, Faculty 7: Business Studies & Economics, University of Bremen, Hochschulring 4, 28359 Bremen, Germany
r t i c l e i n f o
eywords:mployee brand understandingrand commitmentmployee based brand equityospitality organizations
nternal brand management.
a b s t r a c t
It is well established that the role of employees is essential in effective brand management for hospi-tality organizations to create a competitive advantage. In seeking to capitalize on this important facetof brand management, this study considers employees understanding of the brand, as an importantdirect antecedent to realizing brand ambassadors. Specifically, three factors, or psychological states, wereconceptualized and examined in relation to how such states inform an employee’s commitment to thebrand as well as develop employee brand equity, as reflected in their pro-brand behavioral intentions.The results indicate that employees’ pro-brand attitude and behavior are influenced by different brandunderstanding factors. Relational factors (employee perceived brand importance and brand role rele-
vance) are the key antecedents to employee brand commitment. Employee perceived brand knowledgecontributes to their pro-brand behavior directly, but not brand commitment. The results of this empiricalstudy support the importance of examining an employee’s psychological states, as manifest in the threebrand understanding factors, in an endeavor to achieve coveted brand supporting outcomes. The resultssuggest that although perceived brand knowledge can contribute to employee brand equity, employeesmust see the brand as being meaningful and relevant to embrace their role as brand ambassadors.
. Introduction
Researchers and practitioners have well acknowledged the sig-ificant role of a strong brand in building long-term competitivedvantages for organizations (Kapferer, 2004; Keller, 1998; Santos-ijande et al., 2013). Because of the unique characteristics of aervice product (e.g., intangibility, perishability, inseparability, andeterogeneity), consumers tend to experience difficulties in evalu-ting and differentiating the service product from other providersn the market (de Chernatony and Riley, 1999). A strong servicerand can serve as the surrogate for service quality and ease cus-omers’ anxiety when making purchase decisions (Brodie et al.,009; Grace and O’Cass, 2005). In addition, hospitality products,uch as tourists’ accommodations, are experiential in nature. There-ore, unique brand values can enhance the experiential offering touests as well as help hotel companies escape the “commoditi-ation trap” (Gilmore and Pine, 2002; Mcintosh and Siggs, 2005;
’Neill and Mattila, 2010). Unlike a product brand, where cus-
omers’ brand expectations can be met through tangible features,ustomers’ expectations of a service brand are primarily informed
by employee behaviors (Morhart et al., 2009). Such customerexpectations originate from organizational external branding prac-tices (e.g., advertising, marketing campaigns, etc.) and/or theirprevious brand experiences, yet the actual brand experience, whichcustomers compare with expectations to determine their overallsatisfaction, is underpinned by employee attitudes and behavior(Kim et al., 2008; O’Neill and Mattila, 2010). It is from this per-spective that the literature concludes that employees need to “lookgood” and “sound right” to become brand ambassadors that createhigh quality service encounters (Nickson et al., 2005).
Given the requirement for employees to deliver the com-municated brand identity through the actual service experience,delivering the brand promise is only realized to the extent thatemployees are knowledgeable and capable of demonstrating thosebrand values in their thoughts and actions. Thus, organizations arefocused on fostering employees’ brand consistent attitudes andbehavior, thereby enabling and motivating employees to delivera service experience that is aligned with the brand promise and,therefore, customer expectations (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005; Kingand Grace, 2009; Punjaisri et al., 2008). Nevertheless, organiza-tional intentions alone do not guarantee the desired employee
outcomes (i.e., pro-brand attitudes and behaviors). Rather, theattainment of coveted employee brand ambassadors requires ajoint effort from both the organization and its employees (Liaoand Chuang, 2004). That is, when employees are expected to be
esponsible for turning the brand promise into the brand reality forustomers, they must understand their organization’s brand andhat it means to them in relation to their roles (King and Grace,
009). Thus, employee brand understanding, is a requirement forn employee brand aligned attitude and behavior (Burmann andeplin, 2005; Harris, 2007; King and Grace, 2012).
The assessment of employee brand understanding emphasizeshe importance of generating insight with respect to employees’erceptions of their role in the brand’s success as well as theirbility to deliver the brand promise. Although traditional humanesource measures of employee satisfaction and tenure are infor-ative with respect to employee attitudes, they do not reflect the
apability or knowledge of employees, particularly with respect toelivering the brand promise (King et al., 2012). In addition, orga-izations vary in brand values, size and branding practices; yetonetheless, employee comprehension of the brand and their role
n delivering the brand promise is a requirement for all successfulervice experiences. Despite such a compelling need to appreci-te employee perceptions of the brand influencing their attitudeoward the brand as well as their subsequent behavior, it appearss though limited consideration has been given to understandinghe employee’s capability, both from an attitudinal and a skill seterspective, with respect to delivering the brand promise. This isonsidered to be significant, as the exhibition of pro-brand attitudesnd behavior is considered to be discretionary, albeit a requirementor a service brand to realize its potential (Burmann and Zeplin,005; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Employees’ understanding of therand and what it means to them in their role is required to trans-
ate organizational intentions, as reflected in the brand promise,nto meaningful and relevant employee attitudes and behavior.hus, examination of this ‘missing link’ is believed to contribute tohe current internal brand management literature as well as afford
anagement insight with respect to assessing the extent to whichmployees can be effective brand ambassadors.
While this thinking has intuitive appeal, to date there has beeno consideration given to the measurement of employees’ under-tanding of the brand and its subsequent link to attitudes andehaviors. This study seeks to address this gap, identifying indic-ors of employees’ brand comprehension. In doing so, it builds onhe literature that examines the contributors of superior employeerand performance. An extensive literature review was conductedo articulate the dimensions of employee brand understanding.
sample of hospitality industry employees was utilized to val-date the role of employee brand understanding in developingmployee brand ambassadors as reflected in their commitment tohe brand and exhibition of pro-brand behaviors. This study findshat employees’ pro-brand attitude and behavior are influenced byifferent brand understanding factors. Relational factors (employeeerceived brand importance and brand role relevance) are the keyntecedents to employee brand commitment, while employee per-eived brand knowledge contributes to their pro-brand behaviorsirectly. Discussions and implications are provided accordingly.
. Literature review
.1. Creating brand ambassadors
Brands with unique values are more than names or designs. Theyelp identify and differentiate their products/services from com-etitors and have become the key element in building valuableelationships with multiple stakeholders as well as competitive
dvantages for organizations (Kapferer, 2004; Louro and Cunha,001; Santos-Vijande et al., 2013). Within the hospitality indus-ry, where the final product is co-created by both customers andmployees, the role of the employee is emphasized as a conduit in
ality Management 35 (2013) 348–359 349
the establishment of customer brand relationships. This is becauseemployee performance during service encounters provides theimmediate evidence of brand reality and, therefore, is consideredto have a significant impact on how customers perceive and adjusttheir relationship toward the brand (Bitner et al., 1994; Grace andO’Cass, 2005; Hartline et al., 2000).
In order to establish a compelling customer-brand relation-ship, hospitality employees need to become brand ambassadorsby enacting certain behaviors that align with customers’ brandexpectations during the actual employee-customer interaction (i.e.,“moments of truth”) (Bitner et al., 1994; Henkel et al., 2007).However, organizations cannot expect all employees to be naturalbrand ambassadors who are familiar with their role in deliver-ing the brand promise as well as have sufficient capabilities uponrecruitment to be able to transform the brand promise into thebrand reality (King and Grace, 2009). Thus, the necessity of aninternal structure that prompts employees’ positive brand attitudeand behavior is well-established. For instance, many researcherspromote the need for internal brand management so that employ-ees are attitudinally and behaviorally ready to deliver the brandpromise (Chang et al., 2012; King and Grace, 2012; Punjaisriet al., 2008). As a result, employee brand ambassadors are real-ized (Wallace and de Chernatony, 2009). Specifically, employeebrand commitment and brand building behaviors are commonlyaccepted as the attitudinal and behavioral requirements for thebrand promise to be delivered (e.g., Burmann and Zeplin, 2005;Kimpakorn and Tocquer, 2009) and, therefore, are consideredto be the necessary characteristics of employee brand ambas-sadors.
In general, brand commitment is considered to manifest in anemployee’s enduring desire to maintain a valuable relationshipwith the brand (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005). Thus, brand commit-ment, consistent with the affective organizational commitment,is widely defined as an individual’s psychological attachment tothe brand (Johnson et al., 2010; Meyer et al., 2002). In addition,employee brand building behavior is aimed at developing andadvancing the brand identity to the external organization envi-ronment, predominately customers (Vallaster and de Chernatony,2005; King and Grace, 2010, 2012), highlighting the necessity ofemployees’ discretionary effort in brand development to deliverthe brand promise.
From this perspective, the benefits of IBM are commonly rec-ognized as being multi-dimensional. For instance, Morhart et al.(2009) classified three categories of brand building behavior asretention, organization-prescribed in-role brand building behav-ior and extra-role brand-building behavior (i.e., employee brandparticipation and advocacy). More recently, King et al. (2012)introduced a similar construct of Employee Brand Equity (EBE),defining it as “the differential effect that brand knowledge hason an employee’s response to internal brand management” (p.269, King et al., 2012). They further validated three dimensionsof EBE as employee brand endorsement (i.e., employees’ posi-tive external communication), employee brand allegiance (i.e., thedesire to maintain a relationship with the brand), and discretionaryemployee brand consistent behavior. In consideration of the mul-tiplicity of coveted brand ambassador behaviors, this study adoptsEBE to reflect the benefits an organization derives from its employ-ees as a result of IBM. Such brand building benefits are not explicitlyacknowledged by organizational reward systems yet they enhanceorganization performance (King and Grace, 2012) and, therefore,are deemed necessary.
Employee brand commitment defined here as an employee’s
psychological attachment or feeling of belonging to the brand, isconsidered to be inextricably linked to EBE. This is because employ-ees that are committed to the brand are considered more likelyto elicit brand building behaviors (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005;
3 Hospit
BtwocCt
Ht
aat
2
iaKiilraobcijc(smjmtta
erelepicstvtat2econTsicta
50 L. Xiong et al. / International Journal of
urmann et al., 2009; King and Grace, 2012). This associa-ion, between commitment and extra role behavior is alsoell-supported in the organizational behavior literature, with
rganizational commitment consistently leading to organizationalitizenship behavior (e.g., Allen and Meyer, 1996; O’Reilly andhatman, 1986; Podsakoff et al., 2000). As such, it is hypothesizedhat:
ypothesis 1. Employee brand commitment has a positive rela-ionship with employee brand equity.
Having established the foundation of employees as brandmbassadors, attention turns to what informs such brand alignedttitudes and behavior, namely the employees understanding ofhe brand.
.2. Employee brand understanding
To appreciate how employees align their attitude and behav-or with the brand, insight with regard to how employees learnbout the brand should be investigated (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005;ing and Grace, 2009). Interestingly though, employees internal-
zation of brand information, transforming it into knowledge tonform their future job actions, has seldom been addressed in theiterature (Chang et al., 2012; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007). Rather,esearchers often take employee brand understanding for grantednd draw direct relationships between employee’s perceptions ofrganizational practices and the desired outcomes of employeerand attitude and behavior. Such a paucity in the literature isonsidered meaningful given that brand ambassador character-stics are considered to be extra-role (i.e., not part of the formalob description but nonetheless important for organizational suc-ess), thereby needing extra voluntary devotion from employeesBurmann and Zeplin, 2005; King and Grace, 2010). In addition, asuggested by Hackman and Oldham (2005), positive work perfor-ance outcomes are determined by employees’ perceptions of the
ob which are internal to them. Therefore, from an internal brandanagement perspective, although organizational effort is impor-
ant, it is how employees perceive the brand, which in turn informsheir necessity and willingness to initiate the desired brand attitudend behavior, that is the focus of this study.
To date, only few attempts have been made to determine anmployee’s comprehension and capability with respect to theirole as brand ambassadors. For example, Miles and Mangold (2004)mphasized the role of employees in the branding process, high-ighting that employee brand perceptions are based on internal andxternal brand information they receive that they interpret, eitherositively or negatively, based on the fulfillment of their psycholog-
cal contract. However, the exact contributors to this psychologicalontract assessment are left unclear. In addition, the qualitativetudies by King and Grace (2006, 2008) reveal that employees needo perceive the learnt brand values as being meaningful and rele-ant to them. If employees fail to see their importance in deliveringhe brand promise, then they remain brand neutral and only workccording to the job description, rather than advancing the brandhrough the exhibition of extra-role behaviors (King and Grace,006, 2008). A more recent study by Chang et al. (2012) utilizedmployee brand psychological ownership (i.e., employees’ psy-hological experiences such as feelings of ownership toward therganization’s brand) to account for the employee mental mecha-ism through which pro-brand attitude and behavior is developed.heir exploratory analysis of employee brand psychological owner-hip revealed three factors which included perceived responsibility
n maintaining the brand image, the effectiveness/competency inonveying brand values to customers, and the congruence betweenhe brand image and the employees. However, further validationnd analysis of these factors are lacking. Without such insight,
ality Management 35 (2013) 348–359
organizations are not able to effectively monitor and developemployees’ ability to deliver the brand promise nor can they beassured that employees will exhibit the desired brand performanceto customers.
The above studies that explore the role of employees’ brandunderstanding suggest two general dimensions. First, employeesdevelop their intellectual capital where they have the “know-how”to deliver the unique brand values to customers. Second, employ-ees develop their emotional capital where they are emotionallyattached to the brand and are motivated to deliver the brandpromise (Thomson et al., 1999). Specifically, regarding the intellec-tual capital, employees need to develop sufficient brand knowledgeof the brand identity as well as grasp the necessary brand skills (i.e.,be brand competent) to deliver brand value to customers. In termsof the emotional capital, employees need to perceive the impor-tance of the brand to the organization, as well as the relevancebetween the brand and their roles, to be motivated to exhibit extrarole attitudes and behaviors. In consideration that such outcomesrequire employee effort to internalize the organization’s intent, asreflected in the brand, consideration is given to Job CharacteristicsTheory (Hackman and Oldham, 1975, 1976).
2.2.1. Job characteristics theoryFrom a motivational perspective, Hackman and Oldham (1975,
1976) propose that when exposed to varying job designs (e.g., skillvariety, task identity, etc.) employees will develop different levelsof psychological states (e.g., perceived job knowledge, job mean-ingfulness, and personal responsibility), resulting in different levelsof personal and work outcomes. Specifically, employee psycholog-ical states serve as the direct antecedents to employee personaloutcomes (e.g., job satisfaction and internal motivation) as wellas work outcomes (e.g., good performance). When employees per-ceive they have sufficient knowledge at work, that their work ismeaningful, and that they feel personally responsible, they becomehighly motivated and are more likely to deliver high quality workperformance (Oldham and Hackman, 2010). Following this line ofthought, in a brand management context, it is reasonable to sug-gest that to engender employee commitment to the brand as wellas a desire to exhibit pro-brand behavior, employees need to expe-rience similar psychological states that are suggested here to bemanifested in brand understanding. Thus, following JCT, as well asthe previous literature that has attempted to provide insight intohow employees internalize the brand, three factors of employeebrand understanding emerge, namely employee perceived brandknowledge (i.e., employee understands what the brand standsfor and how to deliver the brand promise), employee perceivedbrand importance (i.e., employee understands that brand successis important to the organization’s success), and employee perceivedbrand role relevance (i.e., employee understands that their role isimportant in achieving brand success). Collectively, these three fac-tors inform an employee’s brand understanding which is expectedto have a direct impact on employees’ brand commitment andpro-brand behavior. The following section provides a detailed dis-cussion of the three employee brand understanding factors andproposes their relationships with employee brand commitmentand EBE.
2.2.2. Employee perceived brand knowledgeService employees are expected to learn about the brand (i.e.,
brand identity and values) and transform such brand knowledgeinto meaningful service encounters with customers through theirbrand aligned performance (Chang et al., 2012; Vallaster and de
Chernatony, 2005). In contrast to the explicit information (e.g.,standard job procedures) offered by organizations to influenceemployee attitudes and behaviors, brand knowledge is consid-ered to be more tacit in nature (King and Grace, 2009), requiring
Hospit
ahinkrjp
tbtibkKaswacp2
Jogaedah2vaom2KC
boeftedssipbtitiitbwea
ef
L. Xiong et al. / International Journal of
dditional effort on the employee’s behalf to identify and compre-end. According to King and Grace (2009, p. 131), “tacit knowledge
s more complex than explicit knowledge which results in theeed for consideration to be given to the transferability of suchnowledge”. This is because employee perceived brand knowledgeeflects the employee’s own accumulated experience, intuition, andudgment with respect to the brand, as well as the organizationallyrovided brand information (Murray and Peyrefitte, 2007).
Thus, such employee perceived brand knowledge is defined ashe extent to which employees perceive that they know what therand represents and are capable of delivering the brand promiseo customers. Brand knowledge involves both the understand-ng of what the brand stands for as well as how to deliver therand promise. Similar to how customers use their subjective brandnowledge to make easy purchase decisions (Bettman et al., 1990;eller, 1998), employees also use their perceived brand knowledges an effective heuristic cue to make decisions on how they areupposed to perform in their organization, especially when dealingith unexpected problems in service encounters. In other words, as
result of employee perceived brand knowledge, employees per-eive clear guidance and direction on how he or she is expected toerform their job (King and Grace, 2009; Mukherjee and Malhotra,006).
Ensuring role clarity in service organizations is important.ackson and Schuler (1985) argue that jobs involving a large amountf interactions are more likely to create a higher level of role ambi-uity for employees than jobs that have clearly defined tasks (Tubrend Collins, 2000), thus making role clarity hard to achieve. Forxample, in the hospitality industry, frontline employees tend toeal with unexpected situations during employee-customer inter-ctions where strictly sticking to rules and regulations may not beelpful when trying to satisfy customers (Mukherjee and Malhotra,006). Thus, when employees have role clarity with respect to pro-iding a brand aligned experience, they tend to have less confusionnd are more confident with their actions. Such increased certaintyf organizational expectations further increases employees’ com-itment to the organization (Jones et al., 2003; King and Grace,
010) as well as their brand performance (Johnson et al., 2010;ing and Grace, 2009; Mukherjee and Malhotra, 2006; Tubre andollins, 2000).
Employee perceived brand knowledge is considered here toe synonymous with self-efficacy (i.e., a personal estimation ofne’s capacity in performing a certain task). The higher self-efficacymployees perceive, the higher confidence they will have in per-orming the role (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). Research suggestshat employees who think they can perform well on a task oftenxhibit better performance than those who don’t have such confi-ence (Gist and Mitchell, 1992; Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). Thus,elf-efficacy is often used to predict employee work performanceuch as sales volume, productivity, learning and achievement, etc.n organizational research (Gist and Mitchell, 1992). This positiveerception (i.e., self-efficacy) is considered here to be reflected inrand knowledge as it relates to the organization (i.e., I know whathe organization’s brand values are) as well as brand knowledge ast relates to the individual’s capabilities (i.e., I know how to deliverhe brand promise). In particular, the understanding of the brands considered a prerequisite for employees’ developing the capabil-ties to deliver the brand. It is important that employees perceivehey have the necessary brand knowledge to guide their extra-roleehaviors based on their behavioral belief that they can performell in delivering the brand. Thus, this “brand-efficacy” is consid-
red important for achieving the coveted employee brand attitude
nd behaviors.
According to JCT (Hackman and Oldham, 1975, 1976), whenmployees know and understand the effectiveness of their job per-ormance, they are more likely to exhibit positive work behaviors
ality Management 35 (2013) 348–359 351
(e.g. decrease absenteeism and turnover). In addition, consider-ing brand commitment is an employee’s psychological attachmentto the brand, it is first considered necessary for employees tounderstand and identify with the brand values. Thus, employeebrand commitment is considered to be underpinned by employ-ees’ internalization of brand values (Morhart et al., 2009; O’Reillyand Chatman, 1986). Therefore, in the context of providing a supe-rior brand aligned service experience, employees’ that are void ofbrand knowledge, are unlikely to exhibit brand aligned attitudesand behavior in a consistent manner. Thus, the knowledge of whatthe brand values are and how to deliver the brand is necessary toengender employees’ brand commitment and inform employees’brand performance. The following hypotheses are proposed.
Hypothesis 2. Employee perceived brand knowledge has a posi-tive relationship with employee brand commitment.
Hypothesis 3. Employee perceived brand knowledge has a posi-tive relationship with employee brand equity.
2.2.3. Employee perceived brand importanceEmployee perceived brand knowledge sets the foundation for
employees to enact a brand performance as expected by the orga-nization and customers. However, employees also need to perceivethe necessity to do so, as well as develop their willingness to go theextra mile to exhibit brand aligned performance (King and Grace,2009). In other words, employees need to also perceive a “reason”to justify their extra role behaviors in order to be motivated todo so (Ryan and Connell, 1989). When developing such positiveemployee attitude and behavior, JCT (Hackman and Lawler, 1971;Hackman and Oldham, 1976, 2005) suggests that in addition to thefull knowledge of the work, individuals also need to find their workas inherently meaningful and valuable in their value system. Thisperception can induce a perpetuating cycle of positive employeework motivation in delivering positive performance (Hackman andOldham, 1976).
In seeking to create brand ambassadors, it is the employees’perception of the meaningfulness of the brand (in contrast towork, as reflected in JCT) that is emphasized as being an impor-tant antecedent to realizing brand performance outcomes. To becommitted to the brand and exhibit extra-role behavior, it is sug-gested that employees need to comprehend the brand-organizationrelevance and perceive the brand as being a valuable resource anda strategic instrument to achieve organizational success (Kapferer,2004; Urde, 2003). When brand success is achieved, organizationsuccess is granted, and employees’ own career success has thepotential to be enhanced. Thus, employee perceived brand impor-tance is defined as the extent to which employees perceive the brand isimportant to the organization’s success. With this perception estab-lished, employees are more likely to see their brand performanceas meaningful, valuable and worthwhile. This perception is impor-tant especially when the coveted employee brand commitmentand behavior is extra-role. A qualitative study investigating man-agers’ perceptions of brand management revealed that although itis necessary that employees be aware of the organization’s businessphilosophy (e.g., brand values), such philosophy needs to be inter-preted in a meaningful and relevant manner to employees (Kingand Grace, 2006). Further, from a brand knowledge disseminationperspective, employees’ perception of brand importance can facil-itate employees’ development of their attitude toward the brandand inform their pro-brand behavior (King, 2010). Therefore, thefollowing hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 4. Employee perceived brand importance has a posi-tive relationship with employee brand commitment.
Hypothesis 5. Employee perceived brand importance has a posi-tive relationship with employee brand equity.
.2.4. Employee perceived brand role relevanceSimilarly, JCT (Hackman and Lawler, 1971; Hackman and
ldham, 1976, 2005) posits that when employees perceive theyre personally accountable and responsible for their work perfor-ance, they are more likely to achieve the desired personal and
rganizational outcomes, such as job satisfaction, superior perfor-ance, high motivation, etc. In a brand building context, employee
erceived responsibility of work is exhibited through employeeerceived brand role relevance, which is defined as the extent tohich employees perceive their roles are relevant to the brand’s suc-
ess. When employees perceive their roles are significant to therand and the organization’s success, they are more likely to investheir emotional, physical, and cognitive effort in the brand buildingasks (i.e., engagement) (May et al., 2004). Such employee perceivedrand role relevance can contribute to employee perception thathey are valuable and responsible to achieve the goal (i.e., branduccess), that their effort investment is worthwhile, and that theifference they make can’t be replaced or guaranteed (Kahn, 1990).s a result, employees are more motivated to deliver good branderformance.
This assertion is also supported by the employee psycholog-cal ownership concept adopted by Chang et al. (2012). Whenmployees experience the psychological ownership of a targete.g. brand), they are likely to consider the target as an extensionf themselves (i.e., perceived role relevance), thereby develop-ng a level of perceived responsibility as well as positive attitudeoward the object (Pierce et al., 2009). Thus, when employees per-eive that achieving brand success is part of their responsibility,hey are more likely to be motivated to contribute to the branduccess, view their brand performance as self-rewarding, and expe-ience less job stress (Hackman and Lawler, 1971; Siegrist, 1996,001).
In recognition of employees being the primary ambassadorsf brands in the hospitality industry (Henkel et al., 2007; Milesnd Mangold, 2004), it is important to establish the employee-rand link whereby employees perceive their role responsibility
n delivering the brand promise to customers. When employeesnderstand their brand role, they are more likely to build psycho-
ogical attachment to the brand and deliver extra-role behaviors tonhance customers’ brand experience (Burmann and Zeplin, 2005).rom a learning perspective, Frymier and Shulman (1995) foundhat when students perceive the relevance of the class content tohem, they are more motivated to apply themselves to their role intudying. Similarly, it is reasonable to assume that when employ-es perceive the relevance of the brand to them, they are moreikely to be dedicated to the brand and be motivated to exhibitro-brand behavior. Therefore, the following hypotheses are pro-osed:
ypothesis 6. Employee perceived brand role relevance has aositive relationship with employee brand commitment.
ypothesis 7. Employee perceived brand role relevance has aositive relationship with employee brand equity.
In seeking to create brand ambassadors, as reflected in posi-ive employee brand attitude and behavior, consideration is giveno the employees’ perception of the brand. In drawing on thesychological states that are promoted in JCT as contributingo an employee’s work performance, namely knowledge, mean-
ngfulness and responsibility, three facets of employee brandnderstanding are promoted, resulting in the articulation of sevenypotheses. Attention now turns to the empirical examination ofhe proposed relationships.
Data was collected through an online self-completing surveyduring early June, 2011. The sample was drawn from a list pro-vided by a marketing research list company that comprised ofindividuals who had expressed interest in participating in researchprojects. The national database contains demographic, lifestyle, andpurchasing data on consumers from Australia and is a comprehen-sive online membership portal with over 500,000 members that isregularly updated. In drawing the sample, we requested that onlyindividuals that had specified that they worked in the hospitalityindustry be invited to participate.
The decision to utilize a market list research company wastwofold. Firstly, given that our study was focused on the per-ceptions of employees, there was a concern that sampling fromspecific organizations could result in social desirability problemsin the responses as the invitation to participate was linked totheir employment at that particular organization. The adoptionof a market list can help, emphasizing participation anonymity.As a result, such anonymity can diminish the social desirabilityeffect (Koonmee et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2010). Secondly, accord-ing to Wachner et al. (2009) samples that are confined to specificorganizations limit the generalizability when interpreting findings.Therefore, by using a qualifying criterion that ensured only hospi-tality employees participated in the survey, as well as the adoptionof a systematic random sampling technique adopted by the marketlist firm to identify the 2500 potential respondents from its nationaldatabase, anonymity from the researcher, but more importantly,their employer was enhanced. The sample representativeness andgeneralizability is also improved as the database allowed for adiverse range of hospitality employees to participate (e.g., Sparkset al., 2011).
2500 emails were sent to current hospitality employees and 269valid responses were collected and used in the following analysis.Respondents were asked to provide their background informationand their relationships with their respective hospitality organi-zations. 72.2 percent of the valid responses were from femaleemployees. Respondents were from various age groups, predomi-nantly younger (e.g. 66.4% were between 17 and 44 years of age)with the average age being 40 (s.d. = 11.5). More than half of therespondents reported an annual income of less than AUD 45,000dollars (21.5 percent of them have an annual income of less thanAUD 25,000 dollars) and worked on a causal or part-time basis.This sample profile is consistent with the current demographicprofile of hospitality workers in Australia based on the national gov-ernment’s Job Outlook website (i.e. skewed female and younger)(Australian Government, 2013). According to the most recent JobOutlook report (DEEWR, 2010), 68.5 percent of hospitality workersare female. In addition, about 86 percent of hospitality workers areaged from 15 to 44 years old. In general, these statistics appear con-sistent with the sample profile information in this study, thereby
ensuring a level of confidence when generalizing the results to thebroader hospitality workforce in Australia. A more detailed sampleprofile is shown in Table 1.
L. Xiong et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 35 (2013) 348–359 353
Employee Brand Understanding 81.97% .95Employee Perceived Brand KnowledgeI know how to live our brand in my daily work. .861I know how to act brand consistent in my daily work. 1.021I know how to implement our brand into my daily work. .954I know how to deliver our brand promise in my daily work. .787Employee Perceived Brand ImportanceA strong brand is of great importance for our organization’s success. .826Our brand is an important asset of our organization. .987Brand success is directly related to our organization’s success. .805Employee Perceived Brand Role RelevanceWith my behavior I can affect customers’ perception of our brand. .665By living our brand face to face with other employees I can strengthen our brand in the organization. .821With my behavior I can affect brand success. .979
ER
3
dmweaueawabibiTeasder
4
4
fApCeioA–r
utScup
xtraction method: Principal Axis Factoring.otation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
.2. Measurement
While the concept of employee brand understanding has beeniscussed at length in the literature, to date no attempt has beenade to operationalize the construct. Therefore, item generationas enabled through solicitation from the literature (Burmann
t al., 2009; King and Grace, 2010; Thomson et al., 1999) as wells from the researchers developing new items based on the artic-lated definitions. In total, 13 items were articulated to representmployee brand understanding, namely seven items were gener-ted to measure employee perceived brand knowledge, three itemsere generated to measure employee perceived brand importance
nd three items were generated to measure employee perceivedrand role relevance. Employee brand equity (i.e., pro-brand behav-
or) is treated as a second-order factor that is reflected in employeerand endorsement (four items), employee brand allegiance (four
tems), and employee brand consistent behavior (three items).his measurement scale was developed and validated by Kingt al. (2012) and has demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’slpha = .89). Brand commitment was measured using a six-itemcale adopted from Meyer and Allen (1997) which has subsequentlyemonstrated good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .81) (Eisenbergert al., 2010). Each item was measured on a seven point Likert scale,anging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7).
. Analysis
.1. Preliminary analysis
Given the paucity of valid and reliable scales to measure theacets of employee brand understanding, an Exploratory Factornalysis (EFA) was deemed appropriate. Therefore, following therocedures recommended by Fabrigar et al. (1999), as well asostello and Osborne (2005), an EFA, with Principal Axis Factoringxtraction and direct oblimin rotation for the 13 brand understand-ng items was conducted. Items were retained if they loaded at .6r higher on a single factor yielding a clean three-factor structure.s a result, 10 items (four items – brand knowledge; three items
brand importance and three items – brand role relevance) wereetained, explaining about 82 percent of the variance (Table 2).
In order to further validate the multi-dimensionality of brandnderstanding, a first-order and a second-order Confirmatory Fac-or Analysis (CFA) were conducted following the procedures in
antos-Vijande et al. (2013). In the first-order CFA, positive inter-orrelations (ranged from .70 to .75) among the three brandnderstanding dimensions, as well as high reliability values (Com-osite Reliability values range from .90 to .96) indicating the
reflective nature of the brand understanding construct. Discrim-inant validity is also established as inter-correlations are smallerthan the square roots of their respective AVE values (Table 3).Second-order CFA is aimed to assess whether the sub-dimensionscan converge on a single construct (i.e., Brand Understanding). Thesignificant factor loading are .86 (brand knowledge), .84 (brandrelevance), and .87 (brand importance). This further confirmedthe multi-dimensional nature of brand understanding. Thus, itis empirically supported that brand understanding is a three-dimensional second-order construct.
The authors also conducted several tests to assess the presenceof common method variance. Following the procedures by Ramaniand Kumar (2008), the authors first compared the chi-square val-ues of the one-factor model and the current five-factor model. Itwas found that the fit of the one-factor model was significantlyworse than the current measurement model (Chi square differenceis 2573, d.f. difference is 13, p < .001). This provides initial evidencethat the measurement model was robust to common method vari-ance. Harman’s one-factor test was also performed by subjecting allmeasurement items to a single EFA (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The un-rotated factor solution generated more than one factor. In addition,the first factor did not explain most of the variance in the variables.Further, very high correlations between constructs are determinedwhen the .9 threshold is exceeded, and such high correlations canresult in common method bias (Pavlou et al., 2007). In this study,no correlations reach this threshold (highest correlation is r = .826)in the correlation matrix (Table 3). Thus, it is believed that commonmethod bias did not pose a serious concern to this study.
4.2. Measurement model analysis
In order to reveal the measurement quality of the items and theirsubsequent latent constructs, a CFA of the measurement modelusing Amos Graphics 19 was conducted. EBE is operationalized as asecond-order factor based on King et al. (2012). Although brandunderstanding has been validated as a multi-dimensional con-struct, the specific impact of each dimension on brand commitmentand EBE is of main interest in the current study. Thus, brand under-standing is treated as first order three factors (i.e., brand knowledge,brand relevance, and brand importance).
Prior to conducting the structural equation modeling (SEM)analysis, a preliminary examination of the data revealed that theremight be a non-normality issue as the mean values of constructs
ranged from 5.1 to 5.9 out of 7. Thus, several normality tests wereconducted to check the distribution of the data. As suggested byKolmogorov–Smirnov tests, the data in this study are not normallydistributed (p < .001). An inspection of the kurtosis values suggested
354 L. Xiong et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 35 (2013) 348–359
ote: S-B �2 = 978.67, df = 311, p < .001, �2/df = 3.15, TLI = 91, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .09. Aoots of each construct’s AVE for comparison purpose.
hat there are no items that were determined to be substantiallyurtotic (skewness values equal to or greater than 2, kurtosis valuesqual to or greater than 7) (Byrne, 2010). However, in considera-ion that SEM is based on the analysis of covariance, and kurtosisan significantly affect tests of variances and covariance, Maximumikelihood estimation with bootstrapping technique is used in theubsequent SEM analyses (Hair et al., 2006; Hancock and Mueller,006). The results are shown in Table 3 and items with factor load-
ngs revealed in the CFA are provided in Table 4.With regard to assessing the model fit, multiple fit indices
hould be used, including at least one badness-of-fit, one goodness-f-fit, one absolute fit, and one incremental fit in addition to the �2
nd df statistics (Hair et al., 2006). Some researchers use the �2/dfatio to predict the model fit. However, the cut off value of this
atio has ranged from 2 to 5 to indicate a good model fit (Marshnd Hocevar, 1985). In contrast, Wheaton (1987) suggests that thisatio should not be used. In addition, the quality of fit depends heav-ly on model characteristics. Based on the number of variables and
able 4easurement items, factor loadings, and composite reliability.
Factor/item
Employee brand equity: (King et al., 2012)
Brand endorsementI say positive things about the organization (brand) I work for to others.
I would recommend the organization (brand) I work for to someone who seeks my advI enjoy talking about the organization (brand) I work for to others.
I talk positively about the organization (brand) I work for to others.
Brand allegianceI plan to be with the organization (brand) I work for a while
I plan to be with the organization (brand) I work for 5 years from now.I would turn down an offer from another organization (brand) if it came tomorrow.
I plan to stay with the organization (brand) I work for.
Brand consistent behaviorI demonstrate behaviors that are consistent with the brand promise of the organizationI consider the impact on my organisation’s brand before communicating or taking actioI am always interested to learn about my organisation’s brand and what it means to me
Brand commitment (adapted from Meyer and Allen, 1997)
I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career at our brand.
I really feel as if this brand’s problems are my own.
I feel like “part of the family” at our brand.
I feel “emotionally attached” to our brand.
Our brand has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
I feel a strong sense of belonging to our brand.
Employee perceived brand knowledge (partly adapted from King and Grace, 2010)
I know how to live our brand in my daily work.
I know how to act brand consistent in my daily work.
I know how to implement our brand into my daily work.
I know how to deliver our brand promise in my daily work.
Employee perceived brand importance (partly adapted from Burmann et al., 2009)
A strong brand is of great importance for our organization’s success.
Our brand is an important asset of our organization.
Brand success is directly related to our organization’s success.
Employee perceived brand role relevance (partly adapted from Burmann et al., 2009;With my behavior I can affect customers’ perception of our brand.
By living our brand face to face with other employees I can strengthen our brand in theWith my behavior I can affect brand success.
elations are significant at p < .001. The italic numbers in the diagonals are the square
sample size estimated in the model, Hair et al. (2006) suggested anadjusted cut off value index. For a sample size that is larger than250, with the number of variables ranging from 12 to 30, a signifi-cant p-value can be expected. The cut off value for CFI is .92, and thecut off value for SRMR is .08 (See p. 753, Table 10-2, Hair et al., 2006for details). In the current study, we have 269 observations and27 variables. Based on the above recommendations, the model hasachieved an acceptable fit with �2 = 978.67, df = 311, �2/df = 3.15,CFI = .92, RMSEA = .09, GFI = .79, AGFI = .74, SRMR = .06.
In terms of convergent validity, all construct AVE scoresexceeded the threshold value of .5 suggested by Fornell and Larcker(1981), indicating that the variance is mainly explained by the prin-ciple constructs rather than errors (Pavlou et al., 2007). Regardingthe discriminant validity, Gaski and Nevin (1985) suggested that
the correlation between the factor pairs should not be higher thantheir respective reliability. Kline (1998) suggested that discrimi-nant validity can be confirmed when the estimated correlationsof the constructs are not excessively high (>.85) or excessively
Factor loadings Composite reliability
.90
.90ice. .90
.93
.96
.90
.89
.73
.91
I work for. .88n in any situation. .86
in my role. .89
.93.68.66.85.89.94.96
.96.88.94.96.90
.94.90.96.88
Thomson et al., 1999) .90.81
organization. .89.88
Hospit
l(asiogfiT
4
t(bIitrbw
speocpccH
tEbtSractvp
5
uciiobBsstuore
iO
L. Xiong et al. / International Journal of
ow (<.1). In addition, the square roots of all construct AVE scoresas shown in the correlation matrix diagonals) were larger thanll cross-correlations (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). All reliabilitycores as reflected in Composite Reliability are above .7, suggest-ng good convergent reliability (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Thus, basedn the measurement fit results, it is sufficient to state that conver-ent validity and discriminant validity have been established. Thenal items, factor loadings, and Composite Reliability are shown inable 4.
.3. Hypothesis testing
To examine the proposed links between the latent factors,he assessment of the structural model through SEM is appliedAnderson and Gerbing, 1988). SEM is considered appropriate hereecause of the strong theoretical foundation of the proposed model.n addition, regarding the latent constructs in the model, SEM candentify the errors attributed to measurement and errors attributedo the model’s lack of fit. Further, SEM offers simultaneous testingather than multiple regressions (Iacobucci, 2009). Thus, SEM withootstrapping technique and Maximization Likelihood estimationas employed via Amos Graphics 19.
Results of the structural relationships among the constructs andtandardized path coefficients are shown in Fig. 1. Consistent withrevious research (e.g., Burmann et al., 2009; King and Grace, 2012),mployee brand commitment was found to be a strong predictorf the behavioral outcome, EBE ( ̌ = .58, p < .001). Employee per-eived brand knowledge had a significant impact on EBE ( ̌ = .34,
< .001). Employee perceived brand importance and employee per-eived brand role relevance both had a significant impact on brandommitment ( ̌ = .21, p < .05; ̌ = .54, p < .001 respectively). Thus H1,3, H4, and H6 were supported.
However, employee perceived brand knowledge was not foundo have significant relationship with employee brand commitment.mployee perceived brand importance and employee perceivedrand role relevance did not demonstrate a significant direct rela-ionship to EBE. Thus hypotheses H2, H5 and H7 were not supported.quared multiple correlations (i.e., R2) were also generated toeveal the amount of variance explained by the antecedents. Thenalysis showed that 51 percent of the variance in employee brandommitment was explained by employee perceived brand impor-ance and brand role relevance. Collectively, 79 percent of theariance of EBE was explained by brand commitment and employeeerceived brand knowledge.
. Discussion
Because of the unique characteristics of hospitality prod-cts, employees play a crucial role in presenting brand value toustomers. As such, hospitality organizations commonly adoptnternal branding practices to align employees’ attitude and behav-or to the externally communicated brand standard. In doing so,rganizations are seeking to minimize the gap between customerrand expectations and the brand reality (Brodie et al., 2009;urmann et al., 2009; King and Grace, 2012). The purpose of thistudy was to examine specifically how employee brand under-tanding informs their brand commitment and pro-brand behavioro realize brand ambassadors. Three dimensions of employee brandnderstanding were developed based on Job Characteristics The-ry (Hackman and Oldham, 1975, 1976) and tested to reveal theirespective roles in creating brand ambassadors, as reflected in
mployee brand commitment and EBE.
Through a sample of hospitality employees, this study yieldsmportant findings that are consistent with JCT (Hackman andldham, 1975, 1976). This theory posits three critical psychological
ality Management 35 (2013) 348–359 355
states that are the direct antecedents of employees’ work per-formance as manifest in attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.Specifically, employee perceived job knowledge contributes to lowabsenteeism and turnover while employee perceived job meaning-fulness contributes to employees’ high internal motivation. Withregard to employee perceived job responsibility, this is consid-ered to be a contributing factor to employees’ high quality jobperformance and satisfaction. In this study, the three brand under-standing dimensions were also found to have differing impacts onemployee brand performance outcomes (i.e. brand attitude andbehavior). Specifically, it was found that the knowledge dimensionof employee brand understanding showed a significant positiverelationship with EBE ( ̌ = .34) but not brand commitment. Whilebrand knowledge leads to brand behavior, this perceived knowl-edge by employees does not necessarily inform their commitmentto the brand. In other words, employees can do what they have beentold to do, but it doesn’t mean that they are committed to it. Thisfinding is consistent with King and Grace (2012) who found thatemployees afforded the opportunity to develop their competencythrough organizational socialization exhibited brand citizenshipbehavior, but not brand commitment. They argued that “organi-zational socialization is more concerned with the “how to do” ofthe brand, rather than the “how to feel” about the brand (King andGrace, 2012, p. 481). In addition, Johnson et al. (2010) argues thatemployees may develop an adequate understanding of the brandand have the competency to deliver a brand aligned performance,but such an understanding may be largely a result of employ-ees’ individual characteristics (e.g., intelligence and work ethic). Incontrast, brand commitment is brand/organization dependent andrepresents a psychological attachment to the brand that is morelikely to develop overtime as a result of the enduring relationshipbetween the employee and the brand.
In consideration of relationship endurance, it is not surpris-ing that employee perceived brand importance, which is theemployee’s perception that the brand’s success is important to theorganization, contributes to their brand commitment ( ̌ = .21). Atti-tudes, such as brand commitment, develop overtime and advocatesof creating brand ambassadors suggest that constant exposure tobrand values through the organization’s culture, is a requirementfor employee ‘buy in’ (Wallace and de Chernatony, 2011). Throughbrand value dissemination, employees are afforded the opportu-nity to appreciate the brand as being more than a “device fordifferentiation” (Wallace and de Chernatony, 2011, p. 480), therebyappreciating the true value of the brand as an organizational asset.As such, the results of this study suggest that employees are morelikely to develop a psychological attachment to the brand if theyperceive the brand is important and necessary for the organizationto be successful. In addition, such a pervasive brand oriented cul-ture has the potential to enable employees to appreciate their role’srelevance to the brand’s success, further reinforcing their commit-ment to the brand. Exhibiting the strongest relationship betweenthe brand understanding facets and the coveted employee out-comes ( ̌ = .54), employees’ perception of their role in deliveringthe brand promise cannot be underestimated.
The above two significant relationships reinforce King andGrace’s (2006, 2008) assertions that employees’ perceptions thatbrand performance is meaningful and relevant to them is neces-sary to engender their brand commitment. Such perceived brandmeaningfulness and relevance can help employees to develop theiremotional capital (i.e., what’s in employees’ heart) (Thomson et al.,1999) and inform employees “how to feel” about the brand (Kingand Grace, 2012). Unless employees can experience such a con-
nection between the brand and themselves, it is unlikely that theemployee will develop a long-term commitment toward the brand.However, such a perception is insufficient to warrant employ-ees’ actual brand supporting behaviors directly. Employees also
356 L. Xiong et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 35 (2013) 348–359
1, �2/
nt1btctibwpiTtids
atimttemsebBtieai2mbjeeoutet
Fig. 1. Structural model fit (N = 269). Note: �2 = 978.7, df = 311, p < .00
eed the necessary brand knowledge (i.e., employees’ intellec-ual capital) to inform their brand performance (Thomson et al.,999). In short, employee perceived brand knowledge enables pro-rand behavior, but not necessarily their long-term commitmento the brand. In contrast, employee perceived brand importanceontributes to the meaningfulness of the brand, as perceived byhe employee. Furthermore, the appreciation of their responsibil-ty in delivering the brand promise as reflected in their perceivedrand role relevance contributes to employees’ brand commitment,hich in turn informs their brand related behavior. Consistent withrevious literature (e.g. King and Grace, 2012), brand commitment,
n this study, is a strong predictor of pro-brand behavior ( ̌ = .58).herefore, it is suggested that when employees see their role as cen-ral to affecting customers’ brand perceptions and that the brands important for organizational success, they are more likely toevelop a psychological attachment to the brand directly whichubsequently informs their employee brand equity.
The objective of this study was to provide insight into hown employees’ understanding the brand informs their brand atti-ude and behavior. The strong impact of employee perceived brandmportance and brand role relevance on employees’ brand com-
itment in the model, highlights the necessity for managemento ensure that the dissemination of brand related information isranslated in a manner that is both meaningful and relevant to themployee. While informing employees of what the brand stands foray enhance their pro-brand behavior, long term sustainability of
uch behavior, as reflected in their commitment to the brand, is onlynsured if employees are able to internalize the importance of therand to the organization as well themselves in the brand’s success.ased on the results of this study, it is suggested that ultimately, it ishe employee’s perception of how they are related to the brand thats driving their brand commitment and the subsequent EBE. Whenmployees perceive such a connection, they consider themselvess part of the brand and are more motivated to be involved in creat-ng unique brand experiences for customers (King and Grace, 2006,009). Without such an internal awareness, even good employeesay simply think “That’s not my job” in relation to advancing the
rand and restrict their performance to the formally articulatedob description that is given to them on commencement of theirmployment contract. Thus, the importance of ensuring employ-es perceive the brand as being an important organizational assetf which they have a central role in the brand’s success cannot be
nderestimated. In addition to employees simply knowing whathe brand stands, to achieve a sustainable brand promise delivery,mployees need to be aware that they are the primary represen-atives of the brand to customers in service encounters (i.e. brand
ambassadors), and therefore, the determining factor of the brand’s,and their own, success (Henkel et al., 2007; King and Grace, 2009).
It is believed that this study is one of the few empirical studiesthat specifically examine the importance of the employee’s psy-chological states in the service brand management process. Theresults empirically confirm the assertion from the qualitative stud-ies by King and Grace (2006, 2008) that for employees to developthe desired brand commitment and extra-role brand performance,it is necessary that the brand information provided through vari-ous internal branding practices be meaningful and relevant to them.This study also supported the assertion by Liao and Chuang (2004)that the realization of the desired employee brand attitude andbehavior requires the joint effort from both the organization andthe employees. Employees need to be motivated and enabled todeliver the brand promise. This study helps to fill the gap of limitedconsideration being given to the contribution of employee’s inter-nalization of brand related information to the development of theirbrand attitude and behavior.
Given the centrality of employee brand understanding engen-dering brand commitment and EBE, the results of this studyemphasize the need for management to ensure that their brandmanagement practices afford the opportunity for employees toknow about the brand; appreciate its importance to the organi-zation and, most importantly, what their role is in contributing tothe brand’s success. To this end, internal brand management hasbeen advocated more recently in the brand management litera-ture as a way to advance the organization. This study emphasizesthe need for management to be vigilant in their internal brand-ing practices, ensuring they are tailored to the audience, so thatemployees can perceive the information to be meaningful andrelevant to them if they want to create brand ambassadors. Forexample, while a housekeeper may work for the same brand as aguest service attendant, their role in delivering the brand promiseis different. Therefore, internal branding practices need to reflectthis understanding and tailor messages accordingly, not dissimilarto external marketing communication that is targeted toward dif-ferent target markets. Furthermore, management is encouraged toextend beyond the traditional HR practices that assess the health ofthe work force, such as employee satisfaction and turnover. Effec-tive management of the human capital is suggested here to requirea mechanism that regularly assesses their employees’ understand-ing of the brand, for without this understanding, the attainment of
sustainable brand management outcomes is believed to be harderto achieve.
Considering the high labor costs and high turnover rates inthe hospitality industry, the development and enhancement of
Hospit
ecietpecsefostwuaeu
6
btHmk2rSpbbfta
sdgectacrgptbt
itisfapatiTu
L. Xiong et al. / International Journal of
mployee brand commitment through their brand understandingan further help organizations to design better internal brand-ng practices to motivate and retain valuable employees (Lamt al., 2002). Thus, practices such as exposing employees to cus-omer research and marketing campaigns to learn about the brandromise, providing opportunities for employees to have brandxperiences (e.g., letting employees stay in the hotel as a guest),onducting internal research to assess employee brand under-tanding, developing internal recognition programs to rewardmployee brand-consistent behaviors, etc. are highly encouragedor today’s human resource managers. The conceptualization andperationalization of the employee brand understanding dimen-ions in this study provides managers with a measurement toolhat can assist with the justification for such an investment,hich previously has not been available. Furthermore, the brandnderstanding dimensions afford a more precise and immedi-te measurement of the internal brand management practices,nabling timely adjustments should employees lack the requirednderstanding of the brand to consistently deliver its promise.
. Future research and concluding remarks
This study focused on investigating the dimensions of employeerand understanding and how they inform employees’ attitudeoward the brand and their subsequent brand related behaviors.owever, given that the importance of internal brand manage-ent practices has been promoted in the literature as being a
ey antecedent for such understanding (e.g., Burmann and Zeplin,005; Kimpakorn and Tocquer, 2009), inclusion of factors thateflect internal branding effort should be made in future research.uch inclusion will afford examination as to what extent suchractices are effective in developing different levels of employeerand understanding, and subsequently, contribute to employeerand commitment and EBE. This line of investigation should yieldurther implications for organizations wanting to better designheir internal branding practices to promote a workforce of brandmbassadors.
With respect to study limitations, the adoption of a market listurvey was utilized to help to decrease the potential for sociallyesirable responses during data collection as well as improveeneralization through accessing a diverse range of hospitalitymployees that are not confined to one organization. Although theurrent response rate is consistent with other tourism and hospi-ality studies that employ online data collection methods (Hungnd Law, 2011), as well as the fact that the profile of the sample isonsistent with the broader Australian hospitality workforce, theelatively low response rate may affect the validity of the findingsiven that the sample may not be completely representative of theopulation of the study. Future studies are encouraged to replicatehis study using different data collection techniques to achieve aetter response rate and therefore inform the generalizability ofhe hypothesized relationships within this study.
Moreover, since it is the employees’ perception of the brand thats the key driver of their brand attitudes and behavior, it is necessaryo look further into the impact of different employee characteristicsn shaping such brand perceptions. For instance, employees’ per-onalities and employees’ tenure information can be included in theuture analysis to offer more insight into employee brand attitudend behavior development. King and Grace (2012) found that com-ared to organizational efforts such as effective communicationnd assistance, employees’ personal traits (i.e., openness and recep-
iveness to the organizational effort) showed a stronger impactn developing their brand commitment and pro-brand behavior.hus, they argued that considering the difficulty to train an individ-al to be receptive to the brand, more emphasis should be put on
ality Management 35 (2013) 348–359 357
selecting the “right” people. Similarly, JCT (Hackman and Lawler,1971; Hackman and Oldham, 1976) suggests that employees’ per-sonal growth needs can moderate the relationship between thejob and the employees’ psychological experiences with their jobs.Employees who are more interested in self-actualization are morelikely to be motivated and devoted to organizational practices anddevelop positive attitudes and job outcomes. Thus, it is reason-able to suggest that when employees have higher personal growthneeds, they are more likely to see the value of delivering a brandaligned performance and become real brand ambassadors throughthe brand building process. Such implications may further affectorganizational recruiting decisions.
In addition, considering that employee brand understanding is alearning process, the impact of tenure, which is a significant indica-tor of how long employees have been exposed to internal brandingpractices, should be explored. However, the length of tenure maynot necessarily have a linear relationship with employees’ brandunderstanding (i.e., longer the years with the organization, morebrand understanding will be achieved). As suggested by customerlearning studies (Johnson and Russo, 1984; Wood and Lynch, 2002),customers may keep on learning about a product until they reacha point where they believe they have learned enough and startdecreasing their effort in learning. This inverted U shape learningprocess may also apply when theorizing the possible relationshipbetween employee tenure and their brand learning outcomes. Thelack of the brand knowledge for a beginner employee will pro-mote him or her to engage in learning about the brand. However, asthe employee’s tenure grows, he or she may be less likely to keepup with the brand learning despite the brand evolving and beingdynamic in line with market fluctuations.
Other potential contributors to employee brand understand-ing, such as their perceived self-brand value fit, may also affectemployees’ brand learning process. When employees perceive afit between the brand/organization and their own value system, itis easier for them to communicate, predict, appreciate, and trustthe organization, and thus, to grow with the brand/organization(Edwards and Cable, 2009). Last but not the least, from a moti-vational perspective (Ryan and Deci, 2000), employees may gothrough different motivational stages starting, from being extrin-sically encouraged to be deliver the brand promise, to beingintrinsically motivated to become authentic brand ambassadors.Identification of stages within this motivational process will sig-nificantly benefit the organization in strategically monitoring,evaluating and controlling internal branding practices to achievebrand success.
References
Allen, N.J., Meyer, J.P., 1996. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment tothe organization: an examination of construct validity. Journal of VocationalBehavior 49 (3), 252–276.
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: areview and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3),411–423.
Australian Government, 2013. Department of Education, Employment and Work-place Relations. Job Outlook, Retrieved 29.04.13, from http://joboutlook.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science 16, 74–94.
Bettman, J.R., Johnson, E.J., Payne, J.W., 1990. A componential analysis of cognitiveeffort in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 45 (1),111–139.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H., Mohr, L.A., 1994. Critical service encounters: the employee’sviewpoint. Journal of Marketing 58 (4), 95–106.
Brodie, R.J., Whittome, J.R.M., Brush, G.J., 2009. Investigating the service brand: acustomer value perspective. Journal of Business Research 62, 345–355.
Burmann, C., Zeplin, S., 2005. Building brand commitment: a behavioural approachto internal brand management. Brand Management 12 (4), 279–300.
yrne, B.M., 2010. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Appli-cations, and Programming. Psychology Press.
hang, A., Chiang, H.-H., Han, T.-S., 2012. A multilevel investigation of relationshipsamong brand-centered HRM, brand psychological ownership, brand citizen-ship behaviors, and customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing 46(5), 626–662.
ostello, A.B., Osborne, J.W., 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: fourrecommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment,Research & Evaluation 10 (7), 1–9.
e Chernatony, L., Riley, F.D.O., 1999. Experts’ views about defining services brandsand the principles of services branding. Journal of Business Research 46 (2),181–192.
EEWR, 2010. Job Outlook Employment Outlook for Hospitality Workers.dwards, J.R., Cable, D.M., 2009. The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied
Gonzalez-Morales, M., Steiger-Mueller, M., 2010. Leader-member exchange andaffective organizational commitment: the contribution of supervisor’s organi-zational embodiment. Journal of Applied Psychology 95 (6), 1085.
ornell, C.R., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobserved vari-ables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. Journal of MarketingResearch 18 (3), 382–388.
rymier, A.B., Shulman, G.M., 1995. What’s in it for me? Increasing content rel-evance to enhance students’ motivation. Communication Education 44 (1),40–50.
aski, J.F., Nevin, J.R., 1985. The differential effects of exercised and unexercisedpower sources in a marketing channel. Journal of Marketing Research 22 (2),130–142.
ilmore, J.H., Pine, J.B., 2002. Differentiating hospitality operations via experiences:why selling services is not enough. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant AdministrationQuarterly 43 (3), 87–96.
ist, M.E., Mitchell, T.R., 1992. A theoretical analysis of its determinants and mal-leability. The Academy of Management Review 17 (2), 183–211.
race, D., O’Cass, A., 2005. Service branding: consumer verdicts on service brands.Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 12 (2), 125–139.
ancock, G.R., Mueller, R.O., 2006. Structural Equation Modeling: A second Course,vol. 1. Iap.
ackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R., 1975. Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journalof Applied Psychology 60 (2), 159–170.
ackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R., 1976. Motivation through the design of work: test of atheory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16, 250–279.
ackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R., 2005. How job characteristics theory happened. In: TheOxford Handbook of Management Theory: The Process of Theory Development.,pp. 151–170.
arris, P., 2007. We the people: the importance of employees in the process ofbuilding customer experience. Brand Management 15 (2), 102–114.
artline, M.D., Maxham, J.G., McKee, D.O., 2000. Corridors of influence in the dissem-ination of customer-oriented strategy to customer contact service employees.Journal of Marketing 64 (2), 35–50.
enkel, S., Tomczak, T., Heitmann, M., Herrmann, A., 2007. Managing brand con-sistent employee behaviour: relevance and managerial control of behaviouralbranding. Journal of Product & Brand Management 16 (5), 310–320.
ung, K., Law, R., 2011. An overview of Internet-based surveys in hospitality andtourism journals. Tourism Management 32 (4), 717–724.
acobucci, D., 2009. Everything you always wanted to know about SEM (structuralequations modeling) but were afraid to ask. Journal of Consumer Psychology 19(4), 673–680.
ackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S., 1985. A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of researchon role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior &Human Decision Processes 36, 16–78.
ohnson, E.J., Russo, J.E., 1984. product familiarity and learning new information. TheJournal of Consumer Research 11 (1), 542–550.
ohnson, R.E., Chang, C.-H.D., Yang, L.-Q., 2010. Commitment and motivation at work:the relevance of employee identity and regulatory focus. Academy of Manage-ment Review 35 (2), 226–245.
ones, E., Busch, P., Dacin, P., 2003. Firm market orientation and salesperson customerorientation: interpersonal and intrapersonal influences on customer service andretention in business-to-business buyer–seller relationships. Journal of BusinessResearch 56 (4), 323–340.
ahn, W.A., 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengage-ment at work. The Academy of Management Journal 33 (4), 692–724.
apferer, J.-N., 2004. The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and SustainingBrand Equity Long Term, 3rd ed. Kogan Page, Sterling, VA.
eller, K.L., 1998. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing
Brand Equity. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
im, S., O’Neill, J.W., Cho, H.M., 2010. When does an employee not help coworkers?The effect of leader–member exchange on employee envy and organizationalcitizenship behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management 29 (3),530–537.
ality Management 35 (2013) 348–359
Kim, W.G., Jin-Sun, B., Kim, H.J., 2008. Multidimensional customer-based brandequity and its consequences in midpriced hotels. Journal of Hospitality &Tourism Research 32 (2), 235–254.
Kimpakorn, N., Tocquer, G., 2009. Employees’ commitment to brands in the servicesector: luxury hotel chains in Thailand. Journal of Brand Management 16 (8),532–544.
King, C., 2010. One size doesn’t fit all: tourism and hospitality employees’ response tointernal brand management. International Journal of Contemporary HospitalityManagement 22 (4), 517–534.
King, C., Grace, D., 2006. Exploring managers’ perspectives of the impact of brandmanagement strategies on employee roles within a service firm. Journal of Ser-vices Marketing 20 (6), 369–380.
King, C., Grace, D., 2008. Internal branding: exploring the employee’s perspective.Journal of Brand Management 15 (5), 358–372.
King, C., Grace, D., 2009. Employee based brand equity: a third perspective. ServicesMarketing Quarterly 30, 122–147.
King, C., Grace, D., 2010. Building and measuring employee-based brand equity.European Journal of Marketing 44 (7), 938–971.
King, C., Grace, D., 2012. Examining the antecedents of positive employee brand-related attitudes and behaviors. European Journal of Marketing 46 (3/4),469–488.
King, C., Grace, D., Funk, D.C., 2012. Employee brand equity: scale development andvalidation. Journal of Brand Management 19, 268–288.
Kline, R.B., 1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. GuilfordPress, New York.
Koonmee, K., Singhapakdi, A., Virakul, B., Lee, D.J., 2010. Ethics institutionaliza-tion, quality of work life, and employee job-related outcomes: a survey ofhuman resource managers in Thailand. Journal of Business Research 63 (1),20–26.
Lam, T., Lo, A., Chan, J., 2002. New employees’ turnover intentions and organizationalcommitment in the Hong Kong hotel industry. Journal of Hospitality & TourismResearch 26 (3), 217–234.
Liao, H., Chuang, A., 2004. A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employeeservice performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal47 (1), 41–58.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L., Harter, L.M., 2004. The psychological conditions of meaning-fulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 77 (1), 11–37.
Marsh, H.W., Hocevar, D., 1985. Application of confirmatory factor analysis to thestudy of self-concept: first-and higher order factor models and their invarianceacross groups. Psychological bulletin 97 (3), 562.
Mcintosh, A.J., Siggs, A., 2005. An exploration of the experiential nature of boutiqueaccommodation. Journal of Travel Research 44, 74–81.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., 1997. Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, andApplication. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., Topolnytsky, L., 2002. Affective, continuance,and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents,correlates and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior 61, 20–52.
Miles, S.J., Mangold, G., 2004. A conceptualization of the employee branding process.Journal of Relationship Marketing 3 (2-3), 65–87.
Morhart, F.M., Herzog, W., Tomczak, T., 2009. Brand-specific leadership: turningemployees into brand champions. Journal of Marketing 73 (5), 122–142.
Mukherjee, A., Malhotra, N., 2006. Does role clarity explain employee-perceivedservice quality? A study of antecedents and consequences in call centres. Inter-national Journal of Service Industry Management 17 (5), 444–473.
Murray, S.R., Peyrefitte, J., 2007. Knowledge type and communication media choicein the knowledge transfer process. Journal of Managerial Issues 19 (1), 111–133.
Nickson, D., Warhurst, C., Dutton, E., 2005. The importance of attitude and appear-ance in the service encounter in retail and hospitality. Managing Service Quality15 (2), 195–208.
Oldham, G.R., Hackman, J.R., 2010. Not what it was and not what it will be: the futureof job design research. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31 (23), 463–479.
O’Reilly, C., Chatman, J., 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attach-ment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocialbehavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 71 (3), 492–499.
Pavlou, P.A., Liang, H., Xue, Y., 2007. Understanding and mitigating uncertainty inonline exchange relationships: a principal-agent perspective. Mis Quarterly 31(1), 105–136.
Pierce, J.L., Jussila, I., Cummings, A., 2009. Psychological ownership within the jobdesign context: revision of the job characteristics model. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior 30 (4), 477–496.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., Bachrach, D.G., 2000. Organizationalcitizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical lit-erature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management 26 (3),513–563.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common methodbiases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879–903.
Punjaisri, K., Wilson, A., 2007. The role of internal branding in the delivery ofemployee brand promise. Journal of Brand Management 15 (1), 57–70.
Punjaisri, K., Wilson, A., Evanschitzky, H., 2008. Exploring the influences of internalbranding on employees’ brand promise delivery: implications for strengthening
yan, R.M., Connell, J.P., 1989. Perceived locus of causality and internalization:examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 57 (5), 749–761.
yan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsicmotivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55 (1),68–78.
antos-Vijande, M.L., Río-Lanza, A.B.d., Suárez-Álvarez, L., Díaz-Martín, A.M., 2013.The brand management system and service firm competitiveness. Journal ofBusiness Research 66, 148–157.
iegrist, J., 1996. Adverse health effects of high effort-low reward conditions at work.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 1, 27–43.
iegrist, J., 2001. A theory of occupational stress. In: Dunham, J. (Ed.), Stress in theWorkplace: Past, Present and Future. Whurr Publishers, London, UK.
parks, B., Bradley, G., Jennings, G., 2011. Consumer value and self-image congru-ency at different stages of timeshare ownership. Tourism Management 32 (5),
homson, K., Chernatony, L.d., Arganbright, L., Khan, S., 1999. The buy-in benchmark: how staff understanding and commitment impact brand
ality Management 35 (2013) 348–359 359
and business performance. Journal of Marketing Management 15 (8),819–835.
Tubre, T.C., Collins, J.M., 2000. Jackson and Schuler (1985) Revisited: a meta-analysisof the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and job performance.Journal of Management 26 (1), 155–169.
Urde, M., 2003. Core value-based corporate brand building. European Journal ofMarketing 37 (7-8), 1017–1040.
Vallaster, C., de Chernatony, L., 2005. Internationalisation of services brands: the roleof leadership during the internal brand building process. Journal of MarketingManagement 21 (1-2), 181–203.
Wachner, T., Plouffe, C.R., Grégoire, Y., 2009. SOCO’s impact on individual sales per-formance: the integration of selling skills as a missing link. Industrial MarketingManagement 38, 32–44.
Wallace, E., de Chernatony, L., 2009. Service employee performance: itscomponents and antecedents. Journal of Relationship Marketing 8,82–102.
Wallace, E., de Chernatony, L., 2011. The influence of culture and market orienta-tion on services brands: insights from Irish banking and retail firms. Journal of
Wheaton, B., 1987. Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables.Sociological Methods & Research 16 (1), 118–154.
Wood, S.L., Lynch, J.G., 2002. Prior knowledge and complacency in new productlearning. The Journal of Consumer Research 29 (3), 416–426.
