Kurumsal İtibar Sürecinde İnsan Kaynakları ve Marka Yönetiminin Önemi

Müberra YÜKSEL

Kadir Has Üniversitesi

2.Uluslararası İtibar Yönetimi Konferansı 3-4 Ekim 2013, İstanbul

BRAND MANAGEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTING & RETAINING

REPUTATION CAPITAL IN EMERGENT MARKETS

2

Müberra Yüksel, Ph.d.

muberray@khas.edu.tr

The 2nd INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 2013

ÖZET

Kurumsal İtibar Sürecinde İnsan Kaynakları ve Marka Yönetiminin Önemi

Bu çalışmanın amacı, marka yönetimi sürecinde çalışanlarının kurumsal itibsar üzerindeki etkisini incelemektir. Önceki araştırmaların çoğu ya ağırlıkla firma dışındaki sosyal paydaşların, öncelikle müşterilerin beklentilerine karşılık vermeye ve güvenini kazanmaya odaklanmış ya da iç müşteri olan çalışanların rolü gözardı edilmiştir.

Son zamanlarda gündemde olan “İşveren markası” kavramı, firmalararası rekabetin artmasıyla, insan kaynakları yöneticilerinin marka yönetimine ait temel ilkeleri hem uygulamalarında hem de iç iletişimlerinde kullanmalarıyla yaygınlaşmıştır. İçsel pazarlama ve iletişimle, çalışanların marka kişiliği, değeri ve itibarı hakkında algılarını oluşturmak ve yönetmekle kurumun itibarı arasında doğrudan bir ilişki vardır. Bu nedenle de, çalışanların işletmenin temel misyon, vizyonuyla uyumlu olması yanısıra, marka kişiliğini anlamaları ve benimsemeleri de gerekmektedir.

Bu araştırma çalışanlar gözünden marka kişiliğinin nasıl anlaşıldığına bir işletme içinden bakacaktır. Böylelikle, firma çalışanlarının algılarının kurumun itibarıyla olan ilişkisi incelenerek, stratejik insan kaynakları açısından artan önem arzeden işveren markası ve marka kişiliği birlikte ele alınarak, içerden dışarıya itibar oluşum sürecinde önemine dikkat çekilecektir.

3

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Scholars of reputation management now realize that there is a need for further refinements of conceptualization and method in scholarly work on reputation as a strategic resource in communications and management studies (Bergh, Ketchen, Boyd, & Bergh, 2010).

Responding to that call, this paper aims to address such concerns in the following ways:

1. to highlight the core theoretical findings in studies of organizational reputation; then

2. The ultimate goal is to provide conceptual clarity for future research that seeks to develop a better understanding of employer branding in the context of SHRM practice (on-going research)

4

INTRODUCTION

Much of this work on organizational reputation, however, has been often been informed more by intuition than any rigorous method (Bergh, Ketchen, Boyd, & Berg, 2010). Critics of such methodological laxity generally focus on three concerns:

1. Conceptually, organizational reputation has been loosely defined (Rindova & Fombrun, 1999). Conceptually, organizational reputation is defined as “a global (i.e. general), temporally stable, evaluative judgment about a firm that is shared by multiple constituencies, and can provide the firm with an intangible asset that affects subsequent performance.”

2. Operationally, past research tends to use Fortune ratings to measure reputation. But these ratings are considered to be “theoretically weak” (Rhee & Valdez, 2009, p. 146), and inference is restricted because of “well documented problems with these measures” (Baucus, 1995; Brown & Perry, 1994; Fombrun, 1996; Fryxell & Wang, 1994; Sodeman, 1995; Wood, 1995; quoted in Deephouse, 2000, p. 1091). Operationally, organizational reputation is measured as a broad, multidimensional single construct of which value is determined through the interactions and interrelationships of multiple attributes.

5

SIGNIFICANCE

The ultimate goal is to provide conceptual and methodological clarities for future research that seeks to develop a better understanding of organizational reputation in the context of management (SHRM) practice.

This commentary should contribute to reputation-management research by situating the concept at a higher conceptual, operational, and cross-cultural level.

Coping with uncertainty, crises and risks along with increasing openness and connectedness via new media have led public diplomacy to use «soft power» e.g., education, arts and culture, sports, science and technology more and to become more people-oriented.

Likewise, companies have also emphasized such means of soft power through «corporate diplomacy» in line with their longer term strategic visions. Since demarcation line between different target groups, stakeholders and sectors have also been blurred, SHRM has to focus on both internal branding & communication.

It is argued that the success of employer branding depends on creating a realistic analysis of the external and internal brand propositions, only them aligning them if there is a broad agreement between the two through core employee value propositions (Barrow, 2005; Ulrich 2012).

6

Within the framework of HRM

CONCEPTUALIZING OR CONTEXTUALIZING

REPUTATION

7

CONCEPTUALIZING

Over the past two decades, reputation scholars from several disciplines, such as management, economics, sociology, and marketing have generated multiple definitions of reputation that vary in their focus and specificity.

Bergh, Ketchen, Boyd, and Berg (2010) distinguish reputation from status, and delineates the following three features of reputation: dynamics, attributes, and temporal dimension (pp. 28-29).

Highhouse, Broadfoot, Yugo, and Devendorf (2009) concluded that corporate reputation is a global (i.e. general), temporally stable value judgment about a firm that is shared by multiple constituencies.

Furthermore, adopting a perspective that emphasizes effectiveness as well as evaluative criteria, Rindova & Fombrun (1999), Barney (1991), and Dierickx and Cool (1989) consider organizational reputation as an organization’s ability to deliver valued outcomes and to provide the firm with an intangible asset that affects subsequent performance (Barney, 1991; Dierickx & Cool, 1989).

8

DRIVING (BRAND) REPUTATION FROM

INSIDE OUT :

Reputation is subjective; different stakeholders may perceive reputations of the same company differently based on their own economic, social, and personal background (Bromley, 1993; Fombrun, 1996).

Recent work in the field has also shown that reputation (and image) can be actively managed by a firm (Fombrun & Rindova, 2001) while status usually cannot (Bergh, et al., 2010).

Reputation should also be assessed from the organization’s perspective within the context of cultural/ corporate diplomacy.

9

Employer Brand

SITUATING ORGANIZATION

REPUTATION WITHIN THE SHRM

10

PURPOSE - STRATEGY - SHRM MODEL FOR BRAND REPUTATION

SHRM FOR CULTURALLY SUSTAINABLE ORGANIZATIONS

HUMAN

RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT

(advocates)

REPUTATION

MANAGEMENT

(guardians)

BRAND MANAGEMENT

(ambassadors)

Corporate Communication

CORPORATE

BRAND EMPLOYER

BRAND

INTERNAL

BRAND

Brand Values/ promises

SUSTAINABLE & STRATEGIC HRM MODEL

(REDEFINIONS CORPORATE/CULTURAL DıPLOMACY)

12

CAPTıVATıNG MAGNET COMPANY + DEVELOPING & ENGAGING

EMPLOYEES

Page

13

INSIDE-OUT PERSPECTIVE OF SHRM

1. The employer brand as promise EVP

2. The brand as

Experienced &

perceived by

the employees as the

internal customer

3. The brand as medium

Coordination of 1 & 2

EMPLOYER BRAND

HOW ARE EMPLOYEES TREATED?

14

On-going…

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF THE

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

15

BRAND PERSONALITY

( WHAT ABOUT CONTEXT? ) 16

Sahici 80%

İlkeli 71% 41% 29%

Samimi 68% 37% 31%

Ayakları yere basan 65% 29%

Dürüst 63% 42% 31%

Başarılı 58% 40% 37%

Özgüvenli 56% 43% 32%

Güzel 54% 52% 37%

Salam 53% 44% 28%

Özgün 48% 42% 30%

Benzersiz 46% 29% 39% 42%

Erkek / Maskulin 70%

İhtişamlı 68% 32% 35%

Sporcu 66% 28% 38%

Teknolojik 64% 30% 36%

Kadın / Feminen 62%

Kurumsal 43% 62% 30% 33%

Asil 45% 56% 33% 33%

Lider 30% 54% 40% 43%

Cool 53% 40%

Modayı takip eden 45% 44% 38% 30%

Çalışkan 83%

Mücadeleci 34% 73%

Zeki 52% 60%

Sempatik 36% 39% 56%

Güçlü 38% 38% 55% 29%

Güvenilir 53% 53% 26%

Gözü pek 35% 25% 48% 44% 25%

Aile odaklı 26% 48% 26%

Doaya dönük 43% 47% 26%

Yol yordam bilen 43% 40% 44% 34%

Genç 42% 36%

Günceli takip eden 32% 82%

Yaratıcı 31% 65%

Bağımsız 46% 38% 52% 29%

Neşeli 29% 75%

Dost canlısı 29% 70%

Duygusal 69%

Coşkulu 31% 42% 55% 27%

Halkın içinden 25% 37% 54%

Heyecan verici 33% 39% 31% 53% 27%

Çağdaş 35% 34% 27% 41% 61%

Extraction Method: Unweighted Least Squares.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a

Rotation

converge

d in 11

iterations.

17

WHAT IS NEXT?....

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH

18

PRACTıCAL IMPLıCATıONS… 19

In addition to analyzing how brand personality is perceived from inside with full spectrum of viewpoints (looking at internal gaps (e.g., managers and employees), Q methodology (semi-quantitative for small sample) will be additionally employed to understand how brand propositions (of EVP) are delivered and perceived by employees and whether they are communicated and conceived well and where are the gaps are the next steps in our interpretation of employer branding…

So far what have we learnt? As in all business services, if we first

find out what needs and demands there are, and then adapt our services to those needs & demands and deliver them afterwards. (Basic: understanding that only attracting competent people is not sufficient; developing & retaining them through EVA is suggested).

READINESS & PARTICIPATION &

CASCADıNG VALUES, BRAND PERSONALıTY

Participation

high low

high

Forced

voluntary

performance

“ I F YOU HAVE ALWAYS DONE I T THAT WAY, I T I S PROBABLY WRONG . ”

muberray@khas.edu.tr

Thank you…