four cardinal manifestations of corporate identity · organizational behaviours, processes and...

International Journal of Business Management

& Research (IJBMR)

ISSN 2249-6920

Vol. 2 Issue 4 Dec 2012 113-142

© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,

FOUR CARDINAL MANIFESTATIONS OF CORPORATE IDENTITY

OLUTAYO OTUBANJO

Lagos Business School, Pan-African University, Km 22 Lekki Epe Expressway, Ajah, Lagos, Nigeria.

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the grounds on which corporate identity manifests in the marketplace. In order to accomplish

this goal, a comprehensive review of literature grounded in the disciplines of marketing, organizational theory,

architecture, corporate social responsibility, and strategy was made. This exercise sets the stage for the development of a

framework of manifestations, which explicate the emergence of corporate identity and the multifaceted factors that trigger

them.

KEYWORDS: Organizational Theory, Corporate Social Responsibility, Multifaceted Factors

INTRODUCTION

The concept of corporate identity has become an important business phenomenon in the marketplace. However, in

spite of this, there are limited studies that focus wholly on the critical factors that trigger its manifestation. Studies that

discuss the factors that trigger the manifestation of corporate identity in the marketplace do so parenthetically. This paper

makes a departure from such parenthetic analysis by developing a theoretical framework, which explicates forms of

manifestation of corporate identity and the multifaceted factors that trigger them. This objective is accomplished through a

review of literature grounded in the disciplines of marketing, organizational theory, architecture, corporate social

responsibility, and strategy. The framework of manifestation, which includes generic, distinctive, transformative, and

innovative corporate identities, provides deeper insight into the nature of corporate identity. In addition, the framework

sheds light into the important factors that need to be consciously managed in order to achieve desired corporate identity

and corporate image in today’s competitive marketplace.

This paper has been divided into six dominant sections and this section constitutes the first. The paper continues

in the second, third, fourth, and fifth sections with the development of a framework of manifestations, which emerge

through generic, distinct, transformational, and innovative business activities. The paper ends with a discussion of findings

in the sixth section.

FIRST CARDINAL MANIFESTATION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY AS A GENERIC

PHENOMENON

The corporate identity of business organizations belonging to the same industry is predominantly governed by

strong and homogeneous organizational characteristics described in literature (see Balmer and Stotvig, 1997; Morison,

1997; Wilkinson and Balmer; 1996; Olins, 1978; Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991; Bernstein, 1984; Dowling, 1994) as generic

corporate identity. Much of the significations indicating such common characteristics were made manifest in a number of

ways. First, this occurred through mimetic isomorphism, second via coercive isomorphism and third via homogeneous

organizational intelligence and behaviour. Generic identity has also manifested through the pursuit of common corporate

social responsibility activities, through the physical construction of similar corporate architecture and also through

globalization.

114 Olutayo Otubanjo

Mimetic Isomorphism and the Emergence of Generic Corporate Identity: Dimaggio and Powell (1983) argued that

when organizational technologies are poorly understood, strategic goals are ambiguous and increasingly the business

environment creates symbolic uncertainty, it is highly likely that organizations model themselves after other organizations

perceived to be more successful, superior and legitimate. Dimaggio and Powell (1983) described this act as mimetic

isomorphism or organizational imitative behaviour. This theory is grounded on the assumption that having observed the

achievements of successful organizations, aspiring business organizations are likely to take a cue and follow the behaviour

of the proceeding or successful organization regardless of whether such business practices are compatible to theirs. It is a

rational response to competition in the marketplace because it economizes on search costs to reduce the uncertainty that an

organization is facing (Cyert and March, 1963). Organizational imitative behaviour occurs when organizations are not

convinced of the possibility of achieving set targets or when they are challenged by the difficulties of recognizing the cause

effects of adopting specific strategies. Lieberman and Asaba (2006) argue that in such conditions of doubt, uncertainty and

ambiguity, organizations are more likely to be receptive to information and implicit in the actions of others. Organizations

imitate one another through the introduction of products into the marketplace and even in the processes involved in the

introduction of such new products. Organizational imitation concurs in management systems, organizational forms, market

entry and even in the timing of investment to forestall falling behind competitors, or because the activities of major market

actors convey useful and strategic information which can be exploited with ease. Although the modelled organization may

be unaware of emerging imitation, nevertheless, it serves as a useful and convenient source of practices that borrowing

firms use. As Dimaggio and Powell observed, organizational imitative behaviour frequently occurs unintentionally and

indirectly through employee transfer or turnover or explicitly through the use of similar business model processes by

consulting organizations – the resultant effect of which, homogenization or generic identity occurs throughout the industry.

It is wrong and short sighted to limit the emergence of generic identity through mimetic isomorphism in organizations to

business processes of product introduction, market entry, timing of investment and nature of management systems. Time

and again, it occurred in the use and adoption of house styles. Carls (1989) argued that in the anticipation of creating huge

awareness many organizations copy and imitate the house styles created by successful industry leaders regardless of

whether or not these identities are appropriate for them; leading to the emergence of unified, common, homogeneous,

monolithic (see Morrison, 1997) industry wide identity, which Olins (1978) described as generic. See for example the

imitative behaviour of the information technology industry. By the 1970s, IBM had established itself as the most successful

organization and a force with which to reckon. The dominance of IBM in this industry (over this) period was severe, to

such an extent that all organizations within this industry copied and imitated it. In the bid to achieve recognition and profit

quickly from the instant recognition, which the use of IBM look-alike identity might bring, many organizations within the

information technology industry developed house styles, logos, showrooms, information materials, corporate

advertisements that imitated IBM. The impact of IBM’s visual style on competition obliterated all consideration for other

options. Thus the nearer to IBM a firm looks, the more like a real computer company firms will perceive themselves. Thus,

for example, years after IBM adopted the ‘think’ payoff campaign, which appeared in its offices and plants and replicated

in various languages, as its marketing mantra, the defunct ICL equally mounted a ‘think ICL’ corporate advertising

campaign (Olins, 1989).

Coercive Isomorphism and the Emergence of Generic Corporate Identity: Coercive isomorphism, Dimmaggio and

Powell (1983) argues, is the consequence of formal and informal unified pressures of forces and persuasion exerted by

regulatory institutions on other organizations to conform and comply with a specific set of rules upon which they are

dependent and by cultural expectations in the society within which organizations function. The existence of a common

system of rules, policies and common legal framework in which organizations comply affects many aspects of

Four Cardinal Manifestations of Corporate Identity 115

organizational behaviours, processes and structure. Hence, in the course of compliance, industry operators begin to exhibit

similar traits in behaviour and a dominant industry-wide (generic) identity emerges. Similarly in the business environment,

when unified regulatory policies are initiated by regulators, most organizations in the market will adopt overall, unified

compliance programmes emphasizing the pursuit of common policies, common procedures, and common work rules.

These programmes often feature common methodologies, structures and templates for meeting current and anticipated

compliance requirements (Gable 2005) resulting in the development of common, similar, uniform, regular, standardised,

identical product/services, pricing strategy, distribution and organizational intentions. Importantly, these common

organizational characteristics, or what He and Balmer (2005) described as a unique type of identity incorporating

characteristics attributable mainly to a specific industry - generic identity, will emerge. The banking industry gives a good

example of how compliance with regulatory policies has led to the development of generic corporate identities.

Prior to the period of economic liberalization, banks in western capitalist economies acted mainly as clearing

institutions. Their role was to obtain deposits from private customers and lend first to businesses in commerce, industry

and agriculture with the personal customers coming second. The British banking industry prior to the period of

deregulation provides a good example of this role. Under the regulatory dispensation, lending and deposit rates were

determined by the Bank of England, thus acting as a huge constraint against innovation within this industry. The pursuit of

this policy, led banks to exhibit common innate conservative banking practices (Nevin and Davies, 1970) which in effect

made the banks look similar. British banks gave free advice and offered unrewarded assistance to successive governments

in the administration of exchange controls (MacCrae and Cairncross, 1985). Price and product competition together with

competition for customer deposits, in this industry, were considered unacceptable (Olins, 1989; Balmer and Wilkinson,

1996) thus giving the banking industry a universal non-competitive corporate identity. Most British banks in developed

economies equally exhibited similar corporate identity traits given regulatory policies that forced and drove the expansion

of banking services governments in developing countries. British Banks were equally encouraged to lend money to foreign

governments in developing economies with the aim of recycling surpluses built up by OPEC countries (Balmer and

Wilkinson, 1996). These factors and others led British banks towards the development of a generic identity.

The emergence of homogeneous corporate identity is not limited to banks in Britain. The banking industry in

Nigeria equally had a fair share of the display of generic identity traits due to its submissiveness and compliance to its apex

regulatory institution. The first major form of regulation witnessed in the Nigerian banking industry began with the

enactment of the 1952 banking ordinance. The ordinance gave the Central Bank of Nigeria, which although was not

created until seven years afterwards, the power to limit the establishment of banks to federal and state governments to

forestall the collapse of banks and enhance a stable financial system. The limitation of bank ownership to federal and state

authorities together with existing imperialist banks, all of which had less thirst for profiteering, made competition for

customer deposit non aggressive, thus giving this industry a non-competitive corporate identity across the board. The

Central Bank of Nigeria instituted various monetary policies that enhanced the institutionalization of aggregate ceilings on

the expansion of banks’ credit, while sector credit guidelines and interest rate controls were used to influence the direction

and cost of credit. These monetary policies were further strengthened with the promulgation of the 1969 banking decree,

which empowered the Central Bank of Nigeria to set the structure of bank interest rates, specifically minimum deposit rates

and minimum and maximum lending rates, with priority sectors (e.g. agriculture, commerce, industry etc.) subject to

preferential lending rates (Brownbridge, 2005). The direction of bank credit was influenced through annual guidelines

issued by the Central bank stipulating the minimum and maximum percentage shares of a bank’s total loans to be allocated

to particular sectors and to indigenous businesses. Additional guidelines prescribed minimum levels for lending to small


scale enterprises and loans extended in rural areas. Consequently, the credit priority given by Nigeria banks in support of

productive sectors of the economy led to the creation of a ‘‘support for industry’’ and ‘‘comprehensive banking’’ image

throughout the banking industry, which Wilkinson and Balmer (1996) called a “generic identity.” In 1977, a rural banking

programme was initiated under which the banks were provided with targets to establish specified numbers of branches in

the rural areas over the following decade. The objectives were to attract cash held in the rural areas into the banking system

so as to increase the effectiveness of monetary policy, extend rural credit facilities and spread the banking habit (Adegbite,

1994). The outcome of this was the development of growth, expansion and emergence of a homogeneous (national)

coverage identity throughout the banking industry.

Indeed, banks (under regulated regimes) demonstrated common features of “national coverage", “comprehensive

banking service” and “support for productive sectors of the economy”. The dominance of such a strong generic corporate

identity systems in the banking and financial services industry during a regulated regime has already been demonstrated in

theoretical literature. For instance Balmer and Wilkinson (1996) argued that ‘‘the generic identity of the banking industry

over this period has been much stronger than any individual corporate identity which the banks have been able to establish.

The banks were, in fact, regarded as embodying the British virtues of conservatism, reliability and security’’. In another

study, Olins (1978) also confirmed the existence of strong generic corporate identity in the financial services sector stating

thus: “There is certainly a collective Building Society culture, a collective Building Society way of behaving and doing

things, but despite the individual Building Societies’ quite considerable efforts to differentiate themselves by advertising,

the experience of dealing with them, their offices, their forms, the way in which their employees behave is so similar, that

it is virtually impossible to tell one from the other.” A similar tune was chorused by He and Balmer (2005) that ‘‘a strong

generic identity still existed within the building societies sector. In the context of the magnitude of change, and the

considerable efforts to which individual societies have gone to create distinct corporate identities, this finding was

unexpected.’’. Other authors such as Morison (1997), Howcroft and Lavis (1986); and Balmer (1987) have in their studies

confirmed the dominance of generic corporate identity in the banking industry.

Homogeneous Intelligence, Behaviour and the Emergence of Generic Corporate Identity: There has been an attempt

by business organizations to develop benign super intelligent and ‘know it all’ cultures. Most business organizations,

particularly those belonging to the same industry have common knowledge and strategic information in relation to the best

and most appropriate period to launch and withdraw products, forecast stock market responses to social political and

economic issues, develop pre-occurrence and develop a greater an in depth understanding of customers needs. Quite often,

organizations are faced with drastic environmental turbulence and dramatic changes in their business lives. In spite of this,

however, they appear ambitious, unruffled, visionary and even display the sense of creating order even in the worst case of

turbulence (Olins, 1978). Such knowledge and attitudes makes business organizations, particularly those with similar

business inclinations, to exhibit common behavioural attitudes, traits and characteristics that lead to the emergence of a

strong industry wide generic identity.

Corporate Social Responsibility and the Development of Generic Identity: According to Fukukawa and Moon (2004)

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) refers to ‘‘activity by business that can be said to enhance society is removed from

business for profit activity and is voluntary and thus not required by law or any other form of governmental coercion. It is,

though, increasingly hard to isolate CSR from mainstream business and government regulation given the prominence of the

‘business case’ and government incentives through soft regulation. Nonetheless, CSR is still distinguished by its focus on

responsiveness to and even anticipation of social agendas, and by increased attention to social performance’’. Until

recently, corporate social responsibility would hardly have been considered as a business environmental factor worthy of


inclusion in organizational strategy. Two things happened in the recent past that changed this viewpoint (Hussey, 1998).

First is a greater understanding (by organizations) of the balance of nature and of the effect of human activity on this

balance. Science and the growth of human population have for long been known to change ecological factors, what is now

understood is that many of the changes bring penalties as well as benefits. The coin has two sides. The second factor is a

change in social attitude in Europe and North America, which has created an increasing amount of awareness and concern

for ecological issues. In the 1960s smoking was a norm and many non smokers who complained of fumes in offices were

regarded as non conformists. Today, however, non smokers are in the majority and non smoking offices and even

organizations, common. Smoking is now considered as an antisocial habit. There is now an ever-increasing weight of

public opinion against things that threaten the ecological balance; much of this opinion manifesting itself in positive

attitudes against pollution. This knowledge and attitude has been reinforced by major disasters: nuclear power in Russia;

oil tankers breaking up in the USA and Europe; poisonous gas escaping from a chemical plant in India. These

organizational induced disasters have unimaginable effects on the human natural habitat and severe implications for

organizations as well. Consequently, the business activities of all organizations (without exception) have in the recent past

become increasingly subject to the pressures of politics, economics, competition, demands of labour and remarkably the

media of mass communication. Organizations, who might have otherwise preferred to be silent operators, are now

compelled to pursue corporate social responsibility activities and make their voices heard in the right quarters especially

among stakeholders (Salu, 1994). Put another way, corporate social responsibility has become an all-comers affair (Kelley

and Kowalczyk, 2003) and has, in view of the recent scandals emerging from organizational activities, gained

unprecedented prominence. In addition to the issues of pollution and ecology, unethical business practices which led to the

failure of many highly respected business organizations can also be adduced to this rise in its prominence (Rossouw,

2005). Unimaginable scandals involving high profile organizations such as Enron and WorldCom rocked the business

environment and contributed in no small measure to the rising use of CSR among business organizations (Leonard and

McAdam, 2003). Cases of such unexpected scandal shook stakeholder confidence and created concern about business

ethics and governance. Similarly, growth in the pursuit of corporate social responsibility activities has been largely due to

heightening awareness of the health risks associated with tobacco products and the continued threat of nuclear war (Waring

and Lewer, 2004). As Fung et al. (2001) argue, greater awareness about social responsibility in investments throttled by the

rise in union pension funds in the US, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom has also been a major contributor to the

pursuit of corporate social responsibility. As a result, corporate social responsibility has become increasingly important and

as such there is increasing public demand for greater transparency from multinational companies.

Today’s business organizations are not just victims of the ever changing business environment but also the

creators of the very circumstances that made corporate social responsibility imperative. Issues such as adverse social and

environmental consequences of oil caused by pollution of natural habitat, allegations of complicity in human rights abuses

perpetrated by state or private security forces, failure to use revenues from oil to provide lasting benefits in public health or

education for the development of host communities and criticisms of BP’s handling of security in Colombia, the sinking of

the Exxon Valdez on the Blight Reef of Prince William, among others, have all contributed significantly. Notably, the

lessons learnt from these incidents have made many organizations to think twice about the practice of corporate social

responsibility and many organizations who would normally never have bothered about corporate social responsibility now

have clear policies on issues relating to environmental management, health and safety, human rights, ethics and

transparency. While it is assumed that celebrated corporate failures and the abuse of organizational power contributed

significantly to the rise in prominence of corporate social responsibility, it cannot be denied, however, that the phenomenal

growth in social power and its influence in enforcing organizations to take full responsibility for the obstruction of balance


of the natural environment in which we all reside contributed significantly to the rise in the use of corporate social

responsibility. The public and stakeholders alike have become increasingly vigilant and critical of physical environmental

problems caused by many organizations. The use of CSR has grown so much that organizations are now becoming

accountable not just to investors but also to stakeholders. Increasingly, many organizations are adopting CSR to assure

value based corporate governance and promote ethical business practices to regain and peddle consumer confidence. Thus,

nearly every organization worth its name in today’s marketplace is involved in one good cause or another and gets

involved in good causes for several reasons. While some do it to get rewards in sales and nurture stakeholder loyalty,

others pursue it to build the reputation of their product and corporate brand (Whitaker, 1999). The use of corporate social

responsibility is often supported by heavy media coverage either through corporate advertisements, guided editorials or

news mention. Consequently, the communication of similar social responsibility events to stakeholders (by different

organizations) creates the impression that organizations are similar in the minds of stakeholders.

Modern Architecture and the Development of Generic Identity: Architectural designs of corporate buildings and their

locations have made significant contributions to the development of very strong generic corporate identities in today’s

market place. The location of businesses plays a significant role in corporate identity. Locations not only give the address

of business organizations but also provide an architectural context (Capowski, 1993). For centuries, interior, exterior and

locational aspects of corporate architectural designs have not just been used to express organizational style but have also

been used to convey strong statements about organizational personality, unique competencies, values, distinct

organizational cultures and strategic intentions. Many business organizations have recognized that good architectural

design is good business and that though silent, they convey strong corporate identities. All business organizations with

good architectural design profit from the positive first impression of a great design. These designs present organizations in

good light and have been found to be very crucial when establishing good corporate image (Plunkard, 2004). Since the

British Victorian era many business organizations have recognized the strategic importance of projecting strong corporate

identities using unique architectural designs on buildings. The identity projected through architectural designs becomes an

image in the minds of potential customers and it is recognized as a strategic means of creating a positive, lasting

impression on stakeholders. Architectural designs give customers a lasting impression that can contribute to a long,

rewarding relationship with its customers. In addition, architecture adds to the vibrancy of business organizations. Between

the 18th and 19th century, business organizations began to recognize that great internal and external architecture served the

purpose of the most effective billboard to generate the desired positive attention and interest (Plunkard, 2004). Many

business organizations have since this period been conveying strong and wealthy business identity through the imposition

of massive architectural edifices on the high streets of major towns and cities (Olins, 1989) to generate larger customer

bases, attract young, talented entrepreneurs as well as poach experienced staff from competitors (Melewar and Bains,

2002). During this period and up until now, business organizations are known to emulate themselves by constructing huge

and gigantic edifices on high streets in high brow areas paving the way for development of common homogeneous

corporate identities. The need to develop such huge architectural designs (historically) has been hinged on the shared desire

to communicate a wealthy corporate identity. It has been driven by the need to reflect the image of wealth and business

success by imposing huge magnificent modern buildings to attract businesses and customers (Olins, 1989). During this

period, several banks namely Midland Bank (now the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank of China-HSBC), Lloyds Bank (now

Lloyds TSB), Manchester and Salford (now Royal Bank of Scotland) and many other financial institutions designed and

constructed massive state-of-the-art edifices to communicate and convey powerful statements in relation to financial

success to high net worth customers (see the pictures below). This triggered a ripple effect in the financial industry and

other banks joined the architecture design race not just in any location but on high streets. Eventually, the clamour for the


presentation of corporate identity through the construction and reconstruction of massive architectural edifices in high

brow areas caused an accelerating growth in interior design. In the course of re-inventing their businesses many major

British financial institutions redesigned their internal architecture ‘to look strong and rich’. As Olins (1989) puts it,

virtually every branch of every bank was designed to look rich, opulent, strong, respectable and conservative to attract high

net worth individuals and businesses. The drawback, however, was that by developing such a common industry wide

image, banks were equally constructing an industry-wide mono-identity system, tantamount to generic identity. Since the

18th and 19th century, however, the financial industry witnessed drastic and turbulent changes and, in the last 50 years,

particularly in its services and business coverage. Banks now offer mortgages and insurance services to customers. Banks

applied technology, changing society to a cashless one by providing automated cash vending machines at strategic

locations round the country to serve the customer anytime, any day, anywhere. Many banks, e.g. HSBC Lloyds TSB,

Barclays, went global by offering online financial services to customers across the world (Griffioen, 2000). The

technological revolution also included the emergence of post-modern architectural designs. Many banks made huge

investments into the construction of contemporary post-modern high-rise buildings to convey and signal desired messages

to stakeholders. For instance, Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC), one of the world’s largest banking

and financial services organizations, commissioned a high-rise building in 1986 to make a statement of strength, power and

confidence in the global financial market. In 1970, Lloyds TSB constructed a controversial high-rise building. With its

exterior bedecked with pipes and ducts, looking more like the headquarters of an engineering or oil producing organization,

it challenged existing high-rise buildings belonging to other financial operators (Olins, 1989). The construction and

commissioning of these buildings created architectural design imagery which in some way contributed to the development

of a strong industry wide homogenous corporate identity. In spite of this revolution witnessed in the banking industry,

however, its formal grand architectural style, which is no longer appropriate for the nature of today’s business, remains on

hold (Melewar and Bains, 2002). Many British banks, particularly the traditional ones, still operate from their imposing

monstrous architectural designs, which Olins (1989) called giant transistor radios. Such common imagery has also

contributed to the development of a homogeneous or generic identity system in the financial industry.

Multinational Trade and the Development of Generic Identity: Before the Second World War, very few organizations

operated truly on the international scale. Only a few, like the major oil production organizations, the big US auto

manufacturers and others like Unilever, ran what can be called truly multinational organizations in today’s context. Most

business organizations just before the war operated mostly within their geographical regions and the majority of the lesser

developed regions of the world were divided among world super powers. The United States controlled Latin America and

the Philippines. England administered commonwealth countries (i.e. Nigeria, Ghana, India etc). France had control over

the Francophone countries. Equally, Belgium and Italy maintained control over their well defined regions, German

business organizations dominated many of the central European markets and Japanese organizations attempted vigorously

to expand beyond their borders (Olins, 1978). These protected markets allowed manufacturing organizations to retain their

national idiosyncrasies. By the time many treaties were signed (by many countries) to reduce trade barriers and allow

easier entry into foreign markets, German and Japanese business organizations were far ahead of others in the act of

understanding the nature of foreign markets – and their knowledge about these markets was used in competing fiercely

with other new entrants into these markets and marketing assumed a major role in organizations and in the marketplace.

Within a short period of global trade liberalization, many organizations originating from Europe and particularly the United

Kingdom moved briskly to begin operations at desired locations all over the world. To achieve strategic sales intentions in

foreign markets, therefore, English and French business organizations had to behave less like the English or the French.

This was a common strategy adopted by many multinational organizations operating in foreign markets and these


organizations began to look like one another. According to Olins (1978) ‘‘For the sake of ubiquity all multinational

organizations, whatever their national origins, look more and more like each other’’. He stated further ‘‘in some industries,

particularly those with international affiliations, this development has gone much further than in others. The aircraft

industry, for example, which is American dominated, speaks American. Even such staunch nationalists as the French find it

difficult to resist this pattern, simply because American influence throughout the industry is so strong”. Olins (1978)

argued further that as globalization continues to penetrate into the fabric of international business and people all over the

world develop similar tastes in consumption, multinational business organizations will develop common patterns of

satisfying these tastes paving the way for the development of homogenised identities across various industries.

SECOND CARDINAL MANIFESTATION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY AS A DISTINCT

PHENOMENON

Various factors including fierce competition arising from the emergence of new market entrants, market

deregulation etc. all impinging on business activities often compel business organizations to develop distinct corporate

identities by consciously seeking to differentiate themselves. The desire to accomplish distinct identity is often pursued

through organizational storytelling, corporate advertising, buyer value and through the development of strong visual styles.

The manifestation of distinct corporate identity through organizational storytelling: Stories are fundamental ways

through which we understand the world (Bruner, 1990; Jameson, 1985; Tenkasi and Boland, 1993). Organizational

storytelling is a comprehensive narrative history about the origin, strategic intention and other landmark achievements of

an organization. Storytelling has been used in several cultures to convey stories from generation to generation about

remarkable events in the lives of people in societies and it has been most useful in societies with little or no means of

recording events (Johansson, 2004). Corroborating, Jabri and Pounder (2001) averred that storytelling serves to “express

the richness and diversity of human experience and thus challenge simplistic analyses of management issues such as

change that can result from adherence to narrow, mechanical models of human nature”. It is a powerful tool used to evoke

and heighten emotions. According to Adamson et al. (2006) “a good story always combines conflict, drama, suspense, plot

twists, symbols, characters, triumph over odds, and usually a generous amount of humour - all to do two things: capture

your imagination and make you feel. It draws you in, places you at its centre, connects to your emotions, and inserts its

meaning into your memory”. It is an integrative tool of corporate strategy. Stories create the experience of enhancing

understanding of ‘who and what’ the organization is at corporate level. The use of stories has enhanced effective

communication of organizational history to stakeholders (particularly the external ones) and has enabled organizations to

capture stakeholders’ imaginations and interest and provide the stimulus to pursue mutual understanding between

organizations and stakeholders. Storytelling makes remarkable events in the history of organizations easier to remember

and more believable. They are a powerful means of communicating organizational values, ideas, and norms to

stakeholders. Stakeholders see themselves in stories and unconsciously relate it to their experience (Morgan and Dennehey,

1997). Stories entertain, evoke emotion, trigger visual memories, and strengthen recall about symbolic events in the lives

of organizations and function as rhetoric for business organizations (Boje, 1995). As Brown (1990) argued, storytelling

enhances the construction of various organizational activities and serves the purpose of explaining why specific decisions

were taken in regard to certain business activities. Most importantly, stories are unique. They seek to differentiate the

organization and position it as poles apart from others with similar business interests. They demonstrate that the institution

is unlike any other (Martin, Feldman, Hutch and Sitkin, 1983). Zemke (1990) put forward four key characteristics of

organizational storytelling. First, the story must be concrete and talk about real people, describe real events and actions, be

set in a time and place which the listener can recognize and with which he or she can identify. The story must be connected


to the organization's philosophy and/or culture. Second, stories must be common knowledge in the organization.

Stakeholders must not only know the story, but know that others know it as well and follow its guidance. Third, the story

must be believed by the listeners. To have impact and make its point, a story must be believed to be true of the organization

and fourth, the story must describe a social contract. (i.e. how things were done or not done in the organization) and must

allow the listener to learn about organizational norms, rewards and punishments without trial-and-error experience. In the

same vein, Brown (1990) advanced to literature three traits of organizational storytelling. He contends that organizational

stories must first, reduce uncertainty for organizational stakeholders by providing reliable accounts of information about

the organization and second, organizational stories must manage meaning by framing events within organizational values

and expectations. Third and most important of all, organizational stories must identify why organizations and its members

are special or unique. Mogens Holten Larsen (2000) argued that what makes organizational storytelling different from all

other corporate communication tools is not just its ability to construct the strategic intentions of the organization but its

capacity in incorporating the core competencies, philosophical beliefs and values of that organization and that while

providing deeper and strategic information about organizations, it is also a simple yet effective framework for guiding the

activities of organizations and their members. Many organizations have employed the use of effective storytelling to create

bond among employees on the one hand and also to build trust between the organization and employees on the other.

Organizational storytelling is a very good vehicle for assuring the continued delivery of top quality goods and services, for

peddling confidence and building corporate reputation among stakeholders. Mogens Holten Larsen (2000) averred that

organizations that utilize legitimate reputation to explain its strategic intentions, through its contributions to society and

commitment to add value, create a very strong opportunity of positioning itself no matter how competitive the market place

may be.

Many modern successful organizations employed the use of storytelling not just to convey information about landmark

events about their organization to internal and external stakeholders but most importantly to differentiate and distinguish

themselves from others operating within their markets. Mogens Holten Larsen corroborates this view contending that the

incorporation of the origin of organizations, strategic intentions and core competencies and all the words and visual images

constructed in organizational stories provides a fundamental platform on which organizations differentiate themselves from

others with similar business interests. Take the case of 3M as example. The organization differentiated itself strategically in

the market place using storytelling to explain remarkable milestones in its history drawing from recollections of major

participants in these milestones. The construction of such organizational stories helped 3M in understanding the many

sources of its innovative culture together with the challenge to achieve buyer value (Porter, 1990) and differentiate itself

from competitors. A full text of 3M 248 page organizational story has been published and is found at

www.3m.com/about3M

The Development of Distinct Corporate Identity through Core Competencies: The concept of core competencies,

developed originally by Prahalad and Doz (1987) proposes that organizations should base their strategies around their core

technical, competencies (Hussey, 1998) to transform, re-engineer business processes and achieve competitive advantage

(Hamel and Prahalad, 1994). What, therefore, is a core competence? A core competence is a collection of various

organizational skills and technologies (Hamel and Prahalad, 1996) representing the integration of various skills which

differentiate organizations from competition. Core competence involves the harmonization and integration of various

streams of technologies and the use of such technologies to deliver customer value (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990),

Corroborating, Hamel and Henee (2000) added that the concept of core competence when applied adds disproportionately

to customer value and enables the delivery highly valued benefits to customers. It is the collective learning relating to the


coordination of diverse skills and the integration of multiple streams of technologies (Prahalad and Hamel, 1994). The

integrated skills that lead to the emergence of core competencies are enhanced as they are shared among employees and do

not diminish with use. Core competencies bind existing businesses and offer a guide to patterns of diversification and

market entry. Hamel and Prahalad gave a summary of the meaning of core competence in their 1996 classic and best seller

text:

‘‘A core competence is a bundle of skills and technologies that enables a company to

provide a particular benefit to customers. At Sony that benefit is ‘pocketability’ and the

core competence is miniaturization. At Federal Express, the benefit is on-time delivery

and the core competence, at every high level, is logistics management. Logistics are

also central to Wal-Mart’s ability to provide customers with the benefits of choice,

availability and value. At EDS, the customer benefit is seamless information flow and

one of the contributing core competencies is systems integration. Motorola provides

customers with benefits of ‘untethered communications’, which are based on

Motorola’s mastery of competencies in wireless communications’’

Hamel and Heene theorised core competencies into three main categories, namely market access competencies,

integrated related competencies and functionality related competencies. Market access competencies involve the

development of skills that put business organizations in close proximity with stakeholders. Integrated related competencies

relates to quality management, cycle time management, just in time, inventory management and other skills that enable the

delivery of products and services speedily with reliability and efficiency. Functionality based competencies however,

encourage investment in products and services with unique functionality which invests the product with distinctive

customer benefits. Functionally related competencies assume greater importance than the other two types of core

competencies given the convergence of organizations around universally high standards of product and service integrity

and the movement towards alliances, mergers and acquisitions and most importantly transformation and change. Rapid and

dramatic changes in technology, government policy and business practices make the functionality based competence prone

to change. Within a short period however, what constitutes a distinct functionality based competence to an organization

becomes a generic competence common to all operators. This makes the transformation of competencies increasingly

inevitable to organizations that seek market dominance and strategic competitive advantage. Core competencies (if

identified) provide essential platforms for the rejuvenation, restoration and renewal of organizations towards market

competitiveness. The process of transformation allows the appraisal of core competencies and its future prospect in terms

of durability. The appraisal exercise is tantamount to the establishment of the core corporate identity (Hussey, 1998) which

includes the strategic intent, unique combination of skills together with abilities and experience matched to opportunities

that exploit strengths in identities and correct its weaknesses. The transformation of core competencies, which competitors

find difficult to imitate (Hussey, 1998) therefore requires commitment of resources. A significant amount of funds must be

committed to skill identification and development throughout the competence transformation exercise. While the

commitment of large investment to the identification of core competencies is deeply appreciated, organizations must

continuously sift out homogeneous competencies or generic identities (Oilins, 1989; Olins, 1978) common to the industry

and commit greater attention to the development of unique skills, which competing organizations find difficult to imitate.

The transformation of core competencies presents another form of signification. By transforming the core competencies of

business organizations, especially the functionality based ones (Hamel and Heene, 2000); identity signals of transformation


(founded on re-engineering) and renewal are communicated to stakeholders who, in turn, process and develop an image

based on the transformative signals received.

Organizational Differentiation via Corporate Advertising: Modern advertising campaigns were originally developed to

persuade and drive consumer purchase of a specific brand or service. However, with the arrival of modern business

organizations and the jostle for leadership and market supremacy in various industries, another type of advertising called

corporate or institutional adverting (Schumann et al. 1991) emerged to promote (Garbett, 1981) signify the differences

between organizations and competition and most importantly build favourable corporate image about organizations in the

minds of stakeholders. For this reason, organizations, particularly those in the financial services industry, have committed

billions of pounds to corporate advertising campaigns. The committal of such huge investment into corporate advertising

campaigns demonstrates the key role corporate advertising plays in the signification of organizational differences. But

what is corporate advertising? Aaker (1996) defined corporate advertising as messages sponsored and communicated by

organizations through the media to persuade consumers’ perceptions of an organization and its products and their

intentions to purchase the products. It is a ‘catchall’ term (Garbett, 1981) used to describe all forms of advertising that

promote organizations as opposed to its products or services. The use of the word ‘catchall’ by Garbett suggests that over

the years organizations have attempted to signify their differences through various forms of corporate advertising

campaigns and most importantly there have been changes in the methodologies adopted by organizations in the

signification of these differences. After the Second World War, governments in western countries began to relax and

dismantle controls on marketing activities. Restrictions on hire purchase of goods and services were lifted in 1954 in

Britain, giving impetus and greater demand for goods and services in the marketplace. In addition, the media witnessed an

unprecedented rise in the advertising of retail goods and groceries particularly between 1952 and 1954 (Nevett, 1982)

further stimulating the demand for goods and services. Within a short period, fiercely competitive battles for market

leadership rose and the desire to signify organizational goodwill and commitment to good public service as opposed to

products, emerged. The aim of this new wave of communications was not only to signify organizational differences but to

build favourable corporate image, achieve greater consumer patronage (Schumann et. al, 1991) and maintain market

dominance. This type of advertising was called ‘corporate’ or ‘institutional advertising’. In the following decades, there

was, however, a change in the degree of use of corporate advertising as the 1960s and mid 1970s witnessed a lull in its use

(Crane, 1980). By the late 1970s towards the late 1980s, however, the socioeconomic environment of business witnessed a

massive change. Socioeconomic institutions including governments, religious bodies and even academic institutions

suffered a huge loss in public trust and credibility. The private sector was not spared. Businesses, particularly publicly

quoted organizations, declined in public confidence and credibility (Sethi, 1978) and there was the urgent need to

counteract public scepticism of the social role of institutions and businesses through corporate led campaigns. There was a

rising desire to take public opinion on controversial issues of social importance and engage and shape public discourse

through various corporate communications campaigns (Sethi, 1978). Hence the use of corporate advocacy advertising

emerged. Cutler and Muehling (1991) defined corporate advocacy as a special form of advertising in which organizations

express their opinions on controversial societal issues in order to sway public sentiment and court good corporate image. It

is a competitive tool created by organizations with the ultimate aim of shaping public opinion to create a business

environment more favourable to their position (Harley, 1996). Since the late 1970s organizations have become increasingly

active, adding their voices to social issues of national and even international importance. In fact many organizations have

gone beyond the political realm adding voices to legislative issues (Lord, 2000) either through direct or indirect lobbying

(Armey, 1996; Kuntz, 1995). By adding their voice to issues of social and environmental concern, organizations shape

public policies, reduce uncertainties in the business environment, reduce existing threats and create trust among


stakeholders. By adding voice and signifying support to prevailing social issues, many organizations have (in the process)

courted public support for their businesses, achieved competitive advantage (Lord, 2000), differentiated themselves from

competition and secured impeccable corporate image. Although the use of corporate advocacy advertising still remains

today, an addition to the discipline of corporate advertising called ‘market preparation’ advertising, which gives greater

emphasis to corporate identity emerged in the early 1990s. Three multidisciplinary factors explain the reasons why many

organizations turned to the use of market preparatory advertisements. First are corporate marketing led factors of

shortening product life cycles, the desire among corporations for differentiation, merger and diversification/consolidation

activities, and high rates of media inflation. Other factors include the redefinition of businesses from a marketing

perspective, increasing recognition of the value of integrated marketing communications, finer approaches to segmentation,

rising incidence of crisis situations among corporations (Marwick and Fill, 1997), a rise in product innovation and

reorientation of corporations towards customer service (Schmidt, 1995). Second are socio-economic factors of the

unification of Europe, challenges of economic recession, value change and related increase in environmental awareness,

opportunities and challenges of the European market (Schmidt, 1995), and privatisation and divestment of government

stocks (Wilkinson and Balmer, 1996). Third are business and strategy-induced factors of globalisation of markets and

production, stiffer competition, rising cost of business operations and crises in many areas of industry. Others include

increased desire for re-engineering and many other factors, which place severe challenges on corporations’ national and

international competition more than ever before (Schmidt, 1995). The main aim of this sort of advertisement is to convey

information relating to reputation derived from its history, core competencies and contributions of the organization. More

importantly, it is designed to signify or communicate organizational differences and court a favourable corporate image for

its users.

Achieving Organizational Distinctiveness via Visual Style: The use of strong visual identity styles first attracted the

attention of business organizations in 1908 when Allgemeine Electrizitats Gesellschaft (AEG) a German electrical

appliance manufacturing organization designed a visual style (i.e logos/signage, uniforms, business cards,

letterheads/stationery designs, vehicle liveries, company reports, promotional materials and internal memos etc.) to unify

its array of product lines, integrate its operations into a monolithic identity, build a powerful corporate identity,

differentiate itself from emerging competitors and build a stable but conservative visual image. The use of conservative

visual styles continued unabated until the late 1950s and over this period a series of conservative visual identity styles were

designed for Studebaker cars and Greyhound buses (Carls, 1989). Between the late 1950s and mid 1970s, however, the

effects of competition began to bite heavily and the need to exhibit very strong unified identity globally using word-marks

emerged paving the way for the relegation of conservative visual styles (Carls, 1989). The word-mark style of design

allows the full spelling of the name and cements corporate names in the minds of stakeholders. Many organizations,

particularly those in United States, Britain and Japan constructed their visual corporate identities drawing heavily from the

Swiss Modernist School of Design, which advocated the use of word-marks using Helvetica typeface/letters, grey or blue

colours and clinical images incorporating the organization’s brand name into a uniquely styled type font treatment to

construct desired images in the minds of stakeholders. Fonts like script font were commonly used to signify formality or in

fact corporate re-structuring (Anonymous, 2006). Thick fonts like IBM proclaimed strength and power (Anonymous, 2006)

and slanted thick type fonts like FedEx conveyed motion or movement or speed (Anonymous, 2006). Hand-drawn letters,

characters or symbols were designed to intrigue target audiences and arrest interest (Anonymous, 2006). Besides the

intentions of business organizations, the main objective of the word-mark is to construct a formal identity of speed and

dynamism, symbolize presence in the marketplace, achieve maximum visual effect, cement brand name in the minds of

stakeholders, differentiate its users from competitors and achieve a strong corporate image. These new approaches to visual


style took on a more solid, well grounded and well balanced appearance to project and signify desired organizational

messages and differentiate the organization (Carls, 1989). Within the same period, many small, medium-sized, young

enterprising organizations emerged as powerful competitors challenging bigger ones with a new sense of corporate identity

accompanied by very strong competing corporate messages that made them stand out in the market place. These new

organizations adopted idiosyncratic artistic flair to corporate identity design challenging the cold rationalism of the older

conservative generation (Carl, 1989). The Apple user-friendly, postmodern identity designed to convey the intention to

make high technology accessible to all challenged IBM’s new but modernist identity conveying a message of speed and

dynamism. Again during this period, a new wave of identity construction emerged and organizations began to adopt the

use of glyphs to represent themselves graphically. They are less direct than straight text, leaving room for broader

interpretation of what the organization represents. They are iconic, compelling and uncomplicated. They are used to

convey literal or abstract representation of business organizations. During this period, however, glyphs were not generally

used for logos, but as communication devices, such as the 1972 Olympic event icon (a crown of ray of lights) representing

the spirit of the Munich Olympic Games – light, freshness and generosity. Glyphs provided business organizations with the

most impact and enhanced the creation of a sophisticated, intellectual corporate identity for those that adopted it

(Anonymous, 2006). Shell and the Munich Olympic glyphs were designed by Raymond Loewy in 1971 and Otl Aicher in

the late 1960s respectively to give distinct corporate identities to its promoters. The use of humanism and populism in

corporate designs and corporate logos also emerged over this period. Business organizations like Prudential Insurance Plc

(UK) exploited the rich complexities of their cultural societies by embracing corporate logos with human face that

stakeholders, particularly consumers, could identify with. Beginning in the 1980s, organizations began to express corporate

visual identities either through passive or active visual identity programmes. Under passive corporate identity programmes,

organizations developed single and uniform marks for every application. The same logo accompanied by the same colour

and typestyle appears on all business cards, letterheads/stationery designs, vehicle liveries, company reports, promotional

materials and internal memos. Many large organizations like AT&T lost confidence in their old globe symbol styled logo

which had all the hallmarks of standardized passive corporate identity style of approach and embraced the flexible visual

approach offered in active identity programmes that allowed the flexible construction of their identity. The active identity

programme allowed organizations to maintain greater flexibility and less rigidity in their visual applications. Many

organizations that adopted this approach expressed their corporate identity in a series of compatible, but non uniform ways.

It allowed organizations to change and evolve without the need to rid its entire visual identity as change evolved over time.

Increasingly, the use of active identity programmes rose among very big organizations, presenting themselves with more

diverse visual identities (Carl, 1989). As much as the active approach allowed for greater flexibility, it also came with

several challenges, which managers found difficult to implement. For instance the AT& T active identity programme came

with as many as twenty versions and a complex set of rules to ensure proper usage. Despite these rules and intense

monitoring, confusion led to frequent and costly misuse of the active programme. This became a real problem for AT&T

managers to deal with and the problem is reflected in the publication of articles discussing the use of the corporate logo

with its employees.

The Development of Distinct Identity via the Creation of Buyer Value: The differentiation of organizations through

products and services is achieved when products or services offered for sale are deemed to add value to customers.

However, the extent to which business organizations can differentiate themselves through their products remains an

important issue. Product differentiation allows business organizations to command premium price, sell more products at

specific prices, maintain customer loyalty even during market turbulence and lead to product performance so long as the

premium price achieved exceeds the added cost of differentiation (Porter, 1998). Since the 1940’s and 1950’s, customer


value was predominantly equated to price. Several attempts were made by organizations during these periods to reduce

product pricing to achieve differentiation from competitors. Given the rising level of competition and lower market entry

barriers in many industries, the trend began to change. Right from the 1970’s value adding became a more complex issue

and organizations responded with equally more sophisticated methods. Besides offering products at reduced prices,

emphasis was laid on shopping convenience and timing. Many business organizations were positioned differently through

corporate communications conveying messages relating to the benefits of convenience of speedy services. The economic

recession of the 1980’s fuelled the emergence of a new set of conservative and cautious spending consumers replacing the

hedonistic, shop-‘til -you-drop philosophy that blossomed earlier in the decade (Levere, 1992). The majority of business

organizations that attempted (in the years that followed) to differentiate themselves by providing superior customer value

to customers did so narrowly. The provision of higher buyer value was approached by tinkering with the physical aspects

of organizational products or marketing practices (Porter, 1998) or at best bringing prices down to achieve greater sales

volume. During this period, many organizations invested huge sums of money, time and effort in the visual designs on

their products to distinguish their products from those of competing organizations. Organizational products and services

were converted into branded portfolios through various marketing communications efforts and many organizations

competed by building and maintaining product or service quality at reduced priced, rationalizing their product portfolios

and improving supply-chain management (Maklan and Knox, 1997). Although, these efforts yielded returns, they were,

however, short lived. Various environmental trends including the explosion of the mass media in the early 1990s cum other

integrated marketing communication practices (Belch and Belch, 1995) together with rapid technological advancements

enhanced greater customer awareness and customers began demanding greater value for money more than ever before.

Thus many organizations that could not meet ‘customer value’ demand suffered huge loss in market shares as customers

refused to accede to premium products offered for sale by many industry leaders (Maklan and Knox, 1997). As a result,

business organizations began to take a second but critical look at their value chain practices. Business organizations are

now searching for new avenues to achieve, retain, upgrade and leverage competitive advantages (Yonggui Wang et al.

2004) and differentiate products effectively through buyer value. For Levere (1992) “many business organizations are

responding to this increased demand for value by adopting innovative marketing strategies, or by using a previously

established value orientation to win new customers while maintaining their traditional customer base”.

THIRD CARDINAL MANIFESTATION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY VIA

TRANSFORMATION

Business organizations are often challenged changes arising from fierce competition from new market entrants,

appointment of new Managing Directors/Chief Executives (Johnson and Scholes, 2005). In order to respond to these

changes, market actors often pursue transformation oriented programmes that force them to exhibit transformative

corporate identities.

The Emergence of Transformative Identity through Transformation Programmes: In today’s fast changing business

environment, unexpected and dramatic changes that strike at the core of businesses render organizations quickly and easily

vulnerable. Changes in government policies, fierce competition, market changes, economic recession, rapid technological

progress, environmental pollution, unjustifiable attacks from stakeholders, and many more have impinged seriously on the

activities of business organizations. These factors have forced businesses to pursue programmes that transform their

corporate identities and embrace all facets of the organization namely strategic intent, core competencies, processes,

resources, outputs, strategic (Vollmann, 1996) organizing arrangements, social factors and physical setting (French et al.

2005). A number of literatures positioning corporate identity as a holistic phenomenon, embracing all facets of


organizations have been put forward. For instance Davies et al (2003) demonstrated the important role played by strategic

intention in their definition of corporate identity. They argued that corporate identity is a phenomenon formalised by

organizational history, policies, terms and conditions of employment all supported by the mission and vision statements.

Similarly, Olins (1990) illustrated this role stating thus: ‘corporate identity consists of explicit management of some or all

the ways (strategy) in which the company’s activities are perceived. It can project three things: who you are, what you do,

and how you do it (strategy). Corporate identity is conceived as the blending of strategy, behaviour (culture) and

communication and organization’s philosophy (Balmer, 1993). The role of strategic intention was also illustrated by

Soenen and Balmer (1997). They argued that corporate identity is the mind (the outcome of conscious decisions), the soul

(subjective elements of corporate values and the sub-cultures in the organization) and the voice (reflective of

organizational strategy). Marwick and Fill’s (1997) definition supports Soenen and Balmer’s (1997) proposition. They

stated that corporate identity is the articulation of what the organization is, what it does and how it does it (strategy).

Leuthesser and Kohli (1997) averred that corporate identity is the way an organization reveals its philosophy and strategy

through communication, behaviour and symbolism. Corporate identity resides in the minds of corporate leaders and it is

their vision for the organization (Balmer and Soenen, 1999). According to Downey (1986) ‘‘corporate identity is the sum

of all factors that define and project what an organization is, and where it is going (vision) - its unique history, business

mix, management style, communication policies and practices, nomenclature, competencies and market and competitive

distinction’’. Scott and Lane (2000) demonstrated the role of strategic intention within the workings of corporate identity

concluding that it is a set of beliefs shared by internal stakeholders about the central, enduring, and distinctive

characteristics of an organization. They argued that ‘‘goals, missions, practices, values and action (as well as lack of

action) contribute to shaping organizational identities, in that they differentiate one organization from other organizations

in the eyes of managers and stakeholders’’. Kiriakidou and Millward (2000) observed that corporate identity is reflective of

an organization’s unique business strategy, its philosophy, belief, behaviour and even employee work strategy. But what is

organizational transformation? Organizational transformation is a change between significantly different states in relation

to strategy and structure (Wischnevsky and Damanpour, 2006). Zardet and Voyand (2003) concurred, arguing that

organizational transformation aims to change structures and behavioural systems from one form to another. Newman

(2000) concurred that transformation is a change that leaves organizations better able to compete effectively in the

marketplace. Transformation is a deliberate planned process of transition focusing primarily on the formation and

establishment of new organizational vision (French et al. 2005). The obliteration of the components that make up the

transformation of organizational facets from one state to another is one of the most crucial and fundamental responsibilities

of management. When organizations pursue transformational programmes, they do so by re-engineering or redesigning

issues appertaining to organizational facets, all of which constitute corporate identity (Melewar and Jenkins, 2002). The

redesign of these corporate identity facets is critical and it resides in the heart of all organizational transformation

programmes. No transformation programme can be pursued without the redesign of these corporate identity facets. The

transformation of these corporate identity facets does not permanently separate them from each other. The separation gives

the opportunity to address transformation in different ways and allows managers to approach the challenge of

transformation from vantage points of choice. The summation of these facets gives a global viewpoint of each

corresponding challenge (Vollmann, 1996) given the nature of challenges facing different organizations. Hamel and

Prahalad (1989) defined strategic intent as the sustainable obsession to win at all levels in the organization over the long

term, regardless of the proportionality of the organizational resources to its capabilities. In other words, strategic intent

envisions market leadership position founded on a code of behaviour to aid the successful achievement of the set goal.

Hamel and Prahalad (1989) argued that in order to revitalize performance, organizations must go beyond the point of


imaginative thoughts and drive employees to win, communicate the values of winning to employees and encourage

employee contribution. They must motivate employees, sustain enthusiasm by providing new operational definitions as

market circumstances change and emphasise the strategic intent consistently to guide resource allocations. Given these

arguments, Hamel and Prahalad (1989) proposed 3 characteristic assumptions. First, that strategic intent captures the

essence of time, second that it is stable over time and third it sets targets that deserve personal effort and commitment.

Taking a cue from Hamel and Prahalad’s intent theory, many transforming organizations of today are acting

correspondingly with the tenets of mission statements and the core values propelling these statements. Actioning and the

pursuit of these statements in all ramifications have in recent times gathered momentum. Transformation challenges non-

strategic and non-goal-oriented practices by specifying unit, departmental and overall organizational objectives, setting

targets for employees as well as evaluating, directing and co-ordinating these achievements. Transformation requires the

development of strategic commitments, an explicit statement of intent together with the destination of the organization.

Strategic intent or the tenets of the mission statement must be meaningful to employees and most especially the team

leaders. Talents in the transforming organization must believe in it to influence others and encourage a speedy change in

attitude and behaviour. Mission statement or the strategic intent is a key component of corporate identity. Approaching

transformation via strategic intent transmits signals of new identity to stakeholders. The signals project identities of new

goals (see Halloran, 1986; Birkigt and Stadler, 1986) new targets, new commitments (Halloran, 1986); new methods of

business approach (Kiriakidou and Millward, 2000; Marwick and Fill, 1997), new values (Soenen and Balmer, 1997), new

ethos (Identity Group, 1997) new rules (Davies et al., 2003; Balmer, 1993) and new philosophies (Birkigt and Stadler,

1986; Kiriakidou and Millward, 2000). It also sends signals of speedy change in attitude and behaviour (van Riel and

Balmer, 1997; Kiriakidou and Millward, 2000). These signals when received by stakeholders turn into corresponding

images. Physical designs (Oldham, 1988) including interior designs, work spacing, house styles etc. constitute one of the

strongest means through which corporate identity is projected to stakeholders. The physical setting constitutes one of the

major components of organizational features and it is also one of the basis on which employee perceptions of corporate

identity emerge (Anonymous, 2006). It is a means through which organizational personality, together with culture

(Anonymous, 2006) are revealed. While a good physical working environment encourages productivity, conversely an ugly

working environment causes dissatisfaction and stress at work. Plenty of evidence links poor workplace design to lower

business performance and higher levels of stress experienced by employees. A good design contributes to better business

performance and good return on investment (Hagginbottom, 2005).

Change in the business environment coupled with the rising desire to shift towards competitive positions, have

motivated organizations pursuing transformation programmes to seek more appealing internal and external architectural

designs that facilitate change, communicate the character of the organization and create distinct identity (Olins, 1989) for

organizations. Given the rise in the number of organizations seeking change, the physical business environment has

witnessed the emergence of new internal and external architectural designs that we have never seen before. More and more

organizations proposing transformation programmes have come to recognize that they cannot compete effectively

operating their businesses from old and non-inspiring (Nadler and Tushman, 1997) monstrous, transistor-looking

architectural designs (Olins, 1989). Organizations that take transformation seriously are investing huge capital, in the

twenty first century, into internal and external architectural designs. As such, in today’s business environment, there has

been a gradual movement towards open plan office design style iconised by the coffee bar (Levin, 2005) and

transformation of work place designs has gone beyond the idea of ordinary designs into facilitating an identity and imagery

for organizations. The change witnessed in the environment is not limited to externalities. The physical aspect of


organizations’ interiors has also been tremendously affected. The nature of work has changed from ‘‘production work’’ to

‘‘knowledge work’’. This has led to the development of work environments that accommodate work processes and support

a knowledge-based worker community contained within an environment that is highly volatile and subject to ever changing

worker needs.

Until the 1980s, business processes were confined to the logical organization of human and material resources

towards the production of a desired product (Burke, 2004). It was conceived as ‘the logical organization of people,

materials, energy, equipment and procedures into work activities designed to produce a specified end result’ (Davenport

and Short, 1990) and was subsumed as a never ending cycle of industrial operations which ends in the production of a final

product (Hawkins, 1984). A host of problems plagued business processes. Customer order fulfilment had error rates,

customer orders went on for weeks unanswered and work was organized in a sequence of separate tasks and complex

mechanisms were employed to monitor production processes. These conditions were made even worse with the

development of policies founded on assumptions about technologies, demographics, human capital policies and goals,

which have since become obsolete. In short, production processes were cumbersome, lacked creativity and in many cases

created unnecessary delays. However, given the drive towards freer market competition, greater productivity (resulting

from the economic recession of the 1980s) and demand for greater buyer value, a new wave of thinking described as

business process re-engineering emerged. The concept of re-engineering was first put forward in literature by Hammer

(1990). Re-engineering philosophy advocates ‘total break-away’ from obsolete policies, philosophies and operations that

impinge smoother and more efficient business operations. Re-engineering challenges business and operations philosophies

founded on old assumptions, advocating the obliteration of policies that brought about gross inefficiencies and proposing

the development of new policies that enhance greater efficiency, productivity and performance breakthroughs. It demands

that organizations break loose from obsolete, cumbersome and inefficient business operations and processes to create new

ones. Re-engineering requires looking at fundamental processes from a cross functional perspective by putting together

teams representing the core functional units involved in an organization’s core business operations and charging them with

the responsibility of analysing and scrutinizing existing processes, determine steps that add real value to business

operations and propose new ways of achieving results (Hammer, 1990). Re-engineering like any business activity

communicates (Olins, 1995). By obliterating old business processes and developing entirely new ones, organizations

project identity signs of process renewal to offer fast and efficient customer services. These, when processed by customers,

become the organization’s customer service image.

Organizational and Employee Culture Transformation: Organizational culture is a way of life for people belonging to

an organization. It is the unique quality and style and practices of members of an organization (Kilman et al., 1985) and the

way things are done in organizations (Deal and Kennedy, 1982). Put in another way, it is the expressive non-rational

qualities of an organization. Organizational culture is a very strong phenomenon dominating the beliefs and attitudes of

people in organizations. It is commonly shared among employees (Siew Kim Jean Lee, Kelvin Yu, 2004) and it is a self-

reinforcing set of beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. Given its dominance over organizational practices and its resistant

nature, it is extremely difficult to change (Campbell and Kleiner, 2001). Culture cannot be changed in the short run. Many

organizations that have pursued cultural transformation programmes committed long hours of operations to this cause.

Cultural transformation programmes have been pursued by many organizations consistently re-enforcing these new

cultures among employees over a long period with motivational messages and the right reward system. Cultural changes in

organizations often begin with a thorough re-examination of existing cultural practices, beliefs and norms. Importantly,

cultural messages relating to business priorities and organizational values sent from management to employees in


transforming organizations are thoroughly re-examined. Specifically issues relating to training, performance evaluation,

and compensation packages are re-addressed and initiatives are taken to ensure that messages communicated conform

completely with newly propagated cultural values. Cultural change is hugely dependent on the extent to which

management convey new cultural messages to employees. The messages communicated, either verbally or by the action of

management, provide the yardstick towards predicting the outcome of acceptable and non acceptable patterns of behaviour.

New cultural messages must fit new organizational processes. It must ensure that the human element adjusts to reward.

Hence the new culture will emerge with time (Campbell and Klein, 2001). Organizational culture is one of the major

components of corporate identity (see Melewar and Jenkins, 2002; See Downey, 1986). When organizations change or

transform their cultures, strong identity signals carrying messages about these changes are communicated to stakeholders.

Consequently, these signals are interpreted by message recipients. Thus a new image, relating to these changes, is created.

FOURTH CARDINAL MANIFESTATION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY THROUGH

INNOVATION

Innovation is the change that leads to the development of a new performance (Hesselbein et al, 2002). It is the

creation and implementation of new ideas in order to add value (Rogers, 1998). Zhang et al. (2004) defined it as the

development and implementation of new ideas by people who engage in transactions with others within an institutional

context. More precisely, it is the generation of new ideas (Ling, 2002). Innovation is the introduction of new and improved

products, services and processes developed for the commercialization of products and services (Gibbons, et al., 1994; see

also Australia Bureau of Statistics questionnaire, Section B). Innovative identity, therefore, is the exhibition or the

presentation of innovative characteristics including new product or service innovation (Miller and Friesen, 1983), process

or technological innovation (Zaltman et al., 1973; Utterback, 1994; Cooper, 1998) market innovation (Gadrey and Gallouj,

1994) discovering new sources of supply and organizational innovation (Schumpeter, 1934). The concept of product

innovation has been of paramount interest to organizations (Masaaki and Scott, 1995; Schmidt and Calantone, 1998) and is

generating more interest among business organizations than ever before. Several factors are responsible for the recent drive

towards product innovation. First is the deregulation of various productive industries coupled with the relaxation of various

market control instruments. Second is increased market competition (arising from the deregulation of markets) and third is

the desire to satisfy the ever changing needs of the customers (Slattery and Nellis, 2005). Fourth, many organizations in the

late 1980’s witnessed an untold amount of pressure, which had a profound effect on organizational performance and

market share. Shepperd and Pervaiz (2000) argued that marketplace dynamics moved at top speed making it difficult if not

impossible for organizations to track and identify changing customer needs. In addition, as market competition on the

international scale became fierce, many organizations resorted to the use of product innovation (Zhang and Doll, 2001;

Kessler and Chakranarti, 1996; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1994). These factors have made product innovation very

important to businesses. This situation together with other market trends, forced many organizations to develop innovative

approach to business.

Today many organizations have become system-builders adapting to new structures of production and operations.

In many cases organizations have created change given their desire to become historical figures in their industries. Many

innovative products came into being given organizational ability to adapt to turbulent business environment through

activities of trial and error and risk-taking (Fuglsang and Sundbo, 2005). The ever changing business environment has

forced organizations to rethink their product innovation processes. Unlike several decades ago when innovation was

deemed to emanate from senior managements, modern business organizations of this age now adopt the use of cross-

functional teams that deliver development projects more efficiently (see Drew and Coulson-Thomas, 1996; Hershock et al.,


1994). There is now an emergence of project-based organizations where teams form to deliver development projects and

then disband to form new teams for new projects (Hobday, 2000) and there is evidence in theoretical literature to suggest

that this new approach as adopted by many new business organizations is successful (see McDonough, 2000; Donnellon,

1993; Sethi, 2000; Hitt et al., 1996). Innovation is critical to the success of any product (Zirger, 1997; Sethi et al., 2001). It

is a critical mechanism through which firms secure a place in the competitive world of the future (Van de Ven, 1986) and

an essential process for firm success (Brown and Eisenhardt 1995). Product innovation is increasingly recognised as a vital

component of organizational competitive strength, the survival strategy of most industries (Edquist, 2000; Laborde and

Sanvido, 1994) and the sustainability of any organization depends largely on it (Henard and Szymanski, 2001). The

introduction of new and innovative businesses and products present organizations with an unimaginable and unquantifiable

opportunity to grow, expand into other areas of business, raise market or customer share and dominate the market. The

development of new innovative products is central to the growth and prosperity of modern organizations (Sheperd and

Pervaiz, 2000). Product innovation relates to the novelty and meaningfulness of new products (Slattery and Nellis, 2005). It

is regarded as the perceived newness, novelty, originality, or uniqueness (Henard and Szymanski, 2001) of products.

Organizations have pursued several types of product innovations but most notable are the routine and radical innovation

systems, Nord and Tucker (1987). Under the routine innovation system, organizations introduce products that are new but

similar to products previously developed by the organization. Using radical innovation, commonly regarded as

breakthrough (Jean-Philippe Deschamps, 2005) organizations add new products that are completely different from existing

product lines. Breakthroughs rarely occur but when they do they emanate unexpectedly through an unplanned bottom-up

production process. 3M’s Post-It pads as well as Searle’s aspartame (Anonymous, 2006) emanated accidentally through

such a process. Furthermore, radical innovation refers to changes in technology that facilitate significant improvements in

the delivery of products (Foster, 1986; McKee, 1992). Baker and Sinkula (2002) argued that the movement towards radical

innovation of products has in many organizations rendered state of the art technology obsolete. Time or timing is important

to product innovation processes. As such organizations are now driven to implement production and operations changes

that speed products through development and improvement processes (Griffin, 1997). Today’s organizations speedily

investigate existing opportunities competing for limited resources (no matter how large they are) and ensure they can be

efficiently prioritised – leading to improved sales volume and improved profit making for organizations. Recent research

by Pavar et al. (1994), indicating a strong correlation between product innovation and organizational health, supports this

view. Product innovation has increasingly become one of the most important functions of successful business organizations

(Trygg, 1993). Furthermore, many organizations have recognized not only the need to develop innovative products but also

sustainable innovative products as well. Anthony et al. (1992) argued sustainability holds the key to achieving product

innovation success. Consequently, business organizations are ongoingly seeking product innovation as a source of

competitive advantage (Bowen et al., 1996) in the marketplace.

Product innovation is a form of sign to stakeholders. For Saussure, a sign is a word, image, sound, odour, flavour,

act or object resulting from the association of the signifier with the signified. The signifier is commonly interpreted as the

material (or physical) form of the sign that is seen, heard, touched, smelt or tasted. The signified, refers to stakeholders

mental construct or meanings made of the signifier (Chandler, 2006). Following Saussure, therefore, it is conceived that

anything including product innovation is a sign. The theory of signs begins with the sending of signals or signifier or any

organizational activity, which may include buying, selling, hiring and firing, promoting through advertising. In the course

of these activities as Olins (1995) argued, organizations communicate their identity to stakeholders. Similarly, when

organizations introduce new and unique products, identity signals of novelty and originality (see Henard and Szymanski,

2001) are sent. These identities are processed in the minds of stakeholders and in return a product innovation image


emerges. Technological innovation refers to the invention of new technology and the introduction of products, processes or

services based on new technologies (Betz, 1998). Pavit (1994) identified four characteristics of technological innovation

including first, continuous and intensive collaboration and interaction among functionally and specialized groups and

second that this intensive collaboration and interaction often remain profoundly uncertain. Third, they are cumulative

involving the development and testing of prototypes and pilot plants and fourth, they are highly differentiated based on

specific technological skills required in the innovation process. These characteristics help us to understand the meaning of

technological innovation. Technology has made immeasurable contributions to changes witnessed in society (Twiss, 1993)

and has played a crucial role in organizational development. All organizations (without exception) owe their origin and

continued existence to the successful application of technology in the development of new products and improved

manufacturing processes. The role of technology in business organizations has been profound, so much so that

organizations failing to maintain technological innovative momentum will be overtaken by more youthful and vigorous

organizations. As Twiss (1993) argued, a comparison of today’s market leaders with those operating over two decades ago

reveals how many of the once great names have declined in importance or been made extinct from the business

environment, all due to their inability to anticipate the effects of new technology. The use of technological innovation

could be traced to the period of industrial revolution of the 1800s (Wells et al. 1995). Industrial talents like Morgan,

Rockefeller and Carnegie built enormous factories using latest technological innovation of their time. New products were

created and state of the art transportation networks were established to deliver these products. This was followed in the

1900s by industrial geniuses like Ford and Watson who opened the door to mass production with new innovative

technologies. Rather than reduce its pace, the Second World War of 1939 to 1945 had a significant and even more positive

effect on technological innovation – this time in the military. Newer technological innovations emerged in the form of war

equipment. The Germans for instance developed automobiles that required no carburettor. Many factories in the United

States became the hub of innovative war technologies. Tanks, jeeps, artillery and ammunition and fighter bombers were

developed (Wells et al. 1995). After the war ended, western economies witnessed a new phase of technological innovation

- the emergence of a new range of technologies founded primarily on information technology.

In many business organizations and most especially the banking industry, technological innovation has been

central to the achievement of organizational goals. The banking industry all over the world has embraced all forms of

technology namely information technology, computers, automated teller machines to mention a few. Scarbrough and

Lannon (1994) averred that major British banks were enthusiastic about the adoption of sophisticated technologies and that

they were among the first financial institutions to automate the ‘the heavy work load of back office operations’ fuelled by

the increasing volume of bank operations in the 1950s and 1960s. Since then the use of information technology has grown

rapidly. It has played an important role in the delivery of fast and efficient financial services to customers and has been the

source of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Clemons, 1986; Clemons and Kimbrough, 1986; Clemons and Row, 1987;

1991a; Feeny, 1988; Feeny and Ives, 1990). More precisely, the use of innovative information technology has resulted in

the proliferation of electronic cash dispenser networks. Today, customers no longer carry cash around as they now

withdraw cash using the Automatic Teller Machines (ATM) which have been strategically distributed at various locations

round the country. Unlike the back office automation systems of the 1960s and 1970s, the ATM technology promised

competitive and immeasurable benefits (Scarbrough and Lannon, 1994) to customers and banks alike. While, banks no

longer spend time preparing cash balances across the counter, customers carryout bank transactions withdrawing cash

through the ATM at any place and at any time (even over the weekend). In addition the use of innovative information

technology has provided the benefit of constant access to certain core services reducing the need to interact with bank staff

for many people (Devlin, 1995). Another major technological innovation in the banking industry is home and telephone


banking, pioneered in the UK through the Nottingham Building Society (Devlin, 1995). Innovative technology has

triggered the development of home and telephone banking systems. Customers can now carryout banking transactions,

privately in the comfort of their homes and offices. Further technological innovations have stemmed and reduced the cost

of entry into certain retail financial services markets by reducing the dependence on the existence of a branch network to

distribute product offerings (Devlin, 1995). Through innovative technology, the banking industry moved rapidly towards

increasing the ability of its customers towards transacting business online (Mullighan and Gordon, 2002). Many banks’

customers now interact with their banks online transacting business through the internet. In the comfort of their homes,

offices or even under mobile circumstances, customers can now transfer funds from one account to another through the

internet. In a nutshell, technological innovation through computerization and information technology allowed banks to

centralize accounting systems and develop comprehensive database of customers, providing services online or over the

telephone. The adoption of information technology through the internet and telephone brought fast and speedy and more

efficient customer services. Customers no longer have to wait for hours on end to get their money. The adoption of

computer, telephone and online technologies sent signals of better and more efficient customer service identities and

resulted in favourable image for banks among stakeholders. Organizational innovation refers to the adoption of innovation

in organizations. It involves the generation, development and implementation of new ideas. Organizational innovation may

be founded on the adoption of a new product or service, a new production process technology, a new structure or

administrative system, or a new plan of programmes relating to organizational members (Damanpour, 1991). Following

Draft (1982); Damananpour and Evan (1984); Zaltman, et al. (1973), Damanpour defined organizational innovation stating

thus:

The adoption of an internally generated or purchased device, system, policy,

programme, process, product or service that is new to the adopting organization

Broadly speaking, the main intention (by organizations) in adopting new innovations is to contribute to the

successful implementation or efficiency of its core business activities and operations. It is a means of re-aligning

organizations to respond effectively to rapid changes witnessed in the business environment. The implementation of

organizational innovation often requires the development of a new culture. The discipline of organizational innovation has

been pursued by organizations in several ways. Organizational innovation evolves over time in three major ways (Subod,

2005). First is via a value based entrepreneurial system, second via a technology based functional system and third, through

a strategic reflexive system. The value based system is the start of an exciting journey which will re-energize the

organization. It occurs where organizations assume an entrepreneurial role with a spirit of independency and creativity.

Writing in support of Sunbod (2005), an anonymous author identified seven factors impinging on value based innovation

system. These include fear of failure, lack of step-change in growth and value, poor commitment from middle managers,

poor shared commitment across boundaries, ‘the running of good ideas out of momentum’, pressure to manage measures

more than value and unnecessary focus on processes and outcomes. Similarly three strategic ideas (immersion, innovation

and impact) otherwise called 3i’s were put forward by the same author as a possible way out of this quagmire. First is to

understand what the consumer wants and not sell what the organization can produce (immersion). Second is to gain insight

into the business demand and re-defining resources (innovation) and third is to make innovation an organizational culture

by engaging the entire organization in innovation (impact). Organizations build systems, create new structures, lead and

create change and within a short period of the change become reference points and heroic and historic figures in the

industry. The change or invention led by entrepreneurial organizations does not happen accidentally. It occurs through a

series of activities of trial and error and risk-taking behaviour and organizations that change the business environment with


new innovations display leadership behaviours at each stage along the way. Entrepreneurial ability is, however, weaved

together by organizational entrepreneurial charisma and personality relating to organizational behaviour and

communication (Albert and Whetten, 1995) and resulting in organizational innovative identity. Importantly, it is observed

that organizations involved in value based innovation systems automatically project industry leader identities and in return

create similar image among stakeholders.

Organizations that pursue technology based systems are mostly driven by institutional routines that lead to the

production of specific goods and standardized technology-based services at specific prices and volume. Under this system,

organizations are hierarchically structured through various socialization mechanisms, ranging from the patriarchal

leadership of an individual person to more indirect forms of socialization, for example, in the professional organizations.

Organizations that pursue the technology based system of innovation take a very careful route in the course of adapting to

changes in the environment. The technological innovative policies pursued by such organizations (particularly

pharmaceutical industry operators) rely heavily on empirical evidence and identifiable trajectories of change. Highly

rigorous systematic routines existing within technical and natural science research are strictly and religiously followed in

the course of the technological innovative process. Thus, a lot of time is consumed in arriving at the product through this

innovation process. Consequently, this process send identity signals of the pursuit of ‘laid down’ rigorous systematic

scientific rules. Thus when received, the signals are processed and converted into perceptions of the quest for technological

innovations founded on the pursuit of rigorous systematic routines existing within technical and natural science. The

strategic reflexive organizational system is driven by the entire organization. Organizations operate in turbulent business

environments where things occur for the good or bad at most times and forecasts and business predictions hardly come

true. Organizational activities in most markets are highly dependent on the strategic moves made by other market

operators. Organizations operating in the biotechnology industry for instance are forced to develop networks and strategic

alliances, share information and take joint strategic decisions that affect all if they want to survive in business, but are left

unsure about where to go and how to move. Strategic decisions are taken among such organizations because of the

recognition that modern technological developments evolve rapidly, creating uncertainty concerning which technological

fields companies need to focus on. Firms therefore tend to specialize in their core competencies and look for appropriate

partners when it comes to activities that they have less competence. Thus, when deciding to establish partnerships, firms

take into account their own needs as well as the core competencies of potential partners (Van der Valk, Tessa and Meeus,

Marius and Hu, Haifen, 2003). The value or rule of behaviour of organizations in this context is called strategic reflexivity.

Importantly, when organizations pool their resources together, share information and take strategic decisions that affect all

market operators together, two conflicting signals are given. First, a harmonious identity is developed by market operators

and sent to stakeholders. Second, a homogeneous identity is also drawn based on the similarities in the decision making

activities of operators. Either way, organizations operating the strategic reflexive organizational system of innovation

develop industry wide generic image on the one hand and a harmonious image on the other.

SUMMARY

This paper makes an attempt to broaden our academic and managerial understanding of the concept of corporate

identity by developing a framework of manifestations, which explicate the grounds on which corporate identity evolve

through the multifaceted factors that trigger them. The framework, which is grounded on generic, distinctive,

transformative, and innovative perspectives to corporate identities, makes up the dominant contribution made in this study.

This finding is unique because there are limited studies that are devoted primarily to this subject.


REFERENCES

1. Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building strong brands, Free Press, New York.

2. Adamson, G. Joe Pine, Tom Van Steenhoven, Jodi Kroupa (2006), How storytelling candrive strategic change,

Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp.36-41.

3. Albert, S. and Whetten, D.A. (1985). ‘‘Organizational Identity’’, In Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds),

Research In Organizational Behaviour, Volume 7, pp263-95, Jai Press, Greenwich, CT.

4. Anonymous (2006). Value Based Innovation, http://www.agendaforchange.co.uk/index.php

5. Anthony, Shapiro and McGrath (1992). Product Development: Success Through Product & Cycle-Time

Excellence (PACE), Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

6. Armey, D. (1996), How taxes corrupt, Wall Street Journal, p.A20.

7. Baba, Yusif, (2012), Adopting a specific innovation type versus composition of different innovation types,

International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp.218-240.

8. Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (2002), Market Orientation, Learning Orientation and Product Innovation:

Delving into the Organization’s Black Box, Journal of Market Focused Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pg. 5

9. Balmer, J.M.T. (1988), The changing image of building societies, Unpublished MastersDissertation, University

of Durham Business School, Durham.

10. Balmer, J.M.T. (1993), “Corporate identity: the power and the paradox”, Design Management Journal, pp.39-44.

11. Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Corporate Identity and the advent of corporate marketing”,European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp.146-151.

12. Balmer, J.M.T. (2002), Mixed-up over identities, working paper No 02/32, Bradford School of Management,

University of Bradford.

13. Balmer, J. and Soenen, G. (1998), ‘A new approach to corporate identity management’, International Centre for

Corporate Identity Studies, Working Paper, 1998/5.

14. Balmer, J.M.T. and Stotvig, S. (1997), “Corporate identity and private banking: a reviewand case study,

International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol.15 No. 5, pp 169-184.

15. Balmer, J.M.T. and Wilkinson, A. (1991), “Building societies: change strategy andcorporate identity”, Journal of

General Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 20-33.

16. Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, Vol. 17,

pp.99-120.

17. Barsky, Robert B. and Sims, Eric R. (2012). Information, Animal, Spirits, and the meaning of innovations in

consumer confidence, American Economic Review. Jun2012, Vol. 102 Issue 4, p1343-1377

18. Bartel, C.A. and Garud, R. (2009). Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation, Organization

Science 20(1), pp. 107–117,

19. Battistella, Cinzia; Biotto, Gianluca; De Toni, Alberto F. (2012), From design driven innovation to meaning

strategy, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp.718-743.

20. Bekkers, V. Jurian Edelenbos and Bram Steijn (2011). Innovation in the public sector: linking capacity and

leadership. Palgrave Macmillan, London, New York.

21. Belch, G. and Belch, M. (1995), Introduction to advertising and promotion, Irwin, Chicago.

22. Bernstein, D. (1984), Company image and reality: a critique of corporate communication, Holt Reinhart and

Winston, Eastbourne.


23. Betz, F. (1998). Managing Technological Innovation: Competitive Advantage From Change, Wiley and Sons,

New York.

24. Birkigt, K. and Stadler, M.M. (1986), Corporate identity, grundlagen, funktionen, fallspielen, Verlag Moderne

Industrie, Landsberg an Lech.

25. Boje, D. M. (1995), Stories of the Storytelling Organization: A Postmodern Analysis of Disney as Tamara-land,

Academy of Management Journal, 38, 9971035.

26. Bowen, H.K., Clark, K.B., Halloway, S.C. and Wheelwright, S.C (1996). The Perpetual Enterprise Machine:

Seven Keys to Corporate Renewal through Successful Products and Process Development, Oxford University

Press, Oxford.

27. Brown, M. H. (1990). Defining stories in organization: Characteristics and functions, Communication Yearbook,

13, 162-190.

28. Brown, S. and K. Eisenhardt. (1995). Product development: Past research, present Findings, and Future

directions, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, Iss. 2, Pp 343-378.

29. Brownbridge, M. (1996), The Impact of Public Policy on The Banking System In Nigeria,

http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp31.pdf#search= (accessed Jan 2010).

30. Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of Meaning, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

31. Campbell, S. and Kleiner, B.H. (2001), New developments in re-engineering organizations, Management

Research News, Vol. 24 No. 3/4, pp.5-8.

32. Capowski, G.S. (1993), “Designing corporate identity”, Management Review, June, P. 37.

33. Carls, K. (1989), “Corporate coats of arms”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67, May/June, pp. 135-139.

34. Crane, F.G. (1990), “The need for corporate advertising in the financial services industries: acase study

illustration”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 31-37.

35. Cutler, B.D. and Muehling, Darrel, D. (1991). Another Look at Advocacy Advertising and theBoundaries of

Commercial Speech, Journal of Advertising, December 1991; 20, 4; pg. 49

36. Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963), A behavioural theory of the firm, Englewood, Prentice-Hall, Cliffs, NJ.

37. Damanpour, Fariborz; Walker, Richard M.; Avellaneda, Claudia N. (2009), Combinative effects of innovation

types and organizational performance: a longitudinal study of service organizations, Journal of Management

Studies, Vol. 46 No 4, pp.650-675.

38. Damanpour, F. and Evan, W. M.(1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of

organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 392-409.

39. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators.

Academy Of Management Journal, 34: 555-590.

40. Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1983), Culture: a new look through old lenses, Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp.498–505.

41. Deschamps, J. P. (2005) “Different leadership skills for different innovation strategies”, Strategy and

Leadership; 2005; Vol. 33, Iss. 5; pp. 31-39.

42. Devlin, J.F. (1995). Technology and Innovation in Retail Banking Distribution, International Journal of Bank

Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp.19-25.


43. Donnellon, A. (1993). Cross-functional Teams in Product Development-Accommodating the Structure to the

Process, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 10, pp. 377-92.

44. DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective

rationality in organization fields, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, pp.147–160.

45. Drew, S. and Coulson-Thomas, C. (1996). Transformation Through Teamwork: The Path to the new

organization?, Management Decision, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 7-17.

46. Edquist, C. (2000). Systems of Innovation Approaches - Their Emergence and Characteristics, in Edquist, E. and

McKelvey, M. (Eds), Systems of Innovation: Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, Cheltenham, UK; An

Elgar Reference Collection, Northamton, MA, Vol. 1, pp. 3-37.

47. Esty, Daniel C. and Charnovitz, Steve (2012), Green rule to drive, Harvard Business Review. Vol. 90 Issue 3,

p120-123.

48. Feeny, D. and Ives, B. (1990). In Search of Sustainability: Reading Long-Term Advantage from Investments in

Information Technology, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol 7 Iss. 1, Summer, Pp 27-46

49. Feeny, D. (1988). Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage with IT, In Information Management: The

Strategic Dimension, M. Earl, (Ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford UK.

50. Foster, R. (1986). Innovation: The Attacker’s Advantage, Summit Books, New York.

51. French, W.L., Bell, C.H. and Zawacki, R.A. (2000), Organizational development andtransformation: managing

effective change, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

52. Friedrich, Tamara L.; Mumford, Michael D.; Vessey, Brandon; Beeler, Cheryl K.; Eubanks, Dawn L. (2010),

Leading for innovation: reevaluating leader influences on innovation with regard to innovation type and

complexity, International Studies of Management & Organization. Summer2010, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp.6-29.

53. Fukukawa, K. and Moon J. (2004), “A Japanese model of corporate social responsibility? astudy of website

reporting”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Winter, Iss. 16, p. 45.

54. Fuglsang, L. and Sundbo, J. (2005). The Organizational Innovation System: Three Modes, Journal of Change

Management, London, Vol. 5, Iss. 3; p. 329 (16 pages)

55. Gable, J. (2005), “Navigating the compliance landscape”, Information Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, p.

28.

56. Garbett, Thomas F. (1983). Researching Corporate Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 23

(February/March), 33-37.

57. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M., 1994. The New Production of

Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London.

58. Govindarajan, Vijay (2012), A reverse-innovation playbook, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 90 Issue 4, p120-

124.

59. Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends and

Benchmarking Best Practices, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14, pp. 429-58.

60. Hamel G and Prahalad, C.K. (1989), Strategic Intent, Harvard Business Review, No 3, pp 63–76.

61. Hamel, G. and Heene, A. (2000). The Concept of Core Competence. In Competence Based Competition, John

Wiley and Sons, Chichester


62. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1996), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business Press.

63. Hammer, M. (1990), Reengineering work: don't automate, obliterate, Harvard Business Review, July August,

pp.104-112.

64. Hussey, D. (1998), Strategic management: from theory to implementation, Butterwood and Heinemann, London.

65. He, Hong-Wei and Balmer, J.M.T. (2005), The saliency of generic identity: an exploratory study of UK building

societies, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 23 Nos 4/5; p. 334.

66. Henard, D.H. and Szymanski, D.M. (2001). Why Some New Products are More Successful Than Others, Journal

of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 362-75.

67. Hershock, J., Cowman, C.D. and Peters, D. (1994). From experience: action teams that work, Journal of Product

Innovation Management Vol. 11, pp. 95-104.

68. Hesselbein, F. Goldsmith, M and Somerville, I. (2002). Leading for Innovation and Organizing for Results, San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

69. Hitt, M.A., Nixon, R.D., Hoskisson, R.E. and Kochhar, R. (1996). The birth, life and Death of a Cross Functional

New Product Design Team, Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Report, pp. 96-111

70. Hobday, M. (2000). The Project Based Organization: An Ideal Form For Managing Complex Products and

Systems?", Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 871-93.

71. Howcroft, J.J. and Lavis J. (1986), Retail banking: the new revolution in structure and strategy, Basil Blackwell,

Oxford.

72. Jabri, M. and Pounder, J.S. (2001). The Management of Change: A Narrative Perspective on Management

Development, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20, pp. 682-90.

73. Jameson, F. (1985). The Political Unconsciousness: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act, London: Methuen.

74. Johansson, A. W. (2004). Consulting As A Story-Making, The Journal of Management Development, Bradford,

Vol. 23, Iss 3/4, pg. 339

75. Kessler, E. and Chakranarti, A. (1996). Innovation Speed: A Conceptual Model of Contest,Antecedents, and

Outcomes, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 1143-91.

76. Kilman, R., M. J. Saxton, and R. Serpa (1985), Introduction: Five Key Issues in understanding and changing

culture, in R. Kilman et al. (Eds.), Gaining Control of the Organizational Culture, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1-

16.

77. Kotabe, M. and Swan, K.S. (1995). The role of strategic alliances in high-technology new product development.

Strategic Management Journal 16(8): 621–636.

78. Kuntz, R (1995). Attempt to Toughen Lobbyist Disclosure Law Leaves Huge Loophole For ‘‘grass-roots’’

Money, Wall Street Journal, p. A 16

79. Laborde, M. and Sanvido, V. (1994). Introducing New Process Technologies intoConstruction Companies,

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-ASCE, Vol. 120 No. 3, pp. 488-508.

80. Lee, B-H. and Yi, S. (2012), Organizational transformation towards industry unionism in South Korea, Journal

of Industrial Relations, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp.476-493

81. Levere, J.(1992),The value of added value, Incentive, Vol. 166, No. 5, vol. 2, pp. 18-21.

82. Levin, A.C. (2005). Changing the role of workplace design within the business organisation: A model for linking

workplace design solutions to business strategies, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 3 No. 4 pp.299-311.


83. Lieberman, M.B and Asaba, S. (2006), “Why do firms imitate each other? Academy of Management Review,

Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 366–385.

84. Ling, T. (2002). Innovation: Lessons from the Private Sector A ‘think piece’ in Support of the Invest to Save

Study www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_ 03/innovation.pdf

85. Lord, M.D. (2000). Corporate Political Strategy and Legislative Decision Making, Business and Society,

Chicago, March, Vol. 39, Iss. 1, pg 76, 18 pgs

86. Maklan, S. and Knox, S. (1997). Reinventing the Brand: Bridging the Gap Between Customers and Brand

Value, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Santa Barbara, Vol. 6, Iss. 2, pg119

87. Martin, J., Feldman, M.S., Hatch, M.J. and Sitkin, S.B. (1993). The Uniqueness Paradox in Organizational

Stories, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 438-53.

88. Marwick, N. and Fill, C. (1997), “Towards a framework for managing corporate identity”, European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 5/6, pp. 396-409.

89. McDonough, E.F. III (2000). Investigation of Factors Contributing to the Success of Cross-Functional Teams,

Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 17, pp. 221-35.

90. McKee, D. (1992). An organizational learning approach to product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, Vol. 9 No, 3, pp. 232-245.

91. Melewar, T.C. and Bains, N. (2002), “Industry in transition: corporate identity on hold?”, International Journal

of Bank Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2/3, pp. 57-66.

92. Mogens Holten Larsen (2000), How brands are taking over the corporation, In M Schultz, MJ Hatch, MH

Larsen, Oxford University Press.

93. Morison, Ian (1997), Breaking the monolithic mould, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol.15 No. 5,

pp.153-162

94. Morgan, S. Dennehy, R.F. (1997). The Power of Organizational Storytelling: A Management Development

Perspective, The Journal of Management Development, Bradford, Vol.16, Iss. 7; pg. 494

95. Mullighan, P. and Gordon, S. (2002). The Impact of Information Technology of Customer and Supplier

Relationships in the Financial Services, International Journal of service Industry Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp

29-46

96. Nadler, D. and Tushman, M. (1997), Competing by design: the power of organizationalarchitecture, Oxford

University Press, New York.

97. Nagji, Bansi and Tuff, Geoff (2012), Managing your innovation portfolio, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 90

Issue 5, pp66-74.

98. Nevett, T.R. (1982), Advertising In Britain: A History, Heinemann, London

99. Newman, K.L. (2000), Organizational transformation during institutional upheaval, Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 25, pp.602-619.

100. Nord, W. and Tucker, S. (1987), Implementing routine and radical innovations, Lexington Books, Lexington,

MA.

101. Oldham, G.R. (1988), Effects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density onemployee reactions,

Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73, pp.253–258.

102. Olins, W. (1978), The corporate personality: an inquiry into the nature of corporate identity, Design Council,

London.


103. Olins, W. (1989), Corporate identity: making strategy visible through design, Thames and Hudson, London.

104. Orr, Gordon and Roth, Erik (2012), A CEO’s guide to innovation in China, McKinsey Quarterly, Issue 1, pp.74-

83.

105. Otubanjo, B.O., Melewar, T.C. and Cornelius, N. (2008), “The development of generic corporate identity in

professional services firms”, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1299728

106. Parida, Vinit; Westerberg, Mats; Frishammar, Johan (2012), Inbound open innovation activities in high tech

SMEs: the impact of innovation performance, Journal of Small Business Management. Vol. 50 No. 2, pp.283-

309.

107. Pavar, K.S, Menon, V. and Reidel, J.C.K.H. (1994). Time to Market, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 5

No. 1, pp. 14-22

108. Pavitt, K. (1994). What We Know About the Strategic Management of Technology. In Implementing New

Technologies: Innovation and the Management of Technology, edited by Ed Rhodes and David Wield.

Blackwell, UK

109. Piva, Evila; Rentocchini, Francesco; Rossi-Lamastra, Cristina (2012), Is open source software about innovation?

Collaborations with the open source community and innovation performance of software entrepreneurial

ventures, Journal of Small Business Management. Apr2012, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp.340-364.

110. Plunkard, J. (2004), Branching out architecturally, Bank News, June, No. 6, p. 28.

111. Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, London, Collier

McMillan

112. Prahalad, CK. and Doz, Y.L. (1987), The multinational mission, The Free Press, NY

113. Prahalad, C. K. and G. Hamel (1994), The core competence and the corporation, Harvard Business Review, May

– June, pp.71 –91.

114. Prahalad, C. K. and G. Hamel (1994), ‘Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm?’, Strategic

Management Journal, Summer Special Issue, 15, pp. 5–16.

115. Robert, B. and Sims, E.R. (2012). Information, Animal Spirits, and the Meaning of Innovation, American

Economic Review. Vol. 102 No. 4, pp.1343-1377.

116. Rogers, M. (1998). The Definition and Measurement of Innovation, Working Paper, 10/98, Melbourne Institute

of Applied Economics and Social Research, University of Melbourne

117. Rossouw, G.J. (2005), “Business ethics and corporate governance: a global survey, Business and Society, Vol. 44

No. 1, p. 32.

118. Salu, A. (1994), Understanding Public Relations, Talkback Publishers, Lagos.

119. Scarbrough, H. and R.Lannon, 1989, 'The Management of Innovation in the FinancialServices Sector: a Case

Study', Joumal of Marketing Management, Vol.5, No.l, pp.51-62.

120. Schmidt, K (1995), The quest for identity, Cassell, London.

121. Schmidt, J.B. and Calantone, R.J. Are really new product development projects harder to shut down? Journal of

Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp.111–23.

122. Schuman, David W, Jan M. Hathcote, and Susan West (1991), "Corporate Advertising in America: A Review of

Published Studies on Use, sMeasurement, and Effectiveness," Journal of Advertising, 20 (3), 35-56.

123. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper and Row, New York.


124. Sethi, S. Prakash (1978). Advocacy Advertising:-The American Experience, California Management Review,

Fall, Pg 55

125. Sethi, R., Smith, D.C. and Park, C.W. (2001). Cross-Functional Product Development Teams, Creativity, and the

Innovativeness of New Consumer Products, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 73-85.

126. Sethi, R. (2000). New Product Quality and Product Development Teams, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, pp. 1-

14.

127. Shephered, C. and Pervaiz, K. Ahmed (2000). NPD frameworks: a holistic Examination, European Journal of

Innovation Management, Bradford, Vol. 3, Iss. 3; pg 160

128. Siew Kim Jean Lee, Kelvin Yu, (2004), "Corporate culture and organizational performance", Journal of

Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp.340 – 359.

129. Slattery, D. J. and J. G. Nellis (2005). Product development in UK retail banking developing a market-oriented

approach in a rapidly changing regulatory environment." International Journal of Bank Marketing, 23(1): 90-106.

130. Stephenson, Carol (2011), The true meaning of innovation, Ivey Business Journal., Vol. 75 No, 2, pp12-12

131. Stebbings, H. and Braganza, A. (2009), Exploring continuous organizational transformation: morphing through

network interdependence, Journal of Change Management. Vol. 9 No. 1, pp.27-48.

132. Tenkasi, R. V., and Boland, R. J. (1993). Locating Meaning Making in Organizational Learning: The Narrative

Basis of Cognition. In R. W. Woodman and W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and

Development (Vol. 7). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press

133. Tödtling, Franz and Lehner, Patrick and Kaufmann, Alexander (2008) Do different types ofinnovation rely on

specific kinds of knowledge interactions? SRE - Discussion Papers, Institut für Regional- und Umweltwirtschaft,

WU Vienna University of Economics and Business,Vienna.

134. Thomas, R., Sargent, L.D. and Hardy. C. (2010), Managing organizational change: Negotiating meaning and

power-resistance relations, Organization Science, Vol. 22 No.1, pp.22-41.

135. Trygg, L. (1993). Concurrent Engineering Practices in Selected Swedish Companies: A Movement or an Activity

of the Few, Journal of Product Innovation Management, No. 10, pp. 403-15.

136. Twiss, B. C. (1993). Managing Technological Innovation, Pitman Publishing, London

137. Van de Ven, A.M. (1986). Central Problems in the Management of Innovation, Management Science, Vol. 32

No. 5, pp. 590-607.

138. Van der Valk, T., Meeus, M., Moors, E., Faber, J., Hu, H. (2004), Partnering among biotechnology companies:

the role of inducements and opportunities in explaining partnering behaviour, Conference paper, DRUID

Summer conference

139. van Rekom, J., van Riel, C.B.M. and Wierenga, B. (1991), ’Corporate identity. Van vaag concept naar hard

feitenmateriaal’, Working Paper, Corporate Communication Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

140. van Riel, C.B.M. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and

management”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos. 5 and 6 pp.340-355.

141. Vollmann, T.E. (1996), The transformation imperative: achieving market dominance through radical change,

Harvard Business Press, Boston.

142. Wells, W., Burnett, J. and Moriarty, (1995). Advertising: Principles and Practice, Prentice Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey.


143. Wilkinson, A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1996), Corporate and generic identities: lessons from the Co-operative Bank,

International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp.22-35.

144. Wilson, Keeley; Doz, Yves L. (2011), Agile innovation: a footprint balancing distance and immersion,

California Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 2, p.p6-26.

145. Wischnevsky, J.D. and Damanpour, F. (2006), Organizational transformation and performance: An examination

of three perspectives, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp.104-128.

146. Yonggui Wang and Hing-Po Lo and Yongheng Yang (2004). An Integrated Framework for Service Quality,

Customer Value, Satisfaction: Evidence from China’s Telecommunication Industry, Information Systems

Frontiers Vol. 6, Iss 4, Pp 325–340.

147. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. and Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and Organizations, John Wiley and Sons, New

York, NY.

148. Zemke, R. (1990). Storytelling: back to basics, Training Magazine, Vol. 27 No. 3.

149. Zhang, Q. and Doll, W. (2001). The Fuzzy Front End and Success of New Product Development: A Causal

Model, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol.4 No. 2, pp. 95-112.

150. Zietsma, C. and Lawrence, T.B. (2010), Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The

interplay of boundary work and practice work, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp.189-221.

151. Zirger, B.J. (1997). The Influence of Development Experience and Product Innovativeness on Product Outcome,

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-97.

BIODATA

Olutayo Otubanjo is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at Lagos Business School. He is a Visiting Research Fellow

at Warwick Business School, University of Warwick (UK) and was at a point a Visiting Scholar at Spears School of

Business, Oklahoma State University, USA. He holds a PhD in Marketing with emphasis on industry construction of the

meaning of corporate identity. Otubanjo attended University of Hull (UK) and was at Brunel University, London where he

taught marketing modules at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. He is published in Academy of Marketing Science

Review; Tourist Studies; Management Decisions; The Marketing Review; Journal of Product & Brand Management;

Corporate Reputation Review; Corporate Communications: An International Journal etc. He has contributed to edited

books on corporate reputation and corporate branding. His research interests sits at the interface between social

constructionism, historical institutionalism, discourse analysis, on the one hand, and the elements of corporate marketing

including corporate branding, corporate identity, corporate reputation, corporate image, corporate communications, on

the other. He was at a time Director for Brand Strategy, CentrespreadFCB, Nigeria’s third largest advertising agency.

four cardinal manifestations of corporate identity · organizational behaviours, processes and...

Documents