the dynamic processes of visual, corporate, and ... · identity, corporate identity, and...
TRANSCRIPT
The Dynamic Processes of Visual, Corporate, and Organisational Identity
An Exploratory Study
Prepared by Michael Devine
Master of Business (Integrated Marketing Communication)
Graduate Certificate of Business (Integrated Marketing Communication)
Bachelor of Business (Advertising and Public Relations)
Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of
Master of Business (Research)
Queensland University of Technology
Faculty of Business
School of Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations
2010
I
Keywords
Corporate Identity, Organisational Identity, Organisational Culture,
Organisational Identity Dynamics, Corporate Level Marketing
II
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to contribute to the cross-disciplinary body of literature
of identity and organisational culture. This study empirically investigated the Hatch
and Schultz (2002) Organisational Identity Dynamics (OID) model to look at
linkages between identity, image, and organisational culture. This study used
processes defined in the OID model as a theoretical frame by which to understand
the relationships between actual and espoused identity manifestations across visual
identity, corporate identity, and organisational identity. The linking processes of
impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing were discussed at three unique
levels in the organisation.
The overarching research question of How does the organisational identity dynamics
process manifest itself in practice at different levels within an organisation? was
used as a means of providing empirical understanding to the previously theoretical
OID model. Case study analysis was utilised to provide exploratory data across the
organisational groups of: Level A - Senior Marketing and Corporate
Communications Management, Level B - Marketing and Corporate Communications
Staff, and Level C - Non-Marketing Managers and Employees. Data was collected
via 15 in-depth interviews with documentary analysis used as a supporting
mechanism to provide triangulation in analysis. Data was analysed against the
impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing constructs with specific criteria
developed from literature to provide a detailed analysis of each process.
Conclusions revealed marked differences in the ways in which OID processes
occurred across different levels with implications for the ways in which VI, CI, and
OI interact to develop holistic identity across organisational levels. Implications for
theory detail the need to understand and utilise cultural understanding in identity
programs as well as the value in developing identity communications which
represent an actual rather than an espoused position.
III
Table of Contents
Keywords .................................................................................................................... I
Abstract ...................................................................................................................... II
Table of Contents .................................................................................................... III
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... VII
List of Figures ....................................................................................................... VIII
List of Appendices .................................................................................................... IX
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................ X
Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................... XI
Statement of Original Authorship ........................................................................ XII
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................ XIII
Chapter One – Introduction ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Research Background ................................................................................... 3 1.3 Definitions ...................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Research Questions ....................................................................................... 7 1.5 Research Significance ................................................................................... 9 1.6 Methodology Overview ............................................................................... 10 1.7 Report Outline ............................................................................................. 11 1.8 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 12
Chapter Two – Literature Review .......................................................................... 13 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 14 2.2 Identity ......................................................................................................... 16
2.2.1 Visual Identity ........................................................................................ 16 2.2.2 Corporate Identity ................................................................................... 17 2.2.3 Organisational Identity ........................................................................... 19 2.2.4 Common Ground in Identity Literature .................................................. 21 2.2.5 Identity Section Summary ...................................................................... 22
IV
2.3 Image ............................................................................................................ 23 2.3.1 Image and its Purpose in Identity Creation and Management ................ 24 2.3.2 Image and Employee Brand Advocacy .................................................. 25 2.3.3 Image as a Feedback Tool for Identity ................................................... 26 2.3.4 Image Section Summary ......................................................................... 27
2.4 Organisational Culture ............................................................................... 28
2.4.1 Organisational Culture Levels Perspective ............................................ 33 2.4.2 Organisational Culture Dynamics Perspective ....................................... 36 2.4.3 Organisational Culture Models Summary .............................................. 37
2.5 Relationships Between Identity, Image and Culture ............................... 38
2.5.1 Organisational Identity Dynamics .......................................................... 39 2.5.2 Impressing: Identity to Image ................................................................. 46 2.5.3 Mirroring: Image to Identity ................................................................... 49 2.5.4 Reflecting: Identity to Culture ................................................................ 52 2.5.5 Expressing: Culture to Identity ............................................................... 55
2.6 Research Questions ..................................................................................... 58 2.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 60
Chapter Three – Methodology ................................................................................ 61 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 62 3.2 Research Paradigm ..................................................................................... 64 3.3 Qualitative Research ................................................................................... 66 3.4 Research Design .......................................................................................... 67
3.4.1 Case Study Approach Justification ......................................................... 67 3.4.2 Case Study Site Selection ....................................................................... 70 3.4.3 Research Procedures ............................................................................... 71
3.5 Data Collection ............................................................................................ 72
3.5.1 In-Depth Interview ................................................................................. 72 3.5.2 In-Depth Interview Sampling Design ..................................................... 74 3.5.3 In-Depth Interview Sampling Levels ..................................................... 75 3.5.4 Interview Pilot ........................................................................................ 79 3.5.5 Interview Setting .................................................................................... 80 3.5.6 Additional Data Collection ..................................................................... 80
3.6 Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 81
3.6.1 Coding Data ............................................................................................ 82 3.7 Validity Criteria .......................................................................................... 85
3.7.1 Criteria One – Credibility ....................................................................... 85 3.7.2 Criteria Two – Confirmability ................................................................ 86
V
3.7.3 Criteria Three – Dependability ............................................................... 87 3.7.4 Criteria Four – Transferability ................................................................ 87
3.8 Ethical Considerations................................................................................ 88 3.9 Methodological Limitations ....................................................................... 89 3.10 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 90
Chapter Four – Findings ......................................................................................... 91 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 92 4.2 Case Background ........................................................................................ 93
4.2.1 ACORP Case Background Factors ......................................................... 93 4.2.2 Utility Network in Decline – 2004 Crisis ............................................... 95 4.2.3 Recovery To Present Day ....................................................................... 97 4.2.4 Present Day to Future Challenges .......................................................... 97
4.3 Impressing Analysis .................................................................................... 99
4.3.1 Impressing: Senior Marketing and Corporate Communications Management ..................................................................................................... 100 4.3.2 Impressing: Marketing and Corporate Communications Staff ............ 105 4.3.3 Impressing: Non-Marketing Managers and Employees ...................... 110 4.3.4 Impressing: Themes and Summary ...................................................... 116
4.4 Mirroring Analysis .................................................................................... 118
4.4.1 Mirroring: Senior Marketing and Corporate Communications Management ..................................................................................................... 119 4.4.2 Mirroring: Marketing and Corporate Communications Staff .............. 122 4.4.3 Mirroring: Non-Marketing Managers and Employees ........................ 126 4.4.4 Mirroring: Themes and Summary ........................................................ 130
4.5 Reflecting Analysis .................................................................................... 132
4.5.1 Reflecting: Senior Marketing and Corporate Communications Management ..................................................................................................... 133 4.5.2 Reflecting: Marketing and Corporate Communications Staff ............. 139 4.5.3 Reflecting: Non-Marketing Managers and Employees ....................... 143 4.5.4 Reflecting: Themes and Summary ...................................................... 150
4.6 Expressing Analysis .................................................................................. 152
4.6.1 Expressing: Senior Marketing and Corporate Communications Management ..................................................................................................... 153 4.6.2 Expressing: Marketing and Corporate Communications Staff ............ 158 4.6.3 Expressing: Non-Marketing Managers and Employees ...................... 162 4.6.4 Expressing: Themes and Summary ...................................................... 167
4.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 169
VI
Chapter Five – Conclusions .................................................................................. 170 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 171 5.2 Impressing Conclusions ............................................................................ 172 5.3 Mirroring Conclusions ............................................................................. 175 5.4 Reflecting Conclusions.............................................................................. 179 5.5 Expressing Conclusions ............................................................................ 182 5.6 OID Model Conclusions ........................................................................... 185 5.7 Significance ................................................................................................ 186 5.8 Limitations ................................................................................................. 187 5.9 Future Research ........................................................................................ 188 5.10 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 189
References ............................................................................................................... 190
Appendix ................................................................................................................. 199
VII
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Identity Conceptualisation in Literature
Table 2.2: Organisational Culture Perspectives
Table 2.3: Impressing Categorised
Table 2.4: Mirroring Categorised
Table 2.5: Reflecting Categorised
Table 2.6: Expressing Categorised
Table 3.1: Comparison of Social Science Research Paradigms
Table 3.2: Categorisation of Case Study Designs
Table 3.3: Level A - Senior Marketing and Corporate Communications
Management
Table 3.4: Level B - Marketing and Corporate Communications Staff
Table 3.5: Level C - Non-Marketing Managers and Employees
Table 3.6: OID Process Analysis Criteria
Table 3.7: Example Identity Analysis Summary Table
Table 4.1: ACORP Future Challenges
Table 5.1: Impressing Analysis Outcomes
Table 5.2: Mirroring Analysis Outcomes
Table 5.3: Reflecting Analysis Outcomes
Table 5.4: Expressing Analysis Outcomes
VIII
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Introduction Chapter Sections
Figure 1.2: Relations Between Culture, Identity, and Image –
Hatch and Schultz Organisational Identity Dynamics Model
Figure 2.1: Literature Review Chapter Sections
Figure 2.2: Identity Conceptualisations in Literature
Figure 2.3: Identity, Image, and Reputation Interaction
Figure 2.4: Levels of Organisational Culture
Figure 2.5: Cultural Dynamics Model
Figure 2.6: Organisational Identity Dynamics (OID)
Figure 2.7: External Organisational ‘Me’ Processes
Figure 2.8: Internal Organisational ‘I’ Processes
Figure 2.9: Impressing Processes
Figure 2.10: Mirroring Processes
Figure 2.11: Reflecting Processes
Figure 2.12: Expressing Processes
Figure 3.1: Methodology Chapter Sections
Figure 3.2: Application of Case Study Designs
Figure 3.3: Data Collection Graphical Representation
Figure 3.4: OID Process and Related Research Questions
Figure 4.1: Findings Chapter Sections
Figure 5.1: Conclusions Chapter Sections
IX
List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Document Analysis List
Appendix 2: Research Participant Recruitment Flyer
Appendix 3: Research Participant Information Form
Appendix 4: Interview Protocol
Appendix 5: Copy of Interview Timetable
Appendix 6: Transcription and Analysis Framework
Appendix 7: Identity Types (Balmer, 2007)
X
List of Abbreviations
VI: Visual Identity
CI: Corporate Identity
OI: Organisational Identity
CLM: Corporate Level Marketing
OID: Organisational Identity Dynamics
CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility
XI
Glossary of Terms
Identity:
The holistic combination of visual, corporate, and organisational messages sent to
stakeholders via strategic communications and employee interaction (Section 2.2).
Image:
The stakeholder perspective and interpretation of visual, corporate, and
organisational messages sent via strategic communications and employee interaction
(Section 2.3).
Organisational Culture:
“A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its
problem of external adaption and internal integration that has worked well enough
to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct
was to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (Schein, 2004, p. 17)
(Section 2.4)
Espoused Identity:
The mix of visual, corporate, and organisational identity which communicates who
we want to be as an organisation (developed from Balmer, 2007) (see Appendix 7)
Actual Identity:
The mix of visual, corporate, and organisational identity which communicates who
we are as an organisation (developed from Balmer, 2007) (see Appendix 7)
ACORP:
Utility organisation and case study cite (Section 3.4.2).
XII
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education intuition. To the best
of my knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no material previously published or
written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: ______________________________________
Date: ______________________________________
XIII
Acknowledgments
Firstly, and most importantly, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my
Principal Supervisor, Dr. Jennifer Bartlett for guiding me through this research
program. Jennifer, your research experience and knowledge, understanding nature,
and good humor during the entire process have made it an enjoyable and rewarding
experience. Without your assistance this thesis would not have been possible. I
would also like to thank my colleagues in the school of Advertising Marketing and
Public Relations at Queensland University of Technology. I would specifically like
to thank Mr. Bill Proud. Bill, thank you for your belief, guidance, and friendship.
The faith you have shown in me has helped me to reach far greater than I had once
thought possible and I extend to you my deepest respect and gratitude. Special
mention also goes to Dr. Ursula Bougoure, Dr. Amanda Beatson, Dr. Edwina Luck,
Associate Professor Gayle Kerr, and Dr. Paul Barnes for support, advice and
guidance along this research journey.
Secondly, to the research participants from ACORP. Thank you for allowing me
access to the organisation and being so generous with your time. My sincerest
thanks for making available your knowledge and experiences for this research study.
Without your cooperation this research study would not have been possible.
Thirdly, I would like to thank my wonderful and brilliant family. To Patrick, Teresa,
Ann, Martin, Catherine, and John - Thank you all for instilling ‘the baby’ with the
courage to chose my own path and the strength to stick to my convictions.
Finally, I would like to thank my fellow research students at Queensland University
of Technology. Specifically, I would like to thank all those who have helped during
this process and given their assistance and support. I would like to particularly thank
Cameron Mackay, Tim Donnet, Laxman Samtani, Lisa Wessels, Sabrina Amir, and
Marisa Camastral for proof reading and critiques on this document.
1
Chapter One – Introduction
2
1.1 Introduction
Chapter One – Introduction is presented in eight segments. Section 1.2 Research
Background will provide a short discussion of the key elements of this study and
provide a context that leads into the discussion of key concepts. Section 1.3
Definitions will discuss identity, image, organisational culture, and organisational
identity dynamics. Following on from this, Section 1.4 Research Questions outlines
the overarching and specific research questions of this study. Section 1.5 Research
Significance justifies this research study and places its contribution in the boarder
context of identity literature. Section 1.6 Methodology Overview details in brief the
specific research design approach this study undertook. Section 1.7 Thesis Outline
previews the five sections of this research study. And finally, Section 1.8
Conclusion will sumarise this chapter and provides direction for the following
sections.
The eight sections of Chapter One – Introduction are represented graphically in
Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1: Introduction Chapter Sections
Chapter One: Introduction 1.1 Introduction
1.2 Research Background
1.3 Definitions
1.4 Research Questions
1.5 Research Significance
1.6 Methodology Overview
1.7 Thesis Outline
1.8 Conclusion
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter Five: Conclusions
3
1.2 Research Background
The concept of identity is one that has enjoyed recent interest in academic literature.
This interest spans the disciplines of marketing, public relations, advertising,
integrated marketing communications, management, and organisational studies. The
relevance of identity as a theoretical concept in literature is not in debate, but rather
the definition and boundaries of the discussion is where the distinctions lay. Authors
in marketing have often addressed identity in terms of visual identity and corporate
identity; whereas, management scholars have addressed identity with a deeper, more
internal focus by focusing on organisational identity. This has led to confusion and
debate about the topic. In a similar fashion, organisational culture has a long-
standing tradition of interest in a wide range of fields from management to sociology.
So too has there been debate as to the true meaning of the concept as well as the
ability of management to exert conscious control over it. With no clear agreement,
literature has addressed organisational culture in both functionalist (can be controlled
by management) and interpretivist (can not be controlled by management) directions.
Authors such as Hatch and Schultz (1997, 2002) have pushed for an integrative
approach to studying culture, identity, and image. The break down of both internal
and external boundaries and the changing nature of stakeholder relations is a key
driver in linking communication and organisational theory concepts. As institutions
compete in ever increasingly complex markets there is a need to address marketing
in a more strategic, organisational wide approach (Balmer & Greyser, 2006). Balmer
and Greyser (2006) note the vast tilt in literature from product to service based
studies and cite the need for more empirical research specific to integrative
approaches to the concepts that make up corporate level marketing; identity, image,
organisational culture, reputation. The Hatch and Schultz (2002) Organisational
Identity Dynamics (OID) model approach is one such way that concepts from
marketing, management, and organisational studies can inform each other rather than
build boundaries between related concepts. As such, this approach represents a step
forward by addressing identity in a holistic fashion.
4
OID (Hatch & Schultz, 2002) attempts to define and investigate the relationships of
culture, identity, and image by examining the linking processes which span the
internal/external organisational boundary. Identity is a process that can be
communicated not only by an overt communications strategy, but also via the actions
and representation of employees (Rindova & Fombrun, 1998), hence the need to
understand the ways employees understand, react to, and implement the
organisation’s identity. The OID process treats the concept of culture, identity, and
image as fluid, which can impact and be impacted upon. This view of an active and
reflexive process can be closely aligned with Pettigrew (1979) conceptualisation of
organisational culture:
“through such mechanisms and processes that culture evolves, and indeed
the ever fluctuating state which we describe as an organizational culture then
acts as a determinant or constraint on the way further attempts to handle
issues of purpose, integration, and commitment are handled. Man creates
culture and culture creates man” (Pettigrew, 1979, p. 576-577)
By addressing the concepts of culture, identity, and image as fluid rather than
absolute, Hatch and Schultz (2002) contend that the investigation of linking
processes, those being the elements of impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and
expressing can provide a more informed understanding of the identity creation and
management process. Although not specifically empirically tested, Hatch and
Schultz draw on the work of Dutton and Dukerich (1991) in their Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey case study in which the authors addressed internal
organisational reaction to external stimuli. The Hatch and Schultz (2002) study
contributed to literature in three key ways:
1. Defined the identity process as one which is active and reactive at both a
conscious and subconscious level for an organisation (using the concepts of
‘I’ and “me” as a means of understanding social processes [Mead, 1934]).
2. Identity and culture are conceptually different and both are equally important
in understanding the creation and management of identity.
5
3. To introduce the approach that identity creation and management is as much
as social process as it is a management one.
Although representing a valid contribution, this approach has received no direct
empirical testing and as such, remains theoretical in nature. This research study
utilises the foundation concepts of impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing
developed by Hatch and Schultz (2002) and empirically investigates how these
concepts manifest themselves in practice. Furthermore, this study contends to
investigate differences between organisational groups and levels in the way in which
representation of the OID process takes place and is understood by staff members.
This represents a unique contribution of the body of research on identity.
This study is exploratory in nature due to the limited empirical work undertaken in
the culture, identity, and image relationship process based literature field. This study
does not intend to be generalisable to theory (Yin, 2003), but rather to provide a
foundation of further understanding in OID concepts and form a basis for future
empirical investigation and theory development. The goal of this research is to
provide rich empirical data as to the understanding of culture, identity, and image to
the emergent area of corporate level marketing.
1.3 Definitions
As introduced in Section 1.2, this research study is concerned with the related
concepts of identity, image, and organisational culture. Furthermore, the concept of
organisational identity dynamics is a key concept under investigation in this study.
The following key points outline the definitions which are used for this research
study:
Identity denotes the triplet of visual identity (VI), corporate identity (CI),
and organisational identity (OI) (addressed in Section 2.2). This approach
6
has been developed from the convergence of marketing and management
literature and represents a holistic view of the identity process (Balmer, 1997;
Hatch & Schultz, 1997, 2000; He & Balmer, 2006; Stuart, 1999). In this
study the term identity represents the visual and behavioural representation of
an organisation at a corporate as well as an individual level. The concept of
identity is addressed in detail in Section 2.2.
Image is a related, but distinct concept from identity. Image is the perception
of identity which is held by individuals of an organisation (Olins, 1978). In
this way, image holds a reflexive quality for how organisations understand
how others view them (Abratt, 1989). In this way, image serves as a mirror
to the organisation (be it perceived or actual) of how others view them
(Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). Kennedy (1977) noted the importance of
employees in how image is conceptualised in receivers. In this study, the
term image represents the view held of organisational others (Hatch &
Schultz, 2002), which has been developed from communication strategy and
identity representation by employees. The concept of image is addressed in
detail in Section 2.3.
Organisational Culture has been defined in a number of ways and there is
no agreed upon position in literature. Section 2.4 defines the three most
prominent approaches as the interpretivist, functionalist, and combined
perspectives. This study adopts the combined perspective in that
organisational culture can be a controlled (by management) or controlling (an
overriding and intangible) force at different times (Martin, 1985; Ogbonna &
Harris, 1998; Pettigrew, 1979; Smircich, 1983a). The concept of
organisational culture is addressed in detail in Section 2.4.
Organisational Identity Dynamics (Hatch & Schultz, 2002) in this thesis
refers to the integrative approach to culture, identity, and image whereby the
concepts interact and influence each other in an ongoing process. Within this
process the linking elements are defined as impressing (identity/image),
7
mirroring (image/identity), reflecting (identity/culture), and expressing
(culture/identity). The concept of organisational identity dynamics and its
related linking processes is addressed in detail in Section 2.5.
Impressing (identity/image) is defined in this study as the process whereby
expressed identity leaves impressions on stakeholders (Hatch & Schultz,
2002). The process of impressing is addressed specifically in Section 2.5.2.
Mirroring (image/identity) is defined in this study as the process whereby
identity mirrors the images of others (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). The process
of mirroring is addressed specifically in Section 2.5.3.
Reflecting (identity/culture) is defined in this study as the process in which
identity becomes embedded in a companies organisational culture (Hatch &
Schultz, 2002). The process of reflecting is addressed specifically in Section
2.5.4.
Expressing (culture/identity) is defined in this study as organisational culture
understanding communicated through identity (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). The
process of expressing is addressed specifically in Section 2.5.5.
1.4 Research Questions
As addressed in Section 1.2, this study will utilise the Hatch and Schultz (2002) OID
model as a means for investigating the linking processes between culture, identity,
and image. As shown in Figure 1.2, theses dynamic linking processes are articulated
as impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing.
8
Figure 1.2: Relations Between Culture, Identity, and Image – Hatch and
Schultz (2002) Organisational Identity Dynamics Model
(Hatch & Schultz, 2002)
Building on existing literature, this study will empirically investigate dynamic
linking processes and address them in the context of specific organisational
workgroups. The groups investigated will be based on the level of direct control
over the strategic creation and implementation of identity programs possessed by
each level. This research study will uilise the following two objectives:
1. To explore the OID model empirically and across different levels and
workgroups within suitable research site.
2. To explore the occurrence of the specific OID processes of impressing,
mirroring, reflecting, and expressing from the perspective of employees.
To fulfill the first research objective in understanding the OID model holistically at
distinct levels and workgroups within an organisation, the overarching research
question of this study:
How does the organisational identity dynamics process manifest itself in
practice at different levels within an organisation?
9
To fulfill the second research objective in addressing the four specific processes of
the OID model, the specific research questions this study are:
RQ1: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics impressing process
(identity/image) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups?
RQ2: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics mirroring processes
(image/identity) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups?
RQ3: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics reflecting processes
(identity/culture) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups?
RQ4: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics expressing processes
(culture/identity) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups?
Further details on the both the overarching and specific research questions of this
study are provided in Section 2.6.
1.5 Research Significance
This study will address areas of key significance both in theoretical and applied
fields. Theoretical significance is primarily concerned with the operationalisation of
the Hatch and Schutz (2002) OID model in practice. This model to date has only
existed in a theoretical form and has not received empirical testing as to determine its
accuracy within a real-life situation or the specific ways in which the OID processes
of impressing, mirroring, reflecting and expressing occur across different
organisational levels and unique workgroups. In addition, this study will address in
what distinct ways the linking processes of identity, image and culture take place
within an organisation, an area that has to date received minimal empirical testing.
10
This thesis will also address a number of areas of applied research significance. It
will articulate the strength of understanding of culture and the representation of
identity via OI by employees. Additionally, the role of VI and CI elements in
creating actual identity versus those values espoused by the organisation will be
investigated, along with organisational benefits relating to the adoption of an actual
versus espoused position.
1.6 Methodology Overview
This research study adopted a constructivist-interpretivist approach similar to that
discussed by Schawndt (in Corbin & Strauss, 2008). As this exploratory research
study dealt with evolving concepts and not in absolutes, the constructivist-
intervpretivist research paradigm enabled culture, identity, and image to be
investigated by looking at the manifestation of OID processes in everyday social
interaction and practice. The constructivist-interpretivist research paradigm is
addressed in detail in Section 3.2.
This study adopted a single qualitative exploratory case study based approach. As
discussed by Patton (1990), qualitative research provides a best fit where research
questions aim to address phenomena in detail and depth with evidence from persons
who have experience with the phenomena first hand. As the area of OID has
received minimal previous empirical study, an exploratory case study approach at a
single cite provides the distinct advantage of being able to provide rich contextual
data which can further understanding in a discipline (Yin, 2003). A critique of single
case analysis is its inability to make statistical generalisations, however the aim of
this study is to make analytical generalisations transferable to complementary
contexts (Marshall & Rossman, 2006; Yin, 2003). Furthermore, qualitative single
case study research provides a solid basis for further investigation utilising multiple-
case or quantitative approaches at a later stage (Cavana, Delahaye, & Sekaran, 2001).
Further details on this approach is provided in Sections 3.3 and 3.4.
11
Two data collection tools were utilised in this research study. The main data
collection tool was in-depth interviews. Namely, 15 in-depth interviews were
undertaken across three specific sample groups: Level A - Senior Marketing and
Corporate Communications Management, Level B - Marketing and Corporate
Communications Staff, and Level C - Non-Marketing Managers and Employees.
Members were selected using a judgment (purposeful) sampling method and selected
on their ability to provide information relevant to the developed research questions.
The supporting data collection tool of this study was documentary analysis.
Documents were also selected using a judgment (purposeful) approach and took
place pre (external company documents) and post (internal company documents) in-
depth interviews. Detailed information on data collection is provided in Section 3.5.
Data was analysed using the four OID processes as a guiding theoretical framework.
These four processes were developed from literature and can be seen in Figure 1.2.
Data reduction took place by critiquing the data against specific criteria developed
from literature to focus on the key elements of VI, CI, and OI. This analysis grouped
findings against the three specific sample levels and provided themes for
comparison. Further details on data analysis is provided in Section 3.6.
1.7 Report Outline
This thesis is divided into five distinct chapters; Introduction, Literature Review,
Methodology, Findings, and Conclusions. These chapters are introduced below:
Chapter One – Introduction provides a preface to this research study and
outlines the key elements that this project will address.
Chapter Two – Literature Review details the specific theoretical elements that
this study will investigate. The elements of identity, image, and culture are
reviewed from their specific literature streams and lead onto the discussion of
the organisation identity dynamics (Hatch & Schultz, 2002) approach.
12
Concluding Chapter Two – Literature Review will be a discussion of the five
research questions this study will address.
Chapter Three – Methodology addresses the research approach this study has
utilised. More specifically, Chapter Three - Methodology will detail the
chosen research paradigm, research design, data collection method, validity
criteria, ethical considerations, and finally research limitation/delimitations.
Chapter Four – Findings presents the data collection and analysis relevant to
the set research questions. This analysis takes place with relevance to the
processes discussed in the OID model approach (Hatch & Schultz, 2002).
Each of the four processes of the approach will be addressed with specific
criteria.
Chapter Five – Conclusions links the elements discussed in Chapter Two –
Literature Review with the analysis developed in Chapter Four – Findings.
This section will provide conclusions and contributions of this research study.
Furthermore, Chapter Five – Conclusions details the scope for future
research into the cross-disciplinary field of identity research.
1.8 Conclusion
Chapter One - Introduction has introduced and outlined the various sections of this
study. Background to the research study was discussed along with definitions of the
key concepts of identity, image, culture, and OID. Moreover, Chapter One –
Introduction has introduced the overriding and specific research questions that the
study has explored in detail. Furthermore, a brief discussion of the chosen
methodology and its inherent limitations was undertaken. The significance of this
research from a theoretical standpoint was addressed. Finally, a discussion of the
outline of this thesis document was provided. Chapter Two – Literature Review
details the key literature relevant to this study. This literature discussion will
encompass the concepts of identity, image, and organisational culture leading to
organisational identity dynamics – a key topic of this study.
13
Chapter Two – Literature Review
14
2.1 Introduction
Chapter One – Introduction addressed the research problem and discussed the key
concepts which influence the process of identity creation and management. In
addition, the key concepts of this discussion were defined as identity, image,
organisational culture, and OID. Chapter Two – Literature Review will explore in
detail these concepts giving both marketing and organisational perspectives. It is
important to draw from both perspectives to accurately understand the historical
grounding of the literature discussion and develop an appropriate literature
discussion to represent the current thinking on the subject.
The core distinction between the perspectives stems from how each approach
conceptualises identity; in the forms of visual identity, corporate identity, and
organisational identity, and organisational culture; the ongoing dialogue in literature
between the interpretivist and functionalist perspectives. Consequently, Chapter
Two – Literature Review will draw upon the areas of marketing, public relations,
management, and anthropology in constructing a theoretical framework by which to
study identity creation and management. This approach will aim to address the issue
of how identity creation and management can by informed by improved
understandings of organisational culture.
The concepts of identity, image and culture have been addressed in various ways by
previous literature, which will be detailed in Sections 2.2 – 2.4. A key distinction of
this study will be an investigation of the elements that influence identity design
within the organisation, as well as stakeholder factors which influence and adjust the
process externally.
This study proposes that by using cultural analysis to aid in the design of identity, the
resulting identity approach will be much closer with the true nature of the
organisation, and as such, will narrow the gap between identity and image at its
creation rather than in the review stages of the process.
15
Section 2.5 focuses down to the elements that link the critical concepts of identity,
image and organisational culture. Central to the proposed framework is the OID
model developed by seminal organisational theory authors Hatch and Schultz (2002).
The OID model discusses the relationship between culture, identity and image via
the processes of mirroring, impressing, reflecting and expressing. The Hatch and
Schultz model (2002) discusses the flow between internal and external boundaries
and addresses identity as a dynamic process which can influence and be influenced
(Hatch & Schultz, 1997, 2002). Section 2.6 introduces and explains the key research
questions of this study. These research questions have been developed from an
analysis of literature and have been guided by the Hatch and Schultz (2002) OID
model. The linking processes of mirroring, impressing, reflecting and expressing
will form the focus of this exploratory research study. Finally, Section 2.7 concludes
with a summary of the preceding chapter and a discussion of the following sections
of this thesis. The seven sections of Chapter Two – Literature Review are
represented graphically in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Literature Review Chapter Sections
Chapter One: Introduction 2.1 Introduction
2.2 Identity
2.3 Image
2.4 Organisational Culture
2.5 Relationships Between Identity,
Image and Culture
2.6 Research Questions
2.7 Conclusion
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter Five: Conclusions
16
2.2 Identity
Improving understanding of the process of identity creation and management within
organisations is a key focus of this thesis. To achieve this, it is important to consider
the theoretical and historical underpinnings of the concept of identity. The concept
of identity is one which has been represented in literature in a number of different
ways to represent distinct elements (Cornelissen, Haslam, & Balmer, 2007). The
three key ways in which identity has been conceptualised consist of visual identity,
corporate identity, and organisational identity. The following sections will briefly
introduce the distinct approaches to identity, discuss their relevance to the identity
discussion and conclude with their contribution to the focus of this study.
2.2.1 Visual Identity Marketing literature first conceptualised identity in terms of visual identity (VI),
being the visual expression of an organisation to external stakeholders to build a
positive image and ongoing reputation for the organisation (Balmer, 2001a; Olins,
1989; Van Riel, 1995; Van Riel & Balmer, 1997). A strong VI enables an
organisation to be differentiated and recognisable in its market place (Balmer &
Gray, 1999; Van Den Bosch, De Jong, & Elving, 2005). As VI is the most readily
seen component of an organisation’s communication, it has tended to attract the most
interest from marketers and managers alike (Abratt, 1989; Olins, 1995). Although
the VI perspective is now thought of more in graphic design than in marketing terms,
there is no denying that VI forms a critical element of an organisations corporate
communications mix (Balmer, 1995; Van Den Bosch et al., 2005).
The VI perspective has been criticised for presenting to a narrow viewpoint on the
subject which only deals with surface level elements such as the company’s name,
logo and symbols, colour scheme, and other visual representation (Baker & Balmer,
1997; Balmer, 2001a; Van Riel, 1995). In this scope of identity creation, VI usually
serves as the first interaction stakeholders have with an organisation. When
considering identity management in this study, VI forms a criteria against which
interactions with other communication elements can be compared. This interaction
17
and review process stakeholders experience forms the basis of image creation. This
will be discussed in Section 2.5.2, the “mirroring” section of this literature review
(Hatch & Schultz, 2002).
2.2.2 Corporate Identity A more recent approach to the conceptualisation of identity has been represented in
literature by corporate identity (CI). Moving away from the VI approach, Olins
(1995) defined CI in terms of the explicit management of the myriad of contact an
organisation has with stakeholders through experience and perception of the
organisation (Olins, 1995). One of the major problems in CI is that there is no
unilateral definition of the concept (Abratt, 1989). CI has been criticised as being a
concept which ranges from a very much visual approach, all the way to a tool to
manage change in organisational sub-cultures (Van Rekom, 1997). The majority of
CI scholars view the identity concept as being greater than simply the visual
representation of an organisation (Balmer, 2001a; De Chernatony, Cottam, & Segal-
Horn, 2006; Fombrun & Van Reil, 1997; Hatch & Schultz, 1997). Some authors
even went so far as to avoid calling the concept corporate identity to evade confusion
with a focus on the more visual aspects of the concept (S. King, 1991).
Balmer and Grey (1999) define CI in terms of the reality and uniqueness of an
organisation which is communicated by its external and internal image to build an
organisations’ reputation with stakeholders (Balmer & Gray, 1999). Although
relying on VI to build the outward “face” of the organisation, they view identity as
something which is far more complex and represents something that is more than just
surface level representations of the organisation by incorporating elements of
behavior, symbolism, and communication in defining CI (Birkigt and Stadler 1986 in
Baker & Balmer, 1997; Van Riel, 1995). In essence, CI can be defined more in
terms of the reality of the organisation (what the organisation is) rather than simply
addressing the visual elements of how the organisation outwardly represents itself
(Baker & Balmer, 1997; Olins, 1978). A key contribution in CI literature was made
by Balmer and Stuart (2004) with the introduction of the AC3ID model with
18
discusses the concept of identity in six unique ways. Of particular interest to this
thesis are the concepts of actual identity and desired (espoused) identity (Balmer &
Stuart, 2004). The distinction between these two conceptualisations of identity lay in
the distinction between the actual identity being grounded in the reality of the
combination of marketing communications strategy and interpersonal
communications with stakeholders and the espoused identity of which the
organisation seeks to present to stakeholders.
An important element in CI literature has been the role of employees in delivering
the CI to end stakeholders. Authors such as Kennedy (1977), King (1991) and
Balmer (2001a) have raised discussion on the importance of employees in
communicating the identity of an organisation to the stakeholder network (Balmer,
2001a; Kennedy, 1977; S. King, 1991). Their contribution to the body of knowledge
on corporate identity has been an attempt to marry elements of organisational theory
to communications.
This study will approach the concept of CI with employees as a central factor, while
looking at identity creation across multiple levels of the organisation. This has been
heavy influenced by the seminal work of Kennedy (1977) who addressed the need
for factually based messages in relation to corporate communications (Kennedy,
1977). Her case study work noted that many of the contacts between the company
and its stakeholders, especially in business-to-business markets, occur outside the
realm of official promotional activities. That unofficial channels of communication
play a vital role in communicating messages, albeit sometimes conflicting to VI
approaches, to stakeholders. Furthermore, Kennedy addressed the issue of
communication at different levels of the organisation including employees who may
not traditionally see this as part of their role (Kennedy, 1977). The contribution of
Kennedy’s (1977) study informs this research in a number of ways. Firstly, there is a
need to address identity creation as something that should include employees as a
central stakeholder group as they will be the carrier of the brand message and values
to the range of external stakeholder groups. Secondly, there is a need to address
identity creation and management at multiple levels throughout the organisation.
19
King (1991) addressed the role of employees as brand builders by recognising the
valuable role they play in carrying the brand to end users. To put this in terms of this
study, King’s (1991) work demonstrates the need to incorporate VI and CI elements
in building a brand. Furthermore, King (1991) stressed the need for horizontal and
vertical communication in organisations to communicate brand ideals and at times,
use staff reactions to approaches to adjust strategic approaches. Although this
discussion is addressed in terms of a brand context rather than specifically identity, it
addressed the importance of a holistic approach to communications and the notion
that both controlled and uncontrolled are taking place about an organisation to its
stakeholders concurrently. As King (1991) notes:
“Expressing company strategies. There clearly should be a full program of
explaining brand strategies to all members of staff and indeed, of using the
staff’s reactions as times to modify the strategy. For many companies the
discipline of explaining could make a useful test of whether the strategy
makes sense.” (S. King, 1991, p. 48)
Many authors have discussed the importance of staff in identity communications to
stakeholders (Balmer & Wilson, 1998; Hatch & Schultz, 2003; Podnar, 2005; Stuart,
2002). The idea of expressions of staff in the creation of identity is central to this
thesis. As employees carry the brand to consumers the more central the underlying
assumptions (see Schein, 1985) of the organisation are to the communicated identity
the more consistent the brand experience will be to stakeholders . The process of
expressing will be discussed in Section 2.5 when addressing the Hatch and Schultz
(2002) OID model.
2.2.3 Organisational Identity The final contributing body of literature to identity studies comes from the concept
of organisational identity (OI). As opposed to a marketing perspective, OI addresses
the concept of identity from a organisational behavior perspective, grounded in
psychology, anthropology and management literature streams (Balmer, 1997; Hatch
& Schultz, 2000). Seminal OI authors Albert and Whetten (1985) define identity in
20
terms of the central, enduring and distinctive (or distinguishing) characteristics of an
organisation (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Whetten, 2006). This central, enduring and
distinctive approach has been the foundation for much of the CI literature that uses
the organisational approach to build off its visual foundations. The key distinction
between the organisation and corporate schools is that the OI school places a far
heavier emphasis on the internal organisation, specifically the employees, the
structure and the organisational culture (Hatch & Schultz, 1997). They view the
concept of OI as the shared understanding members have about the organisation
encompassing its key values and distinctive characteristics, rather than the outward
expression to external stakeholders (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Hatch & Schultz,
1997).
By looking inward, OI aims to address who are we as an organisation (Whetten,
2006) which plays a critical role in understanding the true nature of how members
represent their organisation, as well as considering how distinct workgroups
collectively view their function as compared to other organisational entities. This
approach often examines at identity as a symbolic construct which can be
investigated by looking at the behavior and language of organisational members
(Cornelissen et al., 2007). The contribution of OI to this study is in its focus on the
internal manifestation of identity. By having an internal focus and understanding the
OI before building an external focus through VI and OI, it is hypothesised that the
resulting identity will give a far superior representation of the true organisation to
both internal and external stakeholders. A comparison of the three
conceptualisations of identity in literature is located in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1: Identity Conceptualisation in Literature
Visual Identity Corporate Identity Organisational Identity
Defined
as:
“The outward sign
of the inward
commitment”
(Abratt, 1989,
“The way in which a
company presents itself
to its target groups”
(Van Riel, 1995, p. 28)
The central, enduring and
distinctive (or
distinguishing) aspects of
an organisation’s
21
p.68)
“Consisting of a
name, a symbol
and/or logo,
typography, colour,
a slogan and – very
often – additional
graphical elements
… (which) provides
recognisability (to
an organisation)”
(Van Den Bosch et
al., 2005, p. 108)
“The central or
distinctive idea of the
organization and how
this idea is represented
to a variety of
audiences.”
(Hatch & Schultz, 2000,
p. 13)
“The distinctive public
image that a corporate
entity communicates that
structures people’s
engagement with it”
(Cornelissen et al., 2007,
p. 3)
character
(Albert & Whetten, 1985;
Whetten, 2006)
“How organizational
members perceive and
understand “who we are”
and/or “what we stand
for” as an organization”
(Hatch & Schultz, 2000, p.
15)
“The shared meaning that
an organizational entity is
understood to have that
arises from its members
(and others) awareness
that they belong to it.”
(Cornelissen et al., 2007,
p. 3)
Key
Question
What do our visual
elements say about
us?
How do we represent our
organisation?
Who are we as an
organisation?
Focus: Tangible elements:
design focus
External to stakeholders:
practical focus
Internally to employees:
theoretical focus
(Developed by the author from the above cited sources)
2.2.4 Common Ground in Identity Literature By looking past differences in orientation, definition and approach, there is much the
three literature streams of identity can find common ground on (Cornelissen et al.,
2007). Cornelissen (et al., 2007) suggest that collective identities (be they visual,
corporate, or organisational), in their different forms, are:
22
“(a) made viable as a function of their positivity and distinctiveness, (b)
inherently fluid rather than fixed, (c) a basis for shared perceptions and
action, (d) strategically created and managed, (e) associated with behavior
that is qualitatively different from that associated with lower-order identities
and (f) the basis for achievement of higher-order material outcomes and
products.” (Cornelissen et al., 2007, p. 8)
Furthermore, Hatch and Schultz (1997, 2002) discuss the differences in methodology
of the marketing and organisational fields and identify the richness that can be
gained from looking at identity from different perspectives. By addressing the
concept of identity from a multidisciplinary perspective including elements of both
management and marketing theory, Hatch and Schultz (1997, 2002) contend that
elements of VI, CI, and OI deliver a holistic understanding of the ways in which an
organisation communicates its identity via communications strategy as well as
though interpersonal communication with stakeholders (He & Balmer, 2006; Stuart,
1999, 2002). Understanding the common ground in identity literature is important
for this study in two key ways. Using CI and VI is critical as a way of understanding
the outward representation of the organisation. Using the OI concept as a means of
understanding the internal meaning of the organisation.
2.2.5 Identity Section Summary Section 2.2 has covered the three conceptualisations of identity. These three distinct
approaches represent different ways of differing approaches defining and enacting
identity. Although from different perspectives, understanding the elements which
define and constrain VI, CI and OI are all critical in the success or failure of the
creation and management of identity. This study takes an informed yet simplified
view of these three perspectives. VI represents the outward communication elements
which an organisation uses to differentiate itself to various stakeholder groups. CI
incorporates elements of VI yet also includes the interactions of other elements such
as staff representation of the identity, to various stakeholder groups. Finally, OI is
concerned with the investigation of the internal aspects of the organisation and how
23
they the central, enduring and distinguishing attributes of the organisations character.
These OI elements are communicated external via the interactions of staff with
external stakeholders and often represent a different message than the VI and OI
elements. These definitions and relationships which will be utilised for this study are
represented graphically in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2: Identity Conceptualisations in Literature
(Developed by the author)
2.3 Image
The concepts of identity and image are linked in the fact that they each perform a
specific task in furthering an organisation’s reputation and long term brand equity
Visual Identity
Outward communication elements which an organisation uses to differentiate itself
from competitors to stakeholders
Corporate Identity
Visual elements as well as the various contact points between organisational staff members and stakeholders of the
organisation
Organisational Identity
The internal central, enduring and distinguishing characteristics which
employees see as the true nature of the “who” the organisation collectively is
External Focus
Mostly External Focus
Internal Focus
24
outcome in the minds of stakeholders to help contribute to competitive advantage for
the organisation (Fombrun & Van Reil, 1997). Where identity is comprised of the
messages sent to stakeholders via the various forms of communication, be it
interpersonal or mass media based, image is defined by the outcome of stakeholders
receiving, filtering, and interpreting messages which are developed into a clear
picture of how stakeholders view the organisation (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). As
addressed in the preceding section, the interaction of VI, CI, and OI elements send
distinct and sometimes conflicting elements to stakeholders which are then
developed into a image in the stakeholders mind. Image is defined at a fixed point or
snapshot in the relationship between organisation and stakeholder. Abratt (1989,
citing Bernstein) discussed image in terms of the range of messages and interactions
at both a formal and informal level which combine to leave impressions on
stakeholders (Abratt, 1989). Abratt (1989) added the valuable contribution to
understanding the relationship between identity and image by addressing the
relationship as an interface or “moment of truth” between the organisation and its
stakeholders (Stuart, 1998). The following points will discuss image in terms of its
function and relationship to identity.
2.3.1 Image and its Purpose in Identity Creation and Management In increasingly competitive business environments the ability of an organisation to
articulate a corporate identity into a positive corporate image has been addressed by
scholars as a source of competitive advantage (Balmer & Gray, 1999). By having a
positive image towards a company, stakeholders will in turn have a greater
predisposition to build a lasting mutually beneficial relationship with an organisation
(Baker & Balmer, 1997; Balmer, 1997, 1998). The creation of positive images in the
minds of stakeholders is first developed at the identity stage of the process. As
previously discussed, the identity stage develops stakeholder messages sent via
visual and corporate identity programs. This in turn is received by stakeholders and
filtered into image. The continuous cycle of this processes of review and
realignment develops into reputation as addressed in figure 2.3. Although not a
source of sustained competitive advantage on its own, the initial development a
positive image program contributes a vital role in the resulting development of a
25
positive reputation and in turn competitive advantage for an organisation (Balmer,
2001a; Fombrun & Van Reil, 1997).
Kennedy (1977) addressed the importance of employee delivery of identity messages
that in her view exceeded the power more traditional forms of communication had
over stakeholders. The role of employees will be further addressed in Section 2.3.2.
By investigating and understanding the components of identity, image, and
organisational culture, a more informed understanding of the processes which link
them can be made (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). It is a contention of this study that by
better understanding the initial identity stage of the process it will be possible to
more efficiently develop programs which will result in positive image and in turn
reputation.
Figure 2.3: Identity, Image, and Reputation Interaction
(Developed by the author)
2.3.2 Image and Employee Brand Advocacy Numerous authors have discussed the important role that employees play in
delivering the identity to stakeholders (Balmer, 1998; Balmer & Greyser, 2002;
George, 1990; Ind, 2003; Kennedy, 1977; C. King & Grace, 2005; S. King, 1991).
Kennedy (1977), one of the earliest authors to address the role of employees in
Identity
Image
Reputation
26
delivering the identity, examined the important role which employees play in
delivering messages to a range of stakeholders, be it customers, corporate partners,
prospective employees, and so on (Kennedy, 1977). Furthermore, a key contention
of this thesis, Kennedy outlines that when employees help build image from a
factually true position (i.e. closer to the actual brand position rather than the
management desired) their contact with stakeholders will be more powerful in its
ability to build a strong image in the minds of stakeholders (Abratt, 1989; Kennedy,
1977). Kennedy’s (1977) work has been used as a basis for a number of further
studies in the marketing communications field. Authors such as King (1991), Ind
(2003), Balmer and Gray (2003) have all followed in this work citing the ability for
staff to create relationships with stakeholder groups which can develop into long
term mutually beneficial relationships for both parties (Balmer, 2001a; Balmer &
Gray, 2003; Ind, 2003; S. King, 1991).
2.3.3 Image as a Feedback Tool for Identity The role of image and its relationship to identity has enjoyed contentious debate in
marketing and organisational theory literature. Marketing scholars Argenti and
Druckenmiller (2004) define image as:
“A reflection of an organization’s identity and its corporate brand. The
organization as seen from the viewpoint of one constituency. Depending on
which constituency is involved (customers, investors, employees, etc), an
organization can have many different images.” (Argenti & Druckenmiller,
2004, p. 369)
In a similar manner, organisational theory scholars Dutton and Dukerich (1991)
define the relationships concepts as:
“… what people see as their organizations' distinctive attributes (its identity)
and what they believe others see as distinctive about the organization (its
image). (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991, p. 550)
27
As Bernstein (1984) notes, image is based in the interpretation of identity by external
stakeholders and as such it can be noted that although this will most likely differ
from the identity the company espoused to send, the image interpreted and received
culminates in the organisations true and actual position in the minds of stakeholders
(Bernstein, 1984). Although from different schools of literature, both marketing and
organisational theory definitions share a common ground in the fact that although
image is seen as an outcome of identity processes, it can also be addressed in terms
of a review process back to identity (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991, p. 550). By being
able to tap into stakeholder views of the organisation, it is possible to compare
distinctions between messages sent and received as well as identifying the gap
between the desired identity manifested in corporate communications messages and
the actual identity in terms of the way image is interpreted via the summation of
corporate communications and employees interactions with stakeholders (Davies &
Chun, 2002; Davies, Chun, da Silva, & Roper, 2004). This focus on the actual is
what makes image a valid tool for addressing identity gaps in terms of VI, CI and OI.
This study will address image in terms of its review process of identity by utilising
the Hatch and Schultz (2002) OID model in Section 2.5.1.
2.3.4 Image Section Summary Section 2.3 has discussed the concept of corporate image and defined it as the
formation of stakeholder perception of identity. Furthermore, this section has
discussed the three key areas of image literature relevant to this study. Firstly, the
role of identity as a foundation for identity which in turn can be utilised by
organisations to build competitive advantage (Balmer, 2001a; Fombrun & Van Reil,
1997). Secondly, the vital role that employees play in delivering the brand to
external stakeholders, and the strong influence they can have over the development
of image (Abratt, 1989; Kennedy, 1977). And finally, Section 2.3.3 discussed the
role image plays as a review tool for identity development and management
(Bernstein, 1984; Davies & Chun, 2002; Davies et al., 2004). By utilising image
review it is possible to examine the actual identity from the perspective of those
which the organisation wishes to build mutually beneficial relationships with.
28
2.4 Organisational Culture
The following section will first review the foundations of the discipline of
organisational culture, then overview and critique the differing interpretivist and
functionalist perspectives. Numerious studies have discussed the importance of
organisational culture in the identity development process (Balmer, 1998; De
Chernatony & Harris, 2000; Harris & Ogbonna, 2000; Hatch & Schultz, 1997, 2000,
2002). A limitation within literature has been to define organisational culture in
broad terms with a lack of depth into the key ways in which organisational culture
can be specifically used to inform, develop and review identity creation and
management. Section 2.4 is important to the grounding of this research as it defines
the ways in which organisational culture is understood and conceptualised in
different perspectives. As discussed in the preceding section, identity and image
form the way in which an organisation is viewed by stakeholders external to the
organisation. By understanding the relationship of organisational culture and
identity, a more informed understanding of internal organisational stakeholders
(employees) can be gained as well as their representation of the organisation to
external stakeholder groups. This section will conclude with a summary of key
attributes of culture on which there is consensus amongst key authors, leading to the
introduction of the definition of organisational culture that will be used in the context
of this research thesis.
The concept of organisational culture has a great deal to offer understandings of
identity by informing theory regarding the internal and external processes which
develop into identity (Balmer, 1997; S. King, 1991). Organisational culture is a
concept which has a number of differing perspectives however a common ground
can be found in its application as a way to view and understand organisations.
Organisational culture is a concept which has developed over three decades of debate
and refinement (Ogbonna & Harris, 1998). This debate has yielded a rich body of
literature which this thesis contends to ustilise to inform marketing and
communications practice, specifically towards the improved understanding of
identity development, management and implementation. Numerous authors, both
academic and practitioner, from a range of disciplines have attempted to bring clarity
29
to the confusion that is organisational culture (see Bate, 1994; Deal & Kennedy,
1982; Martin, 1985; Ogbonna, 1993; Pettigrew, 1979; Schein, 2004; Sheldon, 1980;
Smircich, 1983a). Although there is no unilateral definition of organisational
culture, contributing authors have a clear line which divides their views on the
subject. Specifically, this divide is based on how they define and operationalise the
concept of organisational culture in a controlling or controlled manner.
The two streams of thought on the topic can best be divided into the interpretivist
and functionalist perspectives. Essentially the distinction between these two groups
is that the interpretivist scholars, the “is” group, view culture as a root metaphor
which describes the phenomena of organisations. This approach contends that
culture is all around us, a way for viewing the world and making meaning, it is
something that shapes the organisation rather than a tangible variable like any other
in the company. The interpretivist perspective views organisational culture as a way
to view the world (Ogbonna & Harris, 1998; Smircich, 1983a). In terms of this
research, the interpretivist perspective shows culture as a concept which can exert
influence over others and shape the way in which identity is formed. Conversely,
functionalist scholars, the “has” group, view culture from the perspective of
controlled and planned management of culture. The functional perspective sees
organisational culture as a organisational variable which can be managed and
manipulated like any other component of the organisation (Smircich, 1983a). Many
authors from the functionalist perspective have written on the ability to change
culture in a specific and deliberate manner which follows the goals of management
(for a review of this see Ogbonna, 1993; Ogbonna & Harris, 1998). The functionalist
perspective informs this research by providing insights into the view that managers
believe that they can implement programs to actively control culture and may not see
culture as a tool to help shape the development of identity. The majority of studies
in marketing have adopted this approach to culture.
These two perspectives differ greatly in definition, as well as the amount of control
(if any) managers or members within the culture have over changing culture in a
controlled and deliberate fashion (Smircich, 1983a). These differences stem from
30
the basic assumptions contrasting disciplines have regarding ”organising” and
“culture” (Smircich, 1983a). Literature is growing on a third approach (Harris &
Ogbonna, 2000, 2002; Smircich, 1983a), which contends that under specific
circumstances some elements of culture can be manipulated (rather than directly
managed). This literature stems from a middle ground of the two perspectives that
serves to combine the theoretical grounding of the interpretivist perspective with the
more practitioner based approach of the functionalist perspective. This combined
perspective has found support from literature, which pertains to the unintended
consequences of functionalist cultural management programs. This body of
literature discusses the negative aspects which come from the assumption that culture
can be managed or change, but rather contends that culture may be manipulated
under specific circumstances but that there is no guarantee as to the outcomes of such
efforts (Harris & Ogbonna, 2000, 2002).
The combined approach helps support the interpretivist perspective that culture is not
a tangible variable that is open to management control, but rather a phenomena by
which to view sense making within organisations. The combined cultural
perspective body of literature informs this research study in two ways. Firstly, it
discusses culture in terms of an ever evolving phenomena which can change or be
changed under specific circumstances. This gives weight to the notion of culture as a
mediating and reviewing tool within an organisation (which will be addressed in
Section 2.5.1). Secondly, the unintended (and often negative) consequences of
attempting to actively change organisation culture give weight to the utilisation of
culture as a means to guide identity creation and management.
In the context of this study, by viewing culture as a phenomenon which functions as
a guiding force rather than an object, culture helps to play a managing role rather
than a managed one, a governing perspective rather than a governed one. As
Pettigrew (1979) contends:
“In the pursuit of our everyday tasks and objectives, it is all too easy to forget
the less rational and instrumental, the more expressive social tissue around
31
us that gives those tasks meaning. Yet in order for people to function within
any given setting, they must have a continuing sense of what that reality is all
about in order to be acted upon. Culture is the system of such publicly and
collective accepted meaning operating for a given group at a time. This
system of terms, forms, categories, and images interprets a people’s own
situation to themselves.” (Pettigrew, 1979, p. 574)
Pettigrew’s (1979) “everyday” discussion of culture informs this research by
showing that the subtle nuances of the inner workings of an organisation, which may
be simply second nature to staff, may be foreign to external stakeholders. By
understanding these everyday processes a more informed position can be
demonstrated to stakeholders about the actual brand of the organisation. These two
perspectives of organisational culture, along with the growing third combined
perspective (Ogbonna & Harris, 1998), are compared and contrasted in Table 2.2.
One thing authors can agree on is the importance of improving understanding of
organisational culture from both theoretical and practitioner perspectives.
Table 2.2: Organisational Culture Perspectives
Interpretivist
Perspective
Functionalist
Perspective
Combined
Perspective*
Grounded in: Anthropology Sociology Both Fields
Approach: Purist Pragmatist Progressive
Views culture
as:
Something an
organisation
“IS”
The organisation is a
culture
Something the
organisation “HAS”
The organisation
possesses a culture
Something the
organisation
“IS” and/or “HAS”
under certain
circumstances
Culture is
thought of:
In a broad sense of
organizing and sense
making
As an organisational
variable similar to
other business
variables
Something which is
both broad and
specific. Something
which has elements of
tangibility and
32
intangibility
Control of
culture:
Can not take place in a
way that is consciously
managed by the
organisation, rather, the
reverse is true, culture is
something that controls
the organisation. Change
occurs naturally and is
not manageable
As culture is a
variable, it is
something which can
be directly controlled
by managers in a
strategic manner.
Change is in the
hands of management
Change can not be
directly managed by
the organisation but
may be manipulated
under certain
contingencies when the
organisation is already
in a state of change or
crisis
Contribution
to this
research
study:
Culture as a phenomena
which provides a
framework of
understanding shared
meaning in organisations
Managements view
that this can be
controlled rather than
used to guide and
understand
A phenomena which
can result in negative
unintended
consequences when
attempted to be
managed
Developed by the author from various sources (Bate, 1994; Brown, 1995; Dawson, 1994;
Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Harris & Ogbonna, 2002; Hatch & Schultz, 1997; Hawkins, 1997;
Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952; Lewis, 2002; Martin, 1985; Ogbonna & Harris, 1998;
Pettigrew, 1979; Saffold, 1988; Schein, 2004; Sheldon, 1980; Smircich, 1983a, 1983b;
Young, 2000) *Developed by the author from (Martin, 1985; Ogbonna & Harris, 1998;
Smircich, 1983a).
The following section will discuss two models for conceptualising culture in
organisations that assist in contextualising this study. These models are Schein’s
“culture levels” model (Schein, 1985, 2004) and Hatch’s “cultural dynamics” model
which provide a grounding for the development of the OID model (Hatch & Schultz,
2002) that will be discussed in Section 2.5.1. The models are influenced by both the
functionalist and interpretivist perspectives (although Schein more so by the
functionalist, and Hatch more so by the interpretivist). Although distinct, both
models share a commonality of factors which they investigate. These two
approaches have contributed greatly to the body of knowledge on organisational
culture by tieing together elements of the functionalist and interpretivist perspectives
33
and help to build and justify the research questions and methodological approach of
this study.
2.4.1 Organisational Culture Levels Perspective Edgar Schein (1985, 2004) is one of the most influential and broadly cited authors in
organisational culture studies (Smircich, 1983a). Schein has made a deep
contribution to the body of knowledge of culture studies as his work introduced a
conceptual framework for analysing (and to an extent influencing) culture within
organisations. By providing this framework Schein (1985, 2004) has opened the
door to cultural concepts which were born more from the traditional anthropological
approach to culture. Schein (1985, 2004) addresses culture from the perspective that
humans have an inherent need for structural stability, consistency, and meaning,
which in a corporate environment, organisational culture provide. Moreover,
Schein’s (1985, 2004) approach examines at the ability of organisational culture as
aiding in the socialisation process new members undertake when joining a group.
Much of this work focused on the initial leaders influence over culture in the group, a
move away from Pettigrew’s (1979) “everyday” approach addressed in the preceding
section. The socialisation process enables new members to be indoctrinated into
understanding the shared meanings of the group (Schein, 2004).
Schein’s model addresses the triplet of levels which conceptualise organisational
culture. The concepts of artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and underlying
assumptions form a hierarchy of levels which outline a system for the understanding
and investigation of organisational culture. These concepts are discussed in Figure
2.4.
34
Figure 2.4: Levels of Organisational Culture
(Adapted from Schein, 1985, 2004)
Most surface level of these concepts, artifacts, is defined as the visual elements of the
organisation in its structures and processes. These include such elements as the
physical layout of the organisation, the processes in which staff relate to each other,
and how these surface level concepts are used to create shared meaning (Schein,
2004). The next level, espoused beliefs and values, relate to the way in which a
group accepts and refines the shared meanings of the group. Usually these espoused
beliefs and values are developed when founders or opinion leaders within the group
are seen by the group to have correctly addressed a problem or decision. This is then
interpreted by the group holistically and when seen to be the correct approach, is
then accepted as part of their overall shared values (Schein, 2004). The final and
deepest level of culture is underlying assumptions. As the espoused beliefs and
values become ingrained in the shared meanings of the group they develop into
underlying assumptions. At the underlying assumptions level, employees may not
even consciously know they are taking a certain course of action; it is so embedded
in their behavior that it becomes second nature to them (Schein, 2004).
35
However Schein (1985, 2004) has not been without his detractors. Some subculture
authors have been critical of Schein stating that his singular approach to culture
ignores unique and distinct subcultures within an organisation (Smircich, 1983a).
They argue that when addressing culture as a single unitary entity rather than a
variety of distinct subcultures, it oversimplifies complex systems (DiBella, 1992).
This stems from the myriad of opinions and definitions regarding what
organisational culture really is. What some authors may view as organisational
culture may only be a surface level artifact in Schein’s perspective of culture which
will have minimal impact on behavior (Ogbonna & Harris, 1998). This more surface
level abstraction of culture (for example see: Deal & Kennedy, 1982) is not a focus
of this study but moreover, an indicator into understanding the deeper values and
assumptions levels of organisational culture.
Understanding Schein’s (1985, 2004) “levels” model informs this topic in a number
of ways. By addressing organisational culture as phenomenon that is present at a
range of levels within an organisation, Schein (1985, 2004) demonstrates the
complex nature of discipline and the need to attain data that can provide rich and
deep understanding of sense making within a particular group. Although not directly
visible, organisational culture is always present and as such requires the triplet of
defined levels to be investigated. Furthermore, Schein’s approach notes that it is
difficult for outsiders to directly view and understand the deepest underlying
assumptions levels. The arrows between levels in Figure 2.2 demonstrate that each
concept is related to those next in the hierarchy and as such it is possible to
investigate the lower levels by utilising manifestation of culture from surface level
concepts (Schein, 2004). By investigating below the behavior level into an
investigation of sense making in within a group, Schein’s approach enables
researchers to better isolate elements which have shaped/been shaped by culture
rather than by other forces. The next section will discuss the further development of
Schein’s model via Hatch’s Cultural Dynamics approach (Hatch, 1993).
36
2.4.2 Organisational Culture Dynamics Perspective Following on from Schein’s model of organisational culture, organisational theorist
Mary Jo Hatch (Hatch, 1993) developed her own model of cultural development in
organisations, the Cultural Dynamics Model (Figure 2.5). Hatch combined elements
of the anthropological, social constructionist and interpretivist perspectives to
develop a dynamic, process-based view of culture. Heavily influenced by Schein,
Hatch also integrates elements of Berger and Luckmann (see Berger & Luckmann,
1966), as well as Ricoeur (see Ricoeur, 1976) in developing her position. This
position takes the view that culture is not based in levels, but rather purports that
culture is a dynamic process which cycles between the elements of assumptions,
values, artifacts, and symbols in the development of organisation (Hatch, 1993).
This approach furthered understanding in organisational culture studies by adapting
the elements of Schein’s culture levels approach which was conceptualised as a static
approach to a process based view where the linking elements of culture play as
important part as the key descriptors in the model.
Figure 2.5: Cultural Dynamics Model
(Adapted from Hatch, 1993)
37
Building on Schein (1985, 2004), Hatch focused on the concepts which link Schein’s
levels concepts (with the addition of symbols), these being manifestation, realisation,
symbolisation, and interpretation (Hatch, 1993). Each of these processes form a
cycle which can be proactive or prospective in a clockwise direction or retroactive
and retrospective in a counterclockwise direction. Hatch describes the key
distinction between her work and Schein’s work as:
“The advantage of a dynamic version of organizational culture theory lies in
the new questions it poses. Schein’s view focuses on what artifacts and
values reveal about basic assumptions. In contrast, the dynamic perspective
asks: How is culture constituted by assumptions, values, artifacts, symbols,
and the processes that link them?” (Hatch, 1993, p. 660)
By focusing on the concepts that compose culture, as opposed to the outcome of the
interaction, Hatch (1993) demonstrates the fluid nature of culture. That streams of
literature which take a hard-line functionalist or interpretivist view to the concept
ignore the fact that culture is something which evolves constantly, and by
investigating the concepts which fuel this evolution is it possible to better understand
the outcomes (Hatch, 1993; Ogbonna & Harris, 1998; Smircich, 1983a). Hatch
(1993) cites Herskovits (1948) in addressing the distinction that Schein’s model
focuses on how culture changes or can be changed, whereas her Cultural Dynamics
Model is a process based approach or which both change and stability are possible
outcomes of the same process (Hatch, 1993). This view aligns with the combined
organisational culture perspective previously outlined in Table 2.2 where culture is
an element which can be influenced and an influencer, both functional and
interpertivist under different circumstances.
2.4.3 Organisational Culture Models Summary The work of both Schein (1985, 2004) and of Hatch (1993) contribute greatly to
defining the direction which this research study will take. Both approaches note that
organisational culture is a concept which is not directly visible by outsiders, hence
there is a need to gain understanding from those within the culture itself. Moreover,
38
as organisational culture is beneath the surface of the organisation it is important to
look deeply into the processes which form meaning within the organisation (Hatch &
Schultz, 2002). As noted by Hatch (1993), the evolving nature of an organisation’s
culture means that the processes which link assumptions, values, artifacts and
symbols can result in both change or stability. By addressing the processes which
link the underlying concepts of an organisations culture, a more informed
understanding of the elements which can be influenced (functionalist) or influence
(interpretivist) the dynamic cultural process is revealed (Hatch, 1993). For these
reasons, this study will focus on understanding culture rather than attempting to
manage or change it. This study aims to gain detailed insight into the processes
which link organisational culture, identity and image and develop ways this can be
better used in the development of corporate identity programs.
2.5 Relationships Between Identity, Image and Culture
Sections 2.2 and 2.3 addressed the related concepts of identity, image and
organisational culture with regards to this study. Differing perspectives were
discussed as to the true nature of the term identity, be it VI, OI or CI. This was then
addressed in terms of the relationship of identity to image, with identity (in simplistic
terms) being sent by the organisation to stakeholders via personal and non-personal
communication, and image being interpreted and defined by receivers as a way of
defining their view of the sender. As identity is sent to stakeholders via a range of
communications messages and staff interaction with stakeholders, the multiple form
of interaction all impact on the identity/image relationship. As discussed in Section
2.4, organsiational culture forms the underlying norms of an organisation which
contribute to the ways staff interact with each other and outsiders. By understanding
the relationships which take place between identity, image and organisational culture
a holistic view of both communications initiatives and employee representation can
be undertaken.
39
As previously discussed in Section 2.4, organisational culture has been
conceptualised in literature in a number of ways. The two key models examined in
preceding section where Schein’s Levels of Culture approach (Schein, 1985, 2004)
and Hatch’s Cultural Dynamics approach (Hatch, 1993) which have informed this
research as to the ways to investigate and understand organisational culture. This
section will now address the dynamic relationship between theses concepts and
articulate a means of investigating their interactions.
A move toward a process based approach to conceptualising organisational culture
and identity recognises the evolving processes that inherently define the concept. As
previously identified, this is developed from the anthropological perspective, in that
organisational culture is a complex and detailed phenomena which is present in all
organisations and can be indirectly observed, but one which management does not
have direct control over. As lines blur between the internal and external boundaries
of the organisation, in order to understand the concepts of organisatinal culture,
identity and image, it is important to address the three in unison to understand their
interaction and influence on one another (Balmer & Gray, 1999; Balmer & Wilson,
1998; Hatch & Schultz, 1997, 2002, 2003; Wilson, 2001). For this reason, when
investigating the phenomena of identity creation and management, it is important to
note that the interactions of the linking processes between the elements which define
organisations in terms of culture, identity and image (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). By
addressing these three elements in unison it is possible to address misalignment
between
2.5.1 Organisational Identity Dynamics The central model of investigation of this study is the Hatch and Schultz (2002) OID
model (Figure 2.6). In this model, Hatch and Schultz (2002) discuss the
interrelationship of the concepts of culture, identity and image in a dynamic
framework which utilses four bridging processes of impressing, mirroring, reflecting
and expressing. The purpose of this model is to understand the processes of
interaction between the internal and external definitions of organisational identity.
40
This investigation looks at the concepts which create, maintain and change and
organisations identity by conscious and subconscious review processes (Hatch &
Schultz, 2002). This model has been discussed in terms of one preceding study (see
Dutton & Dukerich, 1991) but has had no specific empirical investigation.
Furthermore, this model, which focuses on organisational identity, has yet to be
investigated in a marketing context or at distinct organisational levels.
As with any theoretical model there are always some inherent limitations and
weaknesses. In particular this model addresses culture in terms of a holistic
understanding of an organisation and does not account for the existence of
subcultures. Furthermore, it is of note that this model does not address the concept
of reputation which is a longitudinal expression of image. Further revisions of this
model could in future address processes which over time contribute to the boarder
concepts of reputation and brand equity creation and management.
Figure 2.6: Organisational Identity Dynamics (OID)
(Hatch & Schultz, 2002)
Within the OID model culture functions as the internal conceptualisation of the
organisations self image. They view culture as a phenomenon that forms a
41
component of a continuous cycle that flows between culture, identity and image. In
the context of this model they define culture as:
“the tacit organisational understandings (e.g. assumptions, beliefs and
values) that contextualise efforts to make meaning, including internal self-
definition. Just as organisational image forms the referent for defining the
organisational ‘me’, it is with reference to organisational culture that the
organisational ‘I’ is defined.” (Hatch & Schultz, 2002, p. 996)
The ‘I’ and ‘me’ concepts within their definition addresses the internal and external
components of their model. Only by looking at the internal and external elements of
identity creation and maintenance can a true picture of the actual identity be gauged
rather than a desired identity by focusing externally on what the organisation
espouses to be (Balmer, 2007 p.16). They have developed this by utilising Mead’s
(1934) work on social identity theory and the relationship of the ‘I’ (that which is the
true nature of the person unaffected by ego or self review) and the ‘me’ (what
somebody is consciously aware of and purposefully monitors and adjusts) (Mead,
1934). Hatch and Schultz (2002) cite Jenkins (1996) in their justification for
expanding Mead’s theory from an individual level to an organisational level. They
state that at both individual and organisational levels there is a constant process of
self-definition, reflection and review that takes place in the constant identity
refinement process. Understanding from the individual employee perspective as well
as across different groups within an organisation aims to investigate the relationships
between the internal organisational and its external stakeholders. Furthermore, as
with the notion of organisational culture and socilisation, employees as a group make
decisions based not only on their individual perception, but also on the perspective of
the group holistically. In this sense the role of employees is of significant
importance as not only do employees represent the identity of the organisation and
impact the image developed by stakeholders, employees also undergo self-definition
and reflection both on an individual basis and as members of work teams. Therefore,
the OID approach aims to address the tacit understandings of elements such as
beliefs, values, and assumptions to understand the interaction of the linking
processes of impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing.
42
This process takes place subconsciously at the ‘I’ level and consciously at the “me”
level (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). Mead’s (1934) concepts of ‘I’ and ‘me’ align very
well with the OID model in that culture is represented by the ‘I’ to represent the
actual view of organisational self and the interaction of identity and image are
represented by the ‘me’ in the way in which the two interact to present a desired
view of self. Hatch and Schultz (2002) articulate this in the statement:
“Identity is the immediate result of conversation between organisational
(cultural) self-expressions and mirrored stakeholder images, recognizing,
however, that whatever is claimed by members or other stakeholders about
an organisational identity will soon be taken up by processes of impressing
and reflecting which feed back into further mirroring and expressing
processes. This is how organisational identity is continually created,
sustained and changed.” (Hatch & Schultz, 2002, p. 1004)
The processes that develop an organisational external definition of self, the ‘me’, are
based on the interaction of identity and image as shown in Figure 2.7. The first
external process takes place via impressing. Impressing is the process where the
identity leaves impressions on the organisations stakeholders (Hatch & Schultz,
2002). These impressions are developed with external stakeholders in mind.
Impressing is discussed in Section 2.5.2. The second external process takes place via
mirroring. Mirroring is the process by which identity is mirrored by the views of
organisational stakeholders and in turn gives those internal to the organisation a
means of seeing their actual identity from an external perspective. Mirroring will be
discussed in Section 2.5.3.
43
Figure 2.7: External Organisational ‘Me’ Processes
(Adapted from Hatch & Schultz, 2002)
The processes which develop an organisational internal definition of self, the ‘I’, are
based on the interaction of culture and identity (Figure 2.8). The first internal
process takes place via reflecting. Reflecting occurs when the identity is entrenched
in to cultural understandings. Communication elements that were once developed
for external stakeholders have come to be thought of as group norms and underlying
assumptions of the organisation. Reflecting will be discussed in Section 2.5.4. The
second internal process takes place via expressing. Expressing is the process by
which culture communicates itself through identity. In this process the culture of the
internal organisation is expressed in to outward stakeholders via identity. Expressing
will be discussed in Section 2.5.5.
44
Figure 2.8: Internal Organisational ‘I’ Processes
(adapted from Hatch & Schultz, 2002)
By addressing these four processes it is proposed that it is possible to gain an
improved understanding into the elements which link an organisation’s internal
identity with those forces external to the organisation that impact the actual identity.
It is suggested that this understanding would enable an organisation to implement
strategy to help narrow the gap between the espoused and actual identity. By
grounding communication in organisational culture, it is contended that organisations
can more efficiently communicate the actual identity of the organisation rather than
the espoused. To understand the OID process at distinct levels and workgroups
within an organisation the overarching research question of this study is:
How does the organisational identity dynamics process manifest itself in
practice at different levels within an organisation?
This study serves to address the distinct gaps in identity literature which deals with
organisational identity processes and the understanding on how processes are
manifested within workgroup at particular organsiational levels. This investigation
will empirically investigate the theoretical OID model. This theoretical model was
45
developed by Hatch and Schultz (2002) as a way of explaining the dynamic
processes which take place between the concepts of culture, identity and image.
Their work was built largely from the empirical studies of Mead (1934) and Dutton
and Dukerich (1991) with no direct investigation in a specific empirical study
focusing on linking processes of OID. This study aims to addresses this literature
gap by specifically examining the processes of impressing, mirroring, refecting, and
expressing to gain a more detailed understanding of the ways in which they manifest
and are understood by organisational members.
Supporting the study of this research gap, this study will address the understanding
of the specific processes of the model at distinct organisational levels and groups
giving a more detailed picture of identity creation and management in organisations.
This investigation will focus on how these processes present themselves, as well as
the understanding employees possess of the interaction of culture, identity, and
image. This gap addresses a key contention of Hatch and Schultz (1997) who
describe the critical issue of the breakdown of internal and external boundaries and
the ever increasing role employees at all levels play with regard to stakeholder
interaction for an identity. Furthermore, this breakdown of boundaries is of
particular importance to the reflexive nature of image in which employees constantly
mediate their own perspective of identity against that of other organisational
stakeholders. Once the sole role of communications departments, this interactive
process of identity and image now takes place at multiple layers throughout
organisations (Hatch & Schultz, 1997, 2002). This study will empirically investigate
identity processes across three distinct groups as a means of furthering literature on
how identity is created and understood not only within communications groups but
across multiple organisational members.
Furthermore supporting the empirical investigation of OID processes, as addressed in
Section 2.2, identity is created through the interaction of VI, CI, and OI which all
serve distinct roles in the communication of identity to stakeholder. Prior study by
Hatch and Schultz (2002) focused more so on an OI perspective of culture as evident
in their discussion of mirroring/reflecting as the first OID relationship, followed by
46
expressing/impressing as the second. For an investigation focusing the creation and
management of identity from a communications perspective, on all three identity
concepts of VI, CI, and OI, it is proposed that making impressing/mirroring an
explicit external based processes, and reflecting/expressing and implicit internal
based process will better address the relations between the four concepts from a
communications perspective.
The following sections will address the four processes of impressing, mirroring,
reflecting and expressing and detail the current understanding each plays in the
development and management of identity.
2.5.2 Impressing: Identity to Image The first “me” process as addressed by Hatch and Schultz (2002) is that of
impressing. The impressing process takes place when expressed identity leaves
impressions on stakeholders (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). Impressing takes place
between identity and image and can be seen in Figure 2.9.
Figure 2.9: Impressing Processes
(Adapted from Hatch & Schultz, 2002)
The process of impressing can be thought of in terms of traditional marketing
approaches to communication. This encompasses the myriad of organisational
47
messages sent via marketing, advertising, public relations, and other communication
tools. Impressing involves the deliberate sending of messages using visual identity
and corporate identity programs (discussed in Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2), along with
unintentional interaction through employee representation via organisational identity
(discussed in Section 2.2.3) (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). As Hatch and Schultz (2002)
note: “Organizational efforts to impress others are tempered by the impression
those others take from outside sources.” (Hatch & Schultz, 2002, p. 1003)
This combination of deliberate and unintentional interaction is a contributing factor
in identity/image misalignment due to the possibility of mixed messages between
planned marketing communication and word-of-mouth employee representation
(Rindova & Fombrun, 1998, in Hatch & Schultz, 2002). A foundation for employee
representation can be found in organisational culture. Numerous authors have noted
the important role organisational culture plays in how employees represent their
organisations corporate identity (Balmer, 2001a; Fombrun & Van Reil, 1997; Gioia,
Schultz, & Corley, 2000; Hatch & Schultz, 1997, 2000; Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005;
Kowalczyk & Pawlish, 2002; Wasmer & Bruner, 1991; Wilson, 2001).
When investigating impressing processes there is a need to explore the distinction
between how the organsiation represents the identity at a corporate level and how
employees of the organisation represent the identity in a one-to-one stakeholder
interaction level. In this sense it is possible to investigate the distinction between the
desired identity and the actual identity which develop into the organisations image as
defined by stakeholder groups (Balmer, 2007). The scope of this study will focus on
how employees view and understand corporate identity messages and how this in
turn contributes to the identity impressing on the image development process (Hatch
& Schultz, 2002). To gain understanding of this process it is important to address
the identity understanding of employees on a corporate and a stakeholder relations
level. This will be addressed by asking questions which relate to; their
understanding of the corporate and visual identity programs of the organisation, their
view on which stakeholder groups these programs are intended for, their
representation of the identity when directly dealing with stakeholders, and if they can
48
self-identify instances when they represent the brand in a manner which is
contradictory or dissimilar from identity programs. This presents the first specific
research question of this study:
RQ1: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics impressing process
(identity/image) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups?
Specific to RQ1, Table 2.3 below addresses the catorgisation of impressing for this
research study.
Table 2.3: Impressing Categorised
Impressing is the deliberate and explicit projection of identity onto others.
Organisational members are aware of impressing taking place as this is
represented in the “me” side of Mead (1934) model.
Impressing consists of the projection of VI, CI, and OI elements to
organisational others.
OI elements play an influencing role on identity as they impact the way in
which employee representation differs from VI and CI communication
elements.
Employees levels are expected to understand and enact OI in different ways
and as such lead to impressing processes functioning in different ways.
This study contends that impressing processes are the explicit mechanism of identity
that send communications from the organisation to its stakeholders. These
mechanisms include elements of VI, CI, and OI. As this study focuses on all three
elements of identity communications, impressing processes are contended to be the
most deliberate and managed communications element in the OID process as
addressed by the “me” side of the OID model (Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Mead, 1934).
They contend employees are aware of actions of impressing and are actively
involved. Hatch and Schultz (2002: citing Rindova and Fombrun) discuss the
49
interaction of intentional (mostly VI and CI) and unintentional (mostly OI) as the
elements which form the communicated message to stakeholders. This study will
address impressing processes by focusing on elements of how employees view the
communicated identity, how they view the representativeness of identity strategy,
how they represent the identity of the organisation, and do different employee levels
represent VI, CI, and OI in distinct ways. These four elements form the basis of the
criteria developed for thermatic analysis of impressing processes as addressed in
Section 4.3
2.5.3 Mirroring: Image to Identity The second “me” process as addressed by Hatch and Schultz (2002) is that of
mirroring. The mirroring process takes place when identity represents the images of
others to those inside the organisation. The key principal of mirroring is that the
image that is seen by organisational insiders is a distorted version of the impressed
identity the company has been sent to stakeholders via communications be they VI
and CI or employee driven OI processes. As these elements are seen by insiders they
interrupt the previous impressed approach of the organisation. Mirroring takes place
between image and identity and can be seen below in Figure 2.10.
Figure 2.10: Mirroring Processes
(adapted from Hatch & Schultz, 2002)
The review-based function of image was noted in Section 2.2.3 of this chapter when
discussing its ability to form an external benchmark against which to compare
50
identity and identify discrepancies. Authors Gioia, Schultz and Corley (2000)
illustrated the ability of image to function as a means for organisational insiders to
gauge the actual thoughts of external stakeholders. Furthermore, they went on to
note the reflexive nature of the image/identity relationship and the destabilising
nature image can have on organisational identity (Gioia et al., 2000). Hatch and
Schultz (2000) cite the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Dutton &
Dukerich, 1991) case study in discussing the effect which external image place on
the internal workings of the organisations. Dutton and Dukerich (1991) addressed
this in terms of how employees use image as a form of self examination and how this
can lead to the adjustment of identity. Furthermore, Dutton and Dukerich (1991)
described how employees advocated a corporate social responsibility approach to
helping the homeless of New York and New Jersey in response to negative
stakeholder views of the organisation resulting from homeless occupying their
transport depot locations. In this case, although not directly responsible for the issue,
the organisation changed their approach to the problem as a result of pressure from
employees (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). That particular instance presented a real
world example where an organisation had adjusted its approach based on impacts
what the OID model defines as mirroring processes.
In addition to the process of mirroring of identity via external image, Hatch and
Schultz (2002) cite the breaking down of organisational internal/external boundaries
leading to the possibility of the stakeholder’s own image directly influencing the
organisations identity. Combining these two approaches, it is purported that
mirroring can impact identity both via filtering of external messages of stakeholders
by employees and through direct influence from external stakeholders (Hatch &
Schultz, 2002). In understanding these processes it is important to address the level
of interaction and influence external stakeholders have over internal stakeholder
groups. Furthermore, it is important to address the relationships between employees
and stakeholders to help understanding the ability of particular stakeholder groups to
exert influence over internal employees, and in turn their representation of
organisational identity. This presents the second specific research question of this
study:
51
RQ2: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics mirroring processes
(image/identity) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups?
Specific to RQ2, Table 2.4 below addresses the catorgisation of mirroring process for
this research study.
Table 2.4: Mirroring Categorised
Mirroring is the deliberate and explicit reflection of identity as interpreted by
others in the form of image.
Organisational members are aware of mirroring taking place as this is
represented in the “me” side of Mead (1934) model.
Mirroring consists of the insight organisational members gain by viewing
image and reinterpreting VI, CI, and OI elements as a result.
OI elements are influenced by the interaction of employee identity
representation with the refection of external manifestation of image.
Employee levels are expected to understand and enact OI in different ways
and as such the impact of mirroring from image is expected to reveal distinct
themes across distinct organisational levels.
This study contends that as with mirroring processes are the explicit mechanism
whereby members of the organisation adjust identity representation as a result of
interaction with stakeholder groups. Mirroring processes come as a result of the
development of image from the perspective of external stakeholders (built off the
impressing of VI, CI, and OI) then sent back to organisational members. Mirroring
is of key importance as it becomes an area of influence over the identity process as it
impacts staff perception and representation of identity. Hatch and Schulz (2002)
discuss mirroring in terms of the “me” side of the Mead (1934) model in which
employees are actively aware of what is happening during mirroring and will adjust
their identity representation accordingly. This study contends that the ways in which
mirroring processes manifest themselves will vary between different employee levels
as well as the impact mirroring has on the identity creation and management process.
52
This study will address mirroring processes across the three levels by investigating
distinctions in stakeholder importance, representation of identity in stakeholder
interaction, and instances of adjustment of representation as a result of mirroring
processes. These three elements form the basis for the criteria developed for
thematic analysis of mirroring process as addressed in Section 4.4.
2.5.4 Reflecting: Identity to Culture The first “I” process as addressed by Hatch and Schultz (2002) is that of reflecting.
As discussed in section 2.5.1, “I” processes, as related to an organisation, are those
underlying elements of behavior which organisational members are not aware of and
do not necessarily do consciously (Mead, 1934). “I” processes expanded to context
of a company align with the underlying values and assumptions are developed over
time in a companies organisational culture (Hatch, 1993; Jenkins, 1996; Schein,
1985, 2004). The reflecting process takes place via the embedding of identity in a
companies organisational culture (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). Reflecting, in the context
of identity to culture, is a concept which was previously unexplored in literature prior
to Hatch and Schultz (2002) and is an area in need of more empirical work (Hatch &
Schultz, 2002). The reflecting process takes place between identity and culture and
can be seen below in Figure 2.11.
Figure 2.11: Reflecting Processes
(adapted from Hatch & Schultz, 2002)
53
In the Dutton and Dukerich (1991) case, members of the organisation did not simply
accept the image of those external to the organisation but rather set out to actively
adjust the views of those who looked negatively on the Port Authority (Dutton &
Dukerich, 1991). Hatch and Schultz (2002) contend that organisational culture was a
reference point against which the members of the Port Authority used to address the
views of external stakeholders and compare them against the underlying values and
assumptions of members of the organisational culture (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). By
utilising organisational culture as a form of sustaining self-definition, staff members
viewed the external stakeholder views as a threat to the image of the organisation,
but moreover as a blow to the very fabric of the organisation as defined by its
organisational culture (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). As image messages are mirrored
and reflected against the underlying culture of the organisation, the outcome results
in change or acceptance of the new message which can impact at the espoused
beliefs level of the culture (Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Schein, 1985, 2004).
There are two manifestations of reflection processes as identified by Hatch and
Schultz (2002). Firstly, they contend that identity mechanisms, such as corporate
identity programs designed for external stakeholder groups, are also experienced by
internal employee stakeholder and are filtered down into the lower levels of culture
(Hatch & Schultz, 2002). This process takes elements which although initially
external and surface level, and drives them into the underlying assumptions of the
organisation which aligns with the functionalist organisational culture research
approach (addressed in Section 2.4). Secondly, Hatch and Schultz (2002) discuss
reflection in terms of the way in which employees’ represent the brand when
interacting with stakeholders. They assert that cultural meaning is attached to
employee representation, and as such, expression drives identity into the underlying
values and representations of the organisation. This in turn filters through into the
ways in which employees represent the identity of the organisation both internally
and externally (Hatch & Schultz, 2002).
When researching reflecting processes, the main aim is to understand the ways in
which elements of identity are driven into the underlying cultural elements of the
organisation. Specifically, it is important to address and understand the ways
54
employees represent identity in interactions with stakeholders, as well as employee
perception of gaps between sent identity, stakeholder image, and a comparison of the
two against underlying organisational values. This presents the third specific
research question of this study:
RQ3: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics reflecting processes
(identity/culture) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups?
Specific to RQ3, Table 2.5 below addresses the catorgisation of reflecting process for
this research study.
Table 2.5: Reflecting Catagorised
Reflecting is the tacit and underlying embedding of identity into cultural
understanding.
Organisational members are not actively aware of reflecting taking place as
this is represented in the “I” side of Mead (1934) model.
Reflecting consists of elements of VI, CI, and OI becoming part of the
artifacts, underlying assumptions, and beliefs of and organisation.
This reflexive process of identity elements being driven into the culture is
contented to be a powerful indicator of elements which organisational
members view as central to the ethos of the organisation.
Employee levels are expected to undertake and understand reflecting in
different ways with varying degrees of importance based on some issues with
key underlying elements present among all levels.
This study contends that reflecting processes are implicit and as such are those that
respondents are not consciously aware of at the time. In this sense, reflecting
processes act as a link between identity and culture in the process whereby
employees make sense of the organisation by referencing cultural cues such as
artifacts, beliefs, and underlying assumptions. Reflecting processes take place on the
55
“I” side of the Mead (1934) approach and as such are investigated by employees
recounting different identity elements they have compared against culture. To
investigate reflecting processes across the three levels this study investigates the way
respondents describe culture, mechanisms of reflecting processes within the
organisation, and identity communication elements respondents view as being
integrated into the artifacts, beliefs, and underlying assumptions of the organisation.
These three elements serve as the basis of the criteria developed for thematic analysis
of reflecting processes discussed in Section 4.5.
2.5.5 Expressing: Culture to Identity The second “I” process as addressed by Hatch and Schultz (2002) is that of
expressing. Both reflecting and expressing form the underlying “I” portion of the
OID framework which is not directly observable to organisational outsiders (Hatch
& Schultz, 2002). Expressing is where the underlying tacit cultural elements and
understandings of the organisation are communicated through identity. Expressing,
as with reflecting, is a concept which was previously unexplored in literature and is
an area requiring more empirical work (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). The expressing
process takes place between culture and identity and can be seen below in Figure
2.12.
Figure 2.12: Expressing Processes
(adapted from Hatch & Schultz, 2002)
56
The concept of expressing is a key concept in explaining how and why employees
represent a brand in a certain way. Expressing is built from the underlying values
and assumptions which the employees have been conditioned to during socialisation
in their organisations culture (Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Schein, 1985, 2004). Hatch
and Schultz (2002) contend that cultural self-expression is apparent when
organisational members discuss identity in collective terms which are built off the
underlying values of the organisation. This concept is related to that of the “actual
identity” discussed in the image section of this chapter, Section 2.3.2 (Balmer,
2001a). Employees have an opportunity to build lasting and beneficial relationships
for an organisation with its stakeholders via personal communication. As this
communication is built from the underlying values and assumptions of the
organisation, Hatch and Schultz (2002) contend that expressing cultural
understandings via identity helps demonstrate the unique attributes of the
organisation, and can be proposed that in turn this approach would help build a
favorable brand position. Thus, communication is built from how they perceive and
construct identity in relation to culture, as discussed in Section 2.5.4 reflecting, as
well as how they utilise cultural understandings and articulate these underlying
messages via expressions in identity (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). As Hatch and Schultz
(2002) note:
“This connection to deeper patterns of organisational meaning is what gives
cultural explication of assumptions in artifacts their power to communicate
believably about identity” (Hatch & Schultz, 2002, p. 1002)
When investigating expressing processes, it is important to discuss how employees
view and understand the organisations culture. Furthermore, what elements of the
underlying values and assumptions do they represent to external stakeholders? Also,
are there any elements of the organisational culture which they attempt to conceal
from outsiders? Researching culture can be problematic from an outsiders
perspective which is why it is important to gain deep, rich qualitative data from the
experiences of organisational insiders as a means of understanding complex
phenomena (Yin, 2003). As Schein (1985, 2004) contends, by assessing the upper
levels of culture the lower more underlying levels can reveal themselves (Schein,
57
1985, 2004). This presents the fourth and final specific research question of this
study:
RQ4: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics expressing processes
(culture/identity) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups.
The key elements of investigation to address RQ4 expressing processes as
categorised by this study is discussed in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6: Expressing Categorised
Expressing is the tacit and underlying conveying of cultural elements in an
organisations identity.
Organisational members are not actively aware of expressing taking place as
this is represented in the “I” side of Mead (1934) model.
Expressing consists of elements of the artifacts, underlying assumptions, and
beliefs of an organisation becoming ingrained into VI, CI, and OI
manifestations in identity.
This process aims to encompass cultural underpinnings as a basis for identity
strategy and communication across the VI, CI, and OI identity triplet.
Employee levels are expected to undertake expressing processes in differing
ways and place importance on issue specific to their level.
This study contends that expressing processes serve as an implicit way of grounding
identity communication in the underlying cultural elements of the organisation. In
this sense, the artifacts, values and underlying assumptions of the organisation
manifest themselves in identity. This represents an “I” process in terms of the Mead
(1934) approach as the tacit elements of a culture represent themselves in terms of
identity. Hatch and Schultz (2002) note that when these symbolic cultural elements
are incorporated into culture they serve as a means of articulating the uniqueness of
the identity of an organisation. This study will address expressing investigating
58
across the three levels the aspects employees view as central and enduring to the
culture, their perspective regarding the organisations understanding and
responsivness to culture, and the manifestation and improvement of culture to
identity transfer within the organisation. These three elements for the basis of the
criteria of thematic analysis of expressing processes as addressed in Section 4.6.
2.6 Research Questions
As discussed in previously, the concepts of culture, identity, and image are
intrinsically connected (Hatch & Schultz, 1997). The discussion in Chapter Two –
Literature Review has outlined the current academic literature on the concepts and
led into discussion of the OID model (Hatch & Schultz, 2002) as a theoretical means
of explaining the fundamental linkages between these concepts. The current gap in
this understanding has been identified as the lack of empirical data to support the
relationships presented in the OID model, specifically the lack of an explicit research
study to explore these concepts empirically.
This research study contends to address this gap in empirical knowledge with the
following two research objectives:
To explore the OID model empirically and across different levels and
workgroups within suitable research site.
To explore the occurrence of the specific OID processes of impressing,
mirroring, reflecting, and expressing from the perspective of employees.
To fulfill the first objective in understanding the OID process at distinct levels and
workgroups within an organisation the overarching research question of this study is:
How does the organisational identity dynamics process manifest itself in
practice at different levels within an organisation?
59
By addressing this overarching research question understanding will be furthered
into the literature on the interaction of culture, identity, and image. Furthermore,
empirical data specific to the OID model will be made available and will address
how the process manifests itself at across an organisation at different levels and
groups. The distinct groups for study will be addressed in Chapter Three -
Methodology, specifically Section 3.5.3 where sample justification and detail will be
provided. Results specific to this overarching research question will be provided in
Chapter Four – Findings.
Building on the overarching research question and focusing down to the second
objective of this study, four specific research questions are posed to address the four
OID processes as developed by Hatch and Schultz (2002). These specific processes
of impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing make up the OID model and will
be addressed individually. The specific research questions to address the
components of the OID model are:
RQ1: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics impressing process
(identity/image) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups?
RQ2: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics mirroring processes
(image/identity) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups?
RQ3: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics reflecting processes
(identity/culture) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups?
RQ4: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics expressing processes
(culture/identity) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups?
60
As with the overarching research question, by addressing the research at different
organisational levels, empirical data can be revealed to further understanding into the
ways in which employees represent OID processes in practice as well as their
understanding of the interaction of culture, identity, and image. Results specific to
this research question will be provided in Chapter Four – Findings.
2.7 Conclusion
Chapter Two – Literature Review has outlined literature relevant to understanding of
the process of identity creation and management. The concepts of identity, image,
and organisational culture have been discussed in terms of their individual properties
as well as their interaction leading to the concept of organisational identity dynamics.
The Hatch and Schultz (2002) OID model discusses the three elements of identity,
image, and culture as a process in which each element can have some level of
influence over the others. This process is not simple a one-way sender/receiver
approach but a cyclical process which occurs regardless of management efforts to
curb it. The outcome is an identity construct that is ever evolving and co-created by
a number of social actors. The four linking processes were defined as impressing,
mirroring, reflecting, and expressing (Hatch & Schultz, 2002) each with its unique
linking process impact between the elements of culture, identity, and image. By
addressing these four linking processes it will be possible to understand the way in
which identity, image, and organisational culture interact leading to a more informed
understanding of the identity creation and management process.
The following chapter, Chapter Three - Methodology will present the research design
and methodology for this research study. It will discuss the research problem in the
context of the case, as well as discussing elements of data collection, analysis and
limitations of the chosen approach. Ethical considerations will also be addressed in
this section. Chapter Two – Literature Review and Chapter Three – Methodology
combine to provide the context by which to analyse the data in relation to the
research problem of this study.
61
Chapter Three – Methodology
62
3.1 Introduction
Previously, Chapter Two – Literature Review provided a literature review that
outlined the context of the parent literatures of this study. In this literature review,
the concepts of identity, image, and organisational culture were discussed and
refined to provide the context in which this study’s research questions are grounded.
This discussion led to the presentation of the OID (Hatch & Schultz, 2002) model as
a basis for studying the interlinked phenomena of identity, image, and organisational
culture. From this was developed the specific overriding research question: How
does the Organisational Identity Dynamics process manifest itself in practice at
different levels within an organisation? This overarching research question was
narrowed to address the four key constructs of the OID model. Four key research
questions were identified coving the linking processes of impressing, mirroring,
reflecting, and expressing (Hatch & Schultz, 2002).
Chapter Three - Methodology will outline and justify the methodological approach
of this research study. Corbin and Strauss (2008) define methodology as “a way of
thinking about and studying social phenomena” (Corbin & Strauss, 2008, p. 1). In
addition, it will address issues of research design, data collection, validity criteria,
and research limitations. Section 3.2 Research Paradigm, will address the social
science research paradigm this research utilises. This research will utilise a
constructivist-interpretivist approach as it provides a best fit with the cross discipline
nature of identity research, which incorporates elements of marketing, management,
and anthropology as outlined in Chapter Two – Literature Review. Section 3.3
Qualitative Research, will outline the case study approach which was selected as it
provides a way of gaining rich and detailed data on specific phenomena in their
natural setting (Yin, 2003). Section 3.4 Research Design will lead into and justify
the chosen approach of this study. Subsequently, Section 3.5 Data Collection will
discuss the data collection tool, in depth interviews, focusing on the justification of
this data collection approach and details as to the specific way in which it was used.
Furthermore, Section 3.5 will outline the sampling method used to select interview
respondents, as well as the protocol for data management. Section 3.6 Data Analysis
will outline and discuss the coding of collected data against specific criteria
63
developed from literature. Section 3.7 Validity Criteria focuses on the approach used
to make certain that data gathered is accurate and appropriate to the specific research
questions of this study. Section 3.8 Ethical Considerations, will outline the ethical
protocols which this research has adhered to. Section 3.9 Limitations/Delimitations,
will discuss the ways in which the research bias of this study have been identified
and minimised. Finally, Section 3.10 Conclusions will summarise this chapter in the
context of the overall study and provide direction for the following Chapter Four -
Findings.
The eight sections of Chapter Three - Methodology are represented graphically in
Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Methodology Chapter Sections
Chapter One: Introduction 3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Paradigm
3.3 Qualitative Research
3.4 Research Design
3.5 Data Collection
3.6 Data Analysis
3.7 Validity Criteria
3.8 Ethical Considerations
3.9 Methodological Limitations
3.10 Conclusion
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter Five: Conclusions
64
3.2 Research Paradigm
Healy and Perry (see Table 3.1) group the four broad research paradigms under the
headings of positivism, realism, critical theory, and constructivism (Healy & Perry,
2000). Although there are numerous research paradigms, Healy and Perry (2000)
posit that these are the most widely used in the field business marketing studies
(Healy & Perry, 2000). Furthermore, Healy and Perry (2000) compare and contrast
these unique research approaches against ontology: “the ‘reality’ that researchers
investigate” (Healy & Perry, 2000, p. 119) or simply put, the assumptions we make
about the world (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), and epistemology: “the relationship
between that reality and the researcher” (Healy & Perry, 2000, p. 119). By
understanding ontology and epistemology, it is possible to best fit the nature of the
research questions asked to the appropriate method of enquiry by which to
investigate the issues at hand (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). When combining the
elements of ontology, epistemology, and methodology, this functions as a framework
by which to guide the actions and decisions of the researcher (Denzin & Lincoln,
2005).
Table 3.1: Comparison of Social Science Research Paradigms
Paradigm Ontology Epistemology Methodology
Positivism Naïve Realism:
Reality is the
empirical world. The
world of the senses,
rejection of the
abstract
Objective:
The
correspondence
between statements
and reality through
inductive
verification of via
deductive
falsification
Quantitative:
Experiments
Surveys
Realism (Post-
Positivism)
Critical Realism:
Subjective:
Mixed Methods:
65
Reality is imperfectly
apprehendible
Dependent on
practical
consequences
Case Studies
Structural Equation
Modeling
Constructivism
(Interpretivism)
Realitivism:
Reality exists
independent of our
cognition. There is
no basis to reject the
metaphysical
Subjectivist:
There is no
predetermined
methodology or
criteria to just the
authenticity of our
knowledge
Qualitative:
Hermeneutical /
Dialectical
Grounded Theory
Case Study
Critical Theory Historical Realism:
Reality is a socially
constructed construct
Subjective:
No set approach
due to the range of
discourses
Qualitative:
Dialogic /
Dialectical
(Adapted from Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Healy & Perry, 2000)
This exploratory research study adopted the constructivist-interpretivist paradigm,
which views knowledge as constructed and subjective, for a number of reasons
(Schawndt in Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Firstly, due to the exploratory nature of this
study, it was essential to utilise an approach that would focus on revealing the
underlying social understandings of a particular group (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).
Exploratory research is recommended when a limited amount of empirical studies
have addressed the topic at hand (Babbie, 2001). Constructivism takes the approach
that realities are constructed via social interaction and the meaning making which
comes from this interface and that from this develops a local and specific reality
(Guba & Lincoln, 2005). This reality is developed from a particular set of beliefs or
norms which are held as true in that particular context (Healy & Perry, 2000). When
looking at the elements of organisational culture and its representation through
identity, the constructivist-interpretivist approach gives the researcher scope to
understand the relationship from the perspective of the employee, at a particular level
66
within the organisation. Furthermore this approach aims to delve deeper, past simply
the text of what is reported, into the underlying meaning of the employee and from
this how they ultimately represent the organisations identity (N. King, 2005). By
employing a constructivist-interpretivist approach, this research design is better
equipped to address this study’s research questions than via a positivist, critical
theory, or realism approach.
3.3 Qualitative Research
A qualitative research approach is used when research questions are investigating
phenomena that require deep description and understanding (Zikmund, 2003). In
comparison to a quantitative approach, qualitative research involves gaining detailed
information about a small sample, as opposed to gaining limited information across a
wider sample (Veal, 2005). As sample sizes are smaller, this creates a key issue that
qualitative approaches need to consider. Generalisability (representativeness) is
essentially how your research findings can be applied to a population. However in
terms of qualitative research (particularly case study research) statistical
generalisability is a moot point. A case study with the purpose of making analytical
generalisations (to explore and expand relevant theory) is as valid as a need for
statistical generalisation commonly sought in a quantitative approach depending on
the purpose of the research (Yin, 2003).
Johnson and Onweugebuzie (2004) discuss the relative weaknesses and strengths of
qualitative research. Principally, qualitative research is useful or describing complex
phenomena, including dynamic processes. This is further supported by data which is
based on the participants’ own categories of meaning, which is particularly relevant
when trying to understand the underlying elements of an organisation’s culture as an
outsider (Pettigrew, 1979). Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) further present a
number of qualitative research strengths in the context of a case study approach. Not
only can qualitative research provide individual case information, but can allow for
the study of a limited number of cases in depth. This applies particularly to this
67
research as it is conducted in the context of a single case study (Yin, 2003). Further,
qualitative approaches facilitate cross-case analysis and comparison, and can use
important cases to demonstrate vividly a phenomenon to outside readers. These
strengths of qualitative research in case studies reflect a wider advantage of such
approaches, which provide greater scope for the inclusion of contextual components.
It allows the researcher to identify the contextual and setting factors as they relate to
the phenomena studied, and report data in the same terms (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005).
3.4 Research Design
The research design functions as a means of addressing the nature of the questions
investigated by the researcher as well as outlining the ways in which empirical data
will be gathered (Stake, 2005). The aim of the research design is to act as a research
master plan by describing the ways in which the research investigates, analyses,
reports, and provides validity to the chosen topic of study (Stake, 2005; Zikmund,
2003). Yin (2003) notes, “A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomena within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries
between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 2003, p. 13). As
this study investigates the interplay between organisational culture, identity, and
image, an exploratory case study approach is utilised. The case study approach
enables the researcher to investigate ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions of a phenomena in
its natural setting, where researcher’s control over events is not required (Eisenhardt,
2002; Yin, 2003).
3.4.1 Case Study Approach Justification Yin (2003) proposes three factors for the selection of an appropriate research
strategy: “(a) the type of research question posed, (b) the extent of control an
investigator has over actual behavioural events, and (c) the degree of focus on
contemporary as opposed to historical events” (Yin, 2003, p. 5). Through these
three conditions it is possible to select a methodological approach which achieves
68
best fit with the research objectives. Table 3.2 charts the appropriateness off
different research designs against these three criteria (Yin, 2003, p. 5).
Table 3.2: Types of Case Study Designs
Strategy Form of Research
Questions
Requires Control of
Behavioural Events?
Focuses on
Contemporary Events
Experiment how, why? yes yes
Survey who, what, where,
how many, how
much?
no yes
Archival
Analysis
who, what, where,
how many, how
much?
no yes/no
History how, why?
no no
Case Study how, why?
no yes
(Yin, 2003, p. 5)
Yin (2003) views the case study approach as a comprehensive research strategy
rather than a singular approach and states “the case study as a research strategy
comprises an all encompassing method – covering the logic of design, data
collection techniques, and specific approaches to data analysis” (Yin, 2003, p.14).
In the case approach the unit of analysis, the case, defines the study rather than the
individual data collection tools (Stake, 2005). From Table 3.1, it can be seen that the
case study research approach is valid when “how” and “why” questions are central to
the research with the main focus being on contemporary events over which the
69
research has no control (Yin, 2003, p. 5). Case study research is a useful approach
for the understanding of a phenomena as it occurs and can lead to the generation of
theories for further empirical testing (Cavana et al., 2001). In the case of this
research, a case study approach provided the best fit for addressing the interaction of
identity and culture as a contemporary phenomena in the environment in which OID
processes take place. By addressing identity and culture in their natural
environment, it enabled the research to gain contextually rich data which can inform
knowledge on the topic. This is echoed by Patton (1990), who states that case study
research is appropriate where:
“One needs to understand some special people, particular problem, or
unique situation in great depth, and where one can identify cases rich in
information: rich in the sense that a great deal can be learned from a few
exemplars of the phenomenon in question” (Patton, 1990, p. 54)
As this study investigated a contemporary phenomena which looked at how
participants represented and understood elements of culture, identity, and image, a
case study approach enabled understanding and communication of the experiences of
the actors and stakeholders within the case (Stake, 2005). The scope of this research
study, takes an instrumental case approach (Stake, 2005) in which the case plays a
supporting role and helps to facilitate understanding of the interrelated phenomena of
culture, identity, and image. As Stake (2005) purports, “the case is still looked at in
depth, its contexts scrutinized and its ordinary activities detailed … this helps us
peruse the external interest” (Stake, 2005, p. 445). By reviewing organisational
members at differing levels of marketing strategy control, it was possible to look at
the unique ways in which employees’ understand and interpret communication
messages as well as the role this played in their own representation of the
organisation. In this respect, the case study approach fulfills both the overarching
research question as well as the four specific research questions regarding OID
processes. With little prior research in this area, the exploratory single case approach
with distinct employee groups and levels enables rich data to be gathered on a
complex and evolving phenomena. This case study approach is highlighted in Figure
3.2 as a single embedded approach.
70
Figure 3.2: Types of Case Study Designs
Single Case Designs Multiple Case Designs
Holistic Approach
(Single unit of analysis)
Embedded Approach
(Multiple units of
analysis)
(Yin, 2003 p.40)
3.4.2 Case Study Site Selection A representative case is one in which the case study site contains no unique or
special attributes needed in the research design (Yin, 2003, p. 41). ACORP is an
organisation which fits the criteria of a representative case and contains no overtly
distinct factors which would make it a unique case. ACORP has an established
brand which has been developed over time to represent best practice in the utility
marketplace. The organsiation had previously experienced a crisis that was a
catalyst for a rebrand, which incorporated an organisational values system into new
identity messages. Furthermore, the organisation had a specific communications
group who made available examples of previous and current communications
campaigns for documentary analysis. It was imperative that the case study site had
multiple organsiational divisions and levels to observe the differences in OID
processes. ACORP satisfies this as it is an organisation which has multiple divisions
and levels, each with various key business drivers. This in turn added to the richness
Context
Context
Context
Case
Case
EUA1
EUA2
Case
Context
Case
Context
Case
Context
Case
Context
Case
EUA1 EUA2
Context
Case
EUA1 EUA2
Context
Case
EUA1 EUA2
Context
Case
EUA1 EUA2
71
of data collection as interview participants exhibited varying degrees of proximity
and understanding with regards to the marketing and communication management
process.
3.4.3 Research Procedures This section, research procedures, outlines how and in what order specific research
procedures and instruments will be used to gather data. This study will utilise two
data collection instruments (in-depth interviews and documentary analysis) and three
discrete stages of collection. The first stage of data collection consisted of
documentary analysis of external organisation documents (further discussed in
Section 3.5.6). This analysis provided scope and grounding for Stage 2 data
collection, which consisted of in-depth interviews, and the principal data collection
instrument (further discussed in Section 3.5.1.). The final stage, Stage 3, involved
analysis of internal organisational documentation with particular reference to themes
uncovered during the analysis of stage one and two data (further discussed in Section
3.5.6). The following diagram 3.3 graphically represents the three data collection
stages.
Figure 3.3: Data Collection Graphical Representation
Stage One: Document Analysis – External Qualitative Review
Stage Two: In-Depth Interviews – Employee Levels Review
Stage Three: Document Analysis – Internal Qualitative Review
(Developed by the author)
72
3.5 Data Collection
This section will outline and discuss the data collection elements of this research
project. Firstly, Section 3.5.1 will outline and discuss the key data collection method
of this case study, in-depth interviews. Second, a discussion of the sampling
procedure utilising a non-probability judgment sampling approach will be detailed.
Thirdly, the protocol for interviews will be addressed including a discussion of the
different personnel levels, the interview pilot stage, the interview setting, as well as
the interview transcript procedure. Finally, the procedure for the analysis of the data
text will be addressed, along with the method for coding of the data.
3.5.1 In-Depth Interview Qualitative in-depth interviews served as the key data collection tool used in this
research project. In-Depth interviews have been a long standing and valid data
collection tool in qualitative research particularly where previously unexplored or
under explored phenomena are under investigation (Creswell, 2003). Furthermore,
particular to the case study method of enquire, in-depth interviews allow the
phenomena in question to be studied in its natural environment and for the
understanding of issues and concepts through the eyes of respondents involved in the
case (Yin, 2003). As further discussed by King (2005):
“The goal of any qualitative research interview is therefore to see the
research topic from the perspective of the interviewee, and to understand how
and why they have come to this particular perspective.” (N. King, 2005, p.
2)
Particular to this study, in-depth interviews aim to better understand the process of
impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing via the recounting of experiences
from respondents and provide empirical data to address the discussed research
questions. Although questions were structured around the four OID processes, the
interviewer adopted what Fontana and Frey (2005) refered to as an ethnographic
interview approach, where respondents are given freedom to discuss issues around
73
the particular questions, without being forced to stay on particular issues. Any issues
respondents felt important were probed and discussed with supplementary cues and
questions to reveal previously unexplored points (Fontana & Frey, 2005). In this
way, in-depth interviewing in this study serves a purpose similar to a
phenomenological approach to research whereby the key focus is on how the
experience and the description makes sense for the respondent (Christensen, 2007).
Face to face interviews enabled the interaction of interviewer and respondent to
delve into the underlying elements of OID processes and better understand how these
processes occur and are manifested at particular levels within the organisation.
As with any data collection tool, there is always potential for researcher bias. A key
limitation is discussed by Stake (2005) in terms of the subjectivity of interview case
data.
“Many critical observations and interview data are subjective. Most case
study is the empirical study of human activity. The major questions are not
questions of opinion or feeling, but of sensory experience. And the answers
come back, of course, with description and interpretation, opinion and
feeling, all mixed together. When the researchers are not there to experience
they have to ask those that did experience it.” (Stake, 2005, p. 454)
This limitation was addressed and delimited in this study via the use of triangulation
in multiple forms (Jick, 1979; Patton, 1990). Firstly, triangulation occurred within
method (Jick, 1979), whereby interviews were taken from a range of respondents
within each level to investigate themes and issues (Yin, 2003). By doing this, at no
stage was data unable to be compared and contrasted to other respondents from the
same level. Secondly, triangulation occurred across method (Jick, 1979), whereby
the complementary data collection method of document analysis was used as a form
of comparison to investigate identified themes (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Having
utilised both primary (interview) and secondary (document analysis) forms of data,
triangulation aims to counteract the inherent weaknesses in a method and provide a
more holistic picture of the data, leading to a more detailed analysis (Seale, 2004).
74
Triangulation will be addressed in terms of its contribution to improving validity in
Section 3.7, as well as its function in minimising the limitations of this research
study in Section 3.9.
3.5.2 In-Depth Interview Sampling Design This research utilised the non-probably sampling method of judgment (purposeful)
sampling. Judgment sampling involves the deliberate selection of respondents based
on their ability to report on issues key to the research study (Zikmund, 2003). A key
advantage of the judgment sampling approach is found in its ability to discover
concepts relevant to the issues under investigation from those respondents who are
actively involved in the phenomena (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). An identified
limitation of this method is the inability to measure random sampling error and as
such the inability to project data beyond the selected sample (Zikmund, 2003). As
this research aims to provide a richer understanding and expansion of theory through
analytical generalisation rather than statistical generalisation with a particularising
analysis, this was not seen as a key limitation (Yin, 2003). The ability of the sample
to provide detailed and rich data on the phenomena in question was of the of the
upmost importance to satisfy the required analytical generalisation (Yin, 2003).
When developing the judgment sampling approach, the researcher identified three
levels within the organisation classified by their involvement in the creation,
implementation, and management of the identity of the organsiation. These three
levels were developed as a direct result of, as Hatch and Schultz (1997) discuss, the
breakdown of internal and external identity boundaries for organisations. Hatch and
Schultz contend:
“Previously, organisations could disconnect their internal functioning from
their external relations in the environment because there were few contacts
between insiders and outsiders. Top executives, marketing, purchasing, PR
and strategic planning departments handled external relations while internal
issues were attended by middle and lower level managers and HRM,
engineering, production and accounting departments. However, networking,
75
business processes re-engineering, flexible manufacturing, delayering, the
new focus on customer service, and so on, redefine what were previously
considered matters of external relations as part of the daily activities of
nearly all organisational members.” (Hatch & Schultz, 1997, p. 356)
To address this, the researcher utilised judgment sampling to pick respondents across
three distinct levels of involvement with VI, CI, and OI. These levels are, Level A -
Senior Marketing and Corporate Communications Management, Level B - Marketing
and Corporate Communications Staff, and Level C - Non-Marketing Managers and
Employees. Specific discussion of these three groups is addressed in Section 3.5.3.
3.5.3 In-Depth Interview Sampling Levels The 15 in-depth interview respondents were split into three sample groups and
segmented via their involvement in identity strategy and implementation across the
VI, CI and OI triplet of identity mediums. All respondents were current employees
of ACORP across various workgroups. The first sample group was defined as Level
A – Senior Marketing and Corporate Communications Management. This group
comprised of three members all of whom are directly responsible for most of the
strategic direction of the VI and CI programs of the organisation. As this group
interacts with external stakeholders, elements of OI are also understood and
communicated by members. This group comprised of both external and internal
communications managers. Members of this segment ranged between 6 and 36 years
with the organisation. Specific respondent details are provided in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3: Level A - Senior Marketing and Corporate Communications
Management
Respondent Description
A1
(Interview 3)
Senior Manager – Corporate Communications, 36 years with
ACORP. The second most senior marketing person in the
76
organisation, answers to the communications group manager.
Main responsibilities include strategy development of all external
promotional elements (advertising, signage, trade shows), creative
direction for internal and external design persons; a “brand
guardian”.
A2
(Interview 14)
Group Manager – Corporate Communications, 6 years with
ACORP. The most senior marketing person in the organisation.
Main responsibilities include strategic direction of marketing
communication, media response to issues and crisis management,
and overall ACORP brand management.
A3
(Interview 15)
Senior Manager – Staff Communications, 14 years with ACORP.
The most senior internal marketing and staff communications
person in the organisation and reports to the general manager of
human recourses. Main responsibilities include the staff survey
(administration, reporting of results, and action planning),
development and implementation of communications to staff
across the organisation, and consulting with senior management on
internal communications matters.
The second sample group was defined as Level B – Marketing and Corporate
Communications Staff. This group comprised of four respondents who are
responsible for the development and implementation of the VI and CI programs of
the organisation. Furthermore, members of this group interact with external
stakeholders of the organsiation and as such, elements of OI are understood and
communicated by members of this respondent group. This respondent segment
comprised communications consultants and a media liaison officer of ACORP.
Members of this segment ranged between 2 and 6 years with the organisation.
Specific respondent details are provided in Table 3.4.
77
Table 3.4: Level B - Marketing and Corporate Communications Staff
Respondent Description
B1
(Interview 1)
Senior Corporate Communications Consultant, 3.5 years with
ACORP. Main responsibilities include implementation of major
projects communication of ACORP and the management of other
team members. This particular respondent works in a cross-
functional capacity between a number of teams within ACORP.
B2
(Interview 2)
Corporate Communications Consultant, 3 years with ACORP.
Main responsibilities include the development and quality control
of communications material as well as liaising with business-to-
business stakeholders to inform them of proposed and current
projects.
B3
(Interview 12)
Corporate Communications Consultant, 6 years with ACORP.
Main responsibilities include the management of the ACORP
internet and interanet sites, as well as implementation of
communication tasks specific to capital works and project teams.
B4
(Interview 13)
Media Liaison Consultant, 2 years with ACORP. Main
responsibilities include the development of information sent to
media, liasing with media contact enquiries, and management of
external communication agencies. This respondent has a high
degree of interaction with stakeholders and customers external of
ACORP.
The third sample group was defined as Level C – Non-Marketing Managers and
Employees. Distinct from Level A and Level B, this group comprised eight
respondents who have no direct involvement in the strategic direction or
development of ACORP VI or CI programs. Members of this group had the highest
level of interaction with stakeholders external to the organisation and as such the
78
significance of their representation and understanding of OI was of particular
interest. Level C comprised of the widest range of respondents ranging from legal
council, corporate managers, works teams managers, and other key groups.
Members of this segment ranged between 1 and 28 years with the organisation.
Specific respondent details are provided in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5: Level C - Non-Marketing Managers and Employees
Respondent Description
C1
(Interview 4)
Legal Council – Corporate, 1 year with ACORP. Main
responsibilities include corporate legal advice specific to property
procurement, compliance, and contracting for ACORP.
C2
(Interview 5)
Manager – Continuous Improvement and Deployment, 10 years
with ACORP. Main responsibilities include the management and
review of products and processes for underground workgroups.
C3
(Interview 6)
Manager – Community Liaison, 5 years with ACORP. Main
responsibilities include reviewing proposed business designs at the
concept stage and assessing the impacts on community and other
stakeholder groups. This respondent interacts with stakeholders,
customers on a daily basis.
C4
(Interview 7)
Manager – Asset Manager Metro South Region, 28 years with
ACORP. Main responsibilities include network distribution
planning as well as customer issues and complaints from small to
major customers.
C5
(Interview 8)
Manager – Field Services North Coast Region, 15 years with
ACORP. Main responsibilities include field staff management,
budget monitoring, achievement of key performance indicators,
and customer complaint management.
79
C6
(Interview 9)
Manager – Business and Industry Relationship, 11 years with
ACORP. Main responsibilities include the management of
stakeholders and communication pertaining to the network
performance group.
C7
(Interview 10)
Manager – Vegetation Policy, 18 years with ACORP. Main
responsibilities include the implementation of legislation relating
to health and safety regarding the distribution network.
C8
(Interview 11)
Officer – Community Liaison, 5 years with ACORP. Main
responsibilities include direct engagement with internal and
external stakeholders to promote a positives image of ACORP.
This respondent interacts with field staff and customers on a daily
basis.
3.5.4 Interview Pilot Prior to respondents being interviewed, an interview pilot study took place. The
main purpose of an interview pilot study is to trial data collection prior to involving
respondents to address issues and correct accordingly (Robinson, 2002). Three
respondents were asked questions to check for any vagueness or ambiguity in
questioning. The pilot panel included:
An academic from identity/reputation field
An academic and marketing consultant with prior experience with the case
study site
A senior manager from case study site
Accordingly, the issues identified were adjusted prior to the commencement of data
collection. The inclusion of the pilot process enabled any issues with interview
questions to be addressed prior to actual data collection taking place. This saved
time and improved the quality of data collection during the actual interview data
collection process.
80
3.5.5 Interview Setting The specific process for interviewing was developed from the guidelines discussed
by Fontana and Frey (2005). For the physical setting, the interviews were
undertaken at ACORP offices. This was done to make it as convenient as possible
for respondents to be available for interviews and to ensure minimal disruption to
participants work responsibilities. Interviews were held in a spare room at the
ACORP workplace away from the main working area. During interviews the
researcher’s mobile telephone was switched off so as to not distract or interrupt the
interview process. Prior to interviews commencing, respondents were briefed about
the purpose and structure of the interview, they provided written consent for their
interview data to be used, and were briefed about their rights to stop the interview at
any time they wished. Furthermore, respondents were asked permission for
interviews to be taped via digital recording before the commencement of the
interview process. This process was done in a friendly, yet professional manner,
with the focus being to create a cooperative environment where respondents felt they
could be open and unrestricted in responses (Fontana & Frey, 2005). A copy of the
interview schedule is provided in Appendix 5.
3.5.6 Additional Data Collection In this research study, documentary analysis was used to complement in-depth
interviews. Document analysis enables the collection of data to complement in-
depth interviews by providing both context and also confirmation of themes
discovered (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). As a key point of investigation, this study
involves examining the understanding of identity symbols as well as the underlying
values and assumptions of culture a case study approach utilising multiple data
collection points, which in turn provides a detailed and holistic understanding of the
phenomena in question (Pettigrew, 1979). Furthermore, this act of combining both
primary and secondary data sources reduces the possibility of bias or inaccuracy in
reporting via the use of cross-method triangulation (Yin, 2003). In fitting with the
qualitative approach of this research study document analysis took the form of a
review of a range of internal and external company documents focusing on the
elements and representation of culture, image, and identity. Stage One included the
81
review of external documents from the organisation and the media regarding
ACORP. Stage One documentary analysis provided the researcher with a range of
possible dominant themes, which were used to inform specific lines of questioning
during Stage Two, in effect providing context and guidance for further data
collection. Stage Three included the review of internal organisational documents
which included internal employee information documents and organisational core
values documents. This review focused on underlying values and assumptions
articulated in documents and compared back to elements discussed in stage two in-
depth interviews. A list of documents reviewed at both stage one and stage three is
provided in Appendix One.
3.6 Data Analysis
Data analysis involves the examination of data in its various forms determining the
ascribed meaning and processes and from this making conclusions based on evidence
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The first stage in the data analysis process took place in
the preparation of the data. The data was transcribed from digital audio recording to
electronic text document with all transcription being undertaken by the researcher.
Interview transcripts were crosschecked against the audio recording for accuracy
before and after analysis took place (Carson, Gilmore, Perry, & Gronhaug, 2001).
Transcriptions were undertaken at the first available instance. As Yin (2003)
contends, by the interviewer transcribing and cross checking data themselves, this
serves to improve their understanding of the data along with leading to compelling
analytical conclusions while negating instances of unclear or dissenting
interpretations of data. Additionally, notes were made by the researcher at the
conclusion of the interview to comment on elements which were of particular
significance or interest to the research questions (Patton, 1990). Appendix Six
provides an example of the transcription and analysis framework utilised at the initial
stages of data transcription analysis.
82
3.6.1 Coding Data The data was first sorted against the processes of impressing, mirroring, reflecting,
and expressing discussed in the Hatch and Schultz (2002) OID model. By utilising
the OID model as a framework by which to code the in-depth interview data, the
researcher was able to sort data in to the specific sections against which they would
have the most relevance. From this initial breakdown of data into sections, the
researcher was able to begin to identify relevant themes within the individual
processes as well as across the OID model as a whole. As previously discussed in
Section 3.6, both internal and external company documents were utilised as a point
of comparison against which to better understand themes and relevant concepts for
contributing. A graphical example of the specific OID processes and their
complementary research questions are provided in Figure 3.4.
Intentionally blank to fit diagram on one page
83
Figure 3.4: OID Process and Related Research Questions
RQ4: What are the ways
organisational identity dynamics
expressing processes (culture/identity)
occur within an organisation across
unique workgroups.
RQ2: What are the ways
organisational identity dynamics
mirroring processes (image/identity)
occur within an organisation across
unique workgroups
RQ3: What are the ways
organisational identity dynamics
reflecting processes (identity/culture)
occur within an organisation across
unique workgroups?
RQ1: What are the ways
organisational identity dynamics
impressing process (identity/image)
occur within an organisation across
unique workgroups?
This initial stage of data analysis was then followed by a break down of OID
processes into specific criteria against which to address aspects of identity, image,
and culture from different employee levels. These criteria have been developed from
the literature discussed in Chapter Two – Literature Review of this thesis,
specifically focusing on understanding the ways in which identity is developed and
manifested internally, communicated externally, and the reflexive process by which
review and refinement of employee identity representation takes place via image.
This was an iterative process between document analysis, in-depth interview data,
and literature to identify themes and patterns for discussion. The specific criteria
84
against which impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing were analysed is
shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6: OID Process Analysis Criteria
4.3:
Im
pre
ssin
g
What do specific respondents identify as the communicated identity of
the organisation?
Does the communicated identity adequately represent respondent
views of the organisation?
How do respondents represent the organisation in dealings with
stakeholders in a person-to-person representation?
Do respondents perceive a distinction between the strategic
communicated identity and their own representation of identity?
4.4:
Mir
rori
ng
Who do respondents identity as the key stakeholder group or groups of
the organisation?
Does the stakeholder relationship or brand representation take position
of priority in interactions with stakeholder groups?
What have been instances of adjustment of personal brand
representation based on reflection from or experience with
stakeholders of the organisation?
4.5:
Ref
lect
ing
How do respondents describe the culture of the organisation?
What mechanisms of reflection have respondents experienced during
their time at the organisation?
What communication elements do respondents identify as being
incorporated into the culture of the organisation?
4.6:
Exp
ress
ing
What are the underlying values and assumptions that respondents see
as central to what the organisation represents?
What is the state of understanding and responsiveness to culture and
its utilisation in identity within the organisaiton?
How could expressing be used to create a better alignment of actual
and espoused identity in order to articulate the key elements of the
organisational culture?
85
(Criteria developed from: Balmer, 2001a, 2007; Hatch, 1993; Hatch & Schultz, 1997,
2002; Schein, 2004; Smircich, 1983a)
Each criterion is discussed in terms of the application and relevance to VI, CI, and
OI components of identity. As addressed in Section 2.2.4, this research contends that
VI and CI have a more so external focus which promotes espoused identity, whereas
OI is focused more on internal factors, with a more actually identity representation
by employees. Each analysis criteria section will include a concise summary which
will discuss key points from each identity element against the point of investigation
of the criteria. Application back to specific research questions will be discussed in
the themes and summary section at the end of each processes analysis section.
3.7 Validity Criteria
Guba and Lincoln (2005) note the inherent differences between validity criteria for
judging the quality and credibility of research from a positivist perspective against an
interpretivist approach. As this research study adopts a qualitative case study
research design, traditionally positivist approaches to validity do not lend themselves
to being appropriate criteria against which to judge quality and reliability of this type
of study (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Rather than focus on internal/external
validity, reliability, and generalisablity from the positivist perspective, this study will
instead utilise the qualitative case criteria: credibility, confirmability, dependability
and transferability (Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Healy & Perry, 2000; Lincoln & Guba,
1985; Marshall & Rossman, 2006). These for criteria are discussed in detail in the
context of this study in the following sections.
3.7.1 Criteria One – Credibility The first validity criteria addressed by this study is credibility. Credibility addresses
the relationship between the data which respondents provide about phenomena and
86
the validity of representation and reporting which the researcher assigns to the
analysis of the data (Schwandt, 1997). Credibility is viewed as vital for qualitative
research studies as it provides an intermediary between respondent data and
researcher analysis leading to accuracy and consistency within social science
research (Whitemore, Chase, & Mandle, 2001). This research study addressed
credibility in three distinct ways. Firstly, through the use of within method
triangulation (Jick, 1979) via the use of multiple sources of data collection points
within each method. Interviews took place with multiple respondents at the three
assigned organsiational levels along with multiple sources for document analysis.
Secondly, this research utilised across method triangulation (Jick, 1979) to compare
and contrast themes identified in both documents and in-depth interviews. Finally, a
thorough and transparent case description is provided in Section 4.4 to give
appropriate information to the reader regarding the background and context of the
ACORP case study site.
3.7.2 Criteria Two – Confirmability Confirmability deals with the ways in which concepts were defined, measured, and
linked together in a valid and reasonable manner (Healy & Perry, 2000). The
concept of confirmability is similar to the more positivist indicator of construct
validity, whereby attention is given to the appropriateness of concepts for
measurement against the ways in which data is collected, analysed, and reported
(Healy & Perry, 2000; Yin, 2003). As addressed in Section 3.7, data was collected
and analysed from specific criteria developed from identity, organisational culture,
and image literature. Furthermore, the Hatch and Schultz (2002) OID model served
as a theoretical frame by which to investigate the defined processes of impressing,
mirroring, reflecting, and expressing. Confirmability also took the form of strategies
incorporated into data collection and analysis by the utilisation of more than one
source of evidence, the examination and reexamination of data, confirmation from
other researchers as to the appropriateness of identified themes, and the
establishment of a “chain of evidence” from data collection, to analysis, to reporting
(Healy & Perry, 2000; Riege, 2003).
87
3.7.3 Criteria Three – Dependability Dependability in qualitative research is gained via adequate reporting, stability, and
consistency along all aspects of the research design and analysis process (Healy &
Perry, 2000; Riege, 2003). This is similar to the related positivist concept of
reliability whereby the objective of replicability is paramount, so that other
researchers replicating the study would gain similar results based on the set reporting
(Yin, 2003). Elements of this chapter dealing with research design such as case
study cite selection, appropriateness of qualitative research, appropriateness and
explanation of data collection, and a review of analysis procedures all aim to satisfy
dependability and articulate a framework by which other researchers can replicate
this study (Healy & Perry, 2000). The only areas where full access to data is not
given is in documentary analysis where this would reveal confidential information
about the organisation (Riege, 2003).
3.7.4 Criteria Four – Transferability Transferabilitiy is concerned with the ability of research findings to be generalised to
a wider population (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). As this study has utilised a single
qualitative case based approach, analytical generalisability, rather than statically
generalisability, is the main aim of this thesis (Yin, 2003). In this sense, the
researcher notes that the findings of this study are not expected to be directly
replicated in other research cases (Healy & Perry, 2000), however, many of the
themes and factors revealed provide a framework by which further study could look
to extend empirical investigation into OID processes. To aid in the applicability of
factors to be transferable, following from Healy and Perry (2002) , the author notes
that research issues have been developed against previous literature to utilise key
findings to guide the development of a robust research design and analysis factors.
88
3.8 Ethical Considerations
The research process for this thesis has been governed by the ethical clearance
guidelines of the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). As with any
academic research by adopting an ethically sound approach it helps to protect
respondents, as well as reduce possibility of bias on the part of the researcher. This
research process began with the application for approval of the chosen research.
This included the submission for review by the QUT ethics committee of:
The QUT Human Participants Form which outlines and addresses possible
issues regarding the research study.
The QUT Research Participant Recruitment Flyer which shows information
which will be made available to the sample prior to research being
undertaken (Appendix 2).
The QUT Research Participant Information Form which details information
which respondents need to know prior to the start of the research project
(Appendix 3).
A copy of interview questions that will be asked of respondents paying
special attention to reducing the possibility of risk for the respondent
(Appendix 4).
A document from the participating organisation providing approval for
interviews to be undertaken in the offices of the data collection cite.
Furthermore, these documents were amended according to the recommendations of
the ethics committee prior to data collection commencing. In addition, this research
has made the anonymity of respondents and the organisation the upmost importance
in reporting. All respondents have been de-identified and the case study site name
has been amended to ACORP for reporting purposes. Respondents were also given
the option to withdraw from the interview process at any time they wished. This
enabled respondents to feel confident and comfortable about the responses they were
giving with the knowledge they were not bound to answer anything they were
uncomfortable with. Finally, once the respondent data has been transcribed, digital
89
recordings were be erased to further protect the safety and anonymity of interview
respondents.
3.9 Methodological Limitations
Every piece of research, in some way, makes compromises with regard to aspects of
the research design. As this study utilises a qualitative research approach via a single
case study analysis, a main limitation is the inability of findings to have statistical
generalisability (Yin, 2003). However, as the key purpose for this research study is
to provide empirical data and understanding to a previously theoretical model,
analytical generalisability is an appropriate approach to take (Stake, 1995). By
providing rich and detailed understanding in a single case, this lays the groundwork
for future study to aim for statistical generalisabilty, utilising a multiple case study
approach or quantitative study (Yin, 2003).
Specific limitations regarding sampling are a fundamental concern of any research
design. Three typical qualitative sampling limitations are noted being: the
limitations arising from the situation sampled, the limitations resulting from temporal
sampling, and the selectivity of sample organisation (Patton, 1999). First, the
situation sampled, ACORP was the sole source of data collection in this study.
Being a exploratory qualitative study with the focus on providing a rich empirical
investigation, examining one data collection cite enabled a deeper understanding of
the four OID processes. Second, with regard to temporal issues, document data was
collected between July and October 2009, with in-depth interviews taking place in
September 2009. No out of the ordinary activity was experienced by the
organisation at this time and as such the data collection process was expected to have
had minimal to no impact from temporal issues. Third, judgment sampling was
utilised in the selection of interviews and documents. Judgment sampling is a
commonly used technique in qualitative research as it enables respondents to provide
data which can specifically address the topic of a research study (Zikmund, 2003).
90
In this study, respondents and documents were selected based on their ability to
inform the processes of impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing.
3.10 Conclusion
Chapter Three – Methodology has addressed the chosen methodology of this
research study. This chapter had discussed the elements of research paradigm,
qualitative research, research design, data collection, data analysis, validity criteria,
ethical considerations, and the methodological limitations of this study. A case study
approach was used as it functions as a way of providing rich data about a phenomena
in its natural setting (Yin, 2003). Furthermore, semi structured in-depth interviews
were discussed as the key data collection tool with supporting documentary analysis.
This approach was taken as it provides a suitable way of gaining understanding of a
phenomena from the point of view of those respondents experiencing it. This
approach enables a deeper understanding of the OID processes on impressing,
mirroring, reflecting, and expressing.
The following chapter, Chapter Four – Methodology will discuss the findings of this
research study. Specifically, it will discuss the data relevant to OID impressing,
mirroring, reflecting, and expressing processes across the organisational level sample
groups identified in this chapter. Furthermore, Chapter Four – Methodology will
discuss the OID processes in terms of themes identified and present will the analysis
for Chapter Five - Conclusions to make conclusions of this research study.
91
Chapter Four – Findings
92
4.1 Introduction
The preceding three chapters have introduced the topic and context of this research,
discussed literature relevant to the focus of this study, and presented the research
methodology used to address the set research questions. Chapter Four – Findings
will present the research data collected relevant to the set research questions. These
research questions all focus on the different processes of the OID model from the
unique perspectives of different employees.
Chapter Four – Findings is presented in seven sections. This begins with a
background description of the organisation, with particular emphasis on detailing
past instances which have impacted upon culture, identity, and image (Section 4.2
Case Background). This is followed by Sections 4.3 – 4.6, which respectively
address data relevant to the occurrence and understanding of the impressing,
mirroring, reflecting, and expressing processes, as detailed in the OID model. This
exploratory analysis will examine critical concepts outlined in Chapter Two -
Literature Review. This analysis will particularly focus on themes present and
observed distinctions between organisational levels and workgroups.
The seven sections of Chapter Four – Findings are represented graphically in Figure
4.1
Figure 4.1: Findings Chapter Sections
Chapter One: Introduction 4.1 Introduction
4.2 Case Background
4.3 Impressing Analysis
4.4 Mirroring Analysis
4.5 Reflecting Analysis
4.6 Expressing Analysis
4.7 Conclusion
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter Five: Conclusions
93
4.2 Case Background
ACORP is an organisation which as served the South-East Queensland utility market
for over 85 years in its various brand iterations. It is an organisation which has
experienced rapid growth in this time, equaling the growth of the market place which
it services. Currently, ACORP provides utility services for more than 1.3 million,
residential, industrial, and commercial customers and continues to grow consistently
in size. ACORP is an organisation that currently has over 3,700 employees in
various roles from the corporate, customer service and utility function of the
business. In their business, elements which ACORP describe as market leading
include asset management capabilities, engineering services, metering applications,
and energy solutions. Current assets of ACORP are valued at more than 7 billion
Australian Dollars. ACORP prides itself on being an organisation that places
sustainability and corporately responsible practice as key organisational objectives.
4.2.1 ACORP Case Background Factors
Government Owned Corporation:
ACORP has an organisational setup between a private corporation and a
government department. The organisations’ shareholders are the Minister for
Energy and the Treasurer, who provide funding approval and in turn receive
dividends from ACORP.
Centralised Corporate Management, Decentralised Work Hubs:
ACORP have their central corporate management division located in the
Brisbane CBD area with utility work teams being spread out over various
locations in South-East Queensland.
Separate Communications Teams:
ACORP operates a fragmented strategy when handling identity
communications, with a number of divisions responsible for articulating such
messages. The main external communications department is corporate
communications who deal with advertising, public relations, events, and
community service announcements. The main internal communications
94
department is separate from corporate communications and sits under the
human resources group. Internal communications is a smaller team and deals
mainly with staff communication, staff surveying and feedback, management
training, and development of employer branding information. Another large
communications group is the customer call center which deals directly with
customers on a range of issues. The call center, is a separate entity to the
other two teams, and is located outside of the central CBD area where
corporate and internal communications are situated. Other communications
staff are located in various work teams and locations throughout the
organisation.
Organisational Crisis and Rebrand:
The move to the ACORP identity approach took place after an organisational
crisis around the start of this decade. Minimum levels of service were not
being adhered to, safety of workers and consumers had been put in jeopardy,
and public sentiment towards the organisation was at an all time low. This
crisis involved a tragedy within the organisaion, a government inquiry,
increased media attention, a change of both senior members of management
and organisational structure in conjunction with a move to a new brand
identity. Overall, the brand was able to improve on its poor image through
the development of identity communication which centered on safety as a key
organisational message.
Utility Retailer to Utility Distributor:
With the onset of utility market deregulation, ACORP sold off its utility
retailing arm and continued operations solely as a utility distributor. In this
arrangement, ACORP provides supply and service to customers, but does not
directly handle the sales and billing functions of the relationship.
The next section will discuss several elements of the history of ACORP that are of
particular importance to the constructs of identity, image, and organisational culture.
There are elements which have impacted on employees significantly and will be
addressed in depth to provide context for the following findings sections.
Furthermore, this discussion will help to provide context for the analysis of the four
95
OID processes. This discussion will address the progress of ACORP’s identity from
the late 1990’s to present day.
4.2.2 Utility Network in Decline – 2004 Crisis As mentioned in Section 4.2.1. ACORP underwent a significant crisis whereby the
wider public became aware of issues within the organisation that were of grave
concern. Particular management decisions at the time had led the organisation’s
utility network into disrepute and had in turn, driven staff morale to an all time low.
As a respondent noted:
It all started from our dark days when we had an economist running the
place. He had targets he was meeting in terms of shareholder expectation
but they just ripped the guts out of the place. We did no maintenance, we did
bugger all, we’re on the newspaper, we were on the radio. You weren’t game
to be out there on the street in an ACORP uniform. Blokes were almost
getting spat on at times. And that was the deep dark days of the government
enquiry.
Many respondents noted this instance as the worst time for the organisation and one
in which the culture was in no way conducive towards the encouragement of
employees or the creation of positive identity for the organisation. The poor state
that ACORP had fallen into was brought to the attention of the media and general
public during the largest crisis the organisaton had faced; severe weather conditions
which decimated ACORP’s utility network. This has significant impact on the
organisation, with a utility network in ruins and a CEO who committed suicide. As
respondent recounted:
We had our issue five or six years ago where we had a CEO jump in front of
train. That brought so much awareness to the organisation and it brought an
awareness at the level of the premier … No doubt from a company
perspective we we’re suffering. It was probably the worst I’d seen ACORP
leading up to there. The culture was woeful. From a maintenance
96
perspective, we we’re being screwed down to basically “fix it as it breaks” so
we were having huge problems. We were having poles fall over all over the
place. And at the same time the Queensland economy was going through that
boom time where the load of the network was starting to go through the roof
yet they were cutting us back on all this expenditure. That all became
highlighted when that unfortunate incident occurred. In some ways he
became our sacrificial lamb. They realised “ACORP is in strife, they’re
going to need all this money otherwise we’re going to end up with a third
world ragtag utility network”. So as unfortunate as that is for that individual
and such a dreadful thing to happen, from a financial perspective and our
ability to resource and do work it was the best thing and we got adequate
funding for everything that we needed.
As mentioned, this crisis highlighted the issues ACORP was having internally and as
such, the result was a government inquiry. Two key elements resulted from the
findings of that investigation. Firstly, ACORP required a vast increase in funding to
keep up with the ever increasing demand placed in the utility network in South-East
Queensland. Secondly, ACORP would in future focus solely on the utility
distribution side of the supply chain rather than both distribution and retail. This
result produced mixed outcomes for the organisation. While the increase in funding
was urgently needed and assisted the organisation in improving issues it faced, the
resulting sale of the organisation’s retail arm meant changing focus holistically for
the organisation and a shake in terms of culture for employees.
This crisis is an example of an organisation which once had a strong identity (that
eroded away for various reasons) with the organisation’s image enduring severe
damage. However, through hard work, developed its identity back up to a favourable
stakeholder image. As a respondent noted:
We suffered, the brand was up there like that, we had those big storms then
the pressure was on. When he (CEO) committed suicide you saw the brand
97
just die. Go to ground, go into recovery mode, and try and rebuild the brand
and that’s exactly what we've done in a community sense.
4.2.3 Recovery To Present Day The six key values of ACORP were developed during the identity recover and are
still in use today: (1) safety first, (2) respect and support each other, (3) impress our
customers, (4) set a great example, (5) be a team player, and (6) deliver balanced
results (Appendix 1.11). It was revealed in interviews that the key element of safety
was identified internally through employee-based research and became one of the
values of the new identity development program.
A lot of research was done about where the organisation needed to go, does
it fit with our business direction and our strategy and who we want to be, and
a lot of other things. But some of it, like safety becoming a value, actually
came out of the staff surveys. The (market research) company we were
dealing with said “its interesting your staff actually see safety as something
that they value, its one of their values, even though its not articulate so you
may as well make it a value” so we did.
As well as an internal value, safety has become a key external message for ACORP.
This was articulated through messages discussing both general safety as well as
safety during storm season – a higher risk time for customers (Appendix 1.3). Safety
still remains a key communications message for ACORP both internally and
externally. Along with safety messaging, ACORP note their complementary
organisational message as community focused in the form of “powering lifestyles
forever” (Appendix 1.6).
4.2.4 Present Day to Future Challenges The mid 2000’s boom period for the organisation has led to a series of key
challenges. The increasing focus on bringing the utility network up to standard has
led to issues with spending beginning to exceed acceptable limits. These issues
98
center around the fact that the organisation cannot keep continually building a utility
network to only handle peak demand periods. Furthermore, all funding for the
organisation comes from the government, which in turn means all projects end up
being paid for by tax payers. This increase in spending has led to an increase in costs
for end users which puts pressure on government, and in turn, pressure on ACORP to
develop non-network solutions to issues. This was a recurring issue described by
respondents and examples of comments are provided in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1: ACORP Future Challenges
Since 2004 ACORP has really been under the hammer to build because we lost
power quite a few times during storms. So the key thing was deliver that safe and
reliable electricity supply, that was our main message, keep the lights on, give
people the power they need, build build build. And now we’re looking going “hey
we cant keep doing this, significant change needs to occur”, but managing that
change internally and externally with public perception without upsetting the
“we’re delivering safe and reliable supply” message, but morphing it into “a smart
and sustainable future” is where we’re at now.
Most people are going to see this sudden jump in power bill over the next few years
and that’s going to make our relationship with external customers more difficult
because of that.
There are lot of people who’ve been here for thirty, forty, fifty years and they say
“lets just go and put more poles up, yeah put more poles up”, that’s fine but we
cant keep doing that. We’ve got to continue doing that but we’ve got to look for
other alternatives as well.
ACORP is a bunch of engineers. Good blokes who have traditionally been putting
poles and wires up and they what to continue doing that. But we can’t continue
doing that because the public is going to react and say we can’t afford that
anymore. So we’ve got to look at non-network solutions.
The following sections will address the specific findings of this study relevant to the
OID processes of impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing.
99
4.3 Impressing Analysis
RQ1: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics impressing process
(identity/image) take place and are understood by employees within an
organisation across unique workgroups?
As addressed in Section 2.5.2 Impressing: Identity to Image, impressing processes
can occur in a vast number of ways. Impressing processes can be broadly grouped
into deliberate impressing processes and unintentional impressing processes (Hatch
& Schultz, 2002). Deliberate impressing processes have been discussed as the
traditional approaches to identity communication, which include advertising, press,
visual identity mechanisms, corporate style, etc. These represent a surface level
conceptualisation of identity and are usually developed by senior communications
managers. Unintentional impressing processes occur in the everyday interactions of
employees with stakeholders, be they internal or external. As Hatch and Schultz
(2002, p. 1003) contend, impressing via OI is “communicated through everyday
(staff) behaviour, gestures, appearance, attitude”.
Section 4.3.1 through 4.3.3 will present findings of impressing processes and activity
conducted by each of the three sample levels. Findings of each group will be
addressed in terms of deliberate and unintentional impressing focusing on the
following four criteria:
What do specific respondent levels identify as the communicated identity of
the organisation?
100
Does the communicated identity adequately represent respondent views of
the organisation?
How do respondents represent the organisation in dealings with stakeholders
in a person-to-person representation?
Do respondents perceive a distinction between the strategic communicated
identity and their own representation of identity?
These four criteria represent the elements of visual, corporate, and organisational
identity which come together to form a holistic representation of identity. Following
this, Section 4.3.4 will discuss impressing themes of the data across the three levels.
4.3.1 Impressing: Senior Marketing and Corporate Communications Management Level A represents persons who have the most overt control over the design and
strategic direction of visual and corporate identity messages for ACORP. As such,
this group is responsible for much of the espoused identity messages of the
organisation. Examining at the first impressing criteria of what do they see as the
communicated identity of ACORP, this group presented a closely aligned position.
The dominant themes discussed at this level consisted of safety (general and
seasonal), community engagement and consultation, and corporate social
responsibility (CSR) as a community utility provider.
The first key identity message articulated by respondents was safety. All
respondents within this group articulated safety in both a general and seasonal
specific sense as a key message of the ACORP. Respondents at this level viewed
this as the most important message to get across to end users.
Safety has always been the top, safety has always been the first criteria.
Probably more focus on safety at home now than there used to be before,
that’s due to the numbers we’ve got.
So the message is ‘we deliver’. And subtly, like all catch phrases, what that
means is “we deliver safe power and we deliver the service that you want”.
101
I think there’s been a stronger move towards what I would call community
messages in terms of like “getting ready for storms”, “summer
preparedness”, safety messages.
Safety is a key message which can be seen across the range of ACORP
communications. It is an extremely clear and consistent message and has been a key
message for the organisation in recent years.
The second key message which Level A discussed was that of community
engagement. They discuss this in terms of how ACORP works with and for the
community to improve energy distribution and reliability in South-East Queensland.
“Whatever’s going on in South East Queensland we’re behind it”, so the ads
a bit more community focused.
A catchphrase we worked out saying ‘Whatever’s going on in South-East
Queensland we’re behind it’ in TV commercials and print ads and so forth,
but that’s the message we want to get out there … We are part of the
community, and there’s a second part of that message, we’re part of the
community that makes it work.
This approach was implemented as a direct response to the organisational crisis as
discussed in Section 4.2. Members of Level A see the community engagement
message as one which articulates the value of ACORP to customers and represents a
strategic focus for the organisation.
You build up community. The idea was that after we had this great problem
over the last 2004, rebuild the brand as a community brand … the focus
changed the tagline “ACORP: Positive Energy”. All those things focused on
community involvement.
We are part of the community, we are part of everything that’s going on. And
it’s a big claim, and its robust, but it was necessary to take it from where it
102
was where the brand meant nothing to the name which was almost a
derogatory term that symbolised everything that was bad. Now the name is
more, it means people, so what we’ve done is personify ACORP with the
messages we’ve tried to put out there.
The final key message identified during Level A interviews was CSR. Respondents
noted CSR as a key identity approach and articulated it as an important area for the
organisation to communicate and develop further into the future. Respondents
discussed the need for ACORP to justify spend against impacts and needs of end
users.
We spend over a billion dollars a year. That makes us one of the biggest
construction companies in the state. But it also means we’re making an
impact somewhere – don’t just worry about a carbon footprint, we’re making
a footprint. So what we had to do is try to offset in those communities.
Through vehicles such as community consultation, sponsorship, events, and
charitable donations, ACORP articulates its CSR approach. In summary, Level A
present a consistent view of key identity messages. These messages being safety,
community engagement and CSR.
The second impressing criteria focused on distinctions between the espoused and
actual identity perspectives of ACORP. Criteria two addressed espoused identity
messages in the form of VI and CI as compared to employee views and feelings
about the organisation articulated through OI. With this level being responsible for
the strategic development of messages there was agreement from all respondents that
from their perspective there was little or no distinction between espoused and actual
identity. Respondent A3 noted that a move to a regional approach in terms of
communication and sponsorship in their view gave a stronger sense of identity than
was previously articulated.
103
When you look at them, they’re often, they’re so Queensland based. Previous
advertisements and campaigns were different from that because we we’re
trying to have a national footprint and profile. And that was the same with
our sponsorships and who we selected whereas now its “We’re South-East
Queensland” and I think that comes out really strongly.
Only one instance was reported at Level A with a distinction between espoused and
actual identity. Respondents noted that when the organisation was recovering from
crisis there was a clear distinction between mass communications and their personal
view.
The spin that would come out of this place would be misconstrued sometimes
but generally people say “its just spin” because there wasn’t any substance
to back up. Now we’re getting substance. To go out and stand in front of
business people and politicians and run into the premier and say “oh premier
how are you going?”… “good how’s ACORP going?”… “were going great
thanks very much”. So do I believe it, yep. Would I write otherwise, nope.
In summary, Level A view corporate communication as a very strong and aligned
representation of their views of the organisation.
The third impressing criteria focused more on organisational identity. As
discussed in Chapter Two – Literature Review, organisational identity focuses more
on staff interaction as the key focus of identity. It is a focus that is concerned more
with the actual identity (interaction of staff with stakeholders) rather than the more
espoused visual/corporate identity approach. Level A articulated a deliberate and
concerned approach to making sure that ACORP was represented in a positive light
in dealings with external and internal stakeholders.
Whenever you’re out (dealing with stakeholders), I find that no matter where
you go you get a chance to push the brand.
104
Furthermore, respondents noted the active adjustment of identity representation
dependent on variation in stakeholder needs and interests.
I suppose in terms of what sort of face do I put on it, depends who I’m
dealing with but the face that I like to put on for ACORP is always the
positive one.
So that’s the sort of thing we know about and we would do and try and reflect
but in terms of actually communicating with different audiences groups we
base it on “what do you need and want to do your job”.
In summary, Level A representation of identity is consistent with key identity
messages and is tailored specifically to the receiver.
The fourth impressing criteria explored the difference between how respondents at
Level A viewed key messages against their own representation of identity. This
addresses the distinction between the visual/corporate manifestation of identity
against an organisational identity approach. Moreover, this distinction looks at the
way respondents view espoused identity against actual identity. This produced an
interesting distinction between the way externally focused and internally focused
employees look at and understand espoused and actual identity. From an external
perspective alignment between visual/corporate and organisational identity was
strong. In this sense espoused and actual represent the same position to external
focused managers.
Being perfectly honest, having worked with two premiers and a treasurer, if
you don’t believe what you’re writing, get away from the keyboard. That’s
just been my philosophy.
However, internally focused respondents viewed actual and espoused identity as a
clear distinction for the organisation. From this respondents perspective, actual
identity is seen to be a more valuable approach due to the fact the organisation has
105
employees with a high degree of understanding of key issues and in some cases are
skeptical of “key messages”. In this respect respondents observes an alignment of
internal and external messages as an unproductive approach.
I’ll say at the outside I know a lot of people talk about that “internal and
external communications need to be really strongly linked and the reason for
that is that employees need to be brand advocates” and that is totally
different from the way I view it … The reality of it is we’ve got people who’ve
been working here for twenty years and they’ve been through enormous
changes. They know exactly how the organisation functions and what its like
… Its more about really understanding what do they need in terms of
communication for them to do their job better and for ACORP to perform
better.
In summary, Level A produced varying degrees of distinction between visual,
corporate, and organisational identity. External and internal managers viewed the
relevance of alignment as differently.
4.3.2 Impressing: Marketing and Corporate Communications Staff Level B represents respondents who are less senior than member of Level A. The
Level B group is responsible for the development and implementation of
communication campaigns and tactics more so than strategy development. This level
yielded a broader range of discussed identity elements and focused more closely on
business-to-business relations, seeing external groups and organisational teams as
direct stakeholders more so than end user customers. The impressing identity
elements discussed at this level were safety (general and seasonal), community
engagement/CSR, energy conservation, and the overriding business mission.
The first impressing criteria addressed what members identified as the key identity
messages the organisation sends. As with Level A, a strong key message was safety
in both a general and seasonal specific sense.
106
The biggest message would be safety. Everything we do has some sort of
safety element in it.
The majority of our messages are around safety. So, keeping people safe in
summer storms, be safe around power basically.
Echoing the sentiments of Level A, respondents viewed responsible corporate
citizenship as a key message which the organisation sends via communications.
So now the messages we’re looking to move into is “ACORP is moving to a
smarter more sustainable network” and that’s to address the energy issues
with the generational environmental impacts, the community impacts and the
cost impacts.
Distinct from Level A, respondents from Level B added energy conservation as well
as the overriding business mission of ACORP as other key messages communicates.
Also energy efficiency to try and reduce the amount of energy you’re using is
a big one for us.
Our primary message is that we’re an energy distributor and that people
know what we do, but also that the underlying messages are that we are a
good corporate citizen.
Of particular interest is the message of business mission as this was not mentioned
by respondents from Level A but was seen as a key issue by respondents from Level
C which will be addressed in Section 4.2.3.
In summary, key identity messages discussed at this Level B were safety (general and
seasonal), community engagement/CSR, energy conservation, and the overriding
business mission. Level B presented a more varied account of key identity messages
than Level A.
107
The second impressing criteria addressed how Level B members saw
communication as a representation of their views and feelings about the organisation.
As Level B members are responsible for the development and implementation of
communications at ACORP, these respondents felt a high degree of agreement with
identity communications. Level B respondents articulated that they felt message
alignment between espoused and actual was high and that one of their key
responsibilities is to review message content.
I truly believe that, in having worked here and having seen it from an
outsider as well, it’s a safety first culture.
Internally safety is pushed down everyone’s throats and its the number one
value and that defiantly is exactly the same as the external messaging
because safety is the primary communication that we send out to the
community as well.
I think we’re open about things as well so that come across. We come up
with the messages anyway so I suppose if I didn’t like the messages it would
be my fault. So I suppose that’s what we do.
I guess the thing is I have a fair bit of influence over the messages that we do
put out there so if I thought they we’re wrong they would be changed already.
Two elements that originated from Level B was the need for messages to be adjusted
to better fit the projected business environment of ACORP. Firstly, this was
specifically concerning the implementation of demand management messaging
which seeks to educate and inform consumers as to how they can better manage
energy usage.
I would want to explain, maybe flesh out a little bit more and educate the
community on exactly why we are building in their street … Explain to them
that because people are buying plasma TV’s, putting multiple air
conditioners in their house, this is why we’re building … We’re just starting
now so I think it’ll be good but I’d really like to see those messages reflected
right across those communications campaigns.
108
Secondly, a criticism of the current message approach was voiced regarding the need
to update strategy to better reflect the current business environment.
Our key branding message for the last couple of years was “ACORP we’re
behind everything”. That was a transitional message for the left ever of
where we were two years ago from where we had the retail arm because its
very much a retail message. Although I think the intention was that its
supporting an organisation that runs everything however it’s a bit more of a
sell message whereas we don’t need to sell anything anymore – we need to
build trust and keep people trusting in the brand.
In summary, Level B view corporate communication as a strong representation of the
way they view the organisation. However, they recognised the need for strategies to
be adjusted and improved in order to better current business opportunities.
The third impressing criteria revealed similar findings to Level A respondents.
Level B members discussed their representation of ACORP as one which presents an
active alignment with the organisation’s identity strategy. Furthermore, as observed
in Level A, respondents articulated the adjustment of representation to best fit the
needs of whomever they were representing ACORP be it internal, external, or end
user stakeholders. Finally, respondents at Level B also reported their contribution to
provide an approachable and human element to the intangible identity message.
We do pride ourselves on being quite open and honest about our dealings.
So I think that I would do that with stakeholders with meeting them, making
sure that we are being open with them in what we’re talking about and what
our plans are and things like that.
I suppose the impression that I’m trying to give them (government
stakeholders) is that I’m a professional and an ACORP representative who is
looking to build relations and meet their needs and hoping to work together
in whatever avenue we’re talking about.
109
When I’m speaking to internal stakeholders I’m always very positive about
the brand and what we’re trying to do externally and try and make
improvements. I try and explain to them the need for what we’re doing and
that it is helping them and that ACORP is working for them.
As a person representing ACORP you’re giving it a life like quality and a
likeable person and therefore as your association with ACORP you should be
developing the brand through your one on one communication.
In summary, Level B representation of identity is consistent with key identity
messages and is tailored specifically to the receiver. In addition, Level B members
see interaction with others as an opportunity to provide a tangible element to identity
messages.
The fourth impressing criteria revealed that respondents at Level B represented a
similar position to those at Level A. Level B respondents reported seeing a limited
espoused/actual gap in their own representation of identity and that there closeness to
message creation and management formed a constraint against disparity.
Because I’m so involved with the key messages which the organisation is
sending out it almost becomes part of my vocabulary. I tend to sometimes
speak in key messages to internal stakeholders and external stakeholders.
I would like to think I’m a good brand ambassador … if I didn’t really
believe them (the messages) there would be trouble. I think that goes for the
whole corp coms team too.
The only distinction from representation being when Level B members are trying to
help implement change in messaging.
I guess I do stray away from what we are putting out at the moment to try and
make change. To try and change the direction of the brand and the different
messages we’re putting out.
110
In summary, Level B respondents see high degrees of consistency between
communications strategy and their own representation only straying from this when
implementing change.
4.3.3 Impressing: Non-Marketing Managers and Employees Level C consists of respondents who have no direct control over the strategic
direction of communications within ACORP. This group represents employees from
various parts of the business all with different tasks and responsibilities. Employees
from this group present the highest level of interaction with external stakeholders as
well as the highest range of contacts from federal government representatives
through to end user customers. Furthermore, this was the largest sample group of the
three studied with eight respondents from different work groups (specific level
details have been addressed in Section 3.5.3).
Regarding the first impressing criteria of the communicated identity of ACORP,
this group articulated the broadest range of elements which they saw as the key
messages that ACORP communicates. This group presented no clear direction of
identity elements but rather a wide range of key messages and tactics from past and
present some of which are no longer communicated by the organisation. The
elements respondents from Level C identified included safety (general and seasonal),
community engagement, CSR, crisis management, employer of choice (internal and
external messaging), energy conservation, demand management, and network
investment.
From a safety perspective I think it’s very positive, that our obligation to
community safety is very well demonstrated.
Right now its safety, storm prep, and good corporate citizens.
I think our main focus that we’re a good corporate citizen - seems to be to me
the main general sort of thrust … And it just seems that we’re saying “hey
we’re still around, we’re good guys, you can depend on us”.
111
Now we don’t have a retail part we’re focused on the reliability, you know
the “poles and wires” business is the way we sort of express it. So our
messages are more community type messages saying … we’re either
promoting things like “we’re upgrading the electricity in your area” or
“we’re experiencing troubles from these storms in this area and we’re trying
to get your power back on”.
In summary, Level C presented the least aligned perspective of key identity messages
with some respondents including elements no longer used by ACORP. Key identity
messages discussed at this level were safety (general and seasonal), community
engagement, CSR, crisis management, employee of choice (internal and external
messaging), energy conservation, demand management, and network investment. As
compared to Level A and Level B, although with the highest external stakeholder
interaction, Level C presented the most varied and least aligned knowledge of current
identity communications practice.
The second impressing criteria addresses how Level C members perceived the
communicated identity of ACORP as compared to their views of the organisation.
As previously mentioned, Level C has the highest interaction with external
stakeholders and as such representing ACORP is a large part of their job. Level C
presented the lowest level of representation of identity as compared with the other
groups by far. This lack of representation manifested itself in four distinct ways; (1)
customer service, (2) lack of top down information, (3) mixed messages in
communications, and (4) overly simplistic information. Firstly, from a Level C
perspective, customer service was addressed as an area which was not presented in a
manner which represents their view of the actual organisation.
Its not very customer focused. Its so safety focused that it doesn’t give the
image that ACORP is actually there to help and you know if you have a
problem you can call.
112
I don’t think they really advertise that customer service as a distributor. I
guess maybe they don’t think it’s important because they’re a distributor;
they don’t deal with customers directly as such except if their powers out.
The second key area was the lack of information about the company’s role in the
market place. As discussed in Section 4.2, ACORP functions as an energy
distributor rather than its previous role as distributor and retailer. The retail function
is now handled by external companies working in a competitive marketplace.
ACORP has the responsibility of supplying retailers with power to on sell to end
users as well as maintaining the energy network. Respondents noted that this is a
key area that needs addressing for ACORP as it impacts on their interaction with
stakeholders on a day-to-day basis.
The message probably hasn’t got out to the general public that there’s a
division between retailing and distribution, and most people probably done
understand it. I think that’s something they could have done better.
The area where I think we fall down most, and its probably very complicated,
we’re a government owned corporate as you know, that means we’re
beholden to our masters so there is a degree of “political” sort of care that
you have to take in the place. But the shift in selling off the retail arm and
moving to all these retailers, customers are absolutely confused with the fact
they can no longer get their energy through us.
The third key area for Level C was confusing or misinformation regarding ACORP.
Examples discussed by respondents note mixed messages at a business to consumer
and business to stakeholder level. Although Level C respondents have no direct
control over communications strategy they note the need to be consistent and
relevant with ACORP’s approach to identity.
Recently, one of our media people was on the news talking about “selling
electricity” and about “the cost of electricity” and I thought to myself that
113
just confuses people “(customer) hang on you don’t sell it anymore do you so
why are you talking about it?”
So we’re doing things with councils and all kinds of people right across the
board in a consistent way, but at the front line I’m not sure if the troops
probably understand that. We might be getting mixed messages going out
there.
You can go back on a flyer that’s six years old and you cant tell the difference
between what is being produced now. So in six years we’ve had this huge
turn around in peoples thinking about energy and the way we use it but that
same droll half information.
The fourth and final key area that Level C discussed as an area of concern was the
overly simplistic information being presented through identity communication to
stakeholders. They addressed this as a concern and discussed the poor reflection
they felt it gave outsiders of ACORP.
I don’t actually think that we give people enough credit of knowledge or
interest. If we just say “we need a power line for such and such reason”,
that’s fine because it suits us but they want more information. They want to
know why we need such a big capacity power line and what it’s going to feed
and all that. People are actually generally interested and I think that our
communications always have a sort of, not a condescending view but a “you
wont understand so we’ll just keep it simple”.
I find it paternalistic. I don’t buy into it at all. I find it superior, “don’t
worry we know what’s best for you, and we’re going to do it, and we’re going
to spend a lot of money doing it, and here’s how much money we’re going to
spend on you”. And I just don’t like it so it doesn’t wash with me.
In summary, Level C presents a less aligned position in terms of the representation of
identity communication compared to their views of the organisation than the other
two identified level groups. Level C outlined four key areas for improvement in
114
communications strategy, those being customer service, lack of top down
information, mixed messages in communications and overly simplistic information.
This presents a distinct position from Level A and Level B which reported a much
more aligned view of representation in communication strategy.
The third impressing criteria addressed employee representation with stakeholders
and presented a position similar to the other two groups. Level C viewed interaction
and represented with stakeholders as an important part of their job and highlighted
the key approach of educating stakeholders as to what ACORP does. Furthermore,
representing the organisation in a positive manner to show an organisation staffed by
members of the same community as customers, focused on best practice and
response in crisis. This representation aims to go further than the identity
communication strategy and provide a human element to the organisation.
I think we need to put a human face to electricity and that’s what my team try
and do basically. We are that person that you can ring when you’ve got an
issue or just more information.
I’ve certainly put a strong message out that we will not compromise, we’ve
got certain standards and we’re not willing to drop below certain things.
Furthermore, respondents detailed that ACORP representation extends to internal
stakeholders as well as customers.
Once I put on the blue shirt from wearing the overalls I was very aware that
you become part of the organisation and management and you’ve got to
present everything in a positive way.
In summary, Level C respondents recounted the aim to represent the organisation in a
positive manner which articulated the human elements of the company by which the
organisation functions. This representation is similar to Level A and Level B but with
115
more focus on filling in the elements which identity communications may neglect or
give minimal details of.
The fourth impressing criteria revealed a more distinct gap between representation
and identity communication than the preceding Level A and Level B. Level C
members discussed both alignment and misalignment of their personal representation
when dealing with stakeholders. Firstly in terms of alignment, respondents noted the
need to be a positive representation of the organisation and adjust representation to
best fit with their stakeholder audience at the time.
I’m always aware that I’m a representative of ACORP and I try and not push
the company line but try and make sure I’m in sync with what we’re saying.
You’ve got to put yourself in their shoes as well because here’s this giant
monster ACORP and you don’t want to come across as the big large bullying
type organisation.
I’d bring the message down to a community level, so that we are all one. I
would give the community credit for having some intelligence. I would give
them real information of why we are actually doing it. You know, why are we
doing these things, why do we need to do these things.
Secondly, some respondents noted a disparity in what the organisation says
(espoused identity) and what the organisation does (actual identity) and the need to
better inform stakeholders on key issues.
I mean we talk about being a customer centric organisation and that’s
definitely a focus from when I first started which I’m pleased to see. I still
think the processes in what we do will take some time to catch up with that
focus.
At our level, which is pretty much the bottom end of the food chain, I would
have to say no. We don’t feel like, and we probably don’t understand, why
the organisation isn’t more explicit about what is going on.
116
In summary, Level C articulated a mixed response in terms of identity representation
that focused on the need to adjust representation to better communicate with
stakeholders on an interpersonal basis.
4.3.4 Impressing: Themes and Summary Section 4.3.1 through 4.3.3 have discussed impressing findings across the three data
collection levels. This analysis focused on four criteria to understand the ways in
which impressing processes occur and are understood by employees.
Criteria One: What do specific respondent levels identify as the communicated
identity of the organisation?
The first criteria revealed that knowledge and understanding of communications is
strongest at the senior levels and also particularly strong with the next level down of
marketing and communications staff. Understanding of those outside the marketing
group revealed a marked differencing in knowledge and understanding of
communications messages and tactics, in some cases with respondents noting
strategies that are no longer in place. This first criteria reveals that impressing is a
process which will have variance at different employee levels based on their
proximity to strategic identity creation and management within an organisation.
Criteria Two: Does the communicated identity adequately represent respondent
views of the organisation?
The second criteria showed a marked difference between groups with Level A
detailing almost no distinction between espoused and actual, Level B detailing a
similar approach but the need to adjust delivery for the improvement of
communications efficiency, and Level C outlined a limited representation of their
organisational views in communications. This second criteria reveals that employees
at different levels had marked differences in how they see representativeness of
communications messages. Again, proximity to the strategic identity creation and
117
management of staff showed an increase in levels of representativeness whereas
employees with no direct relationship to communication produced more a more
negative representation of identity.
Criteria Three: How do respondents represent the organisation in dealings with
stakeholders in a person-to-person representation?
The third criteria articulated consistency across the groups in representation with
stakeholder groups. The Level C group that had the highest level of stakeholder
interaction of the three noted the need for their representation to go further than the
mass communicated identity programs of the organisation. Furthermore, this group
strongly emphasised the need for their interpersonal communication to articulate
elements missing from communications of the identity and present a more human
side to their organisation. All groups noted the importance of representing a position
that is in line with marketing communication initiatives. The third criteria reveals
that staff understand the importance of relationships with stakeholders and aim to
create a positive relationship rather simply one way communications with those
groups.
Criteria Four: Do respondents perceive a distinction between the strategic
communicated identity and their own representation of identity?
The fourth and final criteria articulated a mostly consistent position across the groups
with a few exceptions. One respondent noted that alignment bore little importance at
their position as internal communication should be unique and distinct from external.
Some members of Level B and Level C discussed the need to adjust representation to
better fit with the needs of stakeholders they are dealing with on a case-by-case
basis. The fourth criteria echoed the third in terms of staff understanding of identity
as well as the importance of providing a consistent message via impressing processes
be they mass communication or interpersonal stakeholder communications.
118
4.4 Mirroring Analysis
RQ2: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics mirroring processes
(image/identity) occur and are understood by employees within an
organisation across unique workgroups?
As addressed in Section 2.5.3 Mirroring: Image to Identity, mirroring serves as a
review process from image to identity where employees interact with external
stakeholders and gauge external sentiment as a comparison against internal views.
This interaction has an impact on the identity and how employees represent it. As
suggested by Dutton and Dukerich (1991), the impact from image of organisational
outsiders can adjust the way in which insiders view the organisation and act upon
certain issues. Furthermore, Hatch and Schultz (2002) note the filter through from
external stakeholder image and the way in which it impacts on the identity of the
organisation. This filtering processes acts as a form of self-examination by
organisational members and also represents a destabalising process on identity
(Hatch & Schultz, 2002).
Section 4.4.1 through 4.4.3 discusses the data collected from the three sample
groups. Findings from each distinct group will be addressed in terms of the reflexive
nature of the image to identity relationship and will focus on the following two
criteria:
Who do respondents identity as the key stakeholder group or groups of the
organisation?
119
Does the stakeholder relationship or brand representation take position of
priority in interactions with stakeholder groups?
What have been instances of adjustment of personal brand representation
based on reflection from or experience with stakeholders of the organisation?
These three criteria focus on the nature of stakeholder relations at the sample levels
as well as the understanding employees have of the mirroring process and adjustment
accordingly back into the organisation. Following this, Section 4.4.4 will discuss
mirroring themes of the data across the three levels.
4.4.1 Mirroring: Senior Marketing and Corporate Communications Management As Level A represents senior communications managers, mirroring processes were
expected to represent more of a corporate perspective. The first mirroring criteria
addressed whom senior communications managers saw as the key stakeholder at
their level as well as holistically for the business. From this the key groups that
emerged were government and community/customers. Respondents at this level
identified that although community/customers are of importance, they are a flow
though in terms of servicing the needs of their government stakeholder. By servicing
community/customers in an adequate fashion they decrease the possible impact on
government stakeholder relationship.
My first duty is to Mr. and Mrs. Jones in Smith Street in Aspley (customers).
My key performance indicator is that the customer knows what to do and if
they do that, then I don’t have the local member, I don’t have the chief
executive, I don’t have the chairman of the board, I don’t have the courier
mail, and I don’t have channel nine, and I don’t have a current affair kicking
my door in. And if I don’t hear from them then I know that the jobs being
done.
The community. But government, I mean, they are our stakeholder, the
government is our stakeholder, people forget that. That’s probably what
happened a bit in the retail company, the board members thought it was good
going ahead this way but people forget, as I used to keep telling them that
120
your number one stakeholder is still the government. There’s plenty of things
we do here where we do it because the government tells us to.
Another element which was addressed by respondents was the understanding of
different stakeholder importance that employees give based on the fact that some
have limited or no interaction with end users. From this perspective key stakeholders
for certain members of staff can be internal rather than external.
Because we’re a GOC (government owned corporation), I think a lot of
people think government – our shareholders, our owners. I think some people
in the organisation their key stakeholder would be customers. I think
different people in different groups would answer that differently. I guess the
interesting thing about our organisation is that there’s a lot of people in roles
they have no contact whatsoever with customers. So when you’re talking
about customers they’re almost looking at internal people who are sort of in
the delivery chain.
So you’ve got people in, administrators and all that, the way we do our work
with computers and all that, those people never talk to a customer. So do
they feel good about the brand? They feel good about what’s coming in every
week into their pocket and their performance bonus. Do they care about the
brand? No.
In summary, Level A identified government as the key overriding stakeholder.
Community/customers are of importance as a means of satisfying government
stakeholder relations.
The second mirroring criteria viewed Level A respondents interaction with
stakeholders. Specifically, this criteria addressed the importance to employees of
nurturing stakeholder relationships against the importance of identity representation
by staff members of ACORP. Respondents at Level A viewed stakeholder
relationships (be they internal or external stakeholders) as the position of importance.
121
Specifically, this group noted the strength employees add to stakeholder interaction
as a representative of ACORP becoming a tangible representation of the
organisation.
Got to let the stakeholders know. I mean as an employee you are the brand
so you’ve got to know what you’re talking about. Our biggest brand is our
people.
It depends on what you call the ACORP brand. I’ve already seen our brand
go through a number of iterations and changes. So I guess you’d have to say
look my first allegiance to the people who are actually working here (internal
stakeholders). Because to me to some extent the brand should actually reflect
who is the organisation.
In summary, Level A respondents view stakeholder relationships be they internal or
external as of key importance during stakeholder interaction. Furthermore, Level A
noted the importance of employees in stakeholder interaction.
The third mirroring criteria focused on instances where employees have adjusted
their brand representation when dealing with a particular stakeholder group. In this
interaction with stakeholders respondents from Level A discussed their need to adjust
the approach to keep true to their own belief. In the example below, a respondent
discussed a product which the company as a whole as been pushing in both a
corporate and a communications sense but that insiders understood to have flaws. In
this interaction the respondent notes that they would be putting his personal
reputation at risk as well as the relationship that has been built with that stakeholder
if he were to mislead for the sake of sticking with the company message.
But me myself, whenever I’m talking about it to people, I know what the party
line is but I would be betraying my belief and the brand if I didn’t tell people
(about a poor product). I would never tell anybody this is going to save you
a fortune (poor product). Beware of it, that’s what I always say.
122
In this sense the mirroring process is proactive rather than reactive as discussed in
previous study. By being proactive and negating misleading the stakeholder in a one
to one sense, the respondent furthers the relationship and seeks to sustain the trust
that has been built over time.
In summary, Level A noted the need to be truthful in representation even if it means
going against communication strategy. Proactive rather than reactive mirroring to
sustain stakeholder relationships.
4.4.2 Mirroring: Marketing and Corporate Communications Staff Level B represents a step down from Level A respondents and as such stakeholder
importance presented a differing perspective with regard to the first mirroring
criteria of stakeholder importance. Although government and
community/customers are still discussed as key stakeholder groups, the way in which
they were described showed variance from Level A members. Some Level B
members described government in a similar manner to Level A in that government
represented the key stakeholder and that community/customers relationships are of
importance to service the government stakeholder relationship.
Probably government in terms of, well they are our shareholders. So,
government hold the purse strings and we’re accountable to them and
therefore yeah I would say they are our number one stakeholder for the
business.
I think the customers, the residences and the businesses. The politicians kind
of feed of what they are thinking as well. So keeping the customers happy
and not bulldozing their backyards and putting power lines through it.
A different explanation of the community/customer relationship was also presented
by respondents in Level B whereby the community/customer stakeholder was of
importance as it represented the reason why ACORP ultimately exists. It is
123
suggested that this position represents closer to that of a private enterprise view of
ACORP that a essential service position as presented by Level A.
I would say external, our customers, as being the most important stakeholder
group because that who we’re delivering energy to. And obviously they
would be, out of all our stakeholders, the most important in my opinion. If
we’re all meeting the needs of that stakeholder we should then fall in line to
have the same goals.
The community, everyone would say the community is our key stakeholder
group, corporately, definitely . Everything we do is ultimately is to benefit
the community. Any decision we make corporately is trying to think about
what is best going to benefit our customer.
Support for this contention can be found when looking at the change in the nature of
the ACORP business model moving from a retail approach to a distribution only
model.
I don’t think it has always been that way (customers first). I think that
ACORP is trying to become more of a customer centric organisaiton which
can be hard for a distribution business when we don’t retail anymore.
In summary, Level B identified government and community/customers as the key
stakeholders at their level. Distinct from Level A, Level B addressed
community/customers not only as a means of nurturing government stakeholders but
also as a key group on their own which was of key importance to the business.
The second mirroring criteria addressed the interaction of Level B respondents
with external stakeholders. Specifically this criterion focused on if the stakeholder
relationship or representing the ACORP brand was of more importance during the
interaction. Level B respondents were divided with regards to stakeholder
interaction. Two respondents cited the stakeholder relationship of importance as it
124
acts as a means to build a mutually beneficial relationship with that stakeholder
group and in turn furthering the brand.
I would put relationships above brand messages yeah. I would never
contravene a brand message but delivering the brand message to that
stakeholder would be secondary to my relationship with that stakeholder.
I think its important to have a good relationship with stakeholders in order to
maintain the integrity of the brand so I would say, yeah its important to
nurture that relationship … So if you don’t have those relationships there
with the stakeholders then you don’t have a brand.
The other two respondents from Level B cited brand representation as of the upmost
importance during stakeholder interaction.
I think its staying true to the ACORP brand. But keeping in mind that the
relationship would obviously be important. And I think its probably two fold.
But the ACORP brand and the message that we’re trying to send is very
important. B3
I would say day-to-day, while I think nurturing the media and having those
good relationships is really important for us I would back our brand, and I
would stand by our product. That’s my job to do that. B4
In summary, Level B presents no clear direction as to the importance of one objective
over the other.
The third mirroring criteria examined instances where employees have adjusted
their brand representation for a particular reason when dealing with a stakeholder
group. In the case of Level B, respondents noted the need to adjust their
representation as a means of adjusting messages or implementing change. This
required members to adjust their approach to better serve the needs of a strategic
direction.
125
In the last couple of months where I think that this message about demand
management needs to be pushed and that’s not in our corporate messaging.
So I suppose that’s part of preparing the way. You want your key
stakeholders on board before you go out with public messaging so their
aware of what’s coming.
Probably the internal stakeholders probably just with realigning mass
communication tactics.
We sometimes have to take a different tact to get internal stakeholders to
think the same way. So that might just be changing the way we approach our
interaction with them.
Also of note is that Level B members noted only adjustment with internal
organisational stakeholders. This was a previously unexplored area in literature as
previous studies addressed mirroring from externals back into the organisation. In
the case of this study, Level B respondents used internal mirroring as a way to adapt
and adjust their approach as a means of introducing a new approach to an established
system. This was further highlighted in a statement from a respondent who
recollected an example of corporate communications acting as a mirroring agent
between external and internal stakeholder groups. In this case, by assessing the
external situation and comparing it against the internal, the ACORP corporate
communications department was able to identify a gap in communications on behalf
of internal stakeholders.
In corporate communications we get a view of what’s going on and we can
pick our issues but we can also say “well no one knows about that issue”, we
know but no one else knows. And that information was fed back to the CEO
saying that “you’ve done all these presentations externally to all these
industry groups but you haven’t presented that information internally yet”.
So the first time that was done was a month or so ago and people were
talking like “everyone needs to see this presentation of where were going for
this smarter more sustainable network in the future”, and its looking at
alternatives rather than just building to meet the demand.
126
In summary, Level B respondents noted adjustment of brand representation with
internal stakeholder groups. Reasoning for adjustment was cited as a means to adjust
to fit the specific interaction or as an internal mirroring process.
4.4.3 Mirroring: Non-Marketing Managers and Employees Level C respondents represent managers and employees who have varying degrees of
interaction with a wide range of stakeholder groups which is represented in their data
against the first mirroring criteria. Some members of this group deal with external
stakeholders on a daily basis (e.g. Consumer Advocate Manager) whereas others
have no direct interaction with stakeholders outside of ACORP (e.g. Legal Council).
Those respondents with a high degree of external interaction cited the
community/customer as the key stakeholder target of ACORP. They represented
servicing the community/consumer stakeholder as the driver on which ACORP
functions.
In my role the most important stakeholder group is the customer. That’s
clearly our main objective for the organisation – to be a customer centric
organisation. The customer is central to everything we do.
We’re building this network for the community, so if we didn’t have a
community we wouldn’t have a network to build. I would hope so. I guess
it’s a bit of an intangible thing for people that are really stuck into the design
area.
It would be the external customer. Internally there’s lots of people you deal
with but I suppose I tend to be the interface between them and the external
world. I probably take more interest in the customers view of the world than
what internal of the organisation is. Sometimes you’ll try and bully internal
bits to make it work better (for the customer).
127
One Level C respondent mentioned the government stakeholder group, in a tongue
and cheek manner, as more of a corporate importance than what majority of workers
in the organisation see as important.
While we all work within the same company certainly out in the field, the
most important stakeholder is the customer. I think corporately the most
important stakeholder is the minister. And making sure that the minister is
not embarrassed, bothered, upset (laughs).
For respondents who had less interaction with external groups, stakeholder groups
represented an internal view. When not interacting with community/customers
directly, some respondents viewed internal stakeholder groups as their primary
concern.
My clients so a lot of the people here in corporate communications or
governance so the GM and company secretary is who I deal with mostly. I
don’t tend to deal with people outside.
In my role probably the guys on the tools because every person on these
seventeen levels and all the other buildings we’ve got around – if we didn’t
have the two thousand guys we’ve got on the tools we wouldn’t be here. And
I know a lot of people sort of think it’s the other way around.
In summary, Level C members identified both external and internal stakeholder
groups as important as based on their level of interaction with community/customers.
Overall Level C respondents viewed community/customers as the key stakeholder
group at their level as well as for the organisation overall. Level C respondents with
limited external interaction viewed key internal stakeholders as their customers.
For the second mirroring criteria, importance of brand representation against
stakeholder relationships, the majority of Level C respondents held that stakeholder
relations were of more importance than brand representation in dealings with
128
stakeholders. Respondents stated a number of reasons for favouring stakeholder
relations over brand representation mostly concerning the stipulation that by building
a relationship first it provides a better opportunity of being able to represent ACORP
well in future stakeholder dealings.
It’s nurturing the relationship. You’ve got to build that trust level for a start
and understand each other’s needs and objectives. Be able to put yourself in
their shoes otherwise you may be trying to head for an outcome that doesn’t
fit at all with the stakeholders needs. You’ve got to build a relationship first
otherwise if you just go straight into the ACORP brand and all that sort of
stuff that’s not going to resonate well with most astute people.
Nurturing the relationship with the stakeholder, the ACORP brand will come
naturally from that. As I said before, people are very sophisticated in
understanding messages so if your engaging with a stakeholder on a
particular issue, and engaging honestly, and providing the best information
you’re able to, you don’t need to do anything with the ACORP brand because
that will just come by itself. You’ll leave that person with a feeling that
they’ve been dealt with fairly.
Furthermore, within Level C some respondents stated that they did not view ACORP
as a brand in itself. From their perspective by building a strong stakeholder
relationship, employees in essence become the ACORP brand. The communication
they send to particular stakeholders originates from the representation employees
themselves give which has been built on their interpretation and filtering of VI / CI
messages manifested in their perspective of OI.
That’s an interesting question – I don’t think of it as a brand. I am the brand,
if you know what I’m saying. When I’m sitting across the desk from a
director general, or a government person, or a customer or whatever, I am
representing ACORP. So they would see me as the ACORP logo tattooed on
my forehead, I would hope they do.
I don’t actually see ACORP as a brand, maybe that’s because I’m not a
marketing person. Certainly you want to make sure you develop a
129
relationship with that person and I’m happy to say whatever about ACORP
and how it operates because I think it generally operates really well.
In summary, Level C view building stakeholder relationships as of the upmost
importance. This enables them to provide a positive representation of the
organisation to stakeholders.
The third mirroring criteria addressed Level C respondents instances where they
have made adjustments to their representation of ACORP when dealing with
stakeholders. Firstly, respondents noted the need to be honest and open in dealing
with stakeholders and addressing issues from the outset has served as a means of
keeping beneficial relations. Respondents noted that they found being honest and
open with issues works better in most situations than giving the corporate line.
Sometimes you might actually be honest with a customer and say we stuffed
up on a job, running late, found some design problems, or whatever. You
can’t sort of tell porkies to make ACORP look better. In fact actually telling
them up front that there’s been a problem and how we’re going to fix it is a
better way to go.
Yes I would say I would have. Probably in negotiating one-on-one with
customers. There’s a time when you talk with customers who might be
slightly aggrieved or irate and you’ve tried the corporate spiel and they don’t
like that so you tell it like it is.
Secondly, when dealing with instances where incorrect information had been given
to a customer members of Level C noted the need to depart from messages in mass
communication. In some cases incorrect corporate communication has damaged
ongoing one to one communications with stakeholders.
130
Yes, yes a lot … when we get mass communication that is factually incorrect.
This is a bit of a sore point - one would hope there was communication
between the groups (laughs) Its an issue!
Yes I have. There have been some issues where there has just been incorrect
information. Projects changing without me knowing about it you know. I’ve
been negotiating with different landowners about certain things and then it
gets changed and then it gets sent out.
In summary, Level C respondents noted the need to be honest and open in dealings
with stakeholders and relate on a one to one level to build relationships as this was
often more beneficial than repeating pre-determined corporate messages.
4.4.4 Mirroring: Themes and Summary Section 4.4.1 though 4.4.3 have addressed mirroring findings across the three data
collection groups. This analysis utilised three criteria to understand key stakeholders
at different levels, the importance of stakeholder relations against brand
representation, and outlining instances where respondents adjusted brand
representation during interaction with stakeholders.
Criteria One: Who do respondents identity as the key stakeholder group or groups
of the organisation?
The first criteria demonstrated that although key stakeholders were similar between
the three levels, the importance and the way in which they were described varied. As
the analysis moved from Level A through Level C the centrality of customers as
central to ACORP increased. The opposite occurred in terms of the importance of
government as a stakeholder being highest at Level A moving to lowest at Level C.
The first criteria reveals that mirroring is a process that will have a variety of impacts
depending on the importance of stakeholders to a particular employee group. This
will have relevance to the tacit and overt influence which different groups will have
131
over employees, and in turn, impact and adjust the way they self examine the identity
of their organisation.
Criteria Two: Does the stakeholder relationship or brand representation take
position of priority in interactions with stakeholder groups?
The second criteria reveals a mostly consistent approach across the three groups. Of
the fifteen respondents in the sample only two identified brand representation as
more important. A common thread across respondents who regarded stakeholder
relationships as more important was that it served to build a mutually beneficial
relationship which can be used as a catalyst by employees to help leverage a
favorable image of ACORP in stakeholders over time. The second criteria reveals
that when dealing with those outside the organisation stakeholder relations take
position of importance and as such a more mediated approach to communications
between the organsiation and stakeholders can be an outcome.
Criteria Three: What have been instances of adjustment of personal brand
representation based on reflection from or experience with
stakeholders of the organisation?
The third and final mirroring criteria showed instances where respondents had
adjusted representation as a result of mirroring. A common thread across the three
groups was the need to sometimes adjust an approach away from communication
strategy as a means to relate to stakeholders in an honest and transparent manner.
Furthermore, this “straight talk” approach was seen by some respondents as being
more affective than “corporate speak” and in some cases used in a proactive manner
based on what they expected to be the perspective of external stakeholders on issues.
Another element to emerge from this criteria was the process of “internal mirroring”
where respondents noted the need to adjust approach not only in interaction with
external stakeholders but also with internal organisational groups. Respondents
noted the use of “internal mirroring” when attempting to implement change in
communications strategy as a means to prepare internal stakeholders for new
messaging initiatives. The third criteria noted that although previously respondents
132
had stated that synergy with identity messages was of high importance, when dealing
in a face to face mode with stakeholders adjustment and refinement of messages was
needed sometimes moving away from the strategic identity approach of the
organsiation. This adjustment of message was described with both internal and
external stakeholders.
4.5 Reflecting Analysis
RQ3: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics reflecting processes
(identity/culture) occur and are understood by employees within an
organisation across unique workgroups?
As addressed in Section 2.5.4 Reflecting: Identity to Culture, reflecting processes are
those whereby elements of identity are entrenched into the cultural underpinnings of
the organisation. These elements can be a consequence of self-examination (as
addressed in the Dutton and Dukerich (1991) case study) by employees and in turn
impacting the defining elements of the organisational culture. Hatch and Schultz
(2002) contend that these elements take place as a result of corporate
communications initiatives seen and filtered by employees, as well employee
interaction with stakeholders. To understand reflecting processes is it important to
address what employees identify as the true organisational culture of the company as
well as the elements of communication that have helped to shape and mold that
underlying culture.
133
Section 4.5.1 through 4.5.3 will analyse the data collected from the three sample
groups. Findings from each distinct group will be addressed in terms of what
elements of communications messages have become incorporated into the culture of
ACORP. This will be addressed utilising the following three criteria:
How do respondents describe the culture of the organisation?
What mechanisms of reflection have respondents experienced during their
time at the organisation?
What communication elements do respondents identify as being incorporated
into the culture of the organisation?
These three criteria investigate reflecting at distinct levels by addressing the
underlying culture from an employee perceive, the representativeness of this culture,
as well as the communications elements which align into the culture. Following this,
Section 4.5.4 will discuss reflecting themes of the data across the three sample levels.
4.5.1 Reflecting: Senior Marketing and Corporate Communications Management Level A respondents include senior internal and external communications managers
and as such these respondents have a high degree of control and influence over
strategic messaging within ACORP. The first reflecting criteria dealt with how the
respondents view the organisational culture of ACORP and how they would describe
the company as an insider. Overall Level A respondents were positive about how
they would describe the internal culture of ACORP however themes did emerge from
the analysis. Respondents viewed ACORP as a culture in transition from its public
service roots to a more private enterprise approach. Furthermore, in this discussion
respondents recounted different external communications messages as elements
which describe the internal working of ACORP
We’ve just recently done a staff survey on this and we’ve got a culture image.
And what it basically said overall the culture is pretty positive. So a lot of
people see the organisation as open, approachable, positive. But there are
some negative clusters. I would see it’s a very strong culture.
134
I think the culture of ACORP is as I said going through a bit of a transition.
The culture that the chief executive and the board is trying to drive is
customer centric. And the catch tag on our logo is “positive energy” so
“positive energy, customer centric, we deliver” all of those things are
focused on service delivery. So I think the culture is service.
Another element that emerged was that respondents discussed silos within the
organisation which at times caused divides between groups and as such
inefficiencies. Organisational silos were addressed as an element that stunted
elements of cross-functional interaction within ACORP.
A lot of our projects need to be cross functional and cross group and one of
the things I have observed at ACORP is often when you go to meetings you’ll
see the same people at meetings rather than pulling in different people from
different groups and trying to improve that collaboration.
Also addressed was the varying nature of culture within the organisation and the
possibility of subcultures. Respondents discussed variance that they had observed
specifically in the customer approach between different workgroups within ACORP.
It’s a culture that’s built on people having sort of a strong sense of pride in
the organisation. Safety comes first. Impressing our customers and a
customer focus is different, that varies across the organisation quite strongly.
Another point that emerged from the discussion of culture was the representativeness
of the current communications approach both internal and external against the
organisational culture of ACORP. Firstly, one respondent discussed organisational
culture in very much an interpretivist manner (discussed in Section 2.4) as something
which was outside the realm of overt management influence and control.
Furthermore, this respondent also referred to the notion that the current
representation of culture presented an espoused rather than an actual position. In this
135
sense, the elements discussed in reflection present those where the organisation
wishes the culture to be rather than where it is.
I think sometimes our brand positioning or marketing which we control here,
might sometimes over represent the culture, its represents where the culture
should be or where we would like it to be … Putting culture down on a piece
of paper doesn’t put you into the lunch room. You can put it on every notice
board you like, you can put it on every pay slip, if they don’t believe it, it
wont happen. And I think part of the cultural change here has been getting
people to believe “yeah we are pretty good, we do a good job”.
This was furthered by another Level A respondent who discussed the culture against
the current “positive energy” communications strategy employed by ACORP. Along
with the previous theme of organisational silos from this it is contended that there is
not a unilateral actual culture within ACORP but rather cultural elements which are
influenced somewhat by internal and external communications initiatives.
No … in some respects yes very much so because I think, I’ll explain that –
“positive energy” it depends on what you mean by that. Like the elements of
the brand I know what makes it up. And yes, we are responsive, we are
technically proficient. Have we got a culture though which is really like
“positive energy”? No. I would say in some areas we’ve got that and in
some areas we haven’t got that but the real “positive here we are!” No I
wouldn’t say that’s it.
In summary, Level A presented a view that ACORP is a changing culture that
contains varying degrees of customer orientation. Organsiational teams silos
described.
The second reflecting criteria looked at the experiences respondents have had with
the mechanisms of reflection within ACORP. This centers around the ways in which
the organisation imparts elements of identity into employees and hence influences
136
the culture of the organisation. These are not necessarily overt communications
strategies as such but elements that have a more tacit influence over organisational
culture. As Level A members are responsible for the strategic direction of
communications both externally and internally they do have some control over
reflecting mechanisms and processes. A key element this group identified was the
use of actual employees in communications initiatives to give a sense of pride to
staff. Furthermore, a key organisational approach of being “customer centric” is
promoted through awards to employees and suppliers each year to show the
importance of understanding customer needs and rewarding high standards of
customer care.
I suppose one of the things we have done over the past few years and I have
mentioned using staff in ads is taking people and making them proud of the
company.
Great emphasis on promoting our own people – things like using them in ads
and the like.
Where people within the company are rewarded for doing their job and then
some. And there’s excellence awards and customer care awards and they
can be internal or external customers. Then we get contractors, people who
work for us side by side, who get rewarded, incentivized if you like. Then
there’s suppliers awards, so people we’re actually paying a couple of million
bucks to a year to give us cable can actually win an award and you think
“hang on, that’s a bit weird”, but we’re rewarding them for quality of service
to us. You can’t be customer centric if you aren’t a good customer yourself.
In other words, a customer that recognizes good service.
With regard to the mechanisms of reflecting one point which did emerge as a point
of contention between respondents at Level A was the importance of communication
to come under one specific group. As outlined in Section 4.2, the current approach
of managing communications is that external communications is handled by one
unique group and internal communications is handled by a subsidiary of ACORP’s
Human Resources group. Prior to the adoption of this approach, all communications
137
was handled by one group. Views on the effectiveness of this separation approach
ranged from strongly disagree, to somewhat neutral, to strongly agree.
Biggest change is the communication, the way we do things itself. Years ago
we used to have this magazine used to be full of stuff. Our internal and
external communications groups are separate. I think they should all be
together. There’s some, a lot of places people (internal coms) only work two
or three days a week. So their credibility to the internal organisation is …
probably get killed for saying this but they haven’t got much credos with the
staff anymore. Most of the stuff that’s done internally is even written by us.
We’re out there and about all the time, were inclusive.
Works sometimes doesn’t on others. But it’s the model this company works
with, you know, its probably another seven or eight people (internal team)
that aren’t in my group that I could use.
I know a lot of people talk about that “internal and external communications
need to be really strongly linked and the reason for that is that employees
need to be brand advocates and that is totally different from the way I view it.
I mean the reality of it is we’ve got people who’ve been working here for
twenty years and they’ve been through enormous changes. They know
exactly how the organisation functions and what its like. So its not like I’m
working in a bank and “well how do we give you some messages so at a
barbeque so you can talk about the commonwealth bank” or something.
In summary, Level A respondents discussed the approach of using staff in
communications as an effective means of representing the organisation to the internal
culture. Some contention exists amongst managers regarding the efficiency of
separate internal and external communications groups.
The third reflecting criteria dealt with the identity elements Level A respondents
view as being incorporated into the organisational culture of ACORP. Level A
members discuss two distinct areas which they felt had been incorporated into the
138
organisational culture of ACORP. Firstly, some respondents discussed community
engagement as a key element which is communicated throughout ACORP and is a
key cultural element. They described this as taking place via consultation and
meetings with key stakeholder groups
Community engagement’s extremely important now. I mean we don’t build a
power line without that community engagement. That’s all come in the last 3
or 4 years. We’re spending a fortune on external groups. I’m glad I was
part of that but I said why don’t we start doing it internally and I think we
can do it better and I knew we could do it better. I don’t think its such a skill.
Its just a matter of being empathetic to people and listening to what they have
to say. So we don’t do a big job now without having community consultation.
Depends on the particular areas but can I say, if you look at the top part
what I’ve tried to embed is regular meetings, face-to-face meetings with key
stakeholders.
Secondly, other respondents viewed the key element of safety as one which has
become a key component of the organisational culture of ACORP. Safety represents
a message which is a critical part of the business and in the below example one
respondent describes how management reiteration of a safety focus as one which is a
core business value assisted in giving staff confidence in the sincerity of the
message.
I think what made an enormous difference was the previous chief executive
working with him to say “you need to be talking about safety all the time”,
and he really thought, “yes I do”. And we actually made safety our number
one value. Before we got a lot of feedback from staff of “Look we feel like
you talk about it, is it just rhetoric? The reality of it is if I’ve got to get the
power back on are we pushed to actually sometimes compromise our
safety?” So it was the first time that the organisation really came out with a
strong position “No … the value is about safety first, at all times, in every
situation” and I think a lot of work is happened in that space.
139
In summary, Level A respondents see the key elements of community consultation
and involvement, and safety as a core business value as element which have been
incorporated into the organisational culture of ACORP.
4.5.2 Reflecting: Marketing and Corporate Communications Staff Level B respondents are those that are once removed from the strategic processes of
communication. Employees in this group are however responsible for the creation
and implementation of the communications initiatives developed by the Level A
group. Regarding the first reflecting criteria of description of the organisational
culture, respondents in at Level B described similar attributes to those at Level A
describing the culture of ACORP as one which is mostly positive and is going
through an evolution.
The customer would be the first one that hits people’s minds when they think
about working for ACORP. Delivering a service for the customer.
We really have that “lets do the right thing” mentality. As far as culture
goes, it’s a fun and exciting place to work. There is always something new
and different.
Level B respondents gave insight into some of the key cultural aspects of which they
view that ACORP is based on. Some of culture discussed in a positive light included
the importance of safety, being responsible with spending, being inclusive, and
caring of employees. Some of the negative aspects discussed were the reduced
importance of meeting deadlines, the nature of some members of the ageing
workforce, and the difficulties associated with implementing change.
Safety is important. Getting the job done on budget is important. Getting the
job done on time, not from a coms perspective but from a works perspective
probably isn’t always as carefully watched as it could be.
I’d say it was definitely a caring culture, an inclusive culture, an old
fashioned culture. I guess the average tenure is something like 20 something
140
years for ACORP employees so it can be very difficult to make changes and
see and get people to see a different point of view for organisational change
and growth. So that’s quite a struggle I find. There is an attitude of “this is
the way we’ve always done it so we continue to do it this way”. It’s slowly
starting to change which is good.
Regarding the representativeness of the identity respondents presented a similar
position to those at Level B. Respondents at Level B noted that on the whole people
within the communications team felt a strong representativeness and affinity with the
identity ideals and see them as representing the culture well however they too
highlighted the silos issue within the organsiation and stated that some employees do
not feel the same way.
I think it’s a true representation of the culture I know, and they culture I’ve
been a part of, and the way I feel about the company. But I think there are
other people in the company who don’t feel that way.
In summary, Level B respondents viewed ACORP as a generally positive culture.
Elements of silos were discussed along with the resistance to change and growth as a
result of a mostly long serving workforce.
The second reflecting criteria dealt with the mechanisms of reflection at the
marketing and corporate communications staff level. Level B members are largely
responsible for the design and implementation of the external communications tools
of ACORP with minimal involvement in internal communications practices. Level B
members were highly critical of the current internal communications mechanisms
within ACORP and felt that the information given via internal channels was of
limited importance compared with other mechanisms such as personal development
meetings with superiors.
The general communications that are put out by the staff communications
area are just general bits of information, so no I wouldn’t say I’ve learned
anything from that. One-on-ones is a personal development time so I then
141
definitely I would have taken something from that. So that’s my time to get
what I want out of my career with my boss.
As far as internal marketing, there hasn’t been a whole lot … haven’t been
involved a lot with internal coms since then. I find it kind of lacks a fair bit of
grunt and that sort of stuff. Like you see it on notice boards and emails that
come out and that sort of thing but it doesn’t seam to be overly strategic and I
don’t feel targeted in the internal communications messaging in this role
here.
In a similar discussion to members of Level A, Level B respondents also addressed
the issue of the external and internal communications departments being separate
entities. Distinct from the Level A group however, Level B members discussed this
separation as an interruption to communications management overall within
ACORP.
There is staff communications and there is corporate communications. Our
team is corporate communications so we do everything external and staff
communications are within the HR group so they look after all the internal
communications. AND IS THERE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE TWO
GROUPS (Researcher)?. Nope. There has started to be. It’s a really bad
structure because this is … its all communications so really what you’re
communicating internally should also extend out.
If everyone’s not working together then who owns what and if there’s a story
happening and the lines are a bit fuzzy about who should be doing it then it
can sort of sometimes create a bit on tension. HOW DO YOU THINK YOU
COULD DO BETTER? (Researcher). I think the two divisions should be
one. I think the ultimate would be that internal and external coms are one
and the same team and then it would be seamless. But that’s not going to
happen today or tomorrow or next year. So in the mean time I think we need
to build on those relationships a little bit. With that would come less division
I guess? I’m not saying it’s terrible or anything but it could be much better.
142
It is contended that a lack of interaction and cooperation between these two groups
presents a key issue for reflecting processes within ACORP. Without collaboration
and understanding of each others approach to communication, mixed messages and
misalignment of strategic approaches could result.
In summary, Level B was highly critical of the current internal communications
approach with a higher importance placed on one on one communication with
superiors. Furthermore, the separation of external and internal communications was
seen as a negative aspect.
The third reflecting criteria dealt with the communication elements that Level B
respondents viewed as those which have been incorporated into the organisational
culture of ACORP. The first element identified was the seasonal peak time of
summer storm season. Prior to this time ACORP needs to prepare for the increase in
workload with a resulting increase in employee risk and crisis expected to impact on
the day to day running of the organisation. As respondents discussed, this is a
communication message that exists both internal and external of the ACORP
identity.
Definitely summer. Because it’s a huge push externally its also a huge push
internally as people are prepared for summer because it impacts peoples
lives so much because you’ve got so many people on stand-by rosters over
summer, responding to outages during summer. So I think internally, our
external push matches the internal passion people have for the period and I
think during summer.
The second element identified by Level B was the element of safety within the larger
group of corporate values. The key element of safety as a point which is reflected
into the organsiational culture was also identified by Level A respondents.
They really push the values, the internal values, so all of their newsletters
and the things that they write within that newsletter are based on the value
kind of thing so they really push all of that. And I mean safety is our number
143
one sort of thing so that’s always pushed in meetings and everything – it’s
always the number one thing people talk about. It’s always the first thing our
CEO talks about in his emails.
A negative aspect within the discussion of reflecting processes was the limited two-
way communication with the customer stakeholder group. Respondents addressed
the need for a focus on a more two-way dialogue based approach with customers
rather than simply communicating at them.
Obviously our customers are obviously our stakeholders and I think we have
a pretty good communication. It’s probably one-way though. I think we
probably communicate to them, not with them a lot of the time. There’s
absolutely avenues for them to come back to us but we don’t proactively
promote them. So, like everyone knows they can call us … well not everyone
knows, but there is absolutely avenues for people to call us with queries,
complaints or for information or whatever. And we promote those phone
numbers, but it’s not really a two-way dialogue.
In summary, Level B discussed safety and summer preparedness as key value that has
been incorporated into the organisational culture of ACORP. Improvement in two-
way communication was identified as an area needing attention.
4.5.3 Reflecting: Non-Marketing Managers and Employees Respondents from Level C represent employees who are not involved with marketing
communication strategy or practice. This group has a high level of interaction across
a range of internal and external stakeholder groups. Of particular interest is how this
group view marketing communications against the organisational culture and
socialisation patters of ACORP. Although from the broadest range of work
responsibilities, Level C members presented a similar view (with some exceptions
which are discussed) of the cultural norms of ACORP as Level A and Level B.
144
Regarding the first reflecting criteria of organisational culture description, as with
Level A and Level B respondents, the cultural elements of evolution and change was
revealed within Level C responses. The majority of Level C members view ACORP
has having a favorable culture with elements open for improvement.
A culture that’s changing. You could have asked me that four or five years
ago and I would have said a bunch of engineers who want to build stuff. Its
changing now because there’s a lot more younger people coming in and
we’ve got an ageing workforce. A pretty passionate workforce, I really do
believe that, I think the ACORP culture is pretty passionate. All the people
that I associate with really do aspire to do a good job, which I thinks’
important, the staff survey reflects that. We’ve just had the staff survey
completed and in our group which is two hundred and thirty odd people, the
staff survey result was excellent and we got a very good result. So the culture
is one of teamwork.
Ultimately I think there is a very collection of people all working in isolation
trying to do the right thing. We’re almost like the disjointed family that loves
each other but never tells each other that they love each other.
There was also a dissenting view to this which outlined the negative elements of
ACORP’s organisational culture. Members of Level C were far more critical of
cultural elements highlighting the need for more involvement and information for
staff as well as a higher degree of consultation with regard to change processes. This
represents a clear issue for ACORP as far as reflecting is concerned as some
respondents did not feel communicated to in a satisfactory manner which in turn led
them to form a negative view of the change process.
There are things we could do better. As I said, I think sometimes we mistake
telling someone what’s coming as consultation.
We do have a problem in this organisation of having these big bam programs
and this great fan-fare of crap comes out and particularly in the organsiation
part of the business they go “fuck here we go again!”
145
At the moment we’re going through a big culture change with our move to
Newstead. There are people appointed particularly to sell that change and I
think that overall opinion is basically that it’s a complete crock of shit,
because they’re not listening, they’re telling. Everyone suspects that it’s
going to be a bad – no news is bad news in that situation I guess. And it
could well be that some one up there’s thinking, “what the hell are we going
to do - we just don’t know yet”. But that message isn’t getting out there not
saying, were not seeing any answers and that’s having a negative impact on
culture I would say and it also gives us a lack of confidence.
One particular instance of negativity towards the culture of the organisation came
from a respondent at Level C. This respondent did not feel anyway attached to the
culture of the organisation.
My brain is saying it’s devoid of culture! … It’s a very blokey culture because
its thousands of electricians and the managers are men. But I don’t know
that ACORP has a culture … I find ACORP’s culture quite … a bit old, a bit
stale, a bit backward, a bit eighties, very resistant to change.
Some resistance was evident with current internal messaging within ACORP also
was evident within the Level C group. Critiques from this group included the
validity of messaging by the organisation as well as the high degree of staff survey
research with little results, feedback, or action seen to be followed through by staff.
Unfortunately the only thing ACORP pushes is the safety line so I think it’s a
bit restrictive. I don’t know that the brand and the advertising really give
people any more of an insight into this company or an idea of what happens
here or what goes on.
The corporate organisation on the other hand, by declaring themselves
customer centric, really just identifies they’ve got no idea what it is. You
know, it’s a really great concept and what would you call it – key message.
146
The other thing we do really badly is everything’s a survey. This is great,
face-to-face is a much better way to get any sort of information and we’ve
been hammered with survey after survey after survey and I think they’re
pretty useless and maybe an expensive waste of money. And this is another
problem in the organisation, there’ll be a whole raft of initiatives that come
out and then it’ll all just drift away into nothingness and die again.
In summary, Level C described a mix of positive and negative sentiments regarding
the culture of ACORP. Negative elements such as lack of information regarding
change programs, limited consultation with staff, and relevance of some messaging
were discussed.
The second reflecting criteria discussed the mechanisms of reflection which
respondents from Level C had experienced during their time at ACORP. Level C
revealed similar themes to those at Level B in that respondents were receptive to
interpersonal communication between themselves and managers as well as between
teams but were less positive to communications initiatives passed via internal
communications channels. Respondents saw a lack of meaningful communication
from higher levels as a negative and contended the possibility of management
withholding information from other parts of the business.
The CEO sends around an email occasionally but it’s usually to commend
people for doing the different surveys and things that they have on. I think
ACORP was critisised by staff because there’s a big … they see a huge gap
between management and the people in the business and that communication
really isn’t passed down.
Its just the quality of the material we used to get from the executive, we used
to get quite a bit of detail would come down and you could actually quite
openly pass that to the troops. But either there’s less happening up the top
which could be a possibility, of they’re deliberately not giving us as much
information. SO JUST NOT KNOWING (Interviewer) It just feels like
147
there’s less information coming downstream. Some of the senior managers
are pretty invisible as well.
Things that annoy people in the office would be the push on their computers.
See you can have whatever background you like - we cant. We get these
gingle things that pop up all the time with the next background, it could be
safety it could be values it could be whatever the corporate flavor is. And a
lot of people don’t like that sort of in your face stuff. Well I leave the screen
full so I don’t have to look at it (laughs). I just find that’s a bit childish
actually. I just leave the email up all the time. I just think that’s a bit you
know, if you think you can change peoples mind by poster you’ve got it
wrong.
I think the executive communication is reporting all the good news. Not often
anything will be negative. Probably the only thing they really report where
its not good is safety, so I think they’re pretty happy to promote the safety
side of things as a motivational tool for us to pick up on that aspect of it.
Regarding interpersonal communication between staff members, Level C members
identified a broader range of applications than the other sample groups. Level C
members discussed improvements in networking of staff due to the team brief as
well as the ability of employees to send messages back up to higher levels of
management.
Because ACORP is such a large organisation with four thousand people, the
best part about it is the interaction with other people and finding out how
those other people can assist or work with you in issues as they come up.
The team brief is probably the thing that’s the most consistent communication
mechanism in the organisation. And provides ability to get some two-way
messages back up. People expect to get information via that mechanism.
In summary, Level C respondents viewed internal communications initiatives as
lacking depth as compared with interpersonal communication. Some skepticism is
148
given to information and a more detailed and transparent approach is requested.
Along with this, some employees discussed the active avoidance of internal
marketing communications along with them questioning the impact of the initiatives.
Interpersonal communication is seen as a key source of information and cross-
functionality in ACORP Level C respondents.
For Level C, the third reflecting criteria gave similar results to Level A and Level B.
The key cultural element of safety was discussed by all respondents as being central
and enduring to the business and its organisational culture. The importance of safety
was noted as the number one value for ACORP and one which is continually
reinforced through different strategies in the business. Even employees who were
not directly involved with field staff noted the importance of safety as a key business
driver for ACORP.
Understanding the safety culture is a pretty important thing. Its probably the
most complex part of the business because safety’s got such a terrible
connotation so you can get yourself in the situation where you think it’s a lip
service thing whereas its got to be a cultural thing for you, so making sure
you lock in on that part of the business.
I think they can see the linkages particularly around the safety message.
Community safety obligation and our staff safety obligation clearly align.
The messages are very much the same – they are our first value.
An element which was distinct within Level C members was the feeling that
sometimes the focus on safety can be too much and is forced on staff. In this sense
members of Level C view reflecting in the form of internal communications as
something which is negative and ineffectual rather than its intended purpose of
motivating staff and developing support for initiatives. As far as reflecting
mechanisms is concerned this raises the issues that if members of staff feel that a
message is being pushed too much this could result in a resistance or a lack of
support for that approach. In this sense, as Level A members discussed culture in a
more interpretive manner, Level C members view initiatives of internal
149
communication as functionalist and aimed at influencing them in line with the
organisational line.
I guess just the whole safety message. That would be the number one thing.
We live and breathe it – its rammed down the guys throats every day. Its
everywhere, its on the back of the toilet doors. You cant even have a pee in
peace!
We’ve got these corporate values that get thrust upon you and a lot of people
got really annoyed with this new layer of values that suddenly appeared.
You always hear safety as number one. Its really foreign to me. I mean its
absolutely applicable to the electricians and the contractors working with
electricity. Its not really relevant to me or anyone who works in this office I
don’t think. In the field absolutely.
As with Level A and Level B, Level C discussed a lack of synergy between internal
and external message strategy. Level C members did not directly address issues
regarding the split of external and internal communications groups directly as the
cause of this but noted a difference in quality of work produced for different
stakeholders. In terms of relevance of communications, respondents noted the mix
of external and internal communications being reflected to employees. Furthermore,
the need to better communicate a consistent strategy between both between staff and
externally was noted as an area for improvement for ACORP.
Corporate communications put out the higher level sort of stuff from … the
fluff and bubble sort of stuff like the customer care awards and they’re very
slick. They do a really good job at that because that’s what they do. The
inter-division or the divisional communications is pretty amateur hour and I
don’t think that too many people would read it.
We could probably find a better balance about what’s communicated
internally about safety and what’s communicated externally about safety.
There’s quite an imbalance there. And that I think, again, would help the
150
community understand a lot of the things we do, because a lot of the things
we do are driven by safety – but that isn’t communicated.
In summary, Level C identified safety as a key element that had been integrated into
the underlying culture of ACORP. Some respondents discussed the possibility of too
much drive of this message internally which in some instances resulted in resistance.
4.5.4 Reflecting: Themes and Summary Section 4.5.1 through 4.5.3 have discussed reflecting findings across the three data
collection groups. This analysis focused on three criteria to understand how
respondents in the data collection groups describe the actual organisational culture,
which elements of reflection they had experienced as an employee, and what
elements they view as being incorporated into the organisational culture of the
organisation.
Criteria One: How do respondents describe the culture of the organisation?
The first criteria discussed that employees in the three groups mostly view the key
factors of organisational culture in a similar manner. Groups noted positive and
negative elements with all described the evolving nature of the culture of the
organisation. Organisational silos were addressed as a key element of impact on the
culture and efficiency of the organisation. The first criteria revealed that in terms of
reflecting subcultures were not particularly present and underlying assumptions and
values were largely the same regardless of levels. It is noted that this only refers to
the three groups investigated and distinctions may be apparent within other
organisational levels.
Criteria Two: What mechanisms of reflection have respondents experienced during
their time at the organisation?
151
The second criteria articulated two key factors regarding the mechanisms of
reflection within the organisation. Firstly, interpersonal communication was
discussed as a far more favored and powerful means of communication than
manufactured internal communication messages. Secondly, the separation of
external and internal communications teams was discussed by members of all three
groups as a negative aspect which has resulted in mixed messages and misalignment
between elements staff view internally and externally resulting in confusion. The
second criteria revealed that reflecting processes need to utilise a higher degree of
interpersonal communication which is developed in a consistent manner.
Criteria Three: What communication elements do respondents identify as being
incorporated into the culture of the organisation?
The third and final reflection criteria demonstrated safety as a key identity message
which had been incorporated into the underlying culture of the organisation. Safety
as a key element was articulated by Level A, Level B, and Level C. The next most
important elements were noted as community consultation and summer preparedness
however these were only significant for Level A and Level B groups. Misalignment
of external and internal messaging was further noted by members of Level C as an
area in need of improvement for the organisation. The third criteria revealed that the
core and underlying elements (i.e. safety messaging) of culture were consistent and
agreed upon across all organisational levels whereas the more surface level elements
(i.e. outage communication) had varying degrees of support.
152
4.6 Expressing Analysis
RQ4: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics expressing processes
(culture/identity) occur and are understood by employees within an
organisation across unique workgroups.
As addressed in Section 2.5.5 Expressing: Culture to Identity, is a concept which
ingrains the cultural understandings of the organisation into its communication. As
with reflecting, the expressing process has received a limited amount of empirical
study in literature and as such forms a significant gap in understanding.
Understanding of expressing processes involves looking what employees see as the
elements of organisational culture and seeing the flow through of these ideals into
the communicated identity of the organisation.
Section 4.6.1 through 4.6.3 will analyse the data collected from the three sample
groups. Findings from each of the three groups will be discussed in terms of
understanding the key elements of the ACORP organisational culture and what
manifestations of this culture is present in communication initiatives. This will be
addressed utilising the following three criteria:
What are the underlying values and assumptions that respondents see as
central to what the organisation represents?
What is the state of understanding and responsiveness to culture and its
utilisation in identity within the organisaiton?
153
How could expressing be used to create a better alignment of actual and
espoused identity in order to articulate the key elements of the organisational
culture?
These three criteria investigate the nature of the culture/identity relationship via
expressing and address the distinct elements that the sample groups view as present
and missing in current communications practice. This aims to address the gap
between espoused and actual identity (as discussed in Section 2.5.1). Following this,
Section 4.6.4 will discuss reflecting themes of the data across the three sample levels.
4.6.1 Expressing: Senior Marketing and Corporate Communications Management The first expressing criteria focused on what respondents viewed as the central and
enduring aspects of what ACORP as an organisation stands for. By understanding
and addressing these elements it is possible to see similarities and distinctions across
what employees view as the mission of the organisation and understanding
motivation and direction for staff. Due to their senior positions in communications,
Level A members presented the highest ability of the three groups to actively
influence and adjust the elements of identity. The key element which emerged from
Level A was the importance of providing a key and essential service to customers in
South-East Queensland.
Its being able to say that every one of those thousand people was able to walk
into their new home in South-East Queensland and flick the switch without
saying “where’s the lights?” … that’s what ACORP does. For me, as an
employee, that what I see as the major point of being here. Being able to
deliver that service and at the end of the day – not having someone call.
I do buy into our vision and our mission and our values which is about
powering the lifestyles of South-East Queenslanders. And I think that’s really
about understating our industry and doing it in a way that’s socially
responsible.
154
Another key element which emerged from the data was the importance of
construction of an energy network in a safe and socially responsible manner. This
represents a distinct but also important element of what staff at Level A see as critical
in what the organisation provides.
Still got to build power. Still have to do the job in a safe and environmentally
friendly way. Still got to build power lines but underground them. 30
percent of our networks now underground.
In summary, Level A respondents viewed the central and enduring aspects of what
ACORP does as providing reliable energy service to customers and constructing and
maintain the energy network.
The second expressing criteria addressed how employees viewed the overall
understanding and responsiveness of ACORP to organisational culture. This related
to expressing in terms of how employees see adjustment or evolution of approach
based off the underlying cultural elements which are central to ACORP. Level A
members gave varying responses to this criteria. Firstly, one respondent noted
management understanding of staff issues and being aware of employees needs and
concerns.
The managers are very good. I think they’re very good in the fact that their
more caring … The new group sees themselves as supportive if some ones
got their baby sick they let them go pretty quickly. If you got in late and left
early no ones going to die over it. Theirs great trust in the field staff, I really
believe that. I think if anything we’ve probably gone a little bit overboard in
that regard.
Second, another respondent discussed the move toward a customer centric approach
as one which has been born out of cultural understanding as a result of the evolving
nature of the organisation. This was addressed in terms of an ongoing process that
155
within the communications group is championed and is on the way to achieving
organisation wide support.
I believe its on its way to the point where the customer centric thing … And if
we can achieve, or when we can achieve this “customer centric” across the
company, and I think we’re heading on that journey, this place will be seen in
the right light.
Third, respondents addressed understanding and responsiveness as an area in need of
attention for ACORP. Respondents noted that expressing is an area which ACORP
does not do well and as such the organisation is promoting an espoused position
internally rather than the actual position based off the true underlying elements of
organisational culture. In this sense the espoused position is one which
organisational members are not receptive to, as they already understand the problems
and issues associated with the organisation.
We have a lot of people, and its like what I was saying before about this
whole idea of brand advocates, to me honestly I’ve never really seen it work.
And I think what people need to look at employees as is you are the
organisation, you are the heart of it. You are the organisation, it’s your
identity and the things you do that should be reflected outward. That’s more
the way I see it. And I think often what we do is we try and put a positive spin
on stuff or market things to people who are actually working in the
organsiation and understand what the problems and issues are.
Furthermore, the need for improved engagement and understanding of key issues and
an incorporation of this into the strategic identity approach was addressed.
What you are getting out externally and what your actually saying to internal
audiences and what they know about it is different. I’m not saying you cant,
we don’t try and tell it warts and all necessarily, we give facts and figures.
And obviously we’re trying to take people on a journey and bring them along,
but its all about really engaging them and understanding well what really
156
matters to you and what do you need, how do you see the organisation and
what would you like us to be doing better.
In summary, Level A noted no clear agreement on understanding and acceptance on
ACORP’s understanding and utilisation of organisational culture. Thoughts varied
from good understanding, to improving understanding, to a high need to improve
understanding. Respondents noted expressing was a lacking area for ACORP.
The third expressing criteria investigated how members of Level A felt that better
alignment could be created between the internal cultural aspects and the external
identity strategy of the organisation. Of the three respondent groups, members of
Level A have the most influence to change communications strategy and as such
elements they see for improvement have a high rate of uptake than other levels.
Within this group, three key elements were discussed as area which could improve
identity alignment.
Members of Level A discussed the separation of internal and external communication
groups as a possible cause of missed messages and confusion in terms of identity
strategy. Furthermore, respondents noted some organisational confusion over who
controls identity elements which cross internal/external boundaries. This was seen
by members of Level A as a key are which could improve alignment of messages.
If we had the internal communications and the external communications
physically in the one group I think we wouldn’t be working across purposes.
I think that gives out mixed messages sometimes. Sometimes you look at a
story in one of these magazines and it’s just shit, you think why bother.
(Regarding a recruitment drive event) So one thing I can say is that’s part of
the issue we have with internal coms and external coms being separate issues
– who actually controls that event? It’s an internal coms issue because they
are new staff and all the rest of it but its an external thing because I’m trying
to promote the company.
157
The second key area for improvement discussed was the increase in the amount and
quality of information flow from top management to other areas of the business.
Although managers at Level A in terms of this study are the most senior, these
managers still have three or four levels of management above them who dictate the
strategic direction of ACORP as an organisation. The key criticism of lack of
information flow centered around the need for transparency and accountability of top
management to the organisation as well as improving the sense of a unified direction
for all members of ACORP staff.
From an employee point of view I think the drive from the top should be
checked occasionally – lets see what the commitment level is. And that’s not
being questioning about the commitment that is there at the moment, but its
about checks and balances.
The third and final area for improvement was noted as the need for more engaged
consultation with staff members at all areas of the business. A respondent recounted
an example of business leaders forums which ACORP managers partake in noting
the sentiment among middle managers that they are not listened to but rather talked
at. This feeling of lack of two-way communication with senior management
represents a key breakdown of expressing processes within ACORP.
A little bit more input - we do have leaders forms and things, but its more
about sitting and listening rather than input. And a lot of the guys, and ladies
and well, will sit there and take it all in, but not interact, and then go away
and mumble about how no one listens to them. So I think there’s got to be
more encouragement for people to actually get off their bum and input. So
maybe, maybe it’s the level I’m in, the middle management if you like, should
be more active. Maybe its about us being told we have to be.
In summary, Level A respondents discussed three elements for improvement of
expressing processes within ACORP. The breakdown of internal/external
communication silos, the need for increased transparency from top management, and
158
the need for two-way dialogue with top management were identified as areas for
improvement.
4.6.2 Expressing: Marketing and Corporate Communications Staff Respondents at Level B have less influence over the strategic direction of identity
strategies, however in a production sense they can exert influence in the creation of
mechanisms of communications tools. As such, they can and do impact expressing
processes but to a lesser degree than Level A respondents. The first expressing
criteria focused on what employees saw as the central and enduring aspects of the
ACORP mission as an organisation. All Level B respondents viewed the key element
of ACORP as the service it provides to customers in South-East Queensland. This
service approach was echoed by members of Level A and presents a key similarity
between the two groups. Members of Level B did not discuss construction of the
network as addressed by Level A.
Provide safe and reliable power. Definitely. Customer first. Although that’s
more of an internal message that’s gone external.
I guess the most important aspect is providing electricity to South-East
Queensland. And because electricity is such a dangerous thing, to do that
safely.
Keeping the lights on. That’s why we’re here – we’ve got to keep the power
running for customers.
We get the power to people. We keep the lights on simple as that. And we do
a good job of it. You know the power doesn’t go out a lot in South-East
Queensland.
In summary, Level B members viewed the central and enduring aspect of what
ACORP does as an organisation as the essential service it provides to customers.
The discription of this service centered on providing safe and reliable energy to
consumers in a reasonable timeframe and at a reasonable price.
159
Regarding expressing criteria two Level B respondents discussed understanding and
responsiveness to culture in a more siloed manner than respondents from Level A.
As with Level A respondents had various experiences with expressing process.
These included positive and negative occurrences as well as elements that were at the
time undergoing improvement within ACORP.
One respondent noted their experience in the contact center part of the business as
being far more responsive than in their current communications role. Respondent
B2’s experience in the call center was one that was receptive to the needs of
employees and open to two-way dialogue with staff.
I think over at the contact center, when I was there, they’re very much about
the internal culture and about seeing the needs of the people working on the
front line to make their job as easy as possible and to make their time at
ACORP as fun as possible. There is very much that two-way communication
at the contact center. Not so much in the rest of the corporate world I don’t
think - only with individual managers and that sort of thing.
Another respondent noted the initiative of the executive manager of communications
would soon be starting to attend team meetings whereas they previously had not been
involved. This was looked upon favorably by the respondent from a professional and
a social standpoint and an initiative that although time consuming for management,
was valued by employees.
Our executive manager is going to start coming to some of our team meetings
just to get a gauge of what we’re saying, what we’re thinking, and even the
people in the room how they’re interacting whereas previously they haven’t
done that. And while that can be quite time consuming for the executive level
I think its good to have that close a relationship. And for people to be able to
walk past you in the hall and say “hi” to you and not be scared of you. So I
think that’s starting to happen now – it didn’t happen before and I think that
will definitely benefit.
160
A negative element of expressing processes at Level B was noted by a number of
respondents who raised the issue of perceived inaction regarding issues raised in the
staff survey, the key review process within ACORP, and the annoyance of staff
because of it. Discussed was the feeling that initiatives are developed from the
information but not followed through on by management and in turn the same
negative issues are raised each year. This example illustrates the negative aspect of
not addressing internal concerns of staff in an open and transparent manner and the
resulting concerns regarding management which it can lead to.
Like we have the staff survey every year which doesn’t always have great
results for communication from the executive management team. But they get
the same results every year and they don’t really do anything about it. It
seams like they have all these action plans, but the employees certainly say
that we want to see you more, every year, and it doesn’t happen. Really we
still just get an email from the CEO occasionally and that’s about the
communication. B2
In summary, Level B respondents noted a range of experiences, positive, negative,
and improving with regards to understanding and responsiveness to underlying
cultural elements in ACORP. A key point of concern for expressing processes was
perceived inaction by management to issues raised in the staff survey. This issue
reduced the faith staff had in the legitimacy of the review and adjustment process
based on their views of the organisation. This discussion noted differences between
groups within the organisation.
The third expressing criteria addressed the elements members of Level B felt could
be improved through better alignment of culture and identity aspects. As these
members are more closely linked to the implementation of communications strategy
than respondents from Level A it was expected that their responses would represent a
more communications than strategic based perspective. Respondents at this level
discussed two key aspects which could be improved however these elements were
distinct from those detailed by Level A respondents. Respondents from Level B
161
centered around improvement to identity strategy by utilising elements of culture in
communications messaging.
The first element addressed the need to articulate the “customer centric” approach
more into ACORP messaging. Respondents noted that the people who work for
ACORP represent a key element in the delivery of the identity that this needs to be
incorporated more into the identity approach. By incorporating a more internal,
cultural based focus, alignment could be improved.
I don’t know that we put out there as a main message that “we are a
customer driven organisation”, that doesn’t manifest itself in any sort of
message it’s a subliminal message in us delivering a service but its certainly
not driven home … I think the people part of ACORP is a huge thing and we
don’t articulate that. That’s not really a corporate message, that is definitely
an internal one.
The second element identified at Level B was the need to better communicate to
stakeholders the challenges faced by ACORP to improve understanding when issues
arise. By presenting a clearer and more transparent picture of the issues,
stakeholders would be more informed of how ACORP is dealing with concerns and
how it is serving their specific stakeholder needs.
Because its such a complex industry I think its really important for any type
of stakeholder to understand the challenges of the business. Understand the
challenges we’re going through in order to deliver what we need to deliver
might provide a little bit more patience on their behalf.
In summary, Level B members detailed elements internal to ACORP which could be
incorporated into identity communication to better inform stakeholders. Two
elements identified were the improvement of the “people” aspect of the ACORP
identity, as well as a more accurate representation of the challenges the organisation
faces. Members of Level B noted that with the inclusion of a more service based
162
two-way dialogue, improved legitimacy with stakeholders would be the most likely
result.
4.6.3 Expressing: Non-Marketing Managers and Employees Respondents from Level C have no direct control over communication strategy,
development or implementation in ACORP. However, this group represents a high
degree of interaction with stakeholder groups external of ACORP and as such their
identity representation has a marked impact on the image those stakeholders groups
develop about ACORP. Regarding the first expressing criteria, the first key
element Level C articulated as the enduring and underlying aspect of what ACORP
does is provide an essential service to customers in South-East Queensland. This
represented a similar position to members of Level A and Level B.
Meeting the needs of the customer and planning for the customers future
needs, and balancing that against the investment in the network required.
The delivery of safe, reliable energy to the consumers in South East
Queensland at a competitive price.
Value for money for the customer … its not our money, we’re not a private
company. The decisions that we make effect the cost of electricity which is a
given for everyone. So we need to make decisions that are balanced.
The second key element represented by members of Level C was that of construction
and maintenance of the power network. Construction as an underlying and enduring
aspect of what ACORP does was identified as an element discussed by members of
Level A but not by members of Level B.
Well I guess what ACORP does is it puts up poles and wires. And I don’t
really get involved in any of that work … But as ACORP as an organisation I
mean, we put up poles and wires so infrastructure.
Really we’re probably Queenslands biggest construction business so we build
network. The fundamental is we build network and we keep it up in the air.
163
It just goes back to building and maintain a reliable and safe electricity
supply.
In summary, Level C respondents viewed both customer service and construction of
the energy network as the central and enduring elements of what ACORP as an
organisation provides. This represented the same position as Level A members.
Regarding the second expressing criteria of understanding and responsiveness to
organisational culture in ACORP, member of Level C recounted varied positions
which from elements from those identified by Level A and Level B. However,
respondents from Level C discussed responsiveness and understanding of
organisational culture in a far more perspective light than preceding groups. A
number of examples were recounted where understanding of what they viewed as
key elements was lacking from ACORP. First, respondents discussed a lack of
understanding of their situation regarding family issues. This is in direct distinction
from respondents at Level A who remarked high amounts of empathy and
understanding by managers regarding employee situations.
Its not very flexible to be honest. And there’s a bit of a double standard with
– you know you’re expected to, especially in my section, you’re expected to
work like your in industry but get paid like your in the public service. And
because there are so many men there is no real understanding of family
obligations.
Second, as also highlighted by respondents at Level B, members of Level C noted
inaction and lack of follow through regarding the ACORP staff survey as a negative
element of expressing processes. Staff have the feeling that issues identified from
their feedback had not been given the appropriate level of importance from managers
or been used to develop better approaches to address concerns in the organisation.
I guess the fact though that similar things come up each year (from the staff
survey) would say, I wouldn’t say ‘lip service’ but … forming a committee to
164
consult on the fact that the staff survey that said your not really doing
anything, and then forming that same committee again the next year!
Third, as with respondents from Level B, respondents detailed the lack of internal
communication between groups in the organisation and the need for improved
understanding. This further highlighted the issue of organisational silos within
ACORP which creates an impact on the day to day workings of the organisation.
No … that’s pretty bold isn’t it (regarding understanding of cultural elements
and employee). I think we could understand more. Like I said I always go
back to that same thing, we’re a family that doesn’t talk to each other but we
all feel the same way. We don’t do that well enough.
Fourth, respondents discussed the distinction between how different managers
understand and relate to employees dependent on which part of the business they
work with. Managers of field work groups were discussed as having a higher level
of understanding and responsiveness to underlying elements of organisational culture
than those groups which function in the corporate side of the business. Again, this
highlighted the issue of silos in ACORP.
I think out in the hubs and out in the fields they do, because they all work
very closely together, they all sort of live in the same town. Whereas we’re
talking about a city office here where we’re spread into different buildings,
and no I really don’t think they do. I mean otherwise we wouldn’t get such
insensitivity as that happened this week (downgrading senior engineers title
while upgrading executive managers title).
In summary, Level C respondents discussed four main elements when addressing
understanding and responsiveness to culture in ACORP. Lack of understanding and
flexibility from managers, lack of action on issues identified in the staff survey, lack
of discussion across teams within the organisation, and differences between
understanding at a field work and corporate level were discussed as elements of a
165
lack of understanding and responsiveness to organisational culture. This position
represents a marked difference from those members of Level A and Level B and
represents a cause for concern for ACORP.
The third expressing criteria detailed how Level C members thought improvements
between culture and identity alignment could be made via expressing processes.
Members of Level C have no control over the strategic development or
implementation of identity programs but have the highest rate of interaction with
external stakeholder groups. As such criticism from members of this group could
present themselves in face-to-face interactions with outsiders and as such contravene
identity messages. This group identified a number of areas of improvement however
the central discussion revolved around the need to engage stakeholders, both internal
and external, in a more involved manner.
Firstly, engaged consultation with internal stakeholders as a way of improving
understanding was discussed by Level C respondents. By managers being actively
involved in dialogue with field workers improvement in understanding of the actual
situation and challenges faced by staff would improve.
There are things we could do better. As I said, I think sometimes we mistake
telling someone what’s coming as consultation. If you (managers) genuinely
went our there and were genuinely listening … If you went out there and said
“well this is wrong … and so on ” … the guys aren’t interested in the way
things should be, they’re interested in the way things are, because that’s what
they deal with every day – they deal with the way things are. I think it would
definitely have some value.
Furthermore, respondents discussed this in terms of a lack of bottom up
communication flow within the organisation and a lack of utilisation of information
which is readily available from current staff experiences.
166
The marketing and media groups in general terms, they are the ones that
commission reports and get all this wonderful research done but they don’t
go out in the field and speak to people. And the amount of information that
our crews have, rapid response crews, live line crews, all the crews, they deal
with customers every day. We are probably more customer centric than we
think. What we don’t do is harness all that customer centricity to bring it
back from the bottom up so to speak. So we’re telling people “oh we’ve got
to be customer centric, we’ve got to do this, we’ve got to do that” from the
top down, but we don’t actually tap into the people that deal with customers
everyday.
The theme of meaningful consultation was also discussed in terms of external
stakeholders in the need to treat customers in a two-way partnership rather than an
authoritarian relationship. This echoed the sentiments of Level B respondents who
discussed the need to better communicate the issues and challenges faced by ACORP
and provide information to better inform stakeholders.
I would think that we would need to change the overall chest beating saying
“we’re spending millions of dollars in your neighborhood”, you know, it
means nothing to you and me – well it does mean something it means that its
going to be more expensive for me to have electricity. We need to give people
the reasons why we’re doing it, we need to tell them how we came about the
decisions, and god forbid ask them for feedback even before its been
constructed! But we need to treat them as a partner in what we’re doing. So
a more collaborative approach I think would be nice.
Overwhelmingly members of Level C discussed the need for management by
walking around as a key way of improving understanding the key elements of
culture. Level C respondents saw this as essential to improve what they saw as a lack
of understanding and engagement by senior staff.
Management by walking about … Show us what you are going to do, what is
going to actually happen as a result of this. I was surprised, this last
167
particularly staff survey, one of the lowest ranking things was about
leadership, and the executive, and the general management. Personally I
don’t have an issue with that, but it’s huge across the board and its really
quite evident and what does that tell you. If you don’t have any trust in the
leadership then what do you expect everyone else to do.
Well I think management by walking around is a powerful tool. It costs them
a lot of time to do it and its probably always going to be hard for them to do.
Talk to the staff more. I think some of the managers, not all, tend to sit in
their office a lot and not get out and walk the talk. They talk about walking
the talk but they don’t practice. The visibility of certainly the senior
managers – I know it’s a big organisation but particularly senior
management can be more visible.
You can’t understand it by management not walking around. They walk
around with their hands behind their backs looking pseudo interested, and
they haven’t got a clue you know. Our group manager, who still after five
years thinks community liaison manages complaints.
In summary, Level C respondents discussed the need for more two-way dialogue
with managers as a key area of improvement by management. Respondents
discussed this as a way to improve both internal and external identity approaches of
ACORP as well as gain support from staff across the organisation holistically.
4.6.4 Expressing: Themes and Summary Section 4.6.1 through 4.6.3 have addressed expressing findings across the three data
collection groups. This analysis focused on three criteria to understand the elements
which employees saw as the central and enduring aspects of the organisational, the
understanding and responsiveness of the organisation to cultural elements, and ways
in which better alignment could be created to improve understanding both internally
and externally of the organisation. A summary findings of the key themes are
discussed ago against the set criteria.
168
Criteria One: What are the underlying values and assumptions that respondents see
as central to what the organisation represents?
The first criteria revealed that members across all three levels had a very similar
position regarding the central and enduring aspects of what ACORP represents. This
analysis revealed that although there exist distinct work groups with a vast array of
competing stakeholder interests, ACORP employees largely saw their purpose in the
same way, to provide service and infrastructure development. The first criteria
reveals that consistency exists in what employees see as important and as such a
utilisation of this in expressing process can help reinforce cultural elements in
identity in both communications mechanisms and interpersonal communication.
Criteria Two: What is the state of understanding and responsiveness to culture and
its utilisation in identity within the organisaiton?
The second criteria regarding understanding and responsiveness to organisational
culture in ACORP demonstrated marked differenced between respondent levels.
Level A and Level B articulated both positive and negative feelings towards
responsiveness and understanding but were not harsh in their account. Level C
discussed a much more negative picture and respondents discussed a lack of
understanding and responsiveness to elements such as understanding of staff,
responsiveness to identified issues, and lack of understanding of the different work
groups within the organisation. The second criteria revealed staff see a number of
negative cultural elements within the organisation with a limited amount of initiative
to improve. This represents a key issue for expressing processes.
Criteria Three: How could expressing be used to create a better alignment of actual
and espoused identity in order to articulate the key elements of the
organisational culture?
The third and final expressing criteria showed respondents at all levels discuss the
need for an improved two way dialogue internally between staff and management to
better align actual and espoused elements of identity for ACORP. Reasoning for
169
improved dialogue varied between levels with regard to job purpose and direction
however “management by walking around” was seen by members of Level C as a
key solution to improving understanding. The third criteria reveals a lack the
preferred one to one communication between levels with staff and as such represents
an opportunity to learn from staff understanding to better communicate
improvements via expressing processes.
4.7 Conclusion
Chapter Four – Findings has discussed and analysed the data of this research study.
First, this chapter discussed the case study cite and provided a context for the reader.
This background covered elements of organisational key factors, history, crisis, and
future challenges ACORP is facing. Following this, analysis and findings were
presented utilising the four OID processes of impressing (Section 4.3), mirroring
(Section 4.4), reflecting (Section 4.5), and expressing (Section 4.6) as a framework
of investigation. This analysis broke each process down into specific criteria
focusing on the elements of VI, CI, and OI. The analysis also addressed the findings
against the three sample segments of Level A - Senior Marketing and Corporate
Communications Management, Level B - Marketing and Corporate Communications
Staff, and Level C - Non-Marketing Managers and Employees. Furthermore, each
OID processes concluded with a summary and identification of key themes.
Chapter Five – Conclusions will discuss the application of Chapter Four – Findings
against key literature discussed in Chapter Two – Literature Review. This discussion
will address the overarching and four specific research questions of this study.
Furthermore, this discussion will outline theoretical and practical significance of this
study, address and explain limitations, and discuss future research in the VI, CI, and
OI literature space.
170
Chapter Five – Conclusions
171
5.1 Introduction
The four preceding chapters have introduced this study (Chapter One - Introduction),
discussed relevant literature in the identity, image and organisational culture fields
(Chapter Two – Literature Review), detailed the chosen methodological approach
(Chapter Three – Methodology), and outlined the data and findings from the research
undertaken (Chapter Four - Findings). This section, Chapter Five – Conclusions
finalises the processes of the Hatch and Schultz (2002) OID model. Sections 5.2
though 5.5 discuss key conclusions of impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and
expressing processes. Section 5.6 addresses the overarching research question of this
study and focuses on the OID model holistically and providing application and
conclusions. Following this, Section 5.7 will discuss the significance of this research
study in both theoretical and practitioner terms. Section 5.8 will outline the
overarching limitations of this study and provide a discussion of how these have
been addressed. Section 5.9 will outline the recommended direction for future
research to build on the findings of this study. Section 5.10 will provide conclusions
for this chapter and this study.
Figure 5.1: Conclusions Chapter Sections
Chapter One: Introduction 5.1 Introduction
5.2 Impressing Conclusions
5.3 Mirroring Conclusions
5.4 Reflecting Conclusions
5.5 Expressing Conclusions
5.6 OID Model Conclusions
5.7 Significance
5.8 Limitations
5.9 Future Research
5.10 Conclusion
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter Five: Conclusions
172
5.2 Impressing Conclusions
RQ1: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics impressing process
(identity/image) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups?
Table 5.1: Impressing Analysis Outcomes
Criteria Levels
1. What do specific respondent levels
identify as the communicated identity of
the organisation?
A. Consistent and strategic
B. Consistent and tactical
C. Inconsistent and distinct from marcom
Employees at different levels view the identity of the organisation in different ways
and with different levels of knowledge on current strategy. Understanding of
identity is higher the closer employees are to the creation and management of
identity.
2. Does the communicated identity
adequately represent respondent views of
the organisation?
A. Yes, strong representation
B. Yes, strong representation
C. No, limited representation
Employees at different levels have different feelings towards the representativeness
of the organisations’ identity. Feelings of representativeness are stronger when
173
employees are closer to the creation and management of identity.
3. How do respondents represent the
organisation in dealings with
stakeholders in a person-to-person
representation?
A. High consistency
B. High consistency
C. High consistency with
personalization of the communicated
message
Employees at all levels felt they represented the organization in a manner consistent
with their understanding of identity (which was shown to be distinct at all levels).
Employees felt the need at times to personalize the message to best communicate
with stakeholders. Although message understandings vary employees felt the need
to try and present the organisation in a positive manner.
4. Do respondents perceive a distinction
between the strategic communicated
identity and their own representation of
identity?
A. High consistency
B. High consistency with some
adjustment
C. High consistency with some
adjustment
Employees at all levels discussed that they felt there was little distinction between
the communicated identity messages and their own representation of the company.
This represents a similar position to criteria three in that employees actively try to
represent the organisation on a manner consistent with their understanding of
communications strategy. However, as discussed in criteria one and two, marked
differences exist between levels as to the understanding of identity communications
as well as the representativeness of those initiatives to the specific employee levels.
RQ1 investigated the process of impressing across workgroups at the three specific
levels. Criteria one and two focused on the elements that respondents identified as
components of identity communications and the representativeness of
communications against their views of the organisation. The first criteria revealed
174
marked differences between marketing employees (Level A and Level B) and other
employees (Level C) in their knowledge of communications practice. The second
criteria revealed similar results whereby marketing employees (Level A and Level B)
identified a closer alignment to the organisation’s identity approach than other
employees (Level C).
From this finding it can be concluded that closer the employee level proximity to the
management and development of marketing communications, the closer alignment
with an espoused identity position than an actual identity position the outcome will
be. As marketing employees are responsible for the development and
implementation of VI and CI initiatives, it is natural that they would have a closer
affinity to strategic identity and would as such represent the companies’ identity via
OI with stakeholders in a similar manner. Conversely, other organisational members
(Level C) articulated limited affinity with identity and as such it could be concluded
that OI representation of these members would more likely be distinct from VI and
CI approaches as opposed to marketing communications employees (Level A and
Level B).
The third and fourth criteria discussed the way in which respondents represent the
organisation, as well as the consistency of that identity representation against
communication in the form of VI and CI. Respondents at all three levels noted an
understanding of the representation of identity that was in line with the strategic
direction of the organisation. However, employees (especially those from non-
marketing communications Level C) noted the need to adjust representation based on
the interaction with particular stakeholder groups. Furthermore, respondents noted
the need to “go further” than the marketing communications of VI and CI and
articulate elements to stakeholders which were of relevance to that particular
situation.
From this finding it can be concluded that employees at all levels are aware of the
need to represent identity in a manner which is in line with the approach of the
175
organisation, however, adjustment in some cases is needed to articulate missing
elements from VI and CI communications. In this sense, representation in the form
of OI presents a position that impresses onto stakeholders messages which are
lacking from VI and CI initiatives. In this sense it is contended that staff,
particularly those from non-marketing communications Level C, influence
stakeholders by adjusting identity representation with OI rather than simply falling in
line with VI and CI messages.
With specific reference to RQ1, it can be concluded that impressing processes at
distinct levels with an organisation are unique in their identity representation.
Furthermore, as employees move further away from communications management
and implementation, the more likely they are to utilise personal identity
understanding in the form of OI as a means of articulating identity communication.
As corporate communication traditionally presents an espoused identity position of
what the company wishes to be, OI representation by staff presents a position based
more on the actual identity they have experienced and understood. This actually is
built from staff experience as well the underlying core cultural elements of the
organisation. This representation could traditionally be thought to present mixed
messages, however, as supported in this study, representation by staff aims to further
inform stakeholders of elements missing from VI and CI communications.
5.3 Mirroring Conclusions
176
RQ2: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics mirroring processes
(image/identity) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups?
Table 5.2: Mirroring Analysis Outcomes
Criteria Levels
1. Who do respondents identity as the
key stakeholder group or groups of the
organisation?
A. Strategic business focus
B. Strategic business/customer focus
mix
C. Customer focus
Employees represented clear distinctions in which they regarded as the key
stakeholder group for the organisation. Interestingly, as levels moved further away
from identity creation and management, the key importance of customers as a key
stakeholder group increased in the responses given. Strategic identity employees
viewed more business focused stakeholders as key to the organisation.
Does the stakeholder relationship or
brand representation take position of
priority in interactions with stakeholder
groups?
A. Stakeholder over brand (identity)
B. Stakeholder over brand (identity)
C. Stakeholder over brand (identity)
Employees at all levels reported that nurturing the stakeholder relationship was more
important than identity representation. Employees viewed this as a means to build a
rapport with stakeholders as a means of improving outcomes for the organisation.
This was one of the only criteria where all levels were in agreement.
What have been instances of adjustment
of personal brand representation based
on reflection from or experience with
stakeholders of the organisation?
A. Transparency externally
B. Transparency internally
C. Transparency externally and
internally
177
Employees at all levels agreed that there was at some times a need to adjust
representation of identity as a means of presenting a clearer message to stakeholders
in a “straight talk” manner avoiding “corporate speak”. The distinction between
levels was influenced by their different stakeholder interactions. This criteria also
raised the point of “internal mirroring” whereby adjustments were made based not
only on the views of external stakeholders but also on other groups within the
organisation who do not have direct control over identity design and management.
RQ2 investigated the process of mirroring across workgroups at the three specific
levels. Mirroring processes were addressed by utilising the three key criteria
addressed in Table 3.6.
The first mirroring criteria investigated on the importance of different stakeholder
groups from the perspective of the three organisational levels. Interestingly, in this
discussion, all three levels identified similar stakeholder groups but with varying
degrees of importance. Marketing employees (Level A and Level B) focused more on
stakeholder groups at a government level, whereas other employees (Level C)
centered on consumers as the key stakeholder focus. From this it can be concluded
that the higher the involvement employees have with stakeholders in their work, the
greater importance of that particular stakeholder relationship. This is of particular
interest as Level C members, who deal with customers the most and rank them at the
highest level of stakeholder importance, have the lowest ability to adjust the strategic
approach of VI and CI initiatives. The key element Level C members can adjust
through mirroring is their representation of OI which comes during their
interpersonal interaction with stakeholders. Furthermore, adjustments in identity
communications based on mirroring would likely take place over the time it takes to
adjust, design, and implement VI and CI initiatives. An OI mirroring outcome for
example, could take place in the space of a conversation with a customer in a more
direct manner.
178
The second mirroring criteria revealed consistency across all levels (13 from 15
interview respondents) that stakeholder relationships were more important than
brand representation for employees. This revealed that from the perspective of
mirroring, employees are willing to actively adjust representation of identity to
further a specific stakeholder relationship. Respondents identified that through the
process of stakeholder interaction, trust can be built which in turn leads to the
opportunity to better understand the stakeholder image and in turn adjust identity to
attempt to narrow the identity/image gap. This reflexive process takes place in an
iterative manner whereby employees adjust OI representation in a person-to-person
sense. As addressed in criteria one, Level C members rank consumers stakeholders
highest in importance and have the highest rate of interaction with them. Therefore,
if marketing communications managers and staff are able to create initiatives to
capture information from Level C members about adjustment of identity
representation, data to improve VI and CI initiatives could lead to more effective
identity strategy.
The third mirroring criteria demonstrated instances where employees adjust
representation as a result of mirroring from stakeholders. This criterion revealed two
key elements. In the first key element, respondents at all levels discussed the need to
adjust representation to present the organisation in an honest and transparent manner.
Furthermore, respondents noted that by taking the approach of “telling it like it is”,
many times a more favorable outcome for the organisation ensued. In this sense, by
utilising an approach which presented a position based on actuality rather than
simply “the company line” employees were able to nurture the stakeholder
relationship and improve the image of the organisation for stakeholders. In the
second key element, respondents discussed the notion that adjustment of
representation as a result of mirroring also occurred with internal stakeholders. In
this sense “internal mirroring” functions as a means understanding the concerns of a
particular group and adjusting identity elements accordingly. In summary, the third
criteria expands the process of mirroring to include both internal and external
stakeholder groups, as well as articulating the importance of presenting an actual
rather than an espoused identity position in representation.
179
5.4 Reflecting Conclusions
RQ3: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics reflecting processes
(identity/culture) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups?
Table 5.3: Reflecting Analysis Outcomes
Criteria Levels
1. How do respondents describe the
culture of the organisation?
A. Evolving culture with varying
degrees of customer orientation
B. Evolving culture with established
organisational silos
C. Evolving culture which can be
authoritative rather than collaborative
Employees at all levels discussed the changing nature of the organisation as a result
of both company and market forces. Passive in the discussion was a mix of both
functionalist (people manage culture) and interpretivist (culture manages people)
views of organisational culture. Unique issues were raised by each group with both
effecting and effected outcomes present in terms of organisational culture. A key
issue raised at Level C was sometimes reflecting could result in the opposite effect
whereby employees are resistant to overt initiatives to influence them and in turn
react in an unintended manner.
2. What mechanisms of reflection have A. Representativeness by using staff in
180
respondents experienced during their
time at the organisation?
identity communications. Lack of
internal/external coordination at times.
B. Lack of internal/external coordination
was viewed a bigger issues than Level A.
C. Lack of top down information. Lack
of internal/external coordination.
Interpersonal communication valued
over “planned” reflection practices.
Employees at the three levels discussed a range of interesting factors around
mechanisms of reflection. Specifically, themes to arise from this discussion was the
lack of synergy between internal and external identity communications.
Furthermore, the need for a more personalized approach to reflection practices was
discussed with a need for more transparency as to the strategic direction of the
organisation.
3. What communication elements do
respondents identify as being
incorporated into the culture of the
organisation?
A. Community engagement and safety.
B. Safety (workplace and seasonal).
Lacking community engagement
addressed as a negative.
C. Safety. Inconsistent identity strategy
seen as a negative.
Employees across the three levels discussed safety as the central and enduring
element of the organisation. This message was present in both planned and
interpersonal communications and was something which respondents viewed as
being part of the central mission of the organisation. However, some elements such
as community engagement had varying degrees of support and analysis highlighted
some inconsistencies between messages respondents viewed as impressed onto
external stakeholders and those which were reflected internally to employees.
181
RQ3 addressed the OID process of reflecting across unique workgroups within an
organisation. Interestingly, besides the fact that level respondents came from three
distinct work teams within the organisation, findings across all three criteria were
strikingly similar. The first criteria addressed how respondents viewed the culture of
the organisation culture. The three key factors which emerged from this discussion
was that the organisation was siloed, the culture was evolving, and that the evolution
of culture was being impacted be a resistance to change within the organisation. The
second criteria addressed elements of reflection that respondents had experienced
during their time with the organisation. This criterion produced two themes, the first
being the preference for person-to-person reflection processes, and second, the
fracturing of reflection processes due to mixed messages from internal and external
communications groups. The third criteria produced findings on the elements of
identity that respondents viewed as being incorporated into part of the organisational
culture of the company. The key element all respondents viewed was safety as an
element that was a core part of the business which had been discussed in both
internal and external communications initiatives. Interestingly, the key message of
safety was one that was originally developed from internal employee research (as
discussed in Section 4.2.3).
From the findings of these three criteria it is contended that reflecting takes place in a
similar manner at all three levels within the organisation. However, from this
research question it is also revealed that there are elements which can improve
impressing processes, as well as hinder impressing processes. Person-to-person
impressing which takes would be closely aligned with an OI abstraction of identity
communication is seen as a strong approach to articulating elements in to the cultural
underpinnings of an organisation. Furthermore, the alignment of internal and
external messaging providers a clearer impression for employees as elements of VI
and CI do not conflict. Conversely, the fracturing of communications and the
resulting mixed messages cause confusion and resistance to impressing processes for
employees.
182
5.5 Expressing Conclusions
RQ4: What are the ways organisational identity dynamics expressing processes
(culture/identity) occur within an organisation across unique workgroups.
Table 5.4: Expressing Analysis Outcomes
Criteria Levels
1. What are the underlying values and
assumptions that respondents see as
central to what the organisation
represents?
A. Essential service / CSR.
B. Essential service / CSR.
C. Essential service / CSR.
Employees at all levels articulated the underlying cultural values of the organisation
in a consistent manner. Providing an essential service in a amanner which was
responsible to stakeholders and customers was seen as the central and enduring
aspect of what the organsiation does. Furthermore, the consistency of this
representation presents a culture which is, at least at an surface level, in agreement as
to its organisational mission.
2. What is the state of understanding and
responsiveness to culture and its
utilisation in identity within the
organisaiton?
A. Understanding and responsive but
could be improved.
B. Manager involvement was seen as a
positive. Lack of reporting back on staff
research tools was a negative.
183
C. Lack of staff understanding. Lack of
information flow. Lack of reporting
back on staff research tools was a
negative.
Employees at the three levels presented distinct positions with regard to the
organisations’ understanding and responsiveness to culture. A theme to emerge here
was the need for organisations to report back to staff following internal research as a
means of demonstrating corrections the company makes backed on improved
understanding. This was identified as a key area of improvement for this
organisation and one that is a contributing factor to staff cynicism of management.
3. How could expressing be used to
create a better alignment of actual and
espoused identity in order to articulate
the key elements of the organisational
culture?
A. Engage staff more effectively.
Internal and external team synergy.
Transparency in information flow.
B. Better articulate customers as the
most important stakeholder group.
Transparency in information flow.
C. Meaningful engagement and
consultation with staff. More active
reporting on internal research. More
visible and approachable management.
Employees at all levels discussed the need to engage staff in a more meaningful
manner as a means of improving understanding and alignment with identity.
Furthermore, the need for improved reporting of internal research was discussed to
add validity to the process and demonstrate the responsiveness and effort the
organisation was making to better improve understanding of employees. Finally, the
need for more approachable and visible management was cited as a means of better
improving internal understanding of organisational culture.
184
RQ4 addressed the OID process of expressing and focused on the ways in which
these processes occur across three distinct workgroups. The first criteria investigated
the views of staff at the three levels of what they see as the underlying and central
aspects of what the organisation represents. Staff at all levels articulated service and
infrastructure development as the essential “what we do” as an organisation. The
second criteria dealt with what employees viewed as the level of understanding and
responsiveness to culture and the utilisation of this understanding in identity
communication. This produced marked differences. Level A and Level B members
articulated elements both for and against the understanding of ACORP of its culture.
Respondents at Level A and Level B discussed the utilisation of culture in terms of VI
elements such as using staff in commercials. Level C respondents presented a
marked difference to this position citing minimal understanding of culture, including
lack of staff understanding and limited responsiveness to staff needs. The third
criteria revealed that respondents at all levels cited improved alignment of actual and
espoused identity could be created via improved understanding of cultural elements.
Elements cited included the need for improvement of top-down information from
managers about the strategic direction of the organisation, mechanisms for bottom-
up information for managers to understand specific elements within work teams, as
well as improved presence and visibility of managers by a “management by walking
around” approach.
From the findings of the three expressing criteria it can be seen that there are
distinctions in the ways marketing and other employees view expressing processes.
Expressing reveals the clearest way of creating identity programs that are built from
an actual identity perspective rather than an espoused identity perspective. All
employees described a clear and consistent purpose for the organisation yet the
further away employees got for from the development of VI and CI communications
initiatives the less affinity they felt with these programs. Level C respondents who
have a high interaction with external stakeholder groups articulated low levels of
cultural understanding by the organisation and as such it is a contention of this study
that this has a detrimental impact on their opinion of VI and CI initiatives and
moreover a negative impact on OI representation with stakeholders. Simple person-
to-person initiatives were noted by all levels as a manner of improving this
185
understanding and representativeness of culture in identity. This is of particular note
to managers as it serves not only to improve information flow and improve
expressing functions, but also as a simple way to improve staff moral and serve to
lessen the impact of organisational silos.
5.6 OID Model Conclusions
(Hatch & Schultz, 2002)
The overaching researching question of this study was:
How does the organisational identity dynamics process manifest itself in
practice at different levels within an organisation?
The preceding Sections 5.2 through 5.5 have articulated the ways in which
impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing occur across different levels within
an organisation. Theses conclusions noted distinct ways in which the four OID
processes take place between Level A - Senior Marketing and Corporate
Communications Management, Level B - Marketing and Corporate Communications
186
Staff, and Level C - Non-Marketing Managers and Employees. The conclusions of
this study have noted the need for further understanding of a holistic approach to the
reflexive process of identity, image, and culture, and the need for identity programs
to understand staff representation at all levels within an organisaiton as it has a
marked impact on the “how” and “why” employees represent identity in the manner
they do. The OID model represents a way of understanding the interlinked concepts
of culture, identity, and image in a process based manner and recognises the fact that
although these concepts are overtly planned by the organisation they are also under
influence from factors outside the company. Although it is possible to understand
the OID model holistically, the true value of this model comes from understanding
the linking processes of impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing, and in turn
the ways in which different employee levels understand and represent these
processes in practice.
5.7 Significance
The key element of significance of this study is that it has operationalised the Hatch
and Schultz (2002) OID model in practice. This previously theoretical abstraction of
identity, image, and culture has been addressed in the context of a specific
organisation and as such provides empirical evidence to a previously theoretical
context. Furthermore, this study has discussed the OID processes of impressing,
mirroring, reflecting, and expressing in the context of multiple organisational levels.
The findings of this research into OID against organisational levels reveals that
linking processes of identity, image, and culture, occur in distinct ways across unique
workgroups. As this research was exploratory in nature with only one case under
investigation, this contribution serves as a ground by which further study can address
the context of OID processes at different organisaitonal levels in a more statistically
generalisable fashion.
With regards to practitioner significance, this study has articulated the strength of
taking understandings of culture and the representation of identity via OI by
187
employees. Furthermore, by presenting a position in VI and CI elements which
articulates an actual identity position rather than an espoused identity position, it is
proposed that the identity/image gap can be lessened.
5.8 Limitations
The author acknowledges that this study will have some limitations as a result of the
research design approach adopted. As this study undertook a case study analysis
utilising a single case study site, findings would be limited to organisations of a
similar size and corporate make up. As the organisation selected is a government
owned corporation, this would have some influence over results. Additional case
studies in similar organisations could provide a means of addressing issues of
representativeness. This is in addition to the methodological limitations discussed in
Section 3.9 Methodological Limitations. Elements acknowledged in Section 3.9
were the use of analytical (rather than statistical) generalisabilty (Stake, 1995; Yin,
2003), and sample frame elements regarding data collection situation, data collection
timeframe, and the use of judgment (purposeful) sampling (Patton, 1999).
As with any theoretical framework there will be limitations associated with the
approach taken. This research study has adopted the Hatch and Schultz (2002)
Organisational Identity Dynamics model as its guiding theoretical framework. As
this model makes pre-conceived ideas as to the nature of some of the concepts these
judgments would have in some way impacted the outcomes of this study. Every
effort has been made in Chapter Two – Literature Review to investigate the concepts
of identity, image, and organisational culture independently of this framework. The
concepts of impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing have been looked at in
a broader literature sense as well as within the OID framework. Particularly the
concept of organisational culture is one which is discussed in an array of ways in
broader literature therefore when understanding this research study it is important to
note that a combined culture perspective bridging both functionalist and interpretivist
concepts was utilised as addressed in Chapter Two – Literature Review. If
188
replicating this study it would be important to note the overarching nature of
organisational culture in identity development and management rather than a
functionalist approach seeking to “change” organisational culture.
5.9 Future Research
While this study has made a number of concrete conclusions relating to the
operationalisation of the OID model and surrounding concepts, this does not
eliminate the need for future research. A number of potential future research
avenues exist, which would add to both theory and practice. To begin, further
studies involving multiple case studies across a variety of industries would allow for
further development of established concepts and also allow for replication logic (Yin,
1981, 2003). This could be further enhanced with studies aiming to quantify the
relationships between these elements and aforementioned linking processes to further
understand the nature of such relationships.
Other future research could focus specifically on addressing a wider range of levels
within the organisation. As the findings of this study have discussed, there are a
range of differences in the ways in which the three identified levels understanding
and undertake the processes of impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing. As
these three levels are all based in the operations side of the business, it is contended
that examining other levels such as director level managers, front line customer
service, and utility building and repair employees could result in further distinctions
the OID processes. It is proposed that future research expand the scope of levels to
focus on these three groups taking the total levels to six.
Furthermore, it is proposed that the utilisation of different data collection methods
could further the understanding of the four OID linking processes of impressing,
mirroring, reflecting and expressing. As organisational culture presents a number of
research challenges for an outsider some suggestions for different methodological
189
approaches include the use of ethnography in both participant and observer fashions.
Ethnography has the potential to provide a richer understanding of these processes
from the perspective of an organisational insider rather than an external observer
(Creswell, 2003). Furthermore, action research as a method could present unique
value particularly in the development and implementation of identity messages.
Action research would enable the study to influence and track the stages of
impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing across the OID framework
(Thompson & Perry, 2004). When considering organisational culture utilisng
ethnography or action research a longitudinal study approach is recommended
(Pettigrew, 1979).
5.10 Conclusion
Chapter Five – Conclusions has discussed the findings of this study as compared to
key concepts from literature. The sections of this chapter have addressed the OID
processes of impressing, mirroring, reflecting, and expressing as well as the OID
model holistically. These conclusions discussed findings relevant to literature with
the objective of furthering understanding of identity. These conclusions were
discussed against the specific research questions of this study focusing on the three
sample levels: Level A - Senior Marketing and Corporate Communications
Management, Level B - Marketing and Corporate Communications Staff, and Level
C - Non-Marketing Managers and Employees. Furthermore, Chapter Five –
Conclusions addressed the significance of this research from both theoretical and
practitioner perspectives, as well as discussing and acknowledging the limitations of
this study. Future research was discussed and directions were developed to expand
the body of knowledge in the identity space. Finally, this section, Section 5.10 has
provided summary conclusions on this chapter.
190
References
191
Abratt, R. (1989). A New Approach to the Corporate Image Management
Process. Journal of Marketing Management, 5(1), 63‐76.
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational Identity. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 7, 263‐295.
Argenti, P. A., & Druckenmiller, B. (2004). Reputation and the Corporate Brand.
Corporate Reputation Review, 6(4), 368‐374.
Babbie, E. (2001). The Practice of Social Research (9 ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth
Thomson Learning.
Baker, M. J., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Visual Identity: Trappings or Substance?
European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 366‐382.
Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). Corporate Branding and Connoisseurship. Journal of
General Management, 21(1), 24‐46.
Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate Identity: Past, Present and Future. University
of Strathclyde Working Paper Series.
Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Corporate Identity and the Advent of Corporate
Marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 14, 963‐996.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2001a). Corporate Identity, Corporate Branding and Corporate
Marketing: Seeing Through the Fog. European Journal of Marketing,
35(3/4), 248‐291.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2007). Identity Based Views of the Corporation: Insights From
Corporate Identity, Organisational Identity, Social Identity, Visual
Identity, Corporate Brands and Corporate Image. Bradford University
School of Management Working Paper Series.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (1999). Corporate Identity and Corporate
Communications: Creating a Competitive Advantage. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 4(4), 171‐176.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (2003). Corporate Brands: What are they? What of
them? European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 972‐997.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2002). Managing the Multiple Identities of the
Corporation. California Management Review, 44(3), 72‐86.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2006). Corporate Marketing: Integrating
Corporate Identity, Corporate Branding, Corporate Communications,
192
Corporate Image and Corporate Reputation. European Journal of
Marketing, 40(7/8), 730‐741.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Stuart, H. (2004). British Airways and Balmers AC3ID Test of
Corporate Brand Management. Bradford University School of
Management Working Paper Series, 4(26).
Balmer, J. M. T., & Wilson, A. (1998). Corporate Identity: There Is More to It
Than Meets the Eye. International Studies of Management and
Organisation, 28(3), 12‐31.
Bate, P. (1994). Strategies for Cultural Change. Oxford: Butterworth‐Heinemann.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Press.
Bernstein, D. (1984). Company Image and Reality: A Critique of Corporate
Communications. Holt: Rienhart and Winston.
Brown, A. (1995). Organizational Culture. London: Pitman Publishing.
Carson, D., Gilmore, A., Perry, C., & Gronhaug, K. (2001). Indepth Interviewing
and Convergent Interviews. In Qualitative Market Research. London:
Sage.
Cavana, R., Delahaye, B., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied Business Research:
Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Milton: Wiley.
Christensen, L. B. (2007). Experimental Methodology (10th ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cornelissen, J. P., Haslam, S. A., & Balmer, J. M. T. (2007). Social Identity,
Organizationa Identity and Corporate Identity: Towards an Integrated
Understanding of Processes, Patternings and Products.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Davies, G., & Chun, R. (2002). Gaps Between the Internal and External
Perceptions of the Corporate Brand. Corporate Reputation Review,
5(2/3), 144‐158.
193
Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R. V., & Roper, S. (2004). A Corporate Character
Scale to Assess Employee and Customer Views of Organization
Reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 125‐146.
Dawson, P. (1994). Organisational Change: A Processual Approach. London:
Chapman Publishing.
De Chernatony, L., Cottam, S., & Segal‐Horn, S. (2006). Communicating Service
Brands' Values Internally and Externally. The Service Industries Journal,
26(8), 819‐836.
De Chernatony, L., & Harris, F. (2000). Developing Corporate Brands Through
Considering Internal and External Stakeholders. Corporate Reputation
Review, 3(3), 268‐274.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of
Corporate Life. London: Penguin Group.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of
Qualitative Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research (Vol. 3). London: Sage.
DiBella, A. J. (1992). Planned Change in and Organized Anarchy: Support for a
Postmodernist Perspective. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 5(3), 55‐65.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an Eye on the Mirror: Image and
Identity in Organizational Adaptation. Academy of Management Journal,
34(3), 517‐554.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (2002). Chapter 1: Building Theories from Case Study
Research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative
researcher's companion (pp. 5‐35). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fombrun, C. J., & Van Reil, C. (1997). The Reputational Landscape. Corporate
Reputation Review, 1(1/2), 5‐13.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The Interview: From Neutral Stance to Political
Involvement. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
George, W. R. (1990). Internal Marketing and Organizational Behavior: A
Partnership in Developing Customer‐Conscious Employees at Every
Level. Journal of Business Research, 20, 63‐70.
194
Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational Identity, Image,
and Adaptive Instability. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63‐
81.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions,
and Emerging Confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research (Vol. 3). London: Sage.
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2000). The Responses of Front Line Employees to
Market Oriented Culture Change. European Journal of Marketing,
34(3/4), 318‐340.
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2002). The Unintended Consequences of Culture
Interventions: A Study of Unexpected Outcomes. British Journal of
Management, 13, 31‐49.
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The Dynamics of Organizational Culture. Academy of
Management Journal, 18(4), 657‐693.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations Between Organizational Culture,
Identity and Image. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 356‐365.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2000). Scaling the Tower of Babel: Relation
Differences between Identity, Image, and Culture in Organizations. In M.
J. Hatch, M. Schultz & M. H. Larsen (Eds.), The Expressive Organization:
linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2002). The Dynamics of Organizational Identity.
Human Relations, 55(8), 989‐1018.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2003). Bringing the Corporation into Corporate
Branding. European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 1041‐1064.
Hawkins, P. (1997). Organizational Culture: Sailing Between Evangelism and
Complexity. Human Relations, 50(4), 417 ‐ 440
He, H. W., & Balmer, J. M. T. (2006). Identity Studies: Multiple Perspectives and
Implications for Corporate‐Level Marketing. European Journal of
Marketing, 41(7/8), 765‐785.
Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive Criteria to Judge Validity and
Reliability of Qualitative Research Within the Realism Paradigm.
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3(3), 118‐126.
195
Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the
Mind. New York: McGraw‐Hill.
Ind, N. (2003). Inside Out: How Employees Build Value. Journal of Brand
Management, 10(6), 393‐402.
Jenkins, R. (1996). Social Identity. London: Routledge.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in
Action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602‐611.
Kennedy, S. H. (1977). Nurturing Corporate Image: Total Communication or Ego
Trip? European Journal of Marketing, 11(3), 120‐164.
King, C., & Grace, D. (2005). Exploring the Role of Employees in the Delivery of
the Brand: A Case Study Approach. Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, 8(3), 277‐296.
King, N. (2005). Using Interviews in Qualitative Research. In C. Cassell & G.
Symon (Eds.), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational
Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
King, S. (1991). Brand‐Building in the 1990s. The Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 8(4), 43‐52.
Kowalczyk, S. J., & Pawlish, M. J. (2002). Corporate Branding Through External
Perception of Organizational Culture. Corporate Reputation Review,
5(2/3), 159‐174.
Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and
Definitions. New York: Vintage Books.
Lewis, J. (2002). Cultural Studies The Basics. London: Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research (4 ed.).
Thousand Oaks California: Sage.
Martin, J. (1985). Can Organizational Culture be Managed? In P. J. Frost, L. F.
Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundburg & J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational
Culture. London: Sage.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ogbonna, E. (1993). Managing Organizational Culture: Fantisy or Reality?
Human Resource Management, 3(2), 42‐54.
196
Ogbonna, E., & Harris, L. C. (1998). Managing Organizational Culture:
Compliance of Genuine Change? British Journal of Management, 9, 273‐
288.
Olins, W. (1978). The Corporate Personality: An Inquiry into the Nature of
Corporate Identity. London: Thames and Hudson.
Olins, W. (1989). Corporate Identity: Making Business Strategy Visible Through
Design. Boston Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Olins, W. (1995). The New Guide to Identity: How to Create and Sustain Change
Through Managing Identity. Brookfield: Design Council / Gower.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury
Park: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1999). Enhancing the Quality and Credibility of Qualitative
Analysis. Health Services Research 34(5), 1189‐1208.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On Studying Organizational Cultures. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 24(4), 570 ‐ 581.
Podnar, K. (2005). Corporate Identity in Slovenia. Corporate Communications:
An International Journal, 10(1), 69‐82.
Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning.
Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press.
Riege, A. (2003). Validity and Reliability Tests in Case Study Research: A
Literature Review with "Hands‐On" Applications for Each Research
Phase. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 6(2), 75‐86.
Rindova, V., & Fombrun, C. J. (1998). The Eye of the Beholder: The Role of
Corporate Reputation Indefining Organizational Identity. In D. A.
Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Developing
theory through conversations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Robinson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd ed.). Carlton: Blackwell.
Saffold, G. S. (1988). Culture Traits, Strength, and Organizational Perormance:
Moving beyond "Strong" Culture. The Academy of Management Review,
13(4), 546‐558.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View (1st
ed.). San Franciso: Jossey‐Bass Publishers.
197
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Josser‐Bass.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative Enquiry: A Dictionary of Terms. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Seale, C. (2004). Social Research Methods: A Reader. London: Routledge.
Sheldon, A. (1980). Organizational Paradigms: A Theory of Organizational
Change. Organizational Dynamics(Winter), 61‐80.
Smircich, L. (1983a). Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 339 ‐ 358.
Smircich, L. (1983b). Studying Organizations as Cultures. In G. Morgan (Ed.),
Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research. London: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Pubications.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative Case Studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
Stuart, H. (1998). Exploring the Corporate Identity/Corporate Image Interface:
An Empirical Study of Accounting Firms. Journal of Communication
Management, 2(4), 357‐373.
Stuart, H. (1999). Towards a Definitive Model of the Corporate Identity
Management Process. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 4(4), 200‐207.
Stuart, H. (2002). Employee Identification with the Corporate Identity: Issues
and Implications. International Journal of Management and Organisation,
32(3), 28‐44.
Thompson, F., & Perry, C. (2004). Generalising Results of an Action Research
Project in One Work Place to Another Situation. European Journal of
Marketing, 38(3/4), 401‐417.
Van Den Bosch, A. L. M., De Jong, M. D. T., & Elving, W. J. L. (2005). How
Corporate Visual Identity Supports Reputation. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), 108‐116.
Van Rekom, J. (1997). Deriving and Operational Measure of Corporate Identity.
European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 410‐.
198
Van Riel, C. B. M. (1995). Principles of Corporate Communication. Hertfordshire:
Prentice Hall.
Van Riel, C. B. M., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate Identity: The Concept, its
Measurement and Management. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6),
340‐355.
Veal, A. J. (2005). Business Research Methods: A Managerial Approach (2 ed.).
Frenchs Forest.
Wasmer, D. J., & Bruner, G. C. (1991). Using Organizational Culture to Design
Internal Marketing Strategies. The Journal of Services Marketing, 5(1), 35‐
46.
Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten Revised ‐ Strengthening the Concept
of Organizational Identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 219‐
234.
Whitemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity In Qualitative
Research. Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522‐537.
Wilson, A. M. (2001). Understanding Organisational Culture and the
Implications for Corporate Marketing. European Journal of Marketing,
35(3/4), 353‐367.
Yin, R. K. (1981). The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 26(1), 58‐65.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Vol. 5). Thousand
Oaks California: Sage.
Young, D. W. (2000). The Six Levers for Managing Organizational Culture.
Business Horizons(September/October), 19‐28.
Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Essentials of Marketing Research (2 ed.). Mason Ohio:
Thomson South‐Western.
199
Appendix
200
Appendix 1 - Document Analysis List
201
Appendix 1.1: ACORP 2008/09 Annual Report (External)
Appendix 1.2: ACORP Media Release – Suburb Network Upgrade (External)
Appendix 1.3: ACORP Media Release – Community Service Severe Weather
Conditions (External)
Appendix 1.4: ACORP Media Release – Inner South Upgrade (External)
Appendix 1.5: ACORP Media Release – Seasonal Planning (External)
Appendix 1.6: ACORP About Statement – “We are ACORP” (External)
Appendix 1.7: ACORP Purpose and Vision Statement (External)
Appendix 1.8: ACORP Community Messages Overview (External)
Appendix 1.9: ACORP Apprenticeships Guidelines (Internal)
Appendix 1.10: ACORP Career Development Guide (Internal)
Appendix 1.11: ACORP Staff Values Document (Internal)
Appendix 1.12: ACORP Values Signage (Internal)
Appendix 1.13: ACORP Proposed Employer Branding Draft Document
(Internal)
Appendix 1.14: Independent Government Inquiry – Summary Report
(External)
Appendix 1.15: Independent Government Inquiry – Full Report (External)
202
Appendix 2 - Research Participant Recruitment Flyer
203
204
205
Appendix 3 - Research Participant Information Form
206
207
208
209
Appendix 4 - Copy of Interview Questions
210
Introductory questions
How long have you worked at Energex? What attracted you to the company?
Tell me about your position at Energex? What are your tasks? Responsibilities? Like
and dislikes?
What did you know about the brand before you started? What kind of information
search did you undertake?
Impressing
What kind of messages do you think Energex sends via mass communication tools
such as advertising, public relations, and media relations?
Do you feel the mass communication messages accurately represent your views and
feelings about the organisation? In what ways would you adjust these messages if
you could?
In person to person sense, give some examples of how you have represented the
brand in your dealings with stakeholders?
Do you think your personal representation of the brand represented a similar position
to the brand messages the organisation sends? Did your own representation differ in
any way?
Mirroring
In your role who do you personally see as your most important stakeholder group
and why?
Do you think that this stakeholder group is the most important for your organisation
as a whole? What other stakeholders are important to Energex?
In your interactions with stakeholders, have you ever felt the need to represent
Energex in a way different from the mass communication messages the organisation
sends? Give examples?
In your interactions with stakeholders do you feel your first duty is to nurturing the
relationship with that specific stakeholder or is it staying true to the Energex brand?
211
Reflecting
If you had to explain to an outsider or newcomer what the organisational culture of
Energex encompassed, how would you describe it? What is important here and what
is not?
Do you feel that the brand positioning presented by marketing is a true representation
of the organisational culture of Energex? How does it differ?
What kind of employee communication programs have you been a part of in your
time with Energex? What kind of information have you been given and what do you
feel you have learned from this?
What elements of stakeholder communication do you feel have become part of the
culture of this organisation? Give examples?
Expressing
As a staff member of Energex, what do you see as the most important aspect of what
you do as an organisation and why?
Do you feel that this organisaton understands the people working for it? Give
examples?
How do you feel management could improve their understanding of employees and
do you think this would be useful or of interest to external stakeholders?
How closely aligned do you feel the marketing communication of Energex aligns
with the organisational culture? How could it be improved? What would need to
change?
Closing Questions
Is there any additional information about your experience with the organisational
culture or the brand of Energex you would like to add?
212
Appendix 5 - Copy of Interview Timetable
213
Date Interview Details
Thursday September 10 B1: 00:47:53
Friday September 11 B2: 00:51:55
A1: 01:45:51
C1: 00:49:57
Saturday September 12
Sunday September 13
Monday September 14 C2: 00:51:30
Tuesday September 15 C3: 00:57:12
C4: 00:54:07
Wednesday September 16
Thursday September 17 C5: 01:36:26
C6: 00:43:49
Friday September 18 C7: 00:48:52
C8: 01:18:07
Saturday September 19
Sunday September 20
Monday September 21
Tuesday September 22 B3: 00:35:45
Wednesday September 23 A2: 01:32:05
Thursday September 24 B4: 00:32:26
Friday September 25 A3: 01:22:53
214
Appendix 6 – Transcription and Analysis Framework
215
Interview Number
Q#: Interview Question
Answer Analysis
Transcribed analysis from audio recording
Identification of themes
and coding elements
Additional notes
216
Appendix 7 – Identity Types
217
(Balmer, 2007)
*Espoused identity, although not directly addressed by Balmer (2007) has been
developed by the author be combining Balmer’s (2007) complementary concepts of
ideal and desired identity.