Tài liệu Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management 6 ppt

understanding of the linkages between HR and marketing in the brand management and reputation building processes (see also Sparrow et al., 2004). Naturally enough, given their back- grounds, education and interests, marketers have been good at using the language of branding and communications to shed new light on people management, and have produced prac- tical tools for assisting HR professionals to apply the language of branding to people management problems. However, they have said little about the complex nature of employee identifi- cation with brands and organizations, other than at a general level and usually in highly prescriptive manner. As befits busi- ness disciplines that are essentially normative, marketing and communications sometimes fail to deal with the realities or causes of much of organizational life, such as cynical or apathetic employee attitudes to customer service, unethical products and practices, disenchanted managers and the competing pro- fessional identities of many knowledge workers that have little connection with advancing ideas of corporateness. So, for HR professionals, the rising star of corporateness marks a watershed and a real opportunity to become corpor- ate, as well as business, partners. However, it also brings signifi- cant challenges for the role of the HR function, as well as the capability of HR professionals to ‘round themselves out’, lead and deliver people strategies that support corporate reputa- tions and brand, CSR and good governance. References Aaker, D. A. (2004) Leveraging the corporate brand, California Management Review, 46 (3), 6–18. Albert, S. and Whetten, D. (1985) Organizational identity, in L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds), Research in organizational behaviour 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 263–295. Alessandri, S. W. and Allessandri, T. (2004) Promoting and protect- ing corporate identity: the importance of organizational and industrial context, Corporate Reputation Review, 7, 252–268. Bakan, J. (2004) The corporation: the pathological pursuit of profit. New York: Free Press. Balmer, J. T. and Greyser, S. A. (2003) Revealing the corporation: perspec- tives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding and corporate- level marketing. London: Routledge. 34 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management Barrow, S. and Mosley, R. (2005) The Employer Brand ® : bringing the best of brand management to people at work. London: Wiley. Berthon, P., Hulbert, J. M. and Pitt, L. F. (1999) Brand management prognostications, Sloan Management Review, 40 (Winter), 53–65. Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2003) Strategy and human resource manage- ment. London: Palgrave Macmillan. CIPD (2004) Business partnering: a new direction for HR. Wimbledon: CIPD. Clarke, T. (ed.) (2004) Theories of corporate governance: the philosophical foundations of corporate governance. London: Routledge. Conway, N. and Briner, R. B. (2005) Understanding psychological con- tracts at work: a critical evaluation of theory and research. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davies, G. with Chun, R., Da Silva, R. V. and Roper, S. (2003) Corporate reputation and competitiveness. London: Routledge. Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R. V. and Roper, S. (2004) A corporate character scale to assess employee and customer views of organ- ization reputation, Corporate Reputation Review, 7, 125–146. de Chernatony, L. (2001) From brand vision to brand evaluation. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann. Deephouse, D. L. and Carter, S. M. (2005) An examination of differ- ences between organizational legitimacy and reputation, Journal of Management Studies, 42, 329–360. Dowling, G. R. (2001) Creating corporate reputations: identity, image and performance. New York: Oxford University Press. Dowling, G. R. (2004) Corporate reputations: should you compete on yours? California Management Review, 46 (3), 19–36. Dunsford, B. B., Snell, S. A. and Wright, P. M. (2001) Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. CAHRS Working Paper 01-03, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. The Economist (2004) Selling the flag, The Economist, 26 February. The Economist (2006) St Lawrence of Google, The Economist, 14 January. Florida, R. (2005) The flight of the creative class. New York: Harper- Collins. Fombrun, C. J. and Van Riel, C. B. M. (2003) Fame and fortune: how successful companies build winning reputations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Gelade, G. A. and Young, S. (2005) Test of a service profit chain model in the retail banking sector, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 1–22. Goiia, D. A., Shultz, M. and Corley, K. G. (2000) Organizational iden- tity, image and adaptive instability, Academy of Management Review, 25 (1), 63–81. Chapter 1 The importance of the corporate agenda and its links with HRM 35 Golden-Biddle, K. and Rao, H. (1997) Breaches in the boardroom: identity and conflicts of commitment in a nonprofit organiza- tion, Organizational Science, 8, 593–611. Greenwald, B. and Kahn, J. (2005) Competition demystified. New York: Portfolio/Penguin. Hagel IIIrd, J. and Seely Brown, J. (2005) The only sustainable edge: why business strategy depends on productive friction and dynamic special- ization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Haig, M. (2003) Brand failures: the truth about the 100 biggest branding mistakes of all time. London: Kogan-Page. Haig, M. (2004) Brand royalty: how the world’s top 100 brands thrive and survive. London: Kogan-Page. Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001) Corporate branding and cor- porate brand performance, European Marketing Journal, 35 (3/4), 441–456. Harter, J. M., Schmidt, F. and Hayes, T. L. (2002) Business unit level relationships between employee satisfaction/engagement and business outcomes: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279. Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2001) Are the strategic starts aligned for your corporate brand?, Harvard Business Review, Jan–Feb, pp. 129–134. Hill and Knowlton (2004) Global corporate reputation watch survey. http://www.hillandknowlton.com/crw/ (28 February 2006). Human Resource Management Journal (2005) Special issue: The link between HRM and performance, Human Resource Management Journal, 15 (4). Jackson, K. T. (2004) Building reputation capital: strategies for integrity and fair play that improve the bottom line. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Joyce, W., Nohria, N. and Robertson, B. (2003) What really works: the 4+2 formula for sustained business success. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (2001) The strategy-focused organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kay, J. (2004) The truth about markets: why some nations are rich but most remain poor. London: Penguin Books. Kellerman, B. (2004) Bad leadership: what it is, how it happens and why it matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Klein, N. (2000) No logo: no space, no choice, no jobs. New York: Picador. Leseure, M. J., Bauer, J., Birdi, K., Neely, A. and Denyer, D. (2004) Adoption of promising practices: a systematic review of the evidence, International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6, 169–190. 36 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management Martin, G. (2006) Managing people and organizations in changing con- texts. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann. Martin, G. and Hetrick, S. (forthcoming) Corporate reputation, branding and people management: the case of Finco. Martin, G. and Riddell, T. (1996) ‘The wee outfit that decked IBM’: manufacturing : strategic change in the ‘Cash’, Strategic Change, 5 (1), 3–25. Martin, G. and Beaumont, P. B. (2003) Branding and people manage- ment: what’s in a name? Wimbledon: CIPD. Martin, G., Beaumont, P. B. and Pate, J. M. (2003) A process model of strategic change and some case study evidence, in W. Cooke (ed.), Multinational companies and transnational workplace issues. Westport, CT: Quorum Press. Martin, G., Beaumont, P. B., Doig, R. M. and Pate, J. M. (2005) Branding: a new discourse for HR?, European Management Journal, 23 (1), 76–88. Pate, J., Martin, G. and Staines, H. (2000) The new psychological con- tract, cynicism and organizational change: a theoretical framework and case study evidence, Journal of Strategic Change, 9 (1), 481–493. Pfeffer, J. (2005) Creating a performance culture. Presentation at University of Strathclyde, 23 September. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T. and Dirks, K. T. (2001) Towards a theory of psychological ownership in organizations, Academy of Manage- ment Review, 26, 298–310. Rindova, V. P., Pollock, T. G. and Hayward, M. L. A. (2006) Celebrity firms: the social construction of market popularity, Academy of Management Review, 31: 50–71. Roberts, J. (2004) The modern firm: organizational design for performance and growth. New York: Oxford University Press. Roberts, P. W. and Dowling, G. R. (2002) Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1077–1093. Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004) The drivers of employee engagement. Institute of Employment Studies, Report No. 404. Brighton: IES. Schultz, M. and de Chernatony, L. (2002) Introduction: The chal- lenges of corporate branding, Corporate Reputation Review, 5 (2/3), 105–112. Sjovall, A. M. and Talk, Andrew C. (2004) From actions to impres- sions: cognitive attribution theory and the formation of corpor- ate reputation, Corporate Reputation Review, 13, 269–281. Sparrow, P. R. and Cooper, C. L. (2003) The new employment relation- ship. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann. Chapter 1 The importance of the corporate agenda and its links with HRM 37 38 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management Sparrow, P. R., Brewster, C. and Harris, H. (2004) Globalizing human resource management. London: Routledge. Ulrich, D. and Brockbank, W. (2005) The HR value proposition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Van Riel, C. B. (2003) The management of corporate communica- tions, in J. M. T. Balmer and S. A. Geyser (eds), Revealing the cor- poration: perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding and corporate-level marketing. London: Routledge. Whetten, D. and Mackey, A. (2002) A social actor conception of organ- izational identity and its implications for the study of organiza- tional reputations, Business and Society, 41, 393–414. CHAPTER Managing corporate brands and reputations 2 Making the connections between strategy, corporateness and HRM In the opening chapter we introduced two of the most import- ant corporate-level concepts in our model – branding and repu- tation management – and showed how these are important to the key strategic interests of organizations and nations in market economies. Reputations and brands provide essential informa- tion to consumers and other stakeholders in an imperfect world. Our second message was that brands and reputations, though validated on the outside by consumers and other external stake- holders, are usually driven from the inside by the quality and actions of employees. In this chapter we wish to develop this last message by shedding some light on the meaning of brands, branding and reputations, especially for non-specialists in these fields, and discuss how they may be related to each other. However, since all ideas in business and management are something of a contested terrain, there are different schools of thought on branding and reputation management, so we also dis- cuss and evaluate some of these. This is of great practical import- ance because of confusion over what is meant by branding and reputations. Thus we need to be clear about what we mean, how these ideas might be related to each other and what their specific connections are with people and HRM. To do this, it is first neces- sary to trace their intellectual justifications and links to the litera- ture and practice of strategic management, which deals with the highest level and most long-term decisions of organizations. Corporateness and strategic management Strategic management as a body of knowledge and practice has been dominated by an ‘outside-in’ perspective, often simplified for students and practitioners into the ubiquitous SWOT frame- work. This portrays strategy as a three-stage process of examin- ing the opportunities and threats in external environments of organizations, considering the strengths and weaknesses of internal resources, and bringing both into alignment. The usual empha- sis and core message of this framework, however, is that it is the external opportunities and threats that drive strategy with internal resources needing to be brought into line with these environ- mental pressures. The major figure in this outside-in approach to strategic management is Michael Porter (1985, 1996), whose views on strategic success are characterized as being driven by fit with the external environment. Porter’s original focus was on the attractiveness of industries as the driver of strategy and the forces that shape attractiveness of industries to firms – buyer and supplier power, the threat of substitute products/services and new entrants into the market, and the intensity of competitive rivalry. Based on this external analysis, the main strategic choice for firms was how to position themselves competitively, either through differ- entiation in the minds of customers, cost leadership throughout the value chain or focus, niche marketing strategies. Accord- ingly, people and HRM were treated as downstream or derived decisions that followed strategic marketing, planning and branding, and were rarely considered to be of significant strate- gic importance. It should come as no great surprise that marketing and brand- ing specialists have drawn intellectual inspiration from such a model, and how they may have contributed to its dominance by 40 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management elevating the ‘cult’ of the customer (Du Gay, 1996) and, indeed, product branding to an all-time high during the 1980s and 1990s. We use the term cult here because there was some ideo- logical as well as rational reasoning used to justify outside-in per- spectives. Ideology can be thought of as the use of ideas to promote certain interests, often beyond what might be justified by the evidence or interests of society in general. And there is lit- tle doubt that the interests of marketing and branding special- ists, especially the major marketing consultants, were served by promoting customers at the expense of other stakeholders in organizations. However, when developed economies began to move away from competing on the basis of tangible products and manufac- tured goods to intangible services and, increasingly, knowledge assets, strategic management began to look for alternative explan- ations of success. Perhaps the best known of these ‘new strategic management’ approaches is the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm (Barney, 1991, 2002; Grant, 1991). This ‘inside-out’ strate- gic perspective has become a counterpoint to the outside-in car- icature of Porter’s perspective and speaks to the differentiation/ initiative agenda proposed by unique organizational identities in the opening chapter. Though this picture is a little unfair, since Porter has acknowledged the importance of internal resources in driving strategy (Argyres and McGahan, 2002), his debates with Jay Barney are worth reviewing. In contrast to Porter’s focus on the attractiveness of industries, Barney’s resource-based view on strategy and, by implication, on HRM, sees the fundamental and, indeed, only sustainable route to competitive advantage as arising from how you put together unique and enviable combi- nations of internal, usually intangible, resources, the principal justification being that everything else is open to inspection and copying. The most important of these are often seen to be information and people, and their relationships to other key processes and intangible assets, such as knowledge creation and dissemination, brands and the creation and maintenance of reputations (Boxall and Purcell, 2003; Martin et al., 2005). Since these intangibles are, in many respects, the products of specific organizational cultures, defined by the guiding assumptions and values, attitudes, norms of behaviour and key artefacts such as structures, systems and processes, this has led some writers to Chapter 2 Managing corporate brands and reputations 41 believe it is how such cultures are managed and how people are selected, developed, rewarded and organized that differentiates firms, especially in the modern knowledge-based industries and growing service sectors of Europe and North America (Pfeffer, 1998, 2005). So, the RBV has provided a major intellectual and empirical justification for the importance of HRM and its links to key strate- gic decisions on issues such as branding and reputations, and we will return to it in later chapters in this book. Just as the inter- ests of marketing people have been served by the outside-in approach, we have to be a little wary of any perspective that offers a one-best-way analysis and solution. This is especially so for one that promotes another sectional interest – human resources – at the expense of other key aspects of business (Porter, 1996; Argyres and McGahan, 2002). For example, as Porter (1996) has argued, internal resources – people, brands, reputations or knowledge – are of no intrinsic competitive value; it is how they are used and in what contexts they are used that create value for organizations and economies. The RBV has also been criticized for at least two other reasons (Lado et al., 2006), who state that: ■ Resources are intangible (such as organizational knowledge and reputations), so they cannot be open to measurement, making proof of the idea a near impossibility. ■ An organization’s truly valuable (human) resources are difficult to imitate because they are opaque, so how can employees and managers understand and build on them to create sustainable advantages? These criticisms have important practical implications for rep- utation management and branding because they have been trad- itionally seen as part of ‘soft’ management, not the numbers game that most managers understand. Nevertheless, the RBV has managed to rebalance the debate, based on the rationale that you don’t move a seesaw by sitting in the middle. As these two camps are beginning to recognize, however, the answer to this fundamental question on the sources of competitive advan- tage question probably lies somewhere in the middle, with both perspectives having something to offer (Boxall and Purcell, 2003). We shall examine these perspectives in Chapters 6 and 9. 42 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management Core competences and the service–profit chain Sitting alongside the RBV is another stream of influential strate- gic management literature that has been used to explain effec- tive and sustainable strategic advantage. This is based on the notion of core internal competences (Hamel and Prahalad, 1994; Hamel, 1998) and the complementary idea of the ‘balanced scorecard’ (Kaplan and Norton, 1996, 2001). The balanced score- card is particularly relevant to the relations between HR and branding since it makes explicit the practical links to balancing the needs and measurement of different stakeholders in an organization – satisfying customers and financial objectives with the effective management and measurement of internal busi- ness processes, including people, and individual and organiza- tional learning and growth. Kaplan and Norton (2001) have also developed a strategy map or ‘theory of the business’, which is, in effect, a cause-and-effect model designed to help managers understand the relationships between critical performance drivers and their associated outcomes. A popular and impor- tant derivation of this theory of the business is an approach linking the marketing of services, customer relationship man- agement and customer satisfaction to internal markets and human resource management – the service–profit chain, first identified by the Sears corporation in the USA (Heskett et al., 1997; Kirn et al., 1999) (see Figure 2.1). The service–profit chain has been widely used in service industries such as retailing, the hospitality industry, airlines and financial services to explain the links between employee atti- tudes, customer satisfaction and superior business performance. For example, drawing on the service–profit chain, Hemmington and Watson (2003) have argued that the service encounter pro- vides the best and probably only unique opportunity to differen- tiate service to individual customers, thereby creating higher levels of customer satisfaction and repeat business in the hospi- tality industry. The reality of the delivery of employee-centred actions was more important than the marketing communica- tions literature of hotels; through promising high levels of customer service, often through vague and clichéd statements, they failed to differentiate between hotels and had the negative potential to over-promise what could not be delivered. Chapter 2 Managing corporate brands and reputations 43 . reputation, corporate branding and corporate- level marketing. London: Routledge. 34 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management Barrow, S. and Mosley,. Management Reviews, 5 /6, 169 –190. 36 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management Martin, G. (20 06) Managing people and organizations in changing