“One size doesn't fit all”

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of internal brand management (IBM) practices on tourism and hospitality employees' ability to demonstrate brand supportive behaviours. A model, which includes brand knowledge dissemination, role clarity, brand commitment and brand supportive behaviour is proposed. To provide further insight, the study seeks to examine the impact that hierarchical roles have on employees' responses. Design/methodology/approach A quantitative research methodology was adopted, resulting in the development of a self‐administered online survey instrument. Using a national database of service employees, respondents were invited to participate in the online survey, resulting in the completion of 137 surveys. Findings While all paths were significant in the overall model, differences were found when comparing front line and management models. Overall, brand commitment played a more significant role in the front line model, whereas role clarity was not shown to be significant in the management model with respect to influencing brand supportive behaviour. Research limitations/implications The results suggest that the tourism and hospitality employee market is not homogeneous. IBM has a positive effect on all employees but it is what they choose to do with that information that differs. Managers should endeavour to develop brand‐committed front‐line employees, while the management employees should be encouraged to apply their brand knowledge, thereby “leading by example”. Originality/value An IBM strategy should be paramount in the tourism and hospitality industry, given the critical role the employee provides to a guest's overall experience and assessment of the brand. The study empirically validates the effects of IBM, identifying differences in responses based on hierarchical position, which has ramifications for practitioners and academics in developing best practice.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 153 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.