Assessing the Employee Brand: A Census of One Company

Abstract

Business and brand reputations are often made, or broken, at point at which and their customers come into contact (Bernoff and Schadler, 2010). Thus, organizations are able to enhance their financial performance and gain a sustainable competitive advantage by defining brand image their are to project, and then motivating and empowering them to deliver desired brand image to others (King and Grace, 2009; Miles and Mangold, 2004). Hence, employee branding process appears to be even further reaching than originally proposed by Miles and Mangold (2004). Given unfolding widespread theoretical impact of employee brand on tangible organizational outcomes, empirical analysis of this conceptual framework is both necessary and appropriate. Miles and Mangold's (2005) contextual analysis of employee branding process contributed to its further development as a theoretical construct. Their 2007 case study of employee branding at AS1 was intended to be used as a teaching tool and to provide guidance for managers wanting to help their organizations grow their employee brands (Miles and Mangold, 2007). However, its scope was limited to organization's internal constituents, i.e., employees. Thus, employee branding framework has yet to be empirically tested in its entirety. The purpose of this manuscript is to present results of an empirical study which encompasses both an internal assessment of employee brand image as perceived by and an assessment of whether external constituents perceive that desired brand image is being adequately reflected by organization's employees. Specifically, do know and understand desired brand image and, if so, are they motivated to deliver it to organization's constituents? If so, do those constituents, in turn, perceive that they experience desired brand image? Hence, purpose of this study is to empirically validate framework proposed by Miles and Mangold (2004, 2005) in context of one firm in professional services industry. Literature Review and Development of Hypotheses The employee brand has been defined as the image presented to an organization's customers and other stakeholders through its employees (Mangold and Miles, 2007: 77). This image can be either negative or positive, and is contingent on extent to which know and understand desired brand image and are motivated to project that image to organizational constituents. The process by which this comes about is referred to as employee branding process. While employee branding process is a relatively new field of interest, its significance is fast coming to light. Evidence suggests that delivery of employee brand image to constituents impacts organizational outcomes of employee satisfaction and turnover. It is also linked to customer satisfaction, loyalty, and reputation as well as position organization and its offerings hold in mind of consumers (Miles and Mangold, 2005). Most recently, King and Grace (2009) introduced idea of employee-based brand equity and postulated that it impacts consumer-based brand equity and, ultimately, financial-based brand equity. Consequently, companies that can consistently deliver promised offering to their customers and other organizational constituents should be able to enjoy a much coveted competitive advantage. Two critical elements are necessary in order to glean competitive advantage an employee brand can offer (Miles and Mangold, 2005). First, must know and understand desired brand image. Second, they must be motivated to engage in behaviors that are necessary to deliver desired brand image to others. Employees are likely to know and understand desired brand image when it is clearly defined in light of organization's mission and values. The values communicated through message system articulate what is important to organization and form basis for desired brand image organizations want to reflect to their customers and constituents. …

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 — 35 citations exist upstream.

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