Corporate Identity Modeling: A Review and Presentation of a. New Multi-dimensional model

Transcription

1 Corporate Identity Modeling: A Review and Presentation of a New Multi-dimensional model Jean Yannis Suvatjis PhD Centre for Research in Brand Marketing Birmingham Business School University House The University of Birmingham Edgbaston Park Road Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT England Leslie de Chernatony Professor of Brand Marketing Centre for Research in Brand Marketing Birmingham Business School University House The University of Birmingham Edgbaston Park Road Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT England Tel No. Int Code Fax No. Int. Code L.decherantony@bham.ac.uk Journal of Marketing Management Volume 21, Number 7-8 pp , August 2005 Suvatjis and de Chernatony 2005

2 Abstract We put forward the six station model of corporate identity. This is done by reviewing the corporate identity literature to appreciate the limitations of existing models. Ten criteria are suggested as important for robust models. Based on this, the six station model is presented. To gauge its usefulness and managerial applicability 28 depth interviews were conducted with corporate identity consultants and business managers. The model was regarded as useful and has managerial applicability, albeit business managers would prefer more training and systems to use the model. Introduction The quest for a corporate identity model has been of increasing concern for researchers and managers, who regard identity formation as critical to corporate success. One of the key objectives in corporate management is to sustain a competitive advantage (Balmer & Wilson 1998). Corporate identity is one basis for achieving this and can be defined as what an organization is (Baker & Balmer 1997; van Rekom 1997). A more thorough definition is the set of meanings by which an object allows itself to be known and through which it allows people to describe, remember and relate to it (van Rekom 1997). The concepts of identity and image have been used interchangeably. Factors contributing to identity are the organization s history, ethics, beliefs, philosophy, personality of its leaders, ownership, cultural values and strategies (Ind in Stuart 1998). We concur with Stuart (1998) and see identity as the self-presentation of an organization as corporate personality, and functionally, as the selective cues and signals that an organization projects through its behavior, communication and 2

3 symbolism. With regard to operations and activities, it is the unique capabilities, or more abstractly, the reality of the human organization. An increasing number of scholars are laying a multidisciplinary foundation of corporate identity, since the composite of various disciplinary, national and cultural approaches contribute to a new holistic concept of identity. In the present research, a further contribution is made. This is done by focusing on variables that are regarded as fundamental to corporate identity and employing these in a six station corporate identity model. This new model addresses some of the limitations of previous models. We examine the interrelationships between the components of the model and, through depth interviews with consultants and business managers, assess whether the model has managerial applicability. The paper opens by reviewing corporate identity models and some of their limitations. From the literature we identify 10 criteria for a model to be useful and valid. Using these we put forward the six station corporate identity model. To assess its validity and managerial acceptability, the model was tested using depth interviews amongst 28 corporate identity consultants, and business managers. Existing corporate identity models Previous models have been presented by several authors, e.g. Dowling (1986), Stuart (1998, 1999), Balmer (1996), Markwick and Fill (1997) and Alessandri (2001). Other models have focused more explicitly on corporate image which is a component of, and overlaps with corporate identity, for example Kennedy (1977) and Abratt (1989), and for this reason they are not the focus of this paper. While these models have 3

4 advanced knowledge of corporate identity, the variety of approaches and perspectives has raised questions about each model s limitations, which have been identified in the literature. Dowling s (1986) model for example has been critiqued in relation to culture (Balmer and Wilson 1998), its discussion of top management and also for not making a direct reference to corporate identity (Balmer 2001b). It appears weak dealing with interrelationships between identity, image and his conceptualization of organizational culture (Stuart 1999). Furthermore, the model is difficult to visually interpret due to the complexity of identifying the interrelation of components. By contrast, Stuart s (1998 and 1999) constant revisions of her model shows the difficulty of producing a definitive model. Stuart s (1998) model did not deal with corporate reputation and also no consideration was given to corporate branding (Balmer 2001b). Ind (1997) observed that Stuart s model did not include products and services, which contribute to the communication of corporate identity, but this could be justified through the inclusion of corporate strategy which deals with products and services. Stuart s (1999) model does not clearly designate possible synergies and is difficult to memorize and operationalise. Markwick and Fill s (1997) model has been critiqued by Balmer (2001b) as not paying enough attention to company profile and corporate branding. Indeed, prior to this observation, the model is not easily interpretable since its components are scattered, with no specific diagrammatic guidance to introduce its logical sequence. 4

5 The model also fails to fully explain all synergies and it deals only partially with those components that the model introduces. Finally, Alessandri s (2001) model has been critiqued as being limited discussing corporate structure, as being too conceptual and placing excessive attention on corporate communication. It is difficult to understand and operationalise. As a result of being rather abstract, its difficult to memorize. Development of criteria for a robust corporate identity model To overcome some of the previous models limitations a new model was developed based on 10 criteria deemed important for a useful and valid model. The criteria were developed with the aim of providing an easy, visual, clear and workable model. Secondly it introduces the mandatory presence of major components. Thirdly it clarifies the interrelation and interconnectivity of the model s parameters. Fourthly it dynamically foresees possible synergies. Finally it introduces a manageable model for everyone who considers corporate identity as the heart of the corporation. These criteria will next be explained, the model introduced and tested through depth interviews with practitioners. 1. Visual clarity A workable model should be pictorially clear and stimulating. It should visually communicate the key points without lengthy explanations. The explanations, should appear to the audience as easy to understand due to the pictorial representation. Foo & Lowe (1999) argue that the fundamental concept of corporate identity is best conveyed visually (p. 89). 5

6 The visual presentation of the model is important. Dumas (1994) uses the term totems to describe a method for building shared mental models to aid companies in brand promotion and implementation. These totems or visual metaphors (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001), serve to express the collective knowledge of individuals from diverse backgrounds. Furthermore, Hill and Levenhagen (1995) stated that an important step when forming mental models is the development of metaphors, also highlighted by Lakoff and Johnson (1987). Thus, models need to be visually appealing to facilitate their usefulness (Lilien, Kotler and Moorthy, 1992; Leeflang, Wittink, Wedel and Naert, 2000). In Abratt s (1989) conceptual and prescriptive corporate image management model for example, its characteristics include a clear visual representation and identification of categories and boundaries, particularly between internal and external factors and stakeholders. 2. Ease of interpretation A useful model should be simple and easy to understand. Its design should immediately create a positive impression and its utility will be enhanced by academics and managers who devise grounded arguments to modify parameters which suit a variety of scenarios. Naert and Leeflang (1978) assert that a model must be simple, complete, adaptive and robust (p. 322), and this conception, based on Little s criteria (1970), is stressed by Leeflang, Wittink, Wedel and Naert (2000). The robustness of a model means it is hard to get absurd answers from it (Little, 1970, p. 466). 6

7 Taylor s (2001) critique of Leeflang et al. underscores the importance of clarity and ease of interpretation. It was felt that lack of realism was the principal reason for the limited implementation of some of the early identity models. 3. Logical sequence A useful model should reveal the logical sequence of its parameters where advancement from one element to the next produces justification of use and rationale. The use of logical sequence is evident in a variety of models (Leeflang, Wittink, Wedel and Naert, 2000). Dyer and Forman (1991), provide support for this criterion, as they state that a model must be capable of supporting decisions involving alternatives and should allow synthesis and combination in areas where complex problems are involved. The criterion of logical sequence must be aligned with the criterion of robustness to promote information transfer in a logical manner. Robustness can be achieved with a structure that clarifies interpretation of a range of variables. If the values of a criterion variable are constrained, the model should indicate this, which contributes to its logical consistency (Leeflang and Wittink, 2000). 4. Adjustment and adaptability A workable model should be able to cope with the need for adjustments due to unexpected factors in the business environment. Adaptability is an important criteria, as identified by Naert and Leeflang (1978) and Little (1970). Little (1970) asserted that an adaptive model can be adjusted as new information is acquired (p. 466). Laurent (2000) also argues that effective marketing models need to be more flexible 7

8 and adaptive as current models do not adequately describe the variables and their relationships with the commercial world. Wide applicability of a given model, which is difficult without adaptability, would not be possible without the availability of detailed data access to estimation methods and sophistication on the part of both the model builder and user (Lefflang and Wittink, 2000). These need to be considered in producing a corporate identity model. Thus, the model should be capable of being updated with new and additional data when it becomes available, (Little, 1970). 5. Production of synergies According to the literature, one of the fundamental requirements of a model is the production of synergies. In the case of corporate identity and image formation management, the model should designate and produce synergies. Some of these synergies are illustrated by Balmer (2001a), who believes that an effective corporate identity framework should be innovative, and reflect cutting-edge corporate identity research. It should also be able to improve best practice. It should also assist in evaluating corporate identity programs and their management (Balmer, 2001a, p. 17). In Dowling s (2001) corporate image model, centred on the corporate vision statement, these synergies include such intangibles as corporate culture. Cornelissen (2000) groups both Balmer (2001a, 2001b) and Abratt (1989) in the traditional inside-out model camp, along with Birkight and Stadler (1986), van Riel (1995), 8

9 and Markwick and Fill (1997). The critique he presents of this approach focuses on its linear structure and resulting oversimplification as to what the organization can control. In the production of synergies a corporate identity model must take into account parameters internal and external to the firm. 6. Employee operationalization A useful model should be able to be operationalised by all business employees. Balmer (2001a) argues a need for a new corporate identity framework, which is capable of being operationalised by consultants. Similarly, Balmer and Soenen (1997/8) stress that operationalising corporate identity is a crucial, but often overlooked part, of both the corporate identity mix and corporate identity management. Operationalising is, for Balmer and Soenen (1997/8), a prerequisite for the model s utility. Lack of operationalization frequently translates into inability to make proper use of the model. Balmer (2001b) identifies weaknesses in early traditional marketing models of corporate identity/corporate image management and formation (p. 280) as one of the reasons for the fog surrounding discussions about identity and its triumvirate components: corporate identity, organizational identity and visual identity. These weaknesses underscore the need for models to be anchored in the real world. As Naert and Leeflang (1978) noted, many observers believe that many models are built, but few are used (p. vii). 9

10 7. Ease of memorizing Balmer (2001a) and Albers (2000) stress memorization and ease of use as paramount when modelling corporate identity. A memorable model can stimulate productive dialogue. It may facilitate strategic planning and promote better communication via graphics and pictorial depiction, act as a mnemonic device that reminds the group of their thinking, while at the same time motivating them towards common goals. The characteristics of models should be easily accessible for future reference and refresh understanding, provide an external memory and keep track of the elements of the problem that challenge working memory. Models that are easily assimilated can facilitate thinking through complex problems. By extending our mental grasp, simple models can greatly enhance people s ability to deal effectively with complex problems. If well devised they can portray an integrated perspective about the relationships and interconnections between numerous entities. 8. Effectiveness Effectiveness is the extent to which the nature of the model facilitates strategy formation and the setting of priorities. A highly effective model should also be able to cope with a dynamic environment. These views are predicated on Cameron and Whetton (1983), McFarland (1979) and Drucker (1964). Lunn (1978) noted that a model should clearly and simply portray the relationship between its component elements. This facilitates communication and enhances effectiveness. 10

11 One of the key goals of any effective model should be operational capability. This may appear a truism, but critiques of many models show that more attention needs paying to their functioning if they are to be useful explanatory tools. Roberts (2000) refers to this noting that market models often stress ease of application and insightfulness, at the expense of effectiveness. In their historical treatment of marketing model building, Leeflang & Wittink (2000) predict improved effectiveness in the discipline, partially as a result of the convergence of practice and theory. They also stress that the best models are those designed for specific objectives. Schultz & Zoltners (1981) argue that there is correspondence between what a model asserts and what it refers to. To be applicable the marketing model must represent the marketing problem accurately but remain simple enough to be solvable. Frequently the problem being addressed is so complex that it is impossible to be accurately represented (Keon, 1991). 9. Modularity According to Langlois (1995), modularity is a general set of principles for managing complexity, breaking up a system into discrete modules. Models should be modular in form, avoiding bottlenecks of events. This allows flexibility in the assembly of the component units. To be modular a model should satisfy the criteria of decomposability, composability, understandability (Schmidt, 1996) and continuity (Meyer, 1997). The increasing complexity of models makes the criterion of modularity a challenge. Ehrenberg, Barnard and Sharp (2000), among others, observe that traditional 11

12 marketing models sometimes become mired by including too many factors, or using a complicated structure. Unwieldy structures frequently result in event bottleneck. The models of Lilien, Kotler and Moorthy (1992) and Leeflang, Wittink, Wedel and Naert (2000) address the paradox of complexity and simplicity through the use of modularity, as does Kotler (1971). 10. Proactivity Proactivity demonstrates high levels of commitment and focuses on setting and achieving goals. Proactive models take into consideration any aspect of problem identification and focus on problem solving considering issues that have broad ramifications. By contrast a reactive approach (do nothing until you have to) may damage corporate identity. A model that encourages proactivity can positively contribute to enhancing corporate image and reducing damage (Stead, 1990). Proactivity can support the change of a company in light of new events. It can also increase employee satisfaction, motivation and contribute to better results (Wachtel, 1999). Proactivity implies that a firm determines the basic market and social issues it faces by analyzing the interaction between its executives value system, its stakeholders interests and existing societal issues (Stead, 1990). The Six Station Corporate Identity Model and its Mechanisms The six-station model portrayed in figure 1 introduces the key components that contribute to the process of corporate identity formation and management. Its 12

13 significance lies in providing a framework for step-by-step analysis of the identity formation process. Its development is based on the preceding 10 criteria for a useful model. INSERT FIGURE 1 PROVIDED HERE Metaphorically, the entire model represents a corporate neural network composed of six different neuron stations, each connected circularly, but allowing interaction along and within the area enclosed by all stations. Due to the openness of this system, interaction can occur from any direction of the external and internal environments. Each of the station triangles depicts major components that should be analyzed firstly as separate entities, and secondly in relation to each other, to understand their significance and contribution. Each station contributes to the transmission of information between station triangles. There are six stations constituting the model, each composed of three interrelated factors, is: 1. Head Station: Top Management, Mission / Vision / Values, Leadership 2. Strategy Station: Brands / Products & Services, Corporate Strategy, Marketing 3. Creativity Station: Visual Identity, Corporate Visual Identity Systems, Advertising 4. Communication Station: External, Internal Communication, Digital Communication (Internet) 13

14 5. The Human Power Station: Stakeholders, Organization s Staff, Company s Group Dynamism 6. The Critical Triplet Station: Reputation, Corporate Image, Corporate Personality The model proposes that the more one moves from station 1 to 6 the higher the degree of image interface. Image interface is defined by Abratt (1989) as the point of contact between stakeholders and company. The highest level of interface occurs at station 6, the critical triplet station. This occurs because the different publics form a perception of a company based on a cumulative effect from the previous stations. The nature of this model as a basis for developing and managing corporate identity is next explored. Motion Dynamic of the Model The model is conceptualized as involving a clockwise motion moving through the stations. Starting at the first station, Head Station, the presence of the company s vision, mission and values, under top management's leadership, enables the setting of suitable corporate identity objectives. The role of top executives is critical since their contribution, attitudes, values, policies and leadership have a major impact on future corporate success. 14

15 Well co-ordinated activities from the first station should encourage the formulation of corporate strategies in the second station, i.e. Strategy Station. This station s major component is the formulation of a corporate strategy. This involves selecting a brand strategy, in conjunction with the marketing department. A coherent strategy is achieved through consensus among top executives interacting with each strategic unit of the firm. The strategy station seeks to encourage cooperation among team members so the resulting synergies are extended to the third station, the Creativity Station. This incorporates the corporate creativity functions, its evolution and its interrelation to corporate advertising. The creative process explores and creates visual essence which labels and symbolizes not only the company and its products, but also enables stakeholders to visualize its objectives, vision, mission and values. By focusing on the agreed corporate strategies, staff attitudes, behaviors and corporate artefacts, this station represents the work selecting a holistic and distinctive visual representation for the organization. All the critical strategic decisions and activities in the first three stations fall within the firm s control. Each parameter in these three stations is initiated, designed, directed, executed and modified under top management s supervision. These are affected by the technocratic nature and idiosyncrasies of senior executives. The role of the Marketing Department is important since it performs at least two functions, maintaining its technocratic nature and striving to integrate pan company activities to build stakeholders relationships. 15

16 The fourth station, the Communication Station, operates as a two-way communication channel, transmitting and receiving information, for the internal and external environments. Since communication is multidirectional, its properties, functions, role, processes and policies need to be fully utilized by the next station. It is expected that communication should contribute significantly to the fifth station, the Human Power Station. This is one of the most important components of the corporate ecology and it focuses on the human factor. Internal and external stakeholder roles, attitudes, values, ethics, actions and interests are central in transmitting messages about corporate identity to the outer world. Junior employees affect the firm s corporate identity, because of their numbers and close contact with consumers. They discuss the prevailing environment within their organization, criticizing it and often convey message for their own benefits (e.g. compensation, work conditions, etc). Conflict is not uncommon, due to personality clashes, differently received objectives and group dynamics, and can dilute the desired corporate identity. This station encourages management to minimize conflict. The fewer conflicts in this station, the fewer disturbances in the rest of the model, contributing to a more stable process for the formulation of corporate identity. The sixth station, Critical Triplet Station, builds on the preceding stations and strives to establish a corporate personality along with a reputation and image that are judged favourably by external stakeholders. It seeks to fulfill the goal of relationship 16

17 marketing and its impact on the formation and management of corporate identity. Indeed corporate personality, corporate reputation and corporate image make up the corporate appeal of any corporation, its corporate idiosyncrasy, its unique cultural characteristics and its corporate intent. Baker and Balmer (1997) stated that "corporate personality refers to mix of cultures present within an organization". They argue the major concern for management is to align cultures and human organizational behaviour to "reflect the organization's mission and ethos" (1997: 367). Corporate ethos is expressed through outstanding corporate behaviour, well focused social responsibility and unbiased corporate intent. On the other hand since identity and personality are related, in managing identity it is necessary to understand the organization's personality (Markwick and Fill 1997) and the corporate values upon which the personality is built. Based on this, Balmer believes that a composite of values and beliefs forms the corporate personality, which contributes to the foundation of an organization's corporate identity (in van Riel and Balmer 1997). The present model is based on awareness of these. Identity management s primary objective is the acquisition of a favourable reputation among key stakeholders resulting in a competitive advantage (Balmer 2001b). Reputation has thus been perceived as a reflection of past observed identity cues and possible transactional experiences. (Markwick and Fill 1997). This is another aspect which the model incorporates in the last station. 17

18 The model acknowledges corporate image is a multiple variable impression formation process. For Hatch & Schultz (1997) images incorporates the knowledge, feelings and beliefs about an organization that exist as a public perception of the company, as opposed to corporate identity that relates to the presentation of an organization and thus consists of cues offered via its symbols, communication and other signals (van Riel, 1995). The importance of these interactions are implied in the last station. The sixth station is the first to be negatively affected when consumers are dissatisfied. This station relies heavily on the performance and behavior of all the synergies from the previous stations. For example, if corporate perishability occurs due to the firm s heterogeneous sub-cultures, a misalignment of human behavior and lack of clear communication will weaken the relay of actions driving this station. By contrast when all stations are aligned then the corporate image is likely to be boosted as a result of effective corporate identity management and practice. Research objectives and methodology A model for the management of corporate identity has been proposed, grounded in the literature and incorporating the salient factors of corporate identity. This provides some basis for content validity, however an assessment is needed of the model s usefulness and managerial applicability. Naert and Leaflang (1978) criticised researchers who postulate a model and do not assess its usefulness. We therefore sought to assess the applicability of the model amongst practitioners concerned with corporate identity programmes. Our objectives 18

19 were (i) to determine whether the six station model matched practitioners understanding of corporate identity and (ii) to understand how applicable and useful this model is to practitioners. We postulated: H1: The 18 elements incorporated into the model are recognised as reflecting corporate identity. H2: Each of the six stations and their interrelationships are clearly understood by practitioners. H3: The model facilitates the construction and management of corporate identity. To test these hypothesis we undertook qualitative research amongst practitioners. This allowed their views to be explored in more detail than using structured methods (Arksey and Knight 1999). Purposeful sampling was employed (Patton 1990) amongst practitioners who have a key role in devising and managing corporate identity programmes. We interviewed high caliber business managers and consultants involved with corporate identity. We undertook depth interviews in Greece amongst 10 organisations, 7 of whom are Greek or foreign corporations and 3 are consultancies specializing in corporate identity. We sought large corporations who are well known and have notable corporate identity programmes. The 7 corporations met these criteria and have annual turnovers of 0.8bn to 1bn. They are highly reputable, consumer oriented corporations involved in manufacturing and services. As corporate identity programmes involve pan- 19

20 company activities we contacted the senior executive in each corporation and requested that we interview them and senior staff that they nominate who are involved in designing and managing corporate identity programmes. We interviewed 2 to 3 executives per corporation, giving a total of 19 interviews and achieved a spread of functional areas, as table 1 shows. Title of respondent Number interviewed CEO 4 General Manager 3 Marketing Manager 3 Sales Manager 3 HR Manager 3 Financial Manager 3 Table 1 : Business Managers interviewed Three Greek consultancies specializing in corporate identity agreed to participate. We interviewed the CEOs and some of the senior staff respected for their expertise in corporate identity. Nine consultants were interviewed who are frequent presenters at conferences and have written articles on business matters. Again a spread of responsibilities was covered, as shown in table 2. Title of respondent Number interviewed CEO 3 General Manager 2 Marketing Manager 1 Communications Manager 1 PR Manager 1 Creative Director 1 Table 2 : Consultants interviewed 20

21 At each interview the model was presented and a topic guide was used to steer the discussions about the model s usefulness and applicability. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. All the codes were created during the analysis stages, rather than being pre-specified. Two researchers coded the data independently in line with accepted practice (Krippendorff 1980; Miles and Huberman 1994) and the inter-coder reliability was calculated as 89%. Any differences between the researchers coding was resolved through discussion (Miles and Huberman 1994). Research findings The topic guide consisted of 7 topics and the findings are presented within each topics. As there were differences between the business managers and consultants these two groups are shown separately within each topic. 1. Does the model provide a basis for further examination of the parameters of corporate identity? The themes that emerged from the corporate identity consultants included: Multidimensional approach The consultants recognized the multidimensional nature of corporate identity and agreed that the model captured this concept. A General Manager stated multidimensional approach of the model stimulates a desire for further explanations about the concept of corporate identity. Actually this implies that corporate identity is a multidimensional area requiring a multidimensional model. A CEO acknowledged that the model shows the interface and synergies between the different parameters that define corporate identity, revealing the contexts of the model 21

22 and the multidimensional requirements of this concept. Both comments tend to support H1 since the 18 elements of the model are part of the multidimensional aspect of corporate identity as suggested by the respondents. Relevant factors The multidimensional nature of the model was thought to reflect relevant factors. A PR Consultant observed the model contains all the parameters concerning corporate identity. It depends now how those elements are put together so they will reflect the theory behind it in order to produce a workable model. It s a parameter efficient model, stimulating model exploration, consideration and use. The business managers also offered comments supportive of the way corporate identity was encapsulated in the model. These are highlighted below. Provides a basis for the corporate identity context Comments concerning the sound foundation of this model along with the way it encouraged a deeper understanding of key parameters was repeatedly noted. For example, a Marketing Manager stated It is complete but still it urges you to explore the model further and in more detail for better use. An HR manager acknowledged that the model provides the basis and a lot more, for the development of corporate identity It introduces and provides the full platform of corporate identity. Both respondents recognized that the model reflects the foundation of corporate identity. A majority (26 of 28) favorably perceived the model as providing a basis for further examining the parameters of corporate identity. If the model did not reflect the 22

23 fundamentals of corporate identity, further examination of the model parameters would not be regarded as worthwhile. 2. Does the model appear to be simulative in representing corporate identity? The corporate identity consultants were affirmative about the simulative aspect of the model. Simulative Respondents evaluated the simulative nature of the model using a selection of the variables in the model. A CEO stated after considering all these valid variables, it seems that the model is very simulative, since one element seems to stimulate the other and together they produce unique functions. This reflects Leeflang and Wittink s (2000) notion that successful application of a model in one area must stimulate an anticipated outcome. The business managers also favorably commented about the simulative nature of the model in the theme below. New simulative approach to corporate identity Managers are seeking new approaches that enable holistic management. A General Manager characterized the model as a simulative process in presenting a new approach to corporate identity, while a Sales Manager observed that the detailed structure makes it a rigorous model that simultaneously offers a holistic approach to corporate identity. 23

24 Across the sample, 27 of the 28 respondents characterized the model as simulative in representing corporate identity. Since the model components were perceived to contribute to the construction and management of corporate identity this lends support for H3. 3. Does the model depict the interrelation of its station elements? The majority commented that interrelation and logical sequence are synonymous. They mentioned that if logical sequence prevails then interrelation is evident and vice versa. Since the model s logical sequence was rated favorably an analogous rating was awarded to the interrelation aspect of the model s elements. The themes that emerged from the corporate identity consultants were as follows: Interrelation is evident A Communication Consultant declared The model depicts interrelations in a very clear way as far as all elements included in the model are concerned, while a Creative Director stated in a simple and clear way the interrelation between the variables is primarily depicted in the diagram, whereas a more evident interrelation can be found within the theory of the entire model. Explanations solidify interrelation A number of respondents felt the model would facilitate internal discussions, making it easier to understand the interrelation of factors. A PR Consultant commented By looking at it I had to think about justification for moving from one station to the next and to comply with the grounding model theory. 24

25 The business managers comments echoed those of the consultants, with a new issue emerging. Subject familiarity makes interrelation more evident The extent to which respondents appreciated interrelationships between the stations of the model depended on their familiarity with corporate identity. This was exemplified by a CEO, commenting the interrelations of its station elements are understandable for someone who knows the subject of corporate identity. Most of its elements are representative of the concept of corporate identity and known for their impact. Some others are less relevant. The degree of relevance depends on how the manager or executive acknowledges the contribution of each element to the concept of corporate identity. In total 16 respondents stated that the interrelation of the station elements is evident, 5 that the interrelations are revealed only after explanation 5 that the context and subject familiarity make interrelation more evident and 2 that the model does not depict clearly the interrelation of its station elements. There appears to be support for H2, albeit more marked amongst more knowledgeable respondents. 4. Does the model depict clearly the concept of corporate identity? The consensus view amongst both consultants and business managers was that the model depicts clearly the concept of corporate identity. The corporate identity consultants consistently spoke about the model as an integrated and holistically efficient model. A communications consultant noted the model is 25

26 quite analytical and includes all important factors that contribute to building corporate identity. A marketing consultant stated that this model lists all variables, or parameters, of corporate identity and presents the concept in a holistic and integrated manner. The business managers expressed similar opinions. For example a CEO stated the model, synergistically depicts the concept of corporate identity in its entirety. Overall 17 participants stated the model depicts clearly the concept of corporate identity, 5 that the model is an integrated model which depicts accurately corporate identity, 3 that the model depicts corporate identity in a holistic and synergistic manner. Only 3 felt that the model does not depict clearly corporate identity. The fact that a majority spoke about for the model reflecting the fundamentals of corporate identity lends support for H1. 5. Can the model facilitate future decision-making in the area of corporate identity? The majority confidently replied that the model can facilitate future decision-making. Amongst the corporate identity consultants the following issues were raised: Future decision-making is initiated when model theory is understood The consultants widely agreed about the model s propensity to facilitate future decision-making. Some justifications included the view that this model is integrated and multidisciplinary, requiring systematic study of all the variables for example 26

27 methodical planning activity, strategy formulation and effective use of human resources. A CEO stated Yes the model facilitates future decision making which will not come naturally but as result of precise consideration of all variables and parameters, micro, and macro. This concurs with Dyer & Forman (1991), who note that models must be capable of supporting decisions involving alternatives, and allow synthesis and combination in areas where complex problems are involved. The business managers and executives offered the following observations: Decision-making is subject to synergies Apart from the fact that experienced mangers are needed to implement the model, the impact of various synergies within the model is an important factor. Synergies within the model are defined and aligned with certain objectives which, if managed properly, can facilitate future decision making. An HR Manager noted the model directs you like a compass. It depends now on the management of corresponding synergies. A Marketing Manager explained the impact of synergies in the following manner, Future decision-making is facilitated, since you deal with variables that are well accepted academically and managerially to represent corporate identity. If these variables are synergistically used, the model facilitates future decision making. Of the 28 respondents, 23 expressed the view that the model facilitates future decision-making, 4 that it is difficult to tell whether or not the model facilitates future decision-making and 1 that the model does not facilitate future decision-making. These findings supports H3, since future decision-making can affect the construction and management of corporate identity. 27

28 6. How applicable is the model? Overall the model was seen as applicable to organisations problems, albeit there was a need for guidelines and more explanation as some saw the model as complex. Discussion with the corporate identity consultants revealed the following themes: Ease of Implementation The business consultants were positive and often brief. Given their familiarity with corporate identity they were less concerned than the business managers about using the model. For example a CEO stated Taking for granted that it is a valid model and fits with reality, this appears to be a model rather easily put into practice. A Creative Director stated the model, despite its unavoidable complexity, can be easily put into practice. The observations are in line with Albers (2000) view that there is a need to develop models that fit business realities and are responsive and adaptable Positive Applicability The consultants provided different views about where the model could be applicable. For example A CEO noted the model is very applicable, its modularity enables partial or total testing of the concept of corporate identity while a Communication Manager declared the model is applicable in any market, national or international, concerning corporate identity. The business managers made various comments on the model s applicability as shown below. 28

29 Guidelines and explanations facilitate the applicability issue Compared with the consultants, the business managers were more likely to ask for guidelines and explanations to use the model. This may reflect different levels of expertise between the consultants and business managers. For example, a Financial Manager stated, The model requires more explanations and guidelines for exploring the model components. More specifically, the model requires the help of all company departments interaction in order to be applied in a holistic manner. Only then will it be applicable. So explanations and the assistance and guidance of experienced people will make it applicable. Designated model methodology increase applicability Following from the previous comments, there was a view that if the model is to be effectively employed, training and systems to methodically implement the model are needed. As a General Manager observed, regardless of how applicable the model appears, a methodology must be introduced in order to facilitate the best application in the event that there is lack of or limited expertise. Across the sample 8 managers regarded the model as fully applicable, 5 that the model is applicable with assistance from experienced managers, 4 that guidelines and explanations would ease applicability, 2 that training and systems would enhance model applicability, 2 that the model is applicable only to large companies and 7 that the model is difficult, or not applicable. In view of the generally positive views particularly from business manages when there are more guidelines and systems, these findings lend support H3. 29

30 7. Is the model visually clear in its representation of corporate identity? The overall consensus was that the model appears visually clear. Amongst the consultants, the theme centered on the visual clarity of the model: Visual Clarity Most of the corporate identity consultants commented positively about the visual clarity of the model. They stated the model is visually clear as far as the concept of corporate identity is concerned (Public Relations Manger); the model is clear at first glance. Its unique diagrammatic appearance contributes to that (Communications Manger); visually clear, firstly listing all parameters, and secondly its segmented process for maintaining or revitalizing the corporate identity is captured visually in the best way (General Manger). The consultants spoke about the way that visual clarity enabled the model to be more easily memorized and that the modular flow made it easier to understand. These comments reflect Lilien, Kotler & Moorthy, (1992) and Leeflang, Wittink, Wedel & Naert s (2000) positions that models need to be visually appealing to be useful. The business managers made comments on: Visual Clarity is partially evident Only three business managers thought the model not visually clear. Of the two who gave explanations, a Financial Manager observed that It is partially clear, while an HR Manager stated, Yes, it is clear to some extent, but it becomes complicated with 30

31 the addition of certain variables. It would be better to exclude some, but I am not in the position to tell which one to leave out. Overall 22 stated that the model is visually clear, 4 that it is visually partially clear, 3 that clarity improves with explanations and 3 that the model is not visually clear. These favorable results support H2. They also support H3 since visual clarity can facilitate smoother construction and management of corporate identity. In summary the depth interviews indicate that the six stations model has managerial usefulness and applicability. A synthesis of the findings is shown in table 3. Hypothesis Whether supported Evidence of support H1: The 18 elements incorporated into the model are recognised as reflecting corporate identity H2 : Each of the 6 stations and their interrelationships are clearly understood by practitioners. H3 : The model facilitates the construction and management of corporate identity. Yes Yes Yes Topics 1 and 4 Topics 3 and 7 Topics 2, 5 and 6 Table 3 : A synthesis of the managerial depth interviews Conclusion This paper has put forward 10 criteria for a model to have the foundations for being valid and useful. Based on these, and a review of the corporate identity literature, a logical approach was employed to develop the six station model for corporate identity. This model provides a conceptual framework for analysis of the corporate identity process. Developing and managing a corporate identity is not a mechanical 31

32 process, but rather a continuous, synergistic and non-linear set of activities. This is captured in the model. The model depicts corporate identity as a circular process, which designates sequential synergies and effects produced within each station. It binds the sequential events produced at each station. The stations are strategically located and connected so that each one depicts the production of specific benefits which can be transmitted to the next station where further value is added. This process produces synergies that contribute to a coherent and respected corporate identity. The model advances knowledge in corporate identity modeling in a number of ways. Firstly, it overcomes some of the limitations of previous models in terms of visual clarity. It presents a clear and easily comprehensible representation of the parameters of corporate identity. The circular representation overcomes some of the confusion in previous models. Secondly, the introduction of ten criteria attempts to counteract some of the limitations of previous models by complementing certain omissions. Thirdly, the model clearly represents, through the circular process, the causes and effects of the various parameters involved in the production of corporate identity. Fourthly, the openness of the model enables an understanding of the interrelationship between internal and external parameters of corporate identity. The model was assessed amongst corporate identity consultants and business managers. It was deemed a useful model which could be applied to corporate identity problems. This was firstly due to the model being recognised as a good reflection of corporate identity. Secondly they welcomed the way that the numerous components 32

33 of corporate identity had been interlinked enabling them to take a holistic, systems prospective. Through this they are able to appreciate the resulting impact on other components of a change in variables. The challenge of modeling is finding a balance between minimizing the number of variables and simplifying their interactions, while ensuring this represents sufficient information. The corporate identity consultants thought a satisfactory balance had been achieved. The business managers were more likely to accept this if provided with more guidelines, training and systems to enact each of the stations. While this might be seen as a weakness, it should be recognised that the model is generic and the business managers were thinking ahead to the stage when they would tailor the model to their corporation. There are limitations to this research. The model was only tested in the Greek market, albeit with some corporation who are international. It would be wise for future researchers to test the usefulness and applicability of the model in other geographical zones. As purposeful sampling was used to explore in depth aspects of the model, this limits any ability to make generalizations. Future research could assess the model amongst a broader group of stakeholders using probabilistic sampling. Our hope is that by not only postulating a corporate identity model which meets key criteria for robustness, then providing some indication of its managerial applicability, researchers will be stimulated to consider how grounded refinements can be made to corporate identity models incorporating closer dialogue between researchers and practitioners. 33

34 References Abratt, Russel. (1989) A new Approach to the Corporate Image Management Process Journal of Marketing Management 5, No. 1: Albers, Sonke. (2000). Impacts of types of functional relationships, decisions, and solutions on the applicability of marketing models. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(2/3): Alessandri, Sue Wescott. (2001) Modeling corporate identity: A concept explication and theoretical explanation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vol. 6 No. 4: Arksey, H. and Knight, P. (1999) Interviewing for Social Scientists. London: Sage Publications. Baker, Michael J, and Balmer, John M.T. (1997) Visual Identity: Trappings or Substance. European Journal of Marketing Vol. 31 Issue 5/6: Balmer, John M.T. (2001a). From the Pentagon: A new identity framework. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(1): Balmer, John M.T. (2001b) Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: Seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing Vol. 35 No. 3/4: Balmer, J.M.T. (1996). The nature of corporate identity: an explanatory study undertaken within BBC Scotland PhD thesis, Department of Marketing University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. Balmer, J.M.T. and Soenen, G.B. (1997/8). Operationalizing the Concept of Corporate Identity: Articulating the Corporate Identity Mix and the Corporate Identity Management Mix. International Centre for Corporate Identity Studies, Working Paper Series. Balmer, John M.T. and Wilson, Alan (1998) Corporate identity: There is more to it than meets the eye. International Studies of Management and Organizations Vol. 28 Issue 3: Birkight, K. and Stadler, M.M. (Eds) (1986). Corporate Identity. Grundlagen, Funktionen, Fallspielen, Landsberg am Lech, Verlag. Cameron, K. S and Whetton, D. A. (1983). Organization effectiveness: one model or Several? In Cameron, K.S. and Whetton, D.A. (eds), Organizational effectiveness: A Comparison of Multiple Models. New York, NY: Academic Press., 1-24 Cornelissen, Joep. (2000). Corporate image: an audience centred model. Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vo. 5 No. 2: