Citation
(2015), "Executive summary of “Inquiry into corporate brand alignment: a dialectical analysis and directions for future research”", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-08-2015-915
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Executive summary of “Inquiry into corporate brand alignment: a dialectical analysis and directions for future research”
Article Type: Executive summary and implications for managers and executives From: Journal of Product & Brand Management, Volume 24, Issue 5
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the material present.
Considerable academic attention has been afforded to corporate brands and how they should be managed. Key distinctions are drawn with product brands, where the orientation is solely on the customer. In contrast, the entire corporation is embodied within a corporate brand that also has to consider the interests of multiple stakeholders.
It is through consumer research that values associated with a product brand are identified. Where corporate brands are concerned, values are intrinsically linked with the identity and culture of a firm. This ensures that managing a corporate brand presents a more complex challenge that is strategically rather than functionally driven. The difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that corporate identity remains subject to various definitions. However, various scholars seem in agreement that identity describes the essence of a company and is closely linked with its “vision and strategy”. The corporate brand is seen as the sum of the “aggregate of espoused values” which reside in the corporate identity of an organization.
Recent decades have witnessed increased discussion about the issue of corporate brand alignment. Central to such debate is whether a corporate brand should remain a unique entity and consistently communicated as such to its stakeholders. Others question this approach to corporate brand management, pointing to the unstable nature of the environment and diversity of stakeholders involved.
In the present work, Mingione performs a comprehensive examination of these conflicting propositions. She uses dialectical methodology to consider existing approaches to corporate brand alignment, identify “contradictory elements” and then present a new unified framework. This “dialectic triad” is respectively referred to as thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Use of a dialectical position is warranted on the basis that challenging existing assumptions might enhance strategic decision-making within a firm and inspire positive change.
The work is based on a systematic review of literature pertaining to corporate brand alignment. Various databases are used to source a range of articles from relevant journals. The articles discovered are both empirical and theoretical and based on different research methods. Empirical studies revolve around a number of individual sectors with the service industry being represented the most.
Advocates of corporate brand alignment propose the integration of design, identities, communication and other constructs with the brand to serve as a unified whole. This is based on the conviction that what a company says and does should correspond. Such beliefs inspired the development of various frameworks aimed at effective corporate brand management. While some between-model disparities are evident, most incorporate an aim to ascertain and rectify discrepancies between internal and external corporate brand components. Certain scholars expressed the need to minimize diversity among different identity elements, including vision, culture, positioning and personality, and also between these elements and corporate reputation.
In essence, the alignment perspective argues for the uniqueness of brand values and a consistency so that the corporate brand remains stable for different stakeholders. Perception of the brand can therefore not be vague or ambiguous. A later version of one framework also proposed in a shift in focus to ensure alignment of all identities with the corporate brand identity. The need for “bilateral alignment between identities” was the previous position.
Sustaining consistency has implications for management of a corporate brand, as different scholars acknowledge. In their opinion, the various brand components and aspects of identity need to be coordinated as opposed to each being managed independently. The central role of leadership has been the focal point of other studies. A key argument is that the corporate brand’s consistency requires leaders to direct employees. A further suggestion is that communication, both within and outside the organization, can help alignment objectives provided it is “coherent and consistent”.
Some studies highlight the potential difficulties in sustaining alignment when a single corporate brand has more than one corporate identity. This is the norm for brands based in different nations. Management is more challenging in these circumstances because it demands uniformity both between the corporate brand and the corporate identifies and between each identity. Strategic change and re-branding are identified as other contexts that have serious implications for alignment.
The notion of a fixed and consistent corporate brand image has attracted a growing number of dissenting voices. At the core of this counter argument is the accusation that alignment fails to account for the multiplicity of contexts and stakeholders. Their view is that the corporate brand can mean different things to different people at different times. Adopting a more stakeholder-oriented perspective is advocated by some analysts. Globalization of brands and the necessity of adjusting to different cultural environments are also pointed out. The growing norms of decentralization and networking interconnectivity are regarded as being similarly influential in this respect. It is suggested that distinct rather than consistent corporate brand strategies might thus be more appropriate. The literature cites an example where such an approach was advised for the management of public sector companies because diverse identities are common in these organizations. Those in favor of more flexible corporate brand meanings additionally believe that uniqueness and consistency could stifle an organization’s creative capacity.
The author points to other articles which appear to offer a synthesis of the above perspectives on alignment and separation. At the crux is the notion that corporate brands “constantly evolve” and reflect values which are likewise subject to change. Numerous studies have consequently clamored for corporate brand alignment to be “dynamic” rather than “rigid or static”. This is forwarded as the most effective means of managing the multiple identities associated with the corporate brand. Some consensus is evident that certain core features of the corporate brand can remain constant so they are “uniquely perceived”. On the other hand, it is suggested that aspects regarded as more “peripheral” should be modified according to context and audience. This is regarded as a “hybrid approach” to the management of a corporate brand. However, Mingione claims that synthesis could then become a “new thesis” that subsequently leads to the emergence of a “new antithesis”.
An important conclusion made by the author is that none of these approaches represents an ideal means of corporate brand management. Instead, she strongly recommends that firms should constantly analyze the different corporate brand meanings, stakeholders and contexts. Accuracy and dedication in this task should hopefully identity the most suitable model. There is an additional need to be aware of potential change in core brand values and key constructs over time. That way, the corporate brand model can be adapted as necessary. Mingione likewise points out that successful corporate brand management demands consistent delivery of the brand promise and recognition that stakeholder roles are critically important. Closer integration of a firm’s different functions, strategies and activities is also advised.
Future research might ascertain which brand elements should remain constant and which are more stakeholder- and context-specific. How such elements interact is also worth knowing. Another idea is to investigate the possible emergence of “organizational conflict” in the event that aligned and separated management models simultaneously exist. The validity of the three corporate brand approaches could be empirically tested by scholars who might additionally conduct more quantitative studies using additional search terms and databases containing articles written in languages other than English.
To read the full article, enter 10.1108/JPBM-05-2014-0617 into your search engine.
(A précis of the article “Inquiry into corporate brand alignment: a dialectical analysis and directions for future research”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)