Balancing Corporate Reputation: employee perceptions of brand-Identity and customer perceptions of brand-Image need synchronising.
INTRODUCTION
Several previous studies have identified the inter-dependent nature of employee and customer perceptions of an organisation[1]. Generally, if employees have a positive perception of their organisation, it tends to have a positive effect on customer perceptions of the business and vice versa[2]. There seems to be some sort of ‘emotional contagion’[3] between the different sets of stakeholders, which can mutually influence perceptions of corporate identity (employees) and corporate image (customers). Cross-contamination occurs at critical touch-points in the customer journey-experience.
The relationship between these two ‘reputation makers & breakers’ is shown in figure 1 below:
Fig. 1: The Interdependence of Corporate Identity and Corporate Image with mutual feedback loop
It follows that decision-makers in an organisation must have an up-to-date snapshot of both their brand-identity (internal) and brand-image (external); and ideally these should ideally be continuously monitored. The optimum position will be a strong positive identity and a strong positive image; however it is possible that both identity and image are perceived negatively, in which case immediate action would be called for. Of course there are two more possibilities when the perceptions of identity and image are mis-aligned, where identity is positive and image negative or where identity is negative and image positive.
The 4 possible conditions are illustrated in figure 2 below:
Fig. 2: The GAP-analysis matrix for Corporate Identity and Corporate Image
Obviously CEO’s should seek to create a positive perception of their business both internally and externally. Steps should be quickly taken to reduce any ‘gaps’ appearing (e.g. Hatch and Schultz, 2001)[4]. These gaps are more often created between the ‘management view’ of an organisation and the experiences of employees and/or customers (Davies and Miles, 1998)[5].
The ‘management view’ of reputation is often based upon ‘core-values’. Examples of research into this area (e.g. Davies et al, (2003)[6]; Morley, 1998[7]) elicited concepts such as ‘Honesty’, ‘Integrity’ and ‘Trustworthiness’ as prominent aspects of reputation. A summary of the CEO’s responses to the question “What do you think is important in influencing Corporate Reputation” is set out in table 1 below:
Table 1: Corporate Core Values as expressed by CEO’s during personal interviews
| Organisational Behaviour | Organisational Core-Values | Customer-Facing Behaviour |
| Teamwork | Authenticity | Value for Money (VFM) |
| Continuous Improvement | Sustainability | Good Service |
| Innovative | Honesty | Caring |
| Sharing Success | Integrity | Reliability |
| Listening to each other | Cultural Diversity | Customer Orientation |
| Having Fun | Trust | Offering Personal Service |
| Speed | Being unique | First Class Service |
| Decisiveness | Straightforward | Value for Customer |
| Individual Responsibility | Human | Family Oriented |
| Team Responsibility | Helpful | |
| Results Oriented | Trustworthy | |
| Engaging | Caring | |
| Pleasantly Surprising | Social Responsibility | |
| Quality | Respect | |
| Good Management | We do what we say | |
| Partnership with suppliers | Honour Commitments | |
| Sense of Challenge | ||
| Striving to do better |
(After Davies et al, (2003) ref. 6 below, p.47).
An increasing number of research papers addressing the topic of corporate reputation have been published throughout the last decade. This body of work strongly indicates that a good reputation attracts both customers and talent to the business, e.g. Frombrun and van Riel (2004)[8]. It also indicates how an organisation’s reputation provides an opportunity to charge a premium for its brand(s), Shapiro (1983)[9], whilst at the same time receiving favourable press coverage (Frombrun (1996)[10].
On the other hand, gaps between the “wished-for” corporate reputation and the perceptions of internal (employees) and external (customers) stakeholders are associated with an increasing likelihood of future problems, Dowling (1994)[11]. The media is replete with such occasions when whistle-blowers or investigative reporters have alerted the public to high-level misdemeanours. Recent examples include: corporate fraud at Tesco; criminal conspiracy by Sir Phillip Green & Mr. Chappell of BHS infamy; cheating and lying at Volkswagen about the emission scandal; dishonesty at RBS in misleading small businesses; “Victorian practices” condoned by Mike Ashley at Sports Direct; fiddling at Barclays with the manipulation of the Libor rate. The list of examples is extensive. Such amoral, irresponsible and downright criminal behaviour along with dodgy decision-making have cost these corporations £Billions and led to “legal action, malodourous headlines and tainted brand images with disastrous effects on sales, profits and share-prices[12].
Nowadays any sensible organisation is going to try to portray itself as ethical, socially responsible and environmentally friendly. Likewise the organisation will attempt to encourage the perception of being an enlightened employer by promoting certain core values, such as integrity, trustworthiness, respect and empathy. The process of taking care of appearances and ‘looking-good’ is as natural for organisations as it is for people. We all want to be seen in the best light as possible.
We play a different role as required in different environments with different ‘audiences’. We dress-up (or down) as we think is suitable for the occasion and adjust our conversion and behaviour to suit. This analogy to a theatre or film performance is drawn from the work of Erving Goffman[13] and can be used in order to more fully understand the corresponding impression management of brand image and brand identity.
Once a positive reputation (image and identity) has been created, steps must be taken to protect it. These would include discipline; making sure everyone in management positions are ‘on-script’ and loyalty; demonstrating a deeper commitment or engagement with the brand message.
Behind the impression management ‘screen’ will be information about the brand that contradicts the ‘wished-for’ image that the management team currently wants to present to its audiences (employees and customers). This hidden information represents a ‘brand-shadow’ and is maintained as ‘insider knowledge’ that is only shared with others in the management in-group. Keeping these corporate secrets demonstrates trustworthiness to others within the ‘in-the-know’ group and helps with the bonding between individuals in the top-management team.
‘Secrecy’ is only one aspect of the information flow surrounding the establishment and maintenance of organizational reputation.
Figure 3 below illustrates the four facets of reputation according to the ways in which the senior decision-makers within the organization behave and to what degree the management’s wished-for perceptions are aligned with the experiences and perceptions of other stakeholders.
Fig. 3: The Management of Reputation Matrix
The “Outward Show” quadrant represents the management’s wished-for brand-image and identity. This may be encapsulated in a vision-statement and reinforced with ‘official’ communications material from the marketing/PR and HR departments. This is the ‘persona ‘of the organisation; its public face for customers and employees.
However, behind the mask, organizational problems still remain, hidden or camouflaged. The management would prefer that this information remains under wraps. Some of this material may be commercially sensitive and justifiably be withheld from a wider audience. However, other information may involve sharp practices, overstated quality/performance claims, dubious claims to be environmentally friendly etc.
Customers are increasingly cynical about marketing messages and target audiences are no longer ‘suckers’ for brand propaganda. Thus when brand imagery is contradicted by contrary personal experience, negative WOM from peers or unfavourable social media stories from other users, the organisation’s reputation will be damaged; particularly as these ‘neutral’ sources are often attributed as more honest and trustworthy[14].
Similarly, if employees are unengaged and feel let down or deceived by the organisation in some way, this will negatively affect brand identity. Every employee in the business should know what the brand stands for and be capable of delivering the brand’s values and promises at all times.
Apart from affecting motivation, employees also can form an important part of the customer journey. Touch-points are everywhere in the organisation and will have more impact on brand identity and brand-image than any marketing campaign will ever do[15].
An unresponsive or obtuse customer-service representative, or someone sullen and disgruntled in telesales or an unreceptive account manager can provide a strong negative experience. The upset and frustration can easily end-up on a blog-site, with negative emotions about the brand shared by WOM with other users. This in turn can make it harder to recruit outstanding candidates, and more difficult to convince potential customers about the brand values.
Management must deal with this problem area by adopting a mature and responsible attitude towards all of the organisation’s major stakeholders. They should show integrity, with an open and honest approach to dealing with the difficulties and dilemmas that the complexity and ambiguity of the modern business environment stir up.
The key to minimising the “Brand Shadow” is prompt and truthful disclosure of potentially embarrassing incidents, quality problems or discreditable behaviour before they leak into the public domain through informal channels. For the long-term health of the brand ‘the shadow’ must be minimised by top-management action. By taking a courageous and responsible stance the CEO and his/her team can lead an honest and open business approach that will engender trust and loyalty.
It is also vitally important for the business to be open to feedback. The feedback received should be free from bias and taken seriously however hurtful, and acted upon. This matter is addressed in the ‘Cosy’ quadrant.
The ‘Cosy’ quadrant represents a management team that is beginning to believe its own PR! They are comfortable with the status quo and are confident that the data elicited from regular employee and customer satisfaction surveys (including NPS[16]) is giving them a true picture of the business. Here is a WAKE-UP call for all such bedazzled teams.
Annually, there are many examples of poor decision-making at executive and Boardroom levels. These decisions have embroiled businesses in legal action, created malodorous headlines and tainted the business’s image with subsequent negative effects on sales, profits and share-prices.
For example, Volkswagen has been exposed as having intentionally set controls on its diesel engines to misrepresent emissions levels. This discovery led to an immediate plunge in Volkswagen’s stock price; government investigations in North America, Europe, and Asia; the resignation of its CEO and the suspension of other executives. In consequence, the company registered a record loss in 2015 and is currently setting aside a contingency fund of over $19 billion to meet estimated future liabilities.
But this is not the limit of the damage. Groysberg et al (2016) research has found that there is a ‘hidden’ collateral damage associated with the damage to the Brand image. Employees at scandal-hit companies pay a penalty on the job market. Even if they can clearly show that they were not involved in the decision making, their own ‘image’ is tainted by association, and future earnings are negatively affected.
Brand Stigma
“Stigma” was defined by Erving Goffman (1963) as being the discrediting and rejection of a person because of a perceived association with a negative characteristic. Psychologically, if the characteristic is seen as uncontrollable/natural, then any discrimination is seen as unjust e.g. race or disability discrimination. However, discrimination is seen as socially acceptable if the association with the negative characteristic is perceived as controllable (i.e. a result of the person’s own willingness or discretion).
This process of stigmatization also occurs with Brands and even whole industries (e.g. banking) when they become associated with reckless or amoral decision making. The important point is that the perceived wrongdoing must be perceived as an active choice; accidental transgressions of social norms and values are tolerated.
Organisational stigma can lead to consumer boycotts, social media trolling, negative WOM, and the collapse of employee confidence and morale. The stigma is contagious and can spread through whole industries leading to a general malaise that affects talent recruitment and retention.
Stigmatization is hardly ever rational
The process of stigmatization is part of the human survival system and belongs with the instinctual behaviour that happens without much thought. At this emotional level, the “disgust” response helps us avoid contamination. Usually as good citizens, we “want nothing to do with” infection & pollution, moral wrongdoing, deviancy, or other taboo substances or practices. We are protecting our set of values from “otherness”.
This instinctual evaluation or judgement happens automatically and almost instantaneously, and is the basis of stereotyping.
Summary
Brand stigma is a phenomenon generated by poor decision making. It is a psychological concept and exists in the minds of consumers. It can be looked upon as a negative or shadow Brand image that will destroy a business. The stigma is contagious, so that employees in a business and other firms within an industry become contaminated. The process is that well-known one of “guilt by association”.
There is no quick cure, only a long period of hurt and pain until the links between the Brand and negative associations weaken with time.
The quick fix or fiddle will not work.
(This excerpt is an edited version from the original article titled “The Scandal Effect” by Boris Groysberg, Eric Lin, Ge
Anyone who has worked in organisational/market research will be familiar with the potential ‘cloudiness’ associated with the typical responses from consumers (whether qualitative from interviews or focus groups or quantitative from Likert-style surveys). The participants’ indecision hidden within the research results is created through any or all of the following:
- participants respond even when they don’t know what they think
- people may not tell the truth (e.g. for fear of what others might think- social desirability)
- people are bad at predicting their own behaviour
- respondents rarely know the true reason why they have behaved in a certain way
- individuals often ‘second-guess’ what the researcher wants to hear
These problems arise because traditional Likert-based questionnaires rely on information that has been ‘thought-about’ and evaluated by respondents at a conscious level, before being made public. This information is necessarily biased and partial.
Research by neuroscientists in the last decade has clearly demonstrated that between 80%-95% of our behaviour is decided subconsciously. This means for 80%-95% of the time we are unaware of what we are doing or why we are doing it!
It follows that in order to measure employee and/or consumer perceptions with any degree of confidence, researchers must adopt strategies that can access these subconscious processes. Continued reliance on traditional surveys is producing unreliable data. The results are based on a fraction (potentially only 5%-15%) of the psychological material available; they are also contaminated with response biases; and fail to reveal true attitudes and feelings.
The development of the Implicit Corporate Reputation Questionnaire (ICRQ)[17] described here is designed to capture 100% of the information (including the 85% of subconscious material). The revolutionary design of the ICRQ™ includes the measurement reaction times and a unique algorithm to discriminate between conscious and subconscious data. The general theory behind reaction-time testing is known as IAT (Implicit Attitude Theory). Figure 1 below, illustrates the two routes by which the human brain processes information and the different characteristics of implicit and explicit data.
FIGURE.1
The two routes are now popularly referred to as “System 1” (fast) and “System 2” (slow) after Kahneman published his best-selling book, “Thinking Fast and Slow”[18].
System 1 is an automatic process, almost instantaneous, and is responsible for our immediate responses ‘System 1’ is responsible for intuition, ‘gut-feelings’ and snap decisions.
System 2 is a much slower process. Decisions made via this route have been thought-about and possible outcomes evaluated. ‘System 2’ represents our deliberate, step-by-step thinking, which attempts a logical and rational process[19].
‘System1’ responses are spontaneous and reveal what we are really thinking and feeling. System 2 responses are those made after we have had time to think and prepare an answer. System 2 responses are those which we think are ‘suitable’. If organisations want to access the ‘true’ picture of their reputation, they need to access System 1.
Existing questionnaires used to measure ‘Reputation’ are not suitable for measuring both the internal and external perceptions e.g. Carter & Deephouse, (1999)[20]. Or their generic nature is unable to explore the reasons ‘why’ behind any differences in meaningful detail e.g. Fortune America’s “Most Admired Companies” annual survey[21].
Similarly, Frombrun et al (1996)[22] used a questionnaire based on eight dimensions relating to quality criteria. Respondents rated the organisation’s reputation for quality of management, quality of products, investment value, financial rigour, employee talent, creativity and overall company performance. These criteria are rather ‘sterile’ and restrict the concept of ‘reputation’ to subjective opinions that have little validity if expressed by non-professionals. For example how can a regular customer judge the organisation on ‘employee talent’ or ‘investment value’ etc.?
A more encouraging approach has seen the development of questionnaires based on the extrapolation of the psychological concept of ‘personality’ to organisations. Several studies have used the metaphor “business or brand as a personality”. Organisation reputation is thus treated as having several related traits or dimensions. Examples of this use of the personification include Biel (1993)[23] using 28 character descriptions such as ‘rugged’, ‘gentle’ and the widely used ‘Brand Personality Scale’ developed by Aaker (1997)[24], which identified five dimensions of ‘brand personality’; Sincerity, Competence; Competence; Sophistication; Excitement and Ruggedness each composed of multiple items.
Using the ‘personification’ approach is an indirect measure of corporate reputation and also recognises to some extent the role that emotion plays in stakeholders’ perceptions and evaluations of a business. This is emotional-facet of reputation is important and tends to strongly ‘colour’ other evaluations. If individuals ‘like’ an organisation, their perception and subsequent evaluations of other dimensions such as ‘service’ or ‘dealing with problems’ will be more positive than if they ‘dislike’ the organisation.
The importance of the strength of this emotional attachment e.g. trustworthiness, has been emphasised in research by Aaker et al, (2000)[25] and Frombrun et al (2000)[26] who expanded Aaker’s 5-dimensional questionnaire with emotional appeal items; their rationale was to tap into how respondents felt about a firm rather than accept a ‘cold’ numerical rating.
The human brain processes images 60,000 times faster than it does text[27]. Marketers have recognised this huge differential in the speed of processing between text and images and also their potential of being a much more emotional and compelling medium. “Marketing without words enables you to tap into the underlying power of images – emotions. Images cause people to react, and those reactions are emotional ones.”[28] Individuals recognize and make sense of visual information more efficiently than text-based data and images evoke emotional responses more powerfully than words.[29]
Given this image-superiority effect, the authors undertook the task of developing the ICRQ based upon the revolutionary approach of replacing the text and Likert-scales with pictures and single-word stimuli. Other researchers have previously developed versions of image-based questionnaires. These include Visual DNA (2008)[30], Paunonen et al (2001)[31] with nonverbal versions of the NEO5; and Leutner et al (2017) who have developed a new creativity measure.[32]
However, both the Paunonen and Leutner measures have retained text-based questions, and the images used only appear as a replacement for the numbers in the Likert scales. For example, an image-based scale of ‘involvement’ might show pictures depicting “toe-in-the-water”, “paddling” and “diving-in” etc. as the graduated possible responses replacing “1” , “2” and “5” in the original scale.
By contrast, the ICRQ is entirely image based. The questionnaire is specifically designed to elicit spontaneous responses, which are more likely to represent the true underlying thoughts and feelings of individuals. This reduces the chances of response biases that are inherent in Likert scale data.
Images are also more likely to elicit emotional responses, and therefore reflect the psychological complexity of an individual’s perception of an organisation’s reputation. The image-based processes produce a holistic measure of personality, which is more useful in organisational and marketing research. The output is a prototype of the business’s brand reputation that can be elicited as IDENTITY from employees and IMAGE from customers using the same questionnaire. This means that the two measures of reputation are directly comparable.
Method
The overall strategy followed a combination of the processes outlined by Lazarsfeld[33] and Snizek[34]. Previous literature reviews[35] and recent research papers[36] were used to generate an initial item pool of 286 adjectives. These were then independently evaluated by an expert panel for ‘relevance’, ambiguity, and ‘suitability’. In this way, items were selected using a construct-rational strategy[37] and the pool reduced to 115 items each with some conceptual relationship with at least one of the eight hypothesised dimensions of a creative climate or culture (see appendix A).
A simple Likert-scale instrument was constructed using the 115 items with the instructions:
“Please describe the ‘atmosphere’ at your place of work by circling number on the scale to indicate how well the word describes your feeling; 0 = “not at all”, 4 = “very much so”.
This was then distributed to a random sample of 453 adult UK respondents.
The resulting data was subject to factor analysis. Two major factors emerged corresponding to +ve and –ve contributors to creativity. The items loading onto these two factors were then grouped according to the hypothesised 8 dimensions of a creative climate.
Every item was then checked for item facility and item discrimination in each of the sub-scale groupings. Finally, items within each sub-scale were selected for substitution by appropriate imagery. Some items were reversed in meaning to counter-balance any response bias.
The resulting instrument has 8-items for each creative-climate dimension; a total of 64 items.
[1] See for example: 1. Fombrun, C.J. (1996) ‘Reputation: Realising value from the corporate image’, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA; 2. Hatch, M-J, & Schultz, M. (1997) ‘Relation between organizational culture, identity and image’, European Journal of Marketing, 31 (5–6), 356–365; 3. Davies, G & Chun, R (2002), Gaps Between the Internal and External Perceptions of the Corporate Brand, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5, Nos.2/3, p144-158
[2] De Chernatony, L. (1999) ‘Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand reputation’, Journal of Marketing Management, 15 (1), 157–179.
[3] Pugh, S.D. (2001) ‘Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the service encounter’, Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5), 1018–1027.
[4] Hatch, M-J, and Schultz, M. (1997) ‘Relation between organizational culture, identity and image’, European Journal of Marketing, 31 (5–6), p356–365
[5] Davies, G.J. and Miles, L. (1998) ‘Reputation management: Theory versus practice’, Corporate Reputation Review, 2 (1), 16–27.
[6] Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R-V, and Roper, S., (2003); Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness, Routledge, London and New York
[7] Morley, M, (1998); Corporate Communications: a benchmark study of the current state of the art and practice; Corporate Reputation Review 2, (1), p78-86
[8] Fombrun, C. J .and van Riel, C. B. M; ( 2004 ) Fame and Fortune: How Successful Companies build Winning
Reputation, Financial Times Prentice-Hall, New York, Ford, J. K
[9] Shapiro , C .( 1983 ) ‘ Premiums for high-quality products as returns to reputations ’ , Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98 (4) , 659 – 679 .
[10] Fombrun, C. J. (1996) Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
11 Dowling, G.R. (1994) ‘Corporate Reputations: Strategies for Developing the Corporate Brand’, Kogan Page Limited, London, UK.
12 (See: e-magazine “Fix n’ Fiddle”, Issue 1, spring 2016, available at http://synaptic-spark.eu/).
13 Goffman, E., (1956). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, New York: Doubleday
[14] See Wyer, R. S., and Carlston, D. E., (1979); Social Cognition, Inferences and Attribution; Psychology Press
[15] ibid
[16] The NPS or Net Promoter Score is a global metric used widely to assess how a business is doing. It consists of a 10-point scale that discriminates between those who would recommend the business, those who are neutral, and those who are detractors.
[17] Based upon the Implicit Attitude Test; See: Nosek, B. A.; Greenwald, A. G.; Banaji, M. R. (2005), “Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 31: 166–180
[18] Kahneman, D, (2011), Thinking Fast and Slow, Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux
[19] Despite our attempts at being logical and rational, there are many obstacles preventing the achievement of ‘purely rational’ decisions. These include the difficulty of collecting information on all of the alternative solutions; the environment for the solution is in constant flux, so the ideal solution may no longer be appropriate after the time taken to think it through and finally, even our conscious, rational thought-processes are seasoned by our emotions and biased to some degree by our latent personal values, beliefs and implicit attitudes.
[20] Carter, S.M. and Deephouse, D.L. (1999) ‘Tough talk and soothing speech: Managing reputations for being tough and for being good’, Corporate Reputation Review, 2 (4), 308–332
[21] Fryxell, G.E. and Wang, J. (1994) ‘The Fortune Corporate Reputation Index’, Journal of Management, 20 (1), 1–14
[22] Fombrun, C.J. (1996) ‘Reputation: Realising value from the corporate image’, Harvard Business
School Press, Cambridge, MA
[23] Biel, A.L. (1993) ‘Converting image into equity’, in Aaker, D.A. and Biel, A. (Eds.) ‘Brand Equity and
Advertising: Advertising’s Role in Building Strong Brands’, Lawrence-Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 67–82.
[24] Aaker, J.L., (1997) ‘Dimensions of brand personality’, Journal of Marketing Research, 34, August, 347–356
[25] Aaker, J.L., Benet-Martinez, V. and Garolera, J., (2000) ‘Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (September), 492–508.
[26] Fombrun, C.J., Gardberg, N.A. and Sever, J.M., (2000); ‘The reputation quotient: A multi-stakeholder
measure of corporate reputation’, The Journal of Brand Management, 7 (4), 241–255
[27] See Ritu Plant (2015); http://www.business2community.com/digital-marketing/visual-marketing-pictures-worth-60000-words-01126256#55XRVCzFQbwekOQF.97
[28] See Apu Gupta (2017); https://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2013/07/02/the-shift-from-words-to-pictures-and-implications-for-digital-marketers/#478410c8405a
[29] See eyeQ (2017); https://www.eyeqinsights.com/power-visual-content-images-vs-text/
[30] See www.visualdna.com/financial-solutions
[31] Paunonen S V, Ashton M C, and Jackson, D N, (2001), Nonverbal Assessment of the Big Five Personality Factors, European Journal of Personality, 15, 3-18.
[32] Leutner F, Yearsley A, Codrenu S-C, Borenstein Y, and Ahmetoglu, G, (2017), From Likert scales to images: Validating a novel creativity measure with image based response scales, Personality and Individual differences, 106, 36-40
[33] Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1958), Evidence and inference in social research, Dedalus, 87, 99-109.
[34] Snizek, W. E. (1972), Hall’s Professionalism Scale: An Empirical Reassessment, American Sociological Review,
Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 109-114
[35] For example, see: Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R. V., and Roper, S., (2003) Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness; Routledge, London; Raman, S. R., (n.d.) Internal Brand Alignment: The Symbiosis between Internal and External Branding; Paper presented at the 12th AIMS International Conference on Management
[36] See for example: Davies, G. and Chun, R., (2002) Gaps between the Internal and External Perceptions of the Corporate Brand; Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5, Nos.2/3, Henry Stewart Publications
[37] Jackson, D. N. (1970), A sequential system for personality scale development, Current Topics in Clinical and
Community Psychology, Volume 2, New York; Academic Press