Assessing the Six-Station Corporate Identity Model A Polymorphic Model.pdf

8/17/2019 Assessing the Six-Station Corporate Identity Model A Polymorphic Model.pdf

1/37

Assessing the Six-Station Corporate Identity Model: A Polymorphic Model

Dr. Jean Yannis Suvatjis*

Athens Graduate School of Management

Email: [email protected]

Leslie de Chernatony

Professor of Brand Marketing

Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland and Aston Business School, UK

Email: [email protected]

Dr. John Halikias

The Athens University of Economics and Business

Journal of Product and Barnd Management, Vol. 22, issue 3. Spring, 2012 pp. 153-166.

Keywords: Corporate Identity Modeling

*Author for Communication

February 2011

© Suvatjis, de Chernatony and Halikias 2011


2/37

Assessing the Six-Station Corporate Identity Model: A Polymorphic Model

Abstract

In this challenging information age, effective maintenance of corporate identity necessitates

creating a succession of new ideas and revitalizing stagnant internal concepts so that

organizations can present a contemporary and relevant face to stakeholders. This paper addresses

the issue of corporate identity modeling. A corporate identity model that is grounded in the

literature is introduced. Qualitative and quantitative research was conducted to assess the model’s

managerial applicability. The findings supported the six-station model, which according to the

respondents reflected the corporate identity concept, and was considered applicable in creating

and managing corporate identity.


3/37

Creating and Assessing a New Corporate Identity Model

Introduction

Corporate identity has attracted a lot of academic and managerial attention, although debate

continues about how corporate identity can be modeled. This paper shows how a model of

corporate identity, which has academic rigor and managerial relevance, was developed and

assessed.

Corporate identity is an important concept because it demonstrates corporate ethos, aims and

values, and presents a sense of individuality that can help differentiate an organization from its

competitors (Hatch and Schultz, 1997). According to Zinkhan et. al. (2001:154), corporate

identity represents “the ways a company chooses to identity itself to all the publics” as “what an

organization is”. Corporate identity can be viewed as a vehicle by which a company’s character is

conveyed to different audiences (Erikson, 1960).

Literature Review

A lack of consensus in defining a standardized corporate identity construct has led to confusion in

determining the corporate identity context (Melewar and Jenkins, 2002) and its management. The

need for an indepth analysis to decode the essence of corporate identity construct and its derivates

(Cornelinssen and Elving, 2003) urged academics and practitioners to deeply scrutinize the

concept. Recent findings and studies regarding the dimensions of corporate identity transmitted

the first signs of convergence among researchers (Otubanjo and Melewar, 2007).

The existing various models that have advanced knowledge about forming and managing

corporate identity offered a number of diverse approaches and perspectives that have led to

questions about each model’s capabilities and limitations.


4/37

More specifically, Kennedy (1977) introduced a conceptual model of the image formation

process accompanied by empirical research. The main focus of this model is how the company

image is formed. The model declares the importance of employees in the process of company

image formation.

Bernstein (1984) introduced the spider web method, which was designed to reveal the

company’s desired corporate identity. This method investigates the views of senior management

to reveal the key attributes of the organization’s identity. This is a qualitative technique based on

a group discussion with top management, communication managers and one or more

representatives of the organization’s departments. The entire process involves all the parti cipants

completing a form rating selected characteristics, regarding the actual (perceived) and the desired

corporate identity. The entire process technique results in the representation of the ideal attributes

of the corporate identity.

Dowling (1986) come up with a conceptual model focusing on corporate image formation

rather than the identity formation process. The model introduces methods for conducting research

into and measuring corporate images. Dowling introduces communication – internal,

interpersonal and marketing media communications. The model’s core philosophy is that of

directing the company’s communication policies from within the ‘corporate strategy-corporate

identity-corporate image’ triangle (van Riel, 1995: 19).

Abratt (1989) developed a model which constituted a ‘new approach’ to corporate identity

management. This model seeks to differentiate the concepts of corporate identity and image by

introducing the concept of corporate identity / corporate image interface. Corporate personality

was firstly included as a major parameter and was properly linked with the other parameters of

the model.


5/37

Van Reil (1995) created the Rotterdam Organizational Identification Test (ROIT). The ROIT

measures the affinity of individuals with their organization along nine dimensions: perception of

belonging, congruence between goals and values, positive evaluation of membership, need for

affiliation, perceived benefits of membership, and perceived support, acknowledgement,

acceptance, and security. In later work, three factors emerged the assessment of these

dimensions: pride and involvement; acknowledgment and perceived opportunities; and

likemindedness/congruence (Smidts et al. 1998).

Stuart (1994, 1998/9) introduced a model which was actually a revision of Abratt’s model

formulated in 1994 and updated in 1998. The model retained the notion of corporate

identity/corporate image interface. Corporate strategy, culture, corporate symbols, internal-

external marketing and personal communication had prominent positions in the model. Taking

into account all the significant factors of previous models and the current thinking on corporate

identity management, Stuart (1999), updated her model so that it more clearly defined the

corporate identity management process. Her model is thoroughly described in a paper titled

“Towards a Definitive Model of the Corporate Identity Management Process” (1999).

Balmer’s Affinity Audit (1996) technique was based on the grounded theory (Glaser and

Strauss, 1967), and it attempts to explain the driving forces that sustain an organization’s identity.

This technique required the researcher to gain access to the organization so as to reveal its

dominant system of values. This involves a four-stage process, namely 1) to establish the

corporate mission and strategy, 2) to reveal the dominant systems of values and beliefs within the

organization, 3) to evaluate such systems of values against the corporate mission and strategy and

to nurture those values which support the corporate mission and strategy

Furthermore, Balmer and Soenen (1999) developed the ACID test series of corporate identity

management that assesses the degree of misalignment among different identity types, and it also


6/37

explores issues related to variously defined concepts of identity, namely, Actual, Communicated,

Ideal and Desired. These distinctions were made in order to allow for the interfaces that corporate

identity managers must consider.

Developing on this, a revised version of this model was introduced. The new framework is

called the AC2ID Test that is the acronym that encapsulates a mosaic of five, rather than four,

identity types – namely, Actual, Communicated, Conceived, Ideal and Desired.

The intention of this newer model is to align the five identities so they are broadly congruent

with each other. What must be taken into consideration in this alignment process are the five

issues of reality, communication, perception, strategy and vision.

The new approach has the objective of reconciling the five identity types which impinge upon

any corporate entity and to draw also on the diverse disciplinary strands which conform to our

understanding of an organization’s identity.

Van Rekom (1997) introduced the laddering technique to investigate the concept of corporate

identity. The technique focused on employees and it intended to explain what is important for

them. Through the use of open interviews employees were asked to describe the nature of their

jobs, how they conduct their daily work activities and business tasks, why they work in a specific

pattern or methodological way (i.e. behavior) and why they consider this type of applied behavior

important in their employment. Using the accumulated data on the values of personnel would

reveal important insights about an organization’s identity (van Riel and Balmer, 1997).

Markwick and Fill (1997) developed a framework called the corporate identity management

process which seeks to articulate the means by which corporate communications are used to

harness the valuable information generated through image research studies. By utilizing the

images held by key stakeholders of important attributes, strategic development opportunities arise

which may allow organizations to develop competitive advantages. According to the authors,


7/37

corporate identity lies at the heart of effective and integrated strategic management (Markwick

and Fill, 1997: 407).

Allesandri (2001) structures a model where corporate identity is engineered as a bottom-up

process, since a company’s mission affects identity, identity affects image, and image, in its turn,

forms reputation over time.

All of the aforementioned models contributed to the development of the concept of corporate

identity, but at the same time they failed to agree on a corporate identity construct with common

and acceptable corporate identity components.

The Development of the Six-Station Corporate Identity Model

Having reviewed the corporate identity literature and appreciated the limitations of existing

models, the “six-station” model was cr eated to smooth the anomalies of the concept, and to

provide an integrated model of corporate identity.

The literature review revealed that almost all of the existing corporate identity models were

conceptual models. They applied limited perspective concerning the objective of identity and

were concerned mainly with image formation. The majority did not place enough importance on

corporate structure or the company’s profile, and they assumed a single corporate image among

stakeholders. They did not consider the external forces that affected the corporation, nor did they

consider the aspect of business to business relationships. The concept of corporate culture was

not incorporated in models until lately. Some of them adopt a narrow marketing perspective, with

no consideration of corporate branding. The majority of models have drawn excessive attention

to symbolism and corporate communication, excluding the contribution of the concept of

reputation (Balmer, 2001).


8/37

Indeed, there is no universal definition or construct of corporate identity in the current

literature. Regardless of the existing corporate identity models, what defines corporate identity is

unclear, since different authors use parameters interchangeably and proceed to form corporate

identity constructs that only scratch the surface of the concept. Despite the attention given to

corporate identity over the past twenty years, an acceptable corporate identity construct is highly

debatable, and academics and practitioners have been unable to define the concept precisely.

Corporate identity as a concept encapsulates numerous variables which, based on their

properties, linkage and placement within the concept, attempt to identify and depict the corporate

identity context. The concept is difficult to standardize because of the variety of its constituent

elements and the lack of consensus among researchers and practitioners. This is due to the

interchangeable use of some variables and the fact that researchers interpret corporate identity

variables in a variety of ways.

The formulation of the upcoming six station corporate identity model followed Churchill’s

(1979) paradigm to specify domain and the generation of items. A detailed literature review was

undertaken to identify the dimensions constituting corporate identity. The literature review was

not limited to corporate identity literature, but also included disciplines underpinning corporate

identity such as leadership, marketing, advertising, branding, strategy, stakeholders theory, group

dynamics and digital communication.

During the literature review several parameters were identified and examined. These will be

discussed in no particular order of importance.

An initial focus concerning the concept of corporate identity was that effective, facilitative

leadership, exercised by skillful top management who forge the company’s vision, mission and

values, along with suitable corporate identity objectives is vital. Senior management plays a

crucial role in setting values, attitudes and ideas, which will be reflected in administrative


9/37

policies influencing corporate identity. Top managers encounter multiple roles introduced by

different organizational members whose behavior patterns alter. These changes create revolving

attitudes and roles, either “insider -em ployee” or “outsider -customer”, which have an effect on

organizational identity and image (Hatch and Schultz, 1997). Every organization is required to

have a strategic vision to guide it in policy development and its daily activities, and it should

contain enough detail to hold stakeholders accountable in the years to come (Lucas, 1998). On

the other hand, mission statements should communicate the description and image of the

organization, which will enable current and prospective employees, customers, investors and

other constituencies to determine their affiliations with the organization (Bartkus, Glasman and

McAfee, 2000).

Furthermore, defining an organization’s primary values is the vital step to a value-based

culture approach where values must be embedded in the corporate mission and vision of the

organization (Begley and Boyd, 2000).

Upon examining strategy, it became apparent that strategy results from consensus among top

executives interacting with each strategic unit. Corporate strategy is used by the marketing

department to devise a brand or product strategy. Abratt (1989) believes that corporate strategy

lies within the personality of the organization. It is the strategy process which stays in line with

the personality, while the strategy content may change often. (in Markwick and Fill, 1997). Olins

(1989), along with the strategy scholars Gray and Smeltzer (1985), argues that identity is an

integral part of strategy by rendering it visible through design.

The concept of branding is considered to be directly related to the concept of corporate

identity since it is alleged that corporate brand must be viewed as both an organizing move that

helps to form an organization’s values and culture (Mitchell, 1999), and as a strategic tool of

management, which can direct the organizational processes that generate and support value


10/37

creation (Urde, 1999). Corporate branding determines the strategic direction for an organization’s

activities, offering consistency via the connection between positioning, communication and

employee working behavior (de Chernatony, 1999).

Finally, according to de Chernatony and McDonald (2000), marketing should be considered

the process of managing a company’s marketing assets. Marketing assets are considered to be

those assets that maintain value and contribute directly or indirectly to profitable sales in the long

or short run. Managing marketing assets effectively, the company can build successful marketing

strategies and a unique corporate identity.

An examination of visual identity revealed that an organization’s visual identity is the outer

sign of inward commitment that includes product, environment and communication, since there

are five major components of a corporate visual identity system: its name, logotype or symbol,

typography, color and slogan (Melewar, 2001). The center of a firm’s image is their corporate

visual identity system (Dowling, 1994; Olins, 1989) and standardized Corporate Visual Identity

Systems achieve communications benefits that extend beyond the traditional marketing context

(Melewar and Saunders, 1998).

The systematic use and exposure of corporate identity, utilizing marketing and advertising,

assist in increasing public awareness about the company, since over the long term, a company’s

corporate identity tends to affect the public’s perception of the firm (Alessandri, 2001).

The impact of communication on the entire organization, both stakeholders and the company

staff, is closely monitored and considered in the corporate identity context. Ind (1992) describes

corporate communication as the “process which translates corporate identity into image” (in

Markwick and Fill, 1997: 400) in his attempt to establish the link between corporate

communication and identity image by aligning the organization’s cue process towards company’s

different constituencies. Moreover, van Riel (1995) perceives corporate communication as a


11/37

combination of three major elements: management, marketing and organization communication.

Markwick and Fill (1997), based on van Riel’s (1995) ex planations, state that marketing and

organization communication tend to explain the communication link between identity and image

and between image and strategic management, while management communication forms part of

the link between personality and identity and between strategic management and both personality

and identity. Corporate communication is the in which a company’s philosophy is effectively

conveyed to all its stakeholders and simultaneously reveals its corporate culture.

Examining staff as a major variable to the concept of corporate identity, it seems evident that a

major element of an organization’s identity is in the values of the personnel (Balmer and Wilson,

1998). Personnel behavior has a dynamic effect on an organization’s corporate iden tity (van Riel

and Balmer, 1997). Corporate identity thus demonstrates an organization’s unique characteristics

rooted in and affiliated with the behavioral patterns of its employees (Balmer and Wilson, 1998).

The human factor and the concept of corporate identity are closely related. The human

element contributes to the formation of a corporate ethos. The values, attitudes and opinions of

internal and external stakeholders influence the way a corporation can convey its identity.

Many corporations are releasing an increasing amount of information to the market in order to

better communicate with stakeholders, since organizations feel more transparent when revealing

their corporate social performance (Swift 2001). It is known that effective management of an

organization’s identity achieves favorable corporate image, excellent reputation, satisfied and

fulfilled stakeholders (Balmer and Wilson, 1998). Stakeholders identify and perceive a

company’s organizational entity in terms of its image projection (van Rekom1997). As such, it is

important to consider the attitudes or behavior of the organization and the managers towards

stakeholders.


12/37

Finally, Markwick and Fill (1997) observe that corporate identity is obtained through

understanding an organization's personality and its corporate values. Balmer (1996) states that a

company acquires identity only after its values combine to form its personality. By acquiring a

good reputation, a company has competitive advantage over its rivals (Balmer 2001). Barich and

Kotler (1991) note that consumers' beliefs, attitudes and impressions create a concept of 'image'

and contribute to a company’s reputation. Furthermore, Fombrun (1996) states that reputation is

formed by the production of different images, whereas corporate reputation represents the “net”

affective or emotional reaction of customers, investors, employees and the general public to the

company’s name. Actually, reputation is the accumulation of corporate images over time.

Lastly, Ind (1990) states that corporate image is the picture that the public or certain

audiences have of an organization through the accumulation of all messages received, while

Stuart (1998) suggests that corporate image is all perceptions collected concerning an

organization, which facilitate public knowledge of the organization and thus display corporate

identity.

Based on the literature review, the six-station model portrayed in diagram 1 was posited as

reflecting the process of creating and managing corporate identity. The corporate identity model

is made up of six-stations, each of which is composed of three corporate elements. Although all

stations are independent, each station interacts with the others to form a “corporate neural

network”. Identity formation involves cognitive and affective components (cf Kunde 1999). The

model depicts an aggregate of business tasks and interlinked synergies.

The first station is the Head Station, which incorporates the elements of top management,

mission, vision values, and the leadership style of the company. The Strategy Station and its

mechanisms revolve around Corporate Strategy, Brands/Products & Services and the role of

Marketing. Station three, the Creativity Station (Visual Identity, Corporate Visual Identity


13/37

Systems, Advertising), incorporates the necessary corporate creativity functions and their

evolution and interrelation with corporate advertising. The Communication Station (External,

Internal and Digital Communication) is the fourth station. It is characterized by the establishment

of multidimensional communication channels both for the transmission and reception of

information. Stakeholders, the Organization’s Staff and Group Dynamism are the corporate

elements which comprise the Human Corporate Power Station. In the Critical Triplet Station

(Corporate Reputation, Image, Personality) the formulation of a company’s corporate personality,

reputation and image is judged by external stakeholders. The components of this station reach out

to external stakeholders.

Assessing the Model: Research Design

After devising the model, a dual research technique including qualitative and quantitative

methods for triangulation purposes, was used to investigate the model’s applicability. Firms with

annual sales revenues of approximately € 800 million to € 1 billion were randomly selected so

that their approach to corporate identity management could be investigated by interviewing their

top managers. The reason for this was that such relatively large firms would have qualified and

experienced managers that would respond to the questionnaire and take it seriously.

Triangulating findings offers precise and reliable results and explanations (Gable 1994;

Kaplan and Duchon 1988; Markus 1997; Minger 2001; Lee 1991). The goal of mixed methods

research is not to replace either of these approaches, but rather to draw from the strengths and

minimize the weaknesses of both in a single research study and across studies.

Diagram 1 here


14/37

Qualitative Research and Findings

In the qualitative research, purposeful sampling (Patton 1990) was employed. In-depth, semi-

structured interviews were conducted with 28 corporate identity consultants and business

managers (appendix 1). This sample was selected from highly reputable companies operating in

Greece in manufacturing, commerce, industry and services and the interviewees were CEOs,

General Managers, corporate identity managers, marketing managers, advertising managers and

human resources managers. The respondents provided a foundation for the initial stage of the

research, giving a good indication of issues relating to corporate identity through their response to

the questionnaire.

The model was presented so that they could comment on its managerial applicability.

Interviews were recorded, transcribed and content analysis was performed with two researchers

following the accepted practice (Krippendorff 1980; Miles and Huberman 1994). Emergent

coding was used to evaluate responses, and categories were established following preliminary

examination of the data. Some broad descriptive codes were redefined further, and more

indicative sub-codes within these were developed as the researchers were acquainted further with

the data. Inter-researcher differences were resolved through discussion as suggested by Miles and

Huberman (1994). Inter-coder reliability was calculated at 89%.

Content analysis revealed that the model was regarded as useful and having managerial

applicability, although business managers would prefer more training and guidance on how to use

the model. Some disagreement was expressed, but this was limited to requests for a step by step

methodology on how to use the model in vivo. Finally, the model was perceived as being

representative of corporate identity and as clearly depicting the concept of corporate identity.

Respondents felt the model presented the numerous components of corporate identity in an

interlinked, holistic manner


15/37

Depiction of Corporate Identity

Corporate identity consultants seemed to be satisfied with the model’s effective depiction of

the concept of corporate identity. The following theme emerged which justified the above

perception:

An I ntegrated model

The corporate identity consultants regarded the six station corporate model as an integrated

and holistically efficient model. A Communications Manager noted the importance of the

analytical model structure and its completeness, stating “the model is quite analytical and

includes all-important factors that contribute to building corporate identity”. A Marketing

Consultant highlighted and supported the presence of all pertinent variables critical to the concept

of corporate identity by pointing out that “this model lists all variables, or parameters, of

corporate identity. The model presents the concept in a holistic and integrated manner”.

The business managers and executives expressed very open opinions about this question and

the majority was of the view that the model reflects clearly the concept of corporate identity. The

following theme emerged:

Concept of corporate identi ty is depicted hol istically and in a synergistic manner

The corporate identity consultants and the business executives expressed the view that the

model clearly depicts the concept of corporate identity in a holistic and synergistic manner. More

specifically, the CEO of a well-known trade company stated that the “model, synergistically

depicts the entire concept of corporate identity in a unique manner”. The General Manager of a

manufacturing company stated that “the model depicts accurately the concept of corporate


16/37

identity in a holistic manner, since all of its parameters are known to participate in the formation

and management of corporate identity”.

Respondents accepted that the six stations of the model, with their elements, reflect the

fundamentals of corporate identity. The consultants and business managers did not express

concerns about inadequacy of the model.

Model Applicability.

The purpose of examining the applicability of this model was to define firstly, the degree of

appropriateness as far as the concept of corporate identity is concerned, secondly, to identify how

receptive business stakeholders are to the model, and thirdly, how the model is perceived by

managers and employees. The comments received from the sample presented a wide range of

opinions.

The discussion with the consultants revealed a number of themes:

Ease of Implementation

The comments from the business consultants were vague, brief but positive. For example one CEO stated

that “Taking for granted that it is a valid model and fits with reality, this appears to be a model rather

easily put into practice”. The observations are in line with Albers’ (2000) position that there is a need to

develop models that fit business realities and are responsive and adaptable. A Creative Director stated that

“the model, despite its unavoidable complexity, can be easily put into practice”, while a Public Relations

Manager declared that “the model appears to be workable, although in most cases in reality the

interrelations and interactions between all the factors depicted in the diagram are much more complex and

require intensive work”. Finally, a Communications Consultant stated that the model is easy to put into

practice “Up to Stage 3” but he fails to indicate why he perceived complexity and difficulty for the rest of

the model.


17/37

Appl icable when managed by experienced managers

Corporate identity consultants highlighted the necessity of having experienced managers to

facilitate applicability, adoption and implementation. Specifically a Creative Director thoughts

that the model appeared to be “applicable for managers and for communications experts, but

inapplicable for middle managers who do not have the time or inclination to study and understand

the entire model process”. The same attitude was conveyed by an HR manager who maintained

that the model was applicable but noted that experienced managers needed to undertake control.

He stated that the “model is applicable when experienced managers handle it because it is

dif ficult to be operationalized by low level employees”.

Guideli nes and explanations facil itate increase applicabil ity

Business managers and executives think that it would be easier to apply the model if

guidelines and specific explanations were supplied. A Financial Manager stated that 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”.

The necessity of a tailor made, step-by-step methodology was an issue noted by a few business

managers. For example, one General Manager observed that “regardless of how applicable the

model appears, a methodology must be introduced to facilitate the best application in the event

that there is lack of or limited expertise”. The same opinion was voiced by a General Manager

who noted that “the model looks applicable. But for the full utilization of this model, a clear

methodology will facilitate better implementation of applicability”.


18/37

Quantitative Research - Data Analysis and Findings

The quantitative phase was based on a sample of corporate identity consultants, academics and

business managers who participated in the study.

The quantitative research design was based on the testing of a population which has a stake in

the determination of what corporate identity means and how corporations go about achieving a

positive corporate identity. This population consisted of consultants specializing in corporate

identity and corporate executives.

It included two research phases. Firstly respondents were presented with the six-station

model. Secondly these respondents completed a self administered questionnaire regarding the

applicability of the model. The items in the questionnaire were developed from previous research

conducted by Kennedy (1977), Stuart (1998) and Greyser (1999) and feedback from the

qualitative research stage. A five-point scale (1: strongly disagree to 5: strongly agree) was used.

A pilot study was undertaken with 15 business executives and corporate identity consultants who

offered well-justified changes refining the questionnaire. Alpha coefficients were calculated for

the total number of items as well as for the items of each of the six stations whose values

exceeded 0.60 (Nunally 1967) ( alpha = 0.97, 12 general items: alpha=0.89, 19 items of station-1:

alpha=0.89, 15 items of station-2: apha=0.86, 9 items of station-3: apha=0.86, 8 items of station-

4: apha=0.79, 8 items of station-5: apha=0.84, 15 items of station-6: apha=0.91).

Nunally (1967) argues that in the early stages of basic research reliabilities of 0.50 to 0.60 are

sufficient. In this particular study, alpha coefficients were calculated for each of the scale

components. Since all of the alpha coefficients exceeded 0.60 the instrument was deemed worthy

for further testing.

In order to identify firstly whether the six-station model reflected respondents’ perceptions

about the model’s appropriateness to facilitate creation and management of corporate identity and


19/37

second to provide an understanding of the structure of the variables as they were provided by the

interviewees, principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed on the

quantitative data. Thus, using Churchill’s recommended last research testing stage. Bartlett’s Test

of Sphericity (5.663, sig. 0.0000) and the Kaiser Meyer Olkin test (0.611) indicates that the data

is suitable for this analysis.

It was expected that a large number of factors would arise due to the large number of variables

and the multidimensionality of the data. Based on the results, and taking into consideration the

observations, the number of variables involved in factor analysis was reduced.

More specifically, we excluded the variables which exhibited loadings less than 0.55 and/or

cross loading factors, i.e. loadings of relatively same value in more than one factor. Therefore,

following this procedure, the number of variables was progressively reduced from the initial set

of 74 variables to a final set of 21.

Factor analysis performed on the final set of 21 variables revealed a set of six factors. All

loadings, except one, exhibit values higher than 0.60.

As it is a standard procedure followed by other researchers such as Stuart (1998), Simoes,

Dibb and Fisk (2005), Sabiote and Roman (2005), only those extracted factors accounting for a

notable percentage of total variance are reported.

The six factors shown below explain 68.16% of the total variance. Apart from the first factor

which explains 32.16% of total variance, the contribution of the rest 5 factors ranges from 9.9%

to 4.9%.

Table 1 here

Table 2 here


20/37

Based upon the statistical analysis, six factors were derived from the sample’s responses

constructing a response-based model, which matches the structure of the theoretical six-station

model initially introduced. The extracted factors (table 1 Rotated Factor Matrix: Sorted Form of

Variables Loadings) identified and revealed their compatibility with stations and their elements

of the six-station model.

a) The Critical Triplet Factor, namely, corporate reputation, corporate image and corporate

personality.

b) The Strategy Factor, composed of corporate brands, corporate strategy and marketing.

c) The Head Factor, including – mission, vision, values – leadership and indirectly top

Management.

d) The Communication Factor, namely, traditional channels of communication along with

digital communication.

e) The Creativity Factor, comprising visual symbolism, corporate visual identity systems.

f) The Human Factor, composed of employees and stakeholders.

Following the identification of the factors, confirmatory factor analysis was undertaken to test

if the model fits the data. More specifically, we used the same set of data (n = 105) including

only 21 variables, which form the aforementioned six factors. A number of fit statistics were

estimated to test how well the six-factor model fits the data. Specifically, the following fit indices

showed acceptable levels of fit: Tucker-Lewis (TLI) = 0.97, Comparative fit Index (CFI) = 0.98,

and Bollen Fit Index (IFI) = 0.98. All indices present values greater that 0.95 indicating that the

model fits the data. Also, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) took a small

value of 0.03 which is acceptable. Lastly, the chi square criterion, which tests the hypothesis that

the model is consistent with the pattern of covariation among the observed variables, took a non-

significant value (X2(174) = 192.73, p = 0.157) which supports the null hypothesis.


21/37

Factor Discussion

The first factor encapsulates a synthesis of three elements namely, corporate image, corporate

personality and corporate reputation. It was determined that outside forces affect and form

reputation, corporate image is the result of an aggregate process by which the public evaluates a

firm and still corporate image is the overall impression made on the public about the firm. Lastly,

noted that corporate personality interacts with all the other corporate identity variables.

The second factor introduces a series of elements namely, corporate brands, strategy and

marketing functions. This factor expressed the “strategic synergy” required between corporate

strategy, corporate brands and the marketing function in formulating the overall course of the

firm’s corporate strategy.

The third factor consists of issues related primarily to mission, vision, values, as well as to

the concept of leadership to emphasize the importance of the role of the top management. All

these elements reveal an interlinked relationship and a synergistic task functioning. The bonding

relationship communicates the interdependence of the elements.

The fourth factor indicates that the model shows the relations between digital and other forms

of communication and also that the model is aware that the internet may be important for a

business to develop its corporate identity. More specifically, the dimension of digital

communication tends to substitute and support the external communication element to a great

extent, since digital communication and more specifically the internet in its various forms tends

to fulfill a substantial part of the functionalities and properties of external communication. On the

other hand, traditional communication forms include all marketing functions that serve as

mediums for conducting and initiating external as well as internal communication purposes.


22/37

The fifth factor emphasizes the importance of visual identity symbolism and corporate visual

identity systems, which highlight the direct interrelation of these elements. The evolution of the

traditional concept of corporate symbolism to the advancement and implementation of corporate

visual identity systems was conveyed in this factor.

The sixth factor indicates the physical presence and participation of the staff in the entire

model. The direct involvement of the employees is acknowledged in this model because nothing

functions without the intervention of the human factor. The human factor in this model can be

detected under different roles, executing various activities.

The integrative nature of these six factors reflects most of the fundamentals of the corporate

identity concept. The literature supports the structure of the six- station model. More specifically,

Birkigt and Stadler (1988), Schmidt (1995) and Balmer and Soenen (1997) introduced models

that included some parameters that were identical to those of the six station corporate identity

model. Other corporate identity models also exhibit similarities with the six-station model (e.g.

Abratt, 1989; Dowling, 1986; Stuart, 1999; Markwick and Fill, 1997; Allessandri, 2001) and

include similar parameters but in a more expansive manner.

Managerial Implications

Although research into corporate identity modeling has been undertaken by academics and

practitioners, the evolution of the subject will require substantial effort to promote its significance

and importance in the corporate world. The concept of corporate identity is often overlooked and

is only examined negative signs necessitate the practice of “corporate remedies”. The managerial

Table 3 here


23/37

implications of this research address the following important issues related to corporate identity

and modeling:

The idea of managing corporate identity requires a firm understanding of exactly what we

intend to pursue and what behavioral and non-behavioral synergies are needed. For a manager to

work towards creating and managing corporate identity is comparable to managing for high

efficiency, optimizing efforts and outcomes. Managers must know what organizational attributes

are most desirable and valued by internal and external stakeholders and which contribute to

desirable organizational ends. The six-station model incorporates all these aspects, allowing

management to proceed with confidence in implementing the model.

The new model demands concentration on the production of synergies within the organization.

This model of corporate identity involves thinking of it in terms of an integrated system of

mutually activated synergies to confront the endogenous and exogenous forces impacting the

corporate identity concept. It is the synergistic idiosyncrasy of the model to attain sustainability

and consistency with regard to the management of corporate identity programs rather than

focusing on dogmatic, “one way” and ephemeral solutions. The model suggests that centralized

management will be needed to ensure that the model functions well. One possible benefit derived

from a centralized approach will be increased control over the behavior of the internal and

external stakeholders.

The implementation of the six-station model constitutes a feasible approach to creating and

managing corporate identity and generating value and trust in the company. Firstly, conveying

corporate identity is like developing an exchange relationship with all stakeholders. Secondly,

management should observe and monitor individual employee contribution to the management of

corporate identity. Thirdly, the six-station model calls for the initiation and adaptation of an

empowerment program among all internal stakeholders and employees.


24/37

The management of corporate identity differs from one corporation to the other. Managers

must be able to relate to the model so that they feel comfortable dealing with it and more

specifically so that it fits their corporate environment and business case. The elaboration of model

variables to produce manageable data is a key goal. Every variable is structured to present and

maintain its own complexity, framework, idiosyncrasy, contribution and peculiarity to the

corporate identity model. It is up to management to define an evaluation system based on a

continual monitoring of the variables related to corporate identity and to define the impact of all

and each of them separately. The six-station corporate identity model offers this capability of

examining each variable separately in terms of defining their impact on corporate identity.

Conclusions

The model urges managers to identify the multidimensionality of their corporate identity and

manage this from a systems perspective, recognizing the manner in which changes in one

variable affects others. The model also calls for a “new” multi-knowledgeable manager who can

cope with ever changing corporate challenges and corporate identity management. The model

highlights the areas that must be looked at and directs the manager to adopt the segmented model

approach to pursue the formation and management of corporate identity. The integrative nature of

the model and the dynamism of its variables encourages managers constantly to appraise the

internal and external environment, benchmarking performance against expectations through

continuous evaluation. Managers could utilize the qualitative and quantitative research

instruments from this study to design their own tools to evaluate the suitability of their corporate

identity.

Research findings verified the existence of the six-station model. It is believed that we have

posited an applicable, robust and dynamic corporate identity model for managers to use it.


25/37

Appendix 1.

Number of companies and employee titles – Qualitative Research.

Consulting Companies 3 Firms 7

CEO 3 CEO 4

General Manager 2 General Manager 3

Marketing Oriented Consultant 1 Marketing Manager 3

Communication Oriented Consultant 1 Sales Manager 3

Public Relations Managers – Consultants 1 Financial Managers 3Design – Creative director 1 HRD Managers 3

Total 9 19


26/37

Appendix 2

Description and alignment of the Extracted FactorsFactor 1 - aligned to Station 6 of the 6-station model – The Critical Triplet Factor

v80_s6e2. The model shows that corporate image is the result of an aggregate process by

which the public evaluates a firm

v81_s6e2. The model emphasizes that corporate image is the overall impression made

on the public about the firm

v75_s6e1. The model includes the consideration of outside forces affecting reputation

v82_s6e2. The model emphasizes the importance of the entire company’s work force inthe creation of corporate image

v84s6e3. The model includes a consideration of the importance of corporate personality

v85_s6e3. The interaction between corporate personality and other corporate identity

variables is clear in the model

Factor 2 - aligned with Station 2 of the 6-station model – The Strategy Factor

V35_s2e1. The model emphasizes the relevance of developing a branding strategy as

part of a corporate strategy.

v37_s2e1. Relationship between corporate strategy and marketing product/services is

clearly represented in the model. v34_s2e1. The model shows that brands should be linked to vision, values andcompany’s corporate culture.v36_s2e1. The model shows that brands contribute to the perception of a company’sidentity.

v46_s2e3. The model points out that marketing strategy is part of corporate strategy

Factor 3 - aligned with Station 1 of the 6-station model – The Head Factor

v20_s1e1. The model emphasizes that the vision of a company should be evaluated regularly.

v41_s2e2. The model highlights that a firm’s values should be fundamental to corporatesuccess

v22_s1e1. The model emphasizes the relationship between corporate identity and leadership

v14_sle1. The model reflects all variables, which are relevant for the mission of a

corporation.

Factor 4 - aligned with Station 4 of the 6-station model – The Communication Factor

v62_s4e3. The model is aware that the internet may be important for the business to

develop their corporate identity.

v63_s3e2. The model shows the relations between digital and other forms of

communication.

Factor 4 - aligned with Station 3 of the 6-station model – The Creativity Factor

v50_s3e2. That a firm should effectively use the aspect of Corporate Visual IdentitySystems standardization to project its identity is evident in the model

v51_s3e2. The model stresses that a firm must always use corporate visual identity

systems to widen the communications mixFactor 6 - aligned with Station 5 of the 6-station model – The Human Factor

v70_s5e3. The importance of stakeholders to corporate identity is evident in the model

v71_s5e3. The model shows that company employees and stakeholders should interact

regularly.


27/37

References

Abratt Russel. (1989), “A new Approach to the Corporate Image Management

Process”, Journal of Marketing Management , Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 63-76.

Albers, S. (2000), “Impacts of types of functional relationships, decisions, and solutions

on the applicability of marketing models”, International Journal of Research in

Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 2/3, pp.169-175

Alessandri, Sue Wescott. (2001), “Modeling corporate identity: A concept explication

and theoretical explanation”, Corporate Communications: An International

Journal, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.173-182

Balmer, J. M. T. (1996), “The nature of Corporate Identity: an explanatory study

Undertaken within BBC Scotland”, Unpublished PhD. Thesis, University of

Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.

Balmer, John. M. T. (2001), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate

marketing: Seeing through the fog”, European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 35, No.

3/4 , pp. 248-291

Balmer, J. M. T. and Soenen, G.B. (1997), “Operationalizing the Concept of Corporate

Identity: Articulating the Corporate Identity Mix and the Corporate Identity

Management Mix”, International Center for Corporate Identity Studies, Working

Paper Series

Balmer, J. M. T. and Wilson, A. (1998), “Corporate identity: There is more to

it than meets the eye”, International Studies of Management and Organizations,

Vol. 28, Issue 3, pp. 12-31


28/37

Barich, H. and Kotler, P. (1991), “A framework for marketing image

management”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32, Issue 2,

Winter, pp. 94-105.

Bartkus, B., Glassman, M. and MacAfee, R. B. (2000), “Mission Statements:

Are they Smoke and Mirrors?”, Business Horizons, Vol. 43,

Issue 6, pp. 23-29

Begley, T. M. and Boyd, D. P. (2000), “Articulating Corporate Values through

Human Resources Policies”, Business Horizons, Vol. 43, Issue 4,

pp. 53-73

Bernstein, D. (1984), Company Image and Reality: A critique of Corporate

Communication, London: Cassel Ltd.

Birkigt, K. and Stadler, M. M. (1988), “Corporate identity, Grundlagen,

Funk tionen. Fallspiellen’, Verlag Moderne Industrie, Landberg am Lech

Blauw, E . (1995), “Het Corporate Image, vierde geheel herziene druk, De Viergang,

Ámsterdam”. In C.B.M. van Riel (ed.), Principles of Corporate

Communication. London: Prentice Hall

Bromley, D. B. (2001), “Relationships between personal and corporate reputation”,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 3/4, pp. 316-334

Churchill, Jr., G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing

constructs”, Journal of Marketing Research, XVI: 64-73


29/37

Cornelissen, J. and Elving, w. J. L. (2003), “Managing corporate identity:

an integrativeframework of dimensions and determinants”,

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, vol. 8 no. 2, pp. 114-20

de Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (2000), 2nd

ed. Creating Powerful

Brands in consumer, service and industrial Markets. Oxford: Butterworth-

Heinemann

de Chernatony, L. (1999), “Brand management through narrowing the gap

between brand identity and brand reputation”, Journal of Marketing

Management , Vol. 15, No. 1-3, pp. 157-79

Dowling, G. R. (1986), “Managing your Corporate Images” Industrial Marketing

Management, Vol. 15, Issue 2, pp.109 – 115

Dowling, G. R. (1994), Corporate Reputations: Strategies for Developing the Corporate

Brand. London: Kogan Page.

Erikson, E. H. (1960), “The Problem of Ego Identity”, In Identity and Anxiety.

Eds. Maurice M. Stein, Arthur J. Vidich, and David Manning White.

London: Free Press, Collier-Macmillan, pp. 37-87

Fombrun, C. J. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image.

Boston: Harvard Business School Press

Gable, G., (1994), “Integrating Case Study and Survey Research Methods: An example in

information Systems”, European Journal of Information

Systems, Vo.3, No. 2, pp. 112-126

Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The discovery of grounded theory.

Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company


30/37

Gray, E.R. and Smeltzer, L.R. (1985), “SMR Forum – corporate image – an

integral part of strategy”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 26, Issue 4

pp. 73-78

Greyser, A. S. (1999), “Advancing and enhancing corporate reputation”

Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4,

pp. 177-181

Hatch, Mary Jo. and Schultz, Majken. (1997), “Relations between organizationalculture, identity and image.”, European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 31,

No. 5/6, pp. 356-365

Ind, N. (1990), The Corporate Image. Strategies for Effective identity Programmes.

London: Kogan Page

Ind, N. (1992), Corporate Image, (Revised ed.). London: Kogan Page

Kaplan, B., and Duchon, D. (1988), “Combining qualitative methods in information

research systems: A case study”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12, Issue 4, pp. 571-588

Kennedy, S. H. (1977), “Nurturing Corporate Images”, European Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.120 – 164

Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology.

Newbury Park, CD: Sage

Kunde, J. (1999), Corporate Religion, Pearson Education: Harlow

Lee, A. S. (1991), “Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to

Organizational Research”, Organizational Science, Vol. 2, pp. 342-365


31/37

Lucas, J. (1998), “Anatomy of a vision statement” Management Review,

Vol. 87, Issue 2, pp22-27

Markus, M.L. (1997), “The Qualitative Difference in Information Systems

Research and Practice”. In information Systems and Qualitative Research. A.S.

Lee, J. Liebenau and J.I. DeGross (eds). London: Chapman and

Hall pp. 11-27

Markwick, Nigel and Fill, Chris. (1997), “Towards a framework for managing

corporate identity”, European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 31, Issue 5/6,

pp. 396-410.

Melewar T.C. and Jenkins E. (2002), “Defining the Corporate Identity Construct”,

Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 76-90

Melewar, T.C. (2001), “Measuring visual identity: a multi-construct study”,

Corporate Communications: An International Journal , Vol. 6, No. 1,

pp. 36-41

Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J. (1998), “Global corporate visual identity systems

Standardization, control and benefits”, International Marketing Review,

Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 291-308

Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An

Expanded Sourcebook , Sage Publications, London

Minger, J. (2001), “Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist

Methodology”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 12, Issue 3, pp. 244-259

Mitchell, A. (1994), “Marketing’s new model army”, Management Today,

March 43-9


32/37

Nunally, Jum C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill

Otubajo, O. B. and Melewar T.C. (2007). ‘Understanding the meaning of corporate

identity: a conceptual and semiological approach”. Corporate Communications:

An International journal vol. 12. No. 4 . pp. 414-432

Patton, M. Q. (1990), Quantitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed.,

Newberry Park: Sage Publication

Olins, W. (1989), Corporate Identity: Making Business Strategy Visible Through

Design. London: Thames and Hudson

Sabiote-Fernandez, E. and Romam, S. (2005), “Organizational citizenship

behavior”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 47,

Issue 3, pp. 163-83

Schmidt, K. (1995), The quest for identity: Corporate identity, strategies, methods

and examples, Cassell, London

Simoes, C.; Dibb, S.; Fisk, P.R (2005), “Managing Corporate Identity: An Internal

Perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33, No. 2,

pp. 153-168

Smidts, A., van Riel, C. B. H., and Pruyn, H. (1998), “The Impact of Employee

Communication and External Prestige on Organizational Identification”,

working paper, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Stuart, H. (1994), “Exploring the Corporate Identity / Corporate Identity

Management” Paper presented at the Department of marketing’s first

Symposium on corporate identity management, University of

Strathclyde


33/37

Stuart, Helen. (1998), “Exploring the Corporate Identity / Corporate Image

Interface: An empirical study of accountancy firm”, Journal of

Communication Management , Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.357-373

Stuart, H. (1999), “Towards a definitive model of the corporate identity

management Process”, Corporate Communications : An International Journal

Vol. 4, Issue 4, pp. 200-207

Swift, T. (2001), “Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders”,

Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp.16-27

Urde, M. (1999), “Brand orientation: a mindset of building brands into strategic

resources”, Journal of Marketing Management , Vol. 15, pp. 117-133

van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication Prentice-Hall

Englewood Cliffs, NJ

van Riel, Cees B.M and Balmer, John M.T. (1997), “Corporate identity: The concept

its measurement and management”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31,

Issue 5/6, pp. 340-356

van Rekom, Johan. (1997), “Deriving a operational measure of corporate identity”,

European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 31, Issue 5/6, pp. 410-421

Yukl, G. A. (1989), Leadership in Organizations, 2nd

ed. Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall

Zinkhan, G. M., Jaiskankur, Anumpam Jaju and Linda Hayes (2001), “Corporate

Image: A Conceptual Framework for Strategic Planning”. In Enhancing

Knowledge Development in Marketing, Vol. 12, Eds. Greg Marshall and

Stephen Grove. Chicago: American Marketing Association


34/37

Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Six-Station Corporate Identity Model


35/37

Table 1.

Table 1. Rotated Factor Matrix: Sorted Form of Variables Loadings

Variables Factor 1

v80_s6e2

The model shows that corporate image is the result of an aggregate process by which

the public evaluates a firm 0.881

v81_s6e2

The model emphasizes that corporate image is the overall impression made on the

public about the firm 0.799

v75_s6e1 The model includes the consideration of outside forces affecting reputation 0.752

v82_s6e2

The model emphasizes the importance of the entire company’s work force in thecreation of corporate image 0.731

v84_s6e3 The model includes a consideration of the importance of corporate personality 0.688

v85_s6e3

The interaction between corporate personality and other corporate identity variables

is clear in the model 0.611

Factor 2

v35_s2e1

The model emphasizes the relevance of developing a branding strategy as part of a

corporate strategy. 0.743

v37_s2e1

Relationship between corporate strategy and marketing product/services is clearly

represented in the model. 0.738

v34_s2e1The model shows that brands should be linked to vision , values and company’scorporate culture. 0.693

v36_s2e1 The model shows that brands contribute to the perception of a company’s identity. 0.664v46_s2e3 The model points out that marketing strategy is part of corporate strategy 0.598

Factor 3

v20_s1e1 The model emphasizes that the vision of a company should be evaluated regularly. 0.748

v41_s2e2

The model highlights that a firm’s values should be fundamental to corporatesuccess 0.743

v22_s1e1 The model emphasizes the relationship between corporate identity and leadership 0.742

v14_s1e1

The model reflects all variables, which are relevant for the mission of a

corporation. 0.625

Factor 4

v62_s4e3

The model is aware that the internet may be important for the business todevelop their corporate identity. 0.861

v63_s4e3

The model shows the relations between digital and other forms of

communication. 0.856Factor 5

v50_s3e2

That a firm should effectively use the aspect of Corporate Visual IdentitySystems standardization to project its identity is evident in the model 0.842

v51_s3e2

The model stresses that a firm must always use corporate visual identitysystems to widen the communications mix 0.807

Factor 6

v70_s5e3 The importance of stakeholders to corporate identity is evident in the model 0.851

v71_s5e3

The model shows that company employees and stakeholders should interactregularly. 0.609

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a) Rotation converged in 6 iterations


36/37

Table 2

Table 2. Total Variance Explained

Factor Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 6.756 32.169 32.169 3.962 18.865 18.865

2 2.082 9.912 42.081 2.825 13.453 32.318

3 1.841 8.768 50.849 2.386 11.361 43.679

4 1.410 6.713 57.562 1.839 8.759 52.439

5 1.187 5.651 63.213 1.745 8.310 60.748

6 1.039 4.946 68.159 1.556 7.411 68.159

Total number of variables: 21

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.


37/37

Table 3

Table 3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Factor /Variable

Factor Description FactorLoadings

Critical Triplet

v80_s6e2The model shows that corporate image is the result of an aggregate process bywhich the public evaluates a firm 0.835

v81_s6e2The model emphasizes that corporate image is the overall impression madeon the public about the firm 0.849

v75_s6e1 The model includes the consideration of outside forces affecting reputation 0.697

v82_s6e2The model emphasizes the importance of the entire company’s work forcein the creation of corporate image 0.792

v84_s6e3The model includes a consideration of the importance of corporate personality 0.690

v85_s6e3The interaction between corporate personality and other corporate identityvariables is clear in the model 0.682

Strategy

v35_s2e1The model emphasizes the relevance of developing a branding strategy as part of a corporate strategy. 0.717

v37_s2e1Relationship between corporate strategy and marketing product/services isclearly represented in the model. 0.682

v34_s2e1The model shows that brands should be linked to vision, values andcompany’s corporate culture. 0.624

v36_s2e1The model shows that brands contribute to the perception of a company’sidentity. 0.631

v46_s2e3 The model points out that marketing strategy is part of corporate strategy 0.679

Head

v20_s1e1The model emphasizes that the vision of a company should be evaluatedregularly. 0.718

v41_s2e2The model highlights that a firm’s values should be fundamental tocorporate success 0.545

v22_s1e1The model emphasizes the relationship between corporate identity andleadership 0.827

v14_s1e1The model reflects all variables, which are relevant for the mission of acorporation. 0.405

Communication

v62_s4e3The model is aware that the internet may be important for the business todevelop their corporate identity. 0.734

v63_s4e3

The model shows the relations between digital and other forms of

communication. 0.901

Creativity

v50_s3e2That a firm should effectively use the aspect of Corporate Visual IdentitySystems standardization to project its identity is evident in the model 0.834

v51_s3e2The model stresses that a firm must always use corporate visual identitysystems to widen the communications mix 0.783

Human

v70_s5e3The importance of stakeholders to corporate identity is evident in themodel 0.576

v71_s5e3The model shows that company employees and stakeholders shouldinteract regularly. 0.780

Model Summary Statistics: X (174) = 192.731, p = 0.157, TLI = 0.97,

CFI = 0.98, IFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.03. All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.05

Documents

Assessing the Six-Station Corporate Identity Model A Polymorphic Model.pdf