Four Cardinal Manifestations of Corporate Identity

International Journal of Business Management & Research (IJBMR) ISSN 2249-6920 Vol.
2 Issue 4 Dec 2012 113-142 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,
FOUR CARDINAL MANIFESTATIONS OF CORPORATE IDENTITY

OLUTAYO OTUBANJO Lagos Business School, Pan-African University, Km 22 Lekki Epe Expressway, Ajah, Lagos, Nigeria
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the grounds on which corporate identity manifests in the marketplace. In order to accomplish this goal, a comprehensive review of literature grounded in the disciplines of marketing, organizational theory, architecture, corporate social responsibility, and strategy was made. This exercise sets the stage for the development of a framework of manifestations, which explicate the emergence of corporate identity and the multifaceted factors that trigger them.
KEYWORDS: Organizational Theory, Corporate Social Responsibility, Multifaceted Factors INTRODUCTION

The concept of corporate identity has become an important business phenomenon in the marketplace. However, in spite of this, there are limited studies that focus wholly on the critical factors that trigger its manifestation. Studies that discuss the factors that trigger the manifestation of corporate identity in the marketplace do so parenthetically. This paper makes a departure from such parenthetic analysis by developing a theoretical framework, which explicates forms of manifestation of corporate identity and the multifaceted factors that trigger them. This objective is accomplished through a review of literature grounded in the disciplines of marketing, organizational theory, architecture, corporate social responsibility, and strategy. The framework of manifestation, which includes generic, distinctive, transformative, and innovative corporate identities, provides deeper insight into the nature of corporate identity. In addition, the framework sheds light into the important factors that need to be consciously managed in order to achieve desired corporate identity and corporate image in todays competitive marketplace. This paper has been divided into six dominant sections and this section constitutes the first. The paper continues in the second, third, fourth, and fifth sections with the development of a framework of manifestations, which emerge through generic, distinct, transformational, and innovative business activities. The paper ends with a discussion of findings in the sixth section.
FIRST CARDINAL MANIFESTATION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY AS A GENERIC PHENOMENON

The corporate identity of business organizations belonging to the same industry is predominantly governed by strong and homogeneous organizational characteristics described in literature (see Balmer and Stotvig, 1997; Morison, 1997; Wilkinson and Balmer; 1996; Olins, 1978; Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991; Bernstein, 1984; Dowling, 1994) as generic corporate identity. Much of the significations indicating such common characteristics were made manifest in a number of ways. First, this occurred through mimetic isomorphism, second via coercive isomorphism and third via homogeneous organizational intelligence and behaviour. Generic identity has also manifested through the pursuit of common corporate social responsibility activities, through the physical construction of similar corporate architecture and also through globalization.
114
Olutayo Otubanjo
Mimetic Isomorphism and the Emergence of Generic Corporate Identity: Dimaggio and Powell (1983) argued that when organizational technologies are poorly understood, strategic goals are ambiguous and increasingly the business environment creates symbolic uncertainty, it is highly likely that organizations model themselves after other organizations perceived to be more successful, superior and legitimate. Dimaggio and Powell (1983) described this act as mimetic isomorphism or organizational imitative behaviour. This theory is grounded on the assumption that having observed the achievements of successful organizations, aspiring business organizations are likely to take a cue and follow the behaviour of the proceeding or successful organization regardless of whether such business practices are compatible to theirs. It is a rational response to competition in the marketplace because it economizes on search costs to reduce the uncertainty that an organization is facing (Cyert and March, 1963). Organizational imitative behaviour occurs when organizations are not convinced of the possibility of achieving set targets or when they are challenged by the difficulties of recognizing the cause effects of adopting specific strategies. Lieberman and Asaba (2006) argue that in such conditions of doubt, uncertainty and ambiguity, organizations are more likely to be receptive to information and implicit in the actions of others. Organizations imitate one another through the introduction of products into the marketplace and even in the processes involved in the introduction of such new products. Organizational imitation concurs in management systems, organizational forms, market entry and even in the timing of investment to forestall falling behind competitors, or because the activities of major market actors convey useful and strategic information which can be exploited with ease. Although the modelled organization may be unaware of emerging imitation, nevertheless, it serves as a useful and convenient source of practices that borrowing firms use. As Dimaggio and Powell observed, organizational imitative behaviour frequently occurs unintentionally and indirectly through employee transfer or turnover or explicitly through the use of similar business model processes by consulting organizations the resultant effect of which, homogenization or generic identity occurs throughout the industry. It is wrong and short sighted to limit the emergence of generic identity through mimetic isomorphism in organizations to business processes of product introduction, market entry, timing of investment and nature of management systems. Time and again, it occurred in the use and adoption of house styles. Carls (1989) argued that in the anticipation of creating huge awareness many organizations copy and imitate the house styles created by successful industry leaders regardless of whether or not these identities are appropriate for them; leading to the emergence of unified, common, homogeneous, monolithic (see Morrison, 1997) industry wide identity, which Olins (1978) described as generic. See for example the imitative behaviour of the information technology industry. By the 1970s, IBM had established itself as the most successful organization and a force with which to reckon. The dominance of IBM in this industry (over this) period was severe, to such an extent that all organizations within this industry copied and imitated it. In the bid to achieve recognition and profit quickly from the instant recognition, which the use of IBM look-alike identity might bring, many organizations within the information technology industry developed house styles, logos, showrooms, information materials, corporate advertisements that imitated IBM. The impact of IBMs visual style on competition obliterated all consideration for other options. Thus the nearer to IBM a firm looks, the more like a real computer company firms will perceive themselves. Thus, for example, years after IBM adopted the think payoff campaign, which appeared in its offices and plants and replicated in various languages, as its marketing mantra, the defunct ICL equally mounted a think ICL corporate advertising campaign (Olins, 1989). Coercive Isomorphism and the Emergence of Generic Corporate Identity: Coercive isomorphism, Dimmaggio and Powell (1983) argues, is the consequence of formal and informal unified pressures of forces and persuasion exerted by regulatory institutions on other organizations to conform and comply with a specific set of rules upon which they are dependent and by cultural expectations in the society within which organizations function. The existence of a common system of rules, policies and common legal framework in which organizations comply affects many aspects of
Four Cardinal Manifestations of Corporate Identity
115
organizational behaviours, processes and structure. Hence, in the course of compliance, industry operators begin to exhibit similar traits in behaviour and a dominant industry-wide (generic) identity emerges. Similarly in the business environment, when unified regulatory policies are initiated by regulators, most organizations in the market will adopt overall, unified compliance programmes emphasizing the pursuit of common policies, common procedures, and common work rules. These programmes often feature common methodologies, structures and templates for meeting current and anticipated compliance requirements (Gable 2005) resulting in the development of common, similar, uniform, regular, standardised, identical product/services, pricing strategy, distribution and organizational intentions. Importantly, these common organizational characteristics, or what He and Balmer (2005) described as a unique type of identity incorporating characteristics attributable mainly to a specific industry - generic identity, will emerge. The banking industry gives a good example of how compliance with regulatory policies has led to the development of generic corporate identities. Prior to the period of economic liberalization, banks in western capitalist economies acted mainly as clearing institutions. Their role was to obtain deposits from private customers and lend first to businesses in commerce, industry and agriculture with the personal customers coming second. The British banking industry prior to the period of deregulation provides a good example of this role. Under the regulatory dispensation, lending and deposit rates were determined by the Bank of England, thus acting as a huge constraint against innovation within this industry. The pursuit of this policy, led banks to exhibit common innate conservative banking practices (Nevin and Davies, 1970) which in effect made the banks look similar. British banks gave free advice and offered unrewarded assistance to successive governments in the administration of exchange controls (MacCrae and Cairncross, 1985). Price and product competition together with competition for customer deposits, in this industry, were considered unacceptable (Olins, 1989; Balmer and Wilkinson, 1996) thus giving the banking industry a universal non-competitive corporate identity. Most British banks in developed economies equally exhibited similar corporate identity traits given regulatory policies that forced and drove the expansion of banking services governments in developing countries. British Banks were equally encouraged to lend money to foreign governments in developing economies with the aim of recycling surpluses built up by OPEC countries (Balmer and Wilkinson, 1996). These factors and others led British banks towards the development of a generic identity. The emergence of homogeneous corporate identity is not limited to banks in Britain. The banking industry in Nigeria equally had a fair share of the display of generic identity traits due to its submissiveness and compliance to its apex regulatory institution. The first major form of regulation witnessed in the Nigerian banking industry began with the enactment of the 1952 banking ordinance. The ordinance gave the Central Bank of Nigeria, which although was not created until seven years afterwards, the power to limit the establishment of banks to federal and state governments to forestall the collapse of banks and enhance a stable financial system. The limitation of bank ownership to federal and state authorities together with existing imperialist banks, all of which had less thirst for profiteering, made competition for customer deposit non aggressive, thus giving this industry a non-competitive corporate identity across the board. The Central Bank of Nigeria instituted various monetary policies that enhanced the institutionalization of aggregate ceilings on the expansion of banks credit, while sector credit guidelines and interest rate controls were used to influence the direction and cost of credit. These monetary policies were further strengthened with the promulgation of the 1969 banking decree, which empowered the Central Bank of Nigeria to set the structure of bank interest rates, specifically minimum deposit rates and minimum and maximum lending rates, with priority sectors (e.g. agriculture, commerce, industry etc.) subject to preferential lending rates (Brownbridge, 2005). The direction of bank credit was influenced through annual guidelines issued by the Central bank stipulating the minimum and maximum percentage shares of a banks total loans to be allocated to particular sectors and to indigenous businesses. Additional guidelines prescribed minimum levels for lending to small
116
Olutayo Otubanjo
scale enterprises and loans extended in rural areas. Consequently, the credit priority given by Nigeria banks in support of productive sectors of the economy led to the creation of a support for industry and comprehensive banking image throughout the banking industry, which Wilkinson and Balmer (1996) called a generic identity. In 1977, a rural banking programme was initiated under which the banks were provided with targets to establish specified numbers of branches in the rural areas over the following decade. The objectives were to attract cash held in the rural areas into the banking system so as to increase the effectiveness of monetary policy, extend rural credit facilities and spread the banking habit (Adegbite, 1994). The outcome of this was the development of growth, expansion and emergence of a homogeneous (national) coverage identity throughout the banking industry. Indeed, banks (under regulated regimes) demonstrated common features of national coverage", comprehensive banking service and support for productive sectors of the economy. The dominance of such a strong generic corporate identity systems in the banking and financial services industry during a regulated regime has already been demonstrated in theoretical literature. For instance Balmer and Wilkinson (1996) argued that the generic identity of the banking industry over this period has been much stronger than any individual corporate identity which the banks have been able to establish. The banks were, in fact, regarded as embodying the British virtues of conservatism, reliability and security. In another study, Olins (1978) also confirmed the existence of strong generic corporate identity in the financial services sector stating thus: There is certainly a collective Building Society culture, a collective Building Society way of behaving and doing things, but despite the individual Building Societies quite considerable efforts to differentiate themselves by advertising, the experience of dealing with them, their offices, their forms, the way in which their employees behave is so similar, that it is virtually impossible to tell one from the other. A similar tune was chorused by He and Balmer (2005) that a strong generic identity still existed within the building societies sector. In the context of the magnitude of change, and the considerable efforts to which individual societies have gone to create distinct corporate identities, this finding was unexpected.. Other authors such as Morison (1997), Howcroft and Lavis (1986); and Balmer (1987) have in their studies confirmed the dominance of generic corporate identity in the banking industry. Homogeneous Intelligence, Behaviour and the Emergence of Generic Corporate Identity: There has been an attempt by business organizations to develop benign super intelligent and know it all cultures. Most business organizations, particularly those belonging to the same industry have common knowledge and strategic information in relation to the best and most appropriate period to launch and withdraw products, forecast stock market responses to social political and economic issues, develop pre-occurrence and develop a greater an in depth understanding of customers needs. Quite often, organizations are faced with drastic environmental turbulence and dramatic changes in their business lives. In spite of this, however, they appear ambitious, unruffled, visionary and even display the sense of creating order even in the worst case of turbulence (Olins, 1978). Such knowledge and attitudes makes business organizations, particularly those with similar business inclinations, to exhibit common behavioural attitudes, traits and characteristics that lead to the emergence of a strong industry wide generic identity. Corporate Social Responsibility and the Development of Generic Identity: According to Fukukawa and Moon (2004) Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) refers to activity by business that can be said to enhance society is removed from business for profit activity and is voluntary and thus not required by law or any other form of governmental coercion. It is, though, increasingly hard to isolate CSR from mainstream business and government regulation given the prominence of the business case and government incentives through soft regulation. Nonetheless, CSR is still distinguished by its focus on responsiveness to and even anticipation of social agendas, and by increased attention to social performance. Until recently, corporate social responsibility would hardly have been considered as a business environmental factor worthy of
117
inclusion in organizational strategy. Two things happened in the recent past that changed this viewpoint (Hussey, 1998). First is a greater understanding (by organizations) of the balance of nature and of the effect of human activity on this balance. Science and the growth of human population have for long been known to change ecological factors, what is now understood is that many of the changes bring penalties as well as benefits. The coin has two sides. The second factor is a change in social attitude in Europe and North America, which has created an increasing amount of awareness and concern for ecological issues. In the 1960s smoking was a norm and many non smokers who complained of fumes in offices were regarded as non conformists. Today, however, non smokers are in the majority and non smoking offices and even organizations, common. Smoking is now considered as an antisocial habit. There is now an ever-increasing weight of public opinion against things that threaten the ecological balance; much of this opinion manifesting itself in positive attitudes against pollution. This knowledge and attitude has been reinforced by major disasters: nuclear power in Russia; oil tankers breaking up in the USA and Europe; poisonous gas escaping from a chemical plant in India. These organizational induced disasters have unimaginable effects on the human natural habitat and severe implications for organizations as well. Consequently, the business activities of all organizations (without exception) have in the recent past become increasingly subject to the pressures of politics, economics, competition, demands of labour and remarkably the media of mass communication. Organizations, who might have otherwise preferred to be silent operators, are now compelled to pursue corporate social responsibility activities and make their voices heard in the right quarters especially among stakeholders (Salu, 1994). Put another way, corporate social responsibility has become an all-comers affair (Kelley and Kowalczyk, 2003) and has, in view of the recent scandals emerging from organizational activities, gained unprecedented prominence. In addition to the issues of pollution and ecology, unethical business practices which led to the failure of many highly respected business organizations can also be adduced to this rise in its prominence (Rossouw, 2005). Unimaginable scandals involving high profile organizations such as Enron and WorldCom rocked the business environment and contributed in no small measure to the rising use of CSR among business organizations (Leonard and McAdam, 2003). Cases of such unexpected scandal shook stakeholder confidence and created concern about business ethics and governance. Similarly, growth in the pursuit of corporate social responsibility activities has been largely due to heightening awareness of the health risks associated with tobacco products and the continued threat of nuclear war (Waring and Lewer, 2004). As Fung et al. (2001) argue, greater awareness about social responsibility in investments throttled by the rise in union pension funds in the US, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom has also been a major contributor to the pursuit of corporate social responsibility. As a result, corporate social responsibility has become increasingly important and as such there is increasing public demand for greater transparency from multinational companies. Todays business organizations are not just victims of the ever changing business environment but also the creators of the very circumstances that made corporate social responsibility imperative. Issues such as adverse social and environmental consequences of oil caused by pollution of natural habitat, allegations of complicity in human rights abuses perpetrated by state or private security forces, failure to use revenues from oil to provide lasting benefits in public health or education for the development of host communities and criticisms of BPs handling of security in Colombia, the sinking of the Exxon Valdez on the Blight Reef of Prince William, among others, have all contributed significantly. Notably, the lessons learnt from these incidents have made many organizations to think twice about the practice of corporate social responsibility and many organizations who would normally never have bothered about corporate social responsibility now have clear policies on issues relating to environmental management, health and safety, human rights, ethics and transparency. While it is assumed that celebrated corporate failures and the abuse of organizational power contributed significantly to the rise in prominence of corporate social responsibility, it cannot be denied, however, that the phenomenal growth in social power and its influence in enforcing organizations to take full responsibility for the obstruction of balance
118
Olutayo Otubanjo
of the natural environment in which we all reside contributed significantly to the rise in the use of corporate social responsibility. The public and stakeholders alike have become increasingly vigilant and critical of physical environmental problems caused by many organizations. The use of CSR has grown so much that organizations are now becoming accountable not just to investors but also to stakeholders. Increasingly, many organizations are adopting CSR to assure value based corporate governance and promote ethical business practices to regain and peddle consumer confidence. Thus, nearly every organization worth its name in todays marketplace is involved in one good cause or another and gets involved in good causes for several reasons. While some do it to get rewards in sales and nurture stakeholder loyalty, others pursue it to build the reputation of their product and corporate brand (Whitaker, 1999). The use of corporate social responsibility is often supported by heavy media coverage either through corporate advertisements, guided editorials or news mention. Consequently, the communication of similar social responsibility events to stakeholders (by different organizations) creates the impression that organizations are similar in the minds of stakeholders. Modern Architecture and the Development of Generic Identity: Architectural designs of corporate buildings and their locations have made significant contributions to the development of very strong generic corporate identities in todays market place. The location of businesses plays a significant role in corporate identity. Locations not only give the address of business organizations but also provide an architectural context (Capowski, 1993). For centuries, interior, exterior and locational aspects of corporate architectural designs have not just been used to express organizational style but have also been used to convey strong statements about organizational personality, unique competencies, values, distinct organizational cultures and strategic intentions. Many business organizations have recognized that good architectural design is good business and that though silent, they convey strong corporate identities. All business organizations with good architectural design profit from the positive first impression of a great design. These designs present organizations in good light and have been found to be very crucial when establishing good corporate image (Plunkard, 2004). Since the British Victorian era many business organizations have recognized the strategic importance of projecting strong corporate identities using unique architectural designs on buildings. The identity projected through architectural designs becomes an image in the minds of potential customers and it is recognized as a strategic means of creating a positive, lasting impression on stakeholders. Architectural designs give customers a lasting impression that can contribute to a long, rewarding relationship with its customers. In addition, architecture adds to the vibrancy of business organizations. Between the 18th and 19th century, business organizations began to recognize that great internal and external architecture served the purpose of the most effective billboard to generate the desired positive attention and interest (Plunkard, 2004). Many business organizations have since this period been conveying strong and wealthy business identity through the imposition of massive architectural edifices on the high streets of major towns and cities (Olins, 1989) to generate larger customer bases, attract young, talented entrepreneurs as well as poach experienced staff from competitors (Melewar and Bains, 2002). During this period and up until now, business organizations are known to emulate themselves by constructing huge and gigantic edifices on high streets in high brow areas paving the way for development of common homogeneous corporate identities. The need to develop such huge architectural designs (historically) has been hinged on the shared desire to communicate a wealthy corporate identity. It has been driven by the need to reflect the image of wealth and business success by imposing huge magnificent modern buildings to attract businesses and customers (Olins, 1989). During this period, several banks namely Midland Bank (now the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank of China-HSBC), Lloyds Bank (now Lloyds TSB), Manchester and Salford (now Royal Bank of Scotland) and many other financial institutions designed and constructed massive state-of-the-art edifices to communicate and convey powerful statements in relation to financial success to high net worth customers (see the pictures below). This triggered a ripple effect in the financial industry and other banks joined the architecture design race not just in any location but on high streets. Eventually, the clamour for the
119
presentation of corporate identity through the construction and reconstruction of massive architectural edifices in high brow areas caused an accelerating growth in interior design. In the course of re-inventing their businesses many major British financial institutions redesigned their internal architecture to look strong and rich. As Olins (1989) puts it, virtually every branch of every bank was designed to look rich, opulent, strong, respectable and conservative to attract high net worth individuals and businesses. The drawback, however, was that by developing such a common industry wide image, banks were equally constructing an industry-wide mono-identity system, tantamount to generic identity. Since the 18th and 19th century, however, the financial industry witnessed drastic and turbulent changes and, in the last 50 years, particularly in its services and business coverage. Banks now offer mortgages and insurance services to customers. Banks applied technology, changing society to a cashless one by providing automated cash vending machines at strategic locations round the country to serve the customer anytime, any day, anywhere. Many banks, e.g. HSBC Lloyds TSB, Barclays, went global by offering online financial services to customers across the world (Griffioen, 2000). The technological revolution also included the emergence of post-modern architectural designs. Many banks made huge investments into the construction of contemporary post-modern high-rise buildings to convey and signal desired messages to stakeholders. For instance, Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC), one of the worlds largest banking and financial services organizations, commissioned a high-rise building in 1986 to make a statement of strength, power and confidence in the global financial market. In 1970, Lloyds TSB constructed a controversial high-rise building. With its exterior bedecked with pipes and ducts, looking more like the headquarters of an engineering or oil producing organization, it challenged existing high-rise buildings belonging to other financial operators (Olins, 1989). The construction and commissioning of these buildings created architectural design imagery which in some way contributed to the development of a strong industry wide homogenous corporate identity. In spite of this revolution witnessed in the banking industry, however, its formal grand architectural style, which is no longer appropriate for the nature of todays business, remains on hold (Melewar and Bains, 2002). Many British banks, particularly the traditional ones, still operate from their imposing monstrous architectural designs, which Olins (1989) called giant transistor radios. Such common imagery has also contributed to the development of a homogeneous or generic identity system in the financial industry. Multinational Trade and the Development of Generic Identity: Before the Second World War, very few organizations operated truly on the international scale. Only a few, like the major oil production organizations, the big US auto manufacturers and others like Unilever, ran what can be called truly multinational organizations in todays context. Most business organizations just before the war operated mostly within their geographical regions and the majority of the lesser developed regions of the world were divided among world super powers. The United States controlled Latin America and the Philippines. England administered commonwealth countries (i.e. Nigeria, Ghana, India etc). France had control over the Francophone countries. Equally, Belgium and Italy maintained control over their well defined regions, German business organizations dominated many of the central European markets and Japanese organizations attempted vigorously to expand beyond their borders (Olins, 1978). These protected markets allowed manufacturing organizations to retain their national idiosyncrasies. By the time many treaties were signed (by many countries) to reduce trade barriers and allow easier entry into foreign markets, German and Japanese business organizations were far ahead of others in the act of understanding the nature of foreign markets and their knowledge about these markets was used in competing fiercely with other new entrants into these markets and marketing assumed a major role in organizations and in the marketplace. Within a short period of global trade liberalization, many organizations originating from Europe and particularly the United Kingdom moved briskly to begin operations at desired locations all over the world. To achieve strategic sales intentions in foreign markets, therefore, English and French business organizations had to behave less like the English or the French. This was a common strategy adopted by many multinational organizations operating in foreign markets and these
120
Olutayo Otubanjo
organizations began to look like one another. According to Olins (1978) For the sake of ubiquity all multinational organizations, whatever their national origins, look more and more like each other. He stated further in some industries, particularly those with international affiliations, this development has gone much further than in others. The aircraft industry, for example, which is American dominated, speaks American. Even such staunch nationalists as the French find it difficult to resist this pattern, simply because American influence throughout the industry is so strong. Olins (1978) argued further that as globalization continues to penetrate into the fabric of international business and people all over the world develop similar tastes in consumption, multinational business organizations will develop common patterns of satisfying these tastes paving the way for the development of homogenised identities across various industries.
SECOND CARDINAL MANIFESTATION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY AS A DISTINCT PHENOMENON

Various factors including fierce competition arising from the emergence of new market entrants, market deregulation etc. all impinging on business activities often compel business organizations to develop distinct corporate identities by consciously seeking to differentiate themselves. The desire to accomplish distinct identity is often pursued through organizational storytelling, corporate advertising, buyer value and through the development of strong visual styles. The Manifestation of Distinct Corporate Identity Through Organizational Storytelling: Stories are fundamental ways through which we understand the world (Bruner, 1990; Jameson, 1985; Tenkasi and Boland, 1993). Organizational storytelling is a comprehensive narrative history about the origin, strategic intention and other landmark achievements of an organization. Storytelling has been used in several cultures to convey stories from generation to generation about remarkable events in the lives of people in societies and it has been most useful in societies with little or no means of recording events (Johansson, 2004). Corroborating, Jabri and Pounder (2001) averred that storytelling serves to express the richness and diversity of human experience and thus challenge simplistic analyses of management issues such as change that can result from adherence to narrow, mechanical models of human nature. It is a powerful tool used to evoke and heighten emotions. According to Adamson et al. (2006) a good story always combines conflict, drama, suspense, plot twists, symbols, characters, triumph over odds, and usually a generous amount of humour - all to do two things: capture your imagination and make you feel. It draws you in, places you at its centre, connects to your emotions, and inserts its meaning into your memory. It is an integrative tool of corporate strategy. Stories create the experience of enhancing understanding of who and what the organization is at corporate level. The use of stories has enhanced effective communication of organizational history to stakeholders (particularly the external ones) and has enabled organizations to capture stakeholders imaginations and interest and provide the stimulus to pursue mutual understanding between organizations and stakeholders. Storytelling makes remarkable events in the history of organizations easier to remember and more believable. They are a powerful means of communicating organizational values, ideas, and norms to stakeholders. Stakeholders see themselves in stories and unconsciously relate it to their experience (Morgan and Dennehey, 1997). Stories entertain, evoke emotion, trigger visual memories, and strengthen recall about symbolic events in the lives of organizations and function as rhetoric for business organizations (Boje, 1995). As Brown (1990) argued, storytelling enhances the construction of various organizational activities and serves the purpose of explaining why specific decisions were taken in regard to certain business activities. Most importantly, stories are unique. They seek to differentiate the organization and position it as poles apart from others with similar business interests. They demonstrate that the institution is unlike any other (Martin, Feldman, Hutch and Sitkin, 1983). Zemke (1990) put forward four key characteristics of organizational storytelling. First, the story must be concrete and talk about real people, describe real events and actions, be set in a time and place which the listener can recognize and with which he or she can identify. The story must be connected
121
to the organization's philosophy and/or culture. Second, stories must be common knowledge in the organization. Stakeholders must not only know the story, but know that others know it as well and follow its guidance. Third, the story must be believed by the listeners. To have impact and make its point, a story must be believed to be true of the organization and fourth, the story must describe a social contract. (i.e. how things were done or not done in the organization) and must allow the listener to learn about organizational norms, rewards and punishments without trial-and-error experience. In the same vein, Brown (1990) advanced to literature three traits of organizational storytelling. He contends that organizational stories must first, reduce uncertainty for organizational stakeholders by providing reliable accounts of information about the organization and second, organizational stories must manage meaning by framing events within organizational values and expectations. Third and most important of all, organizational stories must identify why organizations and its members are special or unique. Mogens Holten Larsen (2000) argued that what makes organizational storytelling different from all other corporate communication tools is not just its ability to construct the strategic intentions of the organization but its capacity in incorporating the core competencies, philosophical beliefs and values of that organization and that while providing deeper and strategic information about organizations, it is also a simple yet effective framework for guiding the activities of organizations and their members. Many organizations have employed the use of effective storytelling to create bond among employees on the one hand and also to build trust between the organization and employees on the other. Organizational storytelling is a very good vehicle for assuring the continued delivery of top quality goods and services, for peddling confidence and building corporate reputation among stakeholders. Mogens Holten Larsen (2000) averred that organizations that utilize legitimate reputation to explain its strategic intentions, through its contributions to society and commitment to add value, create a very strong opportunity of positioning itself no matter how competitive the market place may be. Many modern successful organizations employed the use of storytelling not just to convey information about landmark events about their organization to internal and external stakeholders but most importantly to differentiate and distinguish themselves from others operating within their markets. Mogens Holten Larsen corroborates this view contending that the incorporation of the origin of organizations, strategic intentions and core competencies and all the words and visual images constructed in organizational stories provides a fundamental platform on which organizations differentiate themselves from others with similar business interests. Take the case of 3M as example. The organization differentiated itself strategically in the market place using storytelling to explain remarkable milestones in its history drawing from recollections of major participants in these milestones. The construction of such organizational stories helped 3M in understanding the many sources of its innovative culture together with the challenge to achieve buyer value (Porter, 1990) and differentiate itself from competitors. A full text of 3M 248 page organizational story has been published and is found at www.3m.com/about3M The Development of Distinct Corporate Identity through Core Competencies: The concept of core competencies, developed originally by Prahalad and Doz (1987) proposes that organizations should base their strategies around their core technical, competencies (Hussey, 1998) to transform, re-engineer business processes and achieve competitive advantage (Hamel and Prahalad, 1994). What, therefore, is a core competence? A core competence is a collection of various organizational skills and technologies (Hamel and Prahalad, 1996) representing the integration of various skills which differentiate organizations from competition. Core competence involves the harmonization and integration of various streams of technologies and the use of such technologies to deliver customer value (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990), Corroborating, Hamel and Henee (2000) added that the concept of core competence when applied adds disproportionately to customer value and enables the delivery highly valued benefits to customers. It is the collective learning relating to the
122
Olutayo Otubanjo
coordination of diverse skills and the integration of multiple streams of technologies (Prahalad and Hamel, 1994). The integrated skills that lead to the emergence of core competencies are enhanced as they are shared among employees and do not diminish with use. Core competencies bind existing businesses and offer a guide to patterns of diversification and market entry. Hamel and Prahalad gave a summary of the meaning of core competence in their 1996 classic and best seller text: A core competence is a bundle of skills and technologies that enables a company to provide a particular benefit to customers. At Sony that benefit is pocketability and the core competence is miniaturization. At Federal Express, the benefit is on-time delivery and the core competence, at every high level, is logistics management. Logistics are also central to Wal-Marts ability to provide customers with the benefits of choice, availability and value. At EDS, the customer benefit is seamless information flow and one of the contributing core competencies is systems integration. Motorola provides customers with benefits of untethered communications, which are based on Motorolas mastery of competencies in wireless communications Hamel and Heene theorised core competencies into three main categories, namely market access competencies, integrated related competencies and functionality related competencies. Market access competencies involve the development of skills that put business organizations in close proximity with stakeholders. Integrated related competencies relates to quality management, cycle time management, just in time, inventory management and other skills that enable the delivery of products and services speedily with reliability and efficiency. Functionality based competencies however, encourage investment in products and services with unique functionality which invests the product with distinctive customer benefits. Functionally related competencies assume greater importance than the other two types of core competencies given the convergence of organizations around universally high standards of product and service integrity and the movement towards alliances, mergers and acquisitions and most importantly transformation and change. Rapid and dramatic changes in technology, government policy and business practices make the functionality based competence prone to change. Within a short period however, what constitutes a distinct functionality based competence to an organization becomes a generic competence common to all operators. This makes the transformation of competencies increasingly inevitable to organizations that seek market dominance and strategic competitive advantage. Core competencies (if identified) provide essential platforms for the rejuvenation, restoration and renewal of organizations towards market competitiveness. The process of transformation allows the appraisal of core competencies and its future prospect in terms of durability. The appraisal exercise is tantamount to the establishment of the core corporate identity (Hussey, 1998) which includes the strategic intent, unique combination of skills together with abilities and experience matched to opportunities that exploit strengths in identities and correct its weaknesses. The transformation of core competencies, which competitors find difficult to imitate (Hussey, 1998) therefore requires commitment of resources. A significant amount of funds must be committed to skill identification and development throughout the competence transformation exercise. While the commitment of large investment to the identification of core competencies is deeply appreciated, organizations must continuously sift out homogeneous competencies or generic identities (Oilins, 1989; Olins, 1978) common to the industry and commit greater attention to the development of unique skills, which competing organizations find difficult to imitate. The transformation of core competencies presents another form of signification. By transforming the core competencies of business organizations, especially the functionality based ones (Hamel and Heene, 2000); identity signals of transformation
123
(founded on re-engineering) and renewal are communicated to stakeholders who, in turn, process and develop an image based on the transformative signals received. Organizational Differentiation via Corporate Advertising: Modern advertising campaigns were originally developed to persuade and drive consumer purchase of a specific brand or service. However, with the arrival of modern business organizations and the jostle for leadership and market supremacy in various industries, another type of advertising called corporate or institutional adverting (Schumann et al. 1991) emerged to promote (Garbett, 1981) signify the differences between organizations and competition and most importantly build favourable corporate image about organizations in the minds of stakeholders. For this reason, organizations, particularly those in the financial services industry, have committed billions of pounds to corporate advertising campaigns. The committal of such huge investment into corporate advertising campaigns demonstrates the key role corporate advertising plays in the signification of organizational differences. But what is corporate advertising? Aaker (1996) defined corporate advertising as messages sponsored and communicated by organizations through the media to persuade consumers perceptions of an organization and its products and their intentions to purchase the products. It is a catchall term (Garbett, 1981) used to describe all forms of advertising that promote organizations as opposed to its products or services. The use of the word catchall by Garbett suggests that over the years organizations have attempted to signify their differences through various forms of corporate advertising campaigns and most importantly there have been changes in the methodologies adopted by organizations in the signification of these differences. After the Second World War, governments in western countries began to relax and dismantle controls on marketing activities. Restrictions on hire purchase of goods and services were lifted in 1954 in Britain, giving impetus and greater demand for goods and services in the marketplace. In addition, the media witnessed an unprecedented rise in the advertising of retail goods and groceries particularly between 1952 and 1954 (Nevett, 1982) further stimulating the demand for goods and services. Within a short period, fiercely competitive battles for market leadership rose and the desire to signify organizational goodwill and commitment to good public service as opposed to products, emerged. The aim of this new wave of communications was not only to signify organizational differences but to build favourable corporate image, achieve greater consumer patronage (Schumann et. al, 1991) and maintain market dominance. This type of advertising was called corporate or institutional advertising. In the following decades, there was, however, a change in the degree of use of corporate advertising as the 1960s and mid 1970s witnessed a lull in its use (Crane, 1980). By the late 1970s towards the late 1980s, however, the socioeconomic environment of business witnessed a massive change. Socioeconomic institutions including governments, religious bodies and even academic institutions suffered a huge loss in public trust and credibility. The private sector was not spared. Businesses, particularly publicly quoted organizations, declined in public confidence and credibility (Sethi, 1978) and there was the urgent need to counteract public scepticism of the social role of institutions and businesses through corporate led campaigns. There was a rising desire to take public opinion on controversial issues of social importance and engage and shape public discourse through various corporate communications campaigns (Sethi, 1978). Hence the use of corporate advocacy advertising emerged. Cutler and Muehling (1991) defined corporate advocacy as a special form of advertising in which organizations express their opinions on controversial societal issues in order to sway public sentiment and court good corporate image. It is a competitive tool created by organizations with the ultimate aim of shaping public opinion to create a business environment more favourable to their position (Harley, 1996). Since the late 1970s organizations have become increasingly active, adding their voices to social issues of national and even international importance. In fact many organizations have gone beyond the political realm adding voices to legislative issues (Lord, 2000) either through direct or indirect lobbying (Armey, 1996; Kuntz, 1995). By adding their voice to issues of social and environmental concern, organizations shape public policies, reduce uncertainties in the business environment, reduce existing threats and create trust among
124
Olutayo Otubanjo
stakeholders. By adding voice and signifying support to prevailing social issues, many organizations have (in the process) courted public support for their businesses, achieved competitive advantage (Lord, 2000), differentiated themselves from competition and secured impeccable corporate image. Although the use of corporate advocacy advertising still remains today, an addition to the discipline of corporate advertising called market preparation advertising, which gives greater emphasis to corporate identity emerged in the early 1990s. Three multidisciplinary factors explain the reasons why many organizations turned to the use of market preparatory advertisements. First are corporate marketing led factors of shortening product life cycles, the desire among corporations for differentiation, merger and diversification/consolidation activities, and high rates of media inflation. Other factors include the redefinition of businesses from a marketing perspective, increasing recognition of the value of integrated marketing communications, finer approaches to segmentation, rising incidence of crisis situations among corporations (Marwick and Fill, 1997), a rise in product innovation and reorientation of corporations towards customer service (Schmidt, 1995). Second are socio-economic factors of the unification of Europe, challenges of economic recession, value change and related increase in environmental awareness, opportunities and challenges of the European market (Schmidt, 1995), and privatisation and divestment of government stocks (Wilkinson and Balmer, 1996). Third are business and strategy-induced factors of globalisation of markets and production, stiffer competition, rising cost of business operations and crises in many areas of industry. Others include increased desire for re-engineering and many other factors, which place severe challenges on corporations national and international competition more than ever before (Schmidt, 1995). The main aim of this sort of advertisement is to convey information relating to reputation derived from its history, core competencies and contributions of the organization. More importantly, it is designed to signify or communicate organizational differences and court a favourable corporate image for its users. Achieving Organizational Distinctiveness Via Visual Style: The use of strong visual identity styles first attracted the attention of business organizations in 1908 when Allgemeine Electrizitats Gesellschaft (AEG) a German electrical appliance manufacturing organization designed a visual style (i.e logos/signage, uniforms, business cards, letterheads/stationery designs, vehicle liveries, company reports, promotional materials and internal memos etc.) to unify its array of product lines, integrate its operations into a monolithic identity, build a powerful corporate identity, differentiate itself from emerging competitors and build a stable but conservative visual image. The use of conservative visual styles continued unabated until the late 1950s and over this period a series of conservative visual identity styles were designed for Studebaker cars and Greyhound buses (Carls, 1989). Between the late 1950s and mid 1970s, however, the effects of competition began to bite heavily and the need to exhibit very strong unified identity globally using word-marks emerged paving the way for the relegation of conservative visual styles (Carls, 1989). The word-mark style of design allows the full spelling of the name and cements corporate names in the minds of stakeholders. Many organizations, particularly those in United States, Britain and Japan constructed their visual corporate identities drawing heavily from the Swiss Modernist School of Design, which advocated the use of word-marks using Helvetica typeface/letters, grey or blue colours and clinical images incorporating the organizations brand name into a uniquely styled type font treatment to construct desired images in the minds of stakeholders. Fonts like script font were commonly used to signify formality or in fact corporate re-structuring (Anonymous, 2006). Thick fonts like IBM proclaimed strength and power (Anonymous, 2006) and slanted thick type fonts like FedEx conveyed motion or movement or speed (Anonymous, 2006). Hand-drawn letters, characters or symbols were designed to intrigue target audiences and arrest interest (Anonymous, 2006). Besides the intentions of business organizations, the main objective of the word-mark is to construct a formal identity of speed and dynamism, symbolize presence in the marketplace, achieve maximum visual effect, cement brand name in the minds of stakeholders, differentiate its users from competitors and achieve a strong corporate image. These new approaches to visual
125
style took on a more solid, well grounded and well balanced appearance to project and signify desired organizational messages and differentiate the organization (Carls, 1989). Within the same period, many small, medium-sized, young enterprising organizations emerged as powerful competitors challenging bigger ones with a new sense of corporate identity accompanied by very strong competing corporate messages that made them stand out in the market place. These new organizations adopted idiosyncratic artistic flair to corporate identity design challenging the cold rationalism of the older conservative generation (Carl, 1989). The Apple user-friendly, postmodern identity designed to convey the intention to make high technology accessible to all challenged IBMs new but modernist identity conveying a message of speed and dynamism. Again during this period, a new wave of identity construction emerged and organizations began to adopt the use of glyphs to represent themselves graphically. They are less direct than straight text, leaving room for broader interpretation of what the organization represents. They are iconic, compelling and uncomplicated. They are used to convey literal or abstract representation of business organizations. During this period, however, glyphs were not generally used for logos, but as communication devices, such as the 1972 Olympic event icon (a crown of ray of lights) representing the spirit of the Munich Olympic Games light, freshness and generosity. Glyphs provided business organizations with the most impact and enhanced the creation of a sophisticated, intellectual corporate identity for those that adopted it (Anonymous, 2006). Shell and the Munich Olympic glyphs were designed by Raymond Loewy in 1971 and Otl Aicher in the late 1960s respectively to give distinct corporate identities to its promoters. The use of humanism and populism in corporate designs and corporate logos also emerged over this period. Business organizations like Prudential Insurance Plc (UK) exploited the rich complexities of their cultural societies by embracing corporate logos with human face that stakeholders, particularly consumers, could identify with. Beginning in the 1980s, organizations began to express corporate visual identities either through passive or active visual identity programmes. Under passive corporate identity programmes, organizations developed single and uniform marks for every application. The same logo accompanied by the same colour and typestyle appears on all business cards, letterheads/stationery designs, vehicle liveries, company reports, promotional materials and internal memos. Many large organizations like AT&T lost confidence in their old globe symbol styled logo which had all the hallmarks of standardized passive corporate identity style of approach and embraced the flexible visual approach offered in active identity programmes that allowed the flexible construction of their identity. The active identity programme allowed organizations to maintain greater flexibility and less rigidity in their visual applications. Many organizations that adopted this approach expressed their corporate identity in a series of compatible, but non uniform ways. It allowed organizations to change and evolve without the need to rid its entire visual identity as change evolved over time. Increasingly, the use of active identity programmes rose among very big organizations, presenting themselves with more diverse visual identities (Carl, 1989). As much as the active approach allowed for greater flexibility, it also came with several challenges, which managers found difficult to implement. For instance the AT& T active identity programme came with as many as twenty versions and a complex set of rules to ensure proper usage. Despite these rules and intense monitoring, confusion led to frequent and costly misuse of the active programme. This became a real problem for AT&T managers to deal with and the problem is reflected in the publication of articles discussing the use of the corporate logo with its employees. The Development of Distinct Identity Via the Creation of Buyer Value: The differentiation of organizations through products and services is achieved when products or services offered for sale are deemed to add value to customers. However, the extent to which business organizations can differentiate themselves through their products remains an important issue. Product differentiation allows business organizations to command premium price, sell more products at specific prices, maintain customer loyalty even during market turbulence and lead to product performance so long as the premium price achieved exceeds the added cost of differentiation (Porter, 1998). Since the 1940s and 1950s, customer
126
Olutayo Otubanjo
value was predominantly equated to price. Several attempts were made by organizations during these periods to reduce product pricing to achieve differentiation from competitors. Given the rising level of competition and lower market entry barriers in many industries, the trend began to change. Right from the 1970s value adding became a more complex issue and organizations responded with equally more sophisticated methods. Besides offering products at reduced prices, emphasis was laid on shopping convenience and timing. Many business organizations were positioned differently through corporate communications conveying messages relating to the benefits of convenience of speedy services. The economic recession of the 1980s fuelled the emergence of a new set of conservative and cautious spending consumers replacing the hedonistic, shop-til -you-drop philosophy that blossomed earlier in the decade (Levere, 1992). The majority of business organizations that attempted (in the years that followed) to differentiate themselves by providing superior customer value to customers did so narrowly. The provision of higher buyer value was approached by tinkering with the physical aspects of organizational products or marketing practices (Porter, 1998) or at best bringing prices down to achieve greater sales volume. During this period, many organizations invested huge sums of money, time and effort in the visual designs on their products to distinguish their products from those of competing organizations. Organizational products and services were converted into branded portfolios through various marketing communications efforts and many organizations competed by building and maintaining product or service quality at reduced priced, rationalizing their product portfolios and improving supply-chain management (Maklan and Knox, 1997). Although, these efforts yielded returns, they were, however, short lived. Various environmental trends including the explosion of the mass media in the early 1990s cum other integrated marketing communication practices (Belch and Belch, 1995) together with rapid technological advancements enhanced greater customer awareness and customers began demanding greater value for money more than ever before. Thus many organizations that could not meet customer value demand suffered huge loss in market shares as customers refused to accede to premium products offered for sale by many industry leaders (Maklan and Knox, 1997). As a result, business organizations began to take a second but critical look at their value chain practices. Business organizations are now searching for new avenues to achieve, retain, upgrade and leverage competitive advantages (Yonggui Wang et al. 2004) and differentiate products effectively through buyer value. For Levere (1992) many business organizations are responding to this increased demand for value by adopting innovative marketing strategies, or by using a previously established value orientation to win new customers while maintaining their traditional customer base.
THIRD CARDINAL MANIFESTATION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY VIA TRANSFORMATION

Business organizations are often challenged changes arising from fierce competition from new market entrants, appointment of new Managing Directors/Chief Executives (Johnson and Scholes, 2005). In order to respond to these changes, market actors often pursue transformation oriented programmes that force them to exhibit transformative corporate identities. The Emergence of Transformative Identity through Transformation Programmes: In todays fast changing business environment, unexpected and dramatic changes that strike at the core of businesses render organizations quickly and easily vulnerable. Changes in government policies, fierce competition, market changes, economic recession, rapid technological progress, environmental pollution, unjustifiable attacks from stakeholders, and many more have impinged seriously on the activities of business organizations. These factors have forced businesses to pursue programmes that transform their corporate identities and embrace all facets of the organization namely strategic intent, core competencies, processes, resources, outputs, strategic (Vollmann, 1996) organizing arrangements, social factors and physical setting (French et al. 2005). A number of literatures positioning corporate identity as a holistic phenomenon, embracing all facets of
127
organizations have been put forward. For instance Davies et al (2003) demonstrated the important role played by strategic intention in their definition of corporate identity. They argued that corporate identity is a phenomenon formalised by organizational history, policies, terms and conditions of employment all supported by the mission and vision statements. Similarly, Olins (1990) illustrated this role stating thus: corporate identity consists of explicit management of some or all the ways (strategy) in which the companys activities are perceived. It can project three things: who you are, what you do, and how you do it (strategy). Corporate identity is conceived as the blending of strategy, behaviour (culture) and communication and organizations philosophy (Balmer, 1993). The role of strategic intention was also illustrated by Soenen and Balmer (1997). They argued that corporate identity is the mind (the outcome of conscious decisions), the soul (subjective elements of corporate values and the sub-cultures in the organization) and the voice (reflective of organizational strategy). Marwick and Fills (1997) definition supports Soenen and Balmers (1997) proposition. They stated that corporate identity is the articulation of what the organization is, what it does and how it does it (strategy). Leuthesser and Kohli (1997) averred that corporate identity is the way an organization reveals its philosophy and strategy through communication, behaviour and symbolism. Corporate identity resides in the minds of corporate leaders and it is their vision for the organization (Balmer and Soenen, 1999). According to Downey (1986) corporate identity is the sum of all factors that define and project what an organization is, and where it is going (vision) - its unique history, business mix, management style, communication policies and practices, nomenclature, competencies and market and competitive distinction. Scott and Lane (2000) demonstrated the role of strategic intention within the workings of corporate identity concluding that it is a set of beliefs shared by internal stakeholders about the central, enduring, and distinctive characteristics of an organization. They argued that goals, missions, practices, values and action (as well as lack of action) contribute to shaping organizational identities, in that they differentiate one organization from other organizations in the eyes of managers and stakeholders. Kiriakidou and Millward (2000) observed that corporate identity is reflective of an organizations unique business strategy, its philosophy, belief, behaviour and even employee work strategy. But what is organizational transformation? Organizational transformation is a change between significantly different states in relation to strategy and structure (Wischnevsky and Damanpour, 2006). Zardet and Voyand (2003) concurred, arguing that organizational transformation aims to change structures and behavioural systems from one form to another. Newman (2000) concurred that transformation is a change that leaves organizations better able to compete effectively in the marketplace. Transformation is a deliberate planned process of transition focusing primarily on the formation and establishment of new organizational vision (French et al. 2005). The obliteration of the components that make up the transformation of organizational facets from one state to another is one of the most crucial and fundamental responsibilities of management. When organizations pursue transformational programmes, they do so by re-engineering or redesigning issues appertaining to organizational facets, all of which constitute corporate identity (Melewar and Jenkins, 2002). The redesign of these corporate identity facets is critical and it resides in the heart of all organizational transformation programmes. No transformation programme can be pursued without the redesign of these corporate identity facets. The transformation of these corporate identity facets does not permanently separate them from each other. The separation gives the opportunity to address transformation in different ways and allows managers to approach the challenge of transformation from vantage points of choice. The summation of these facets gives a global viewpoint of each corresponding challenge (Vollmann, 1996) given the nature of challenges facing different organizations. Hamel and Prahalad (1989) defined strategic intent as the sustainable obsession to win at all levels in the organization over the long term, regardless of the proportionality of the organizational resources to its capabilities. In other words, strategic intent envisions market leadership position founded on a code of behaviour to aid the successful achievement of the set goal. Hamel and Prahalad (1989) argued that in order to revitalize performance, organizations must go beyond the point of
128
Olutayo Otubanjo
imaginative thoughts and drive employees to win, communicate the values of winning to employees and encourage employee contribution. They must motivate employees, sustain enthusiasm by providing new operational definitions as market circumstances change and emphasise the strategic intent consistently to guide resource allocations. Given these arguments, Hamel and Prahalad (1989) proposed 3 characteristic assumptions. First, that strategic intent captures the essence of time, second that it is stable over time and third it sets targets that deserve personal effort and commitment. Taking a cue from Hamel and Prahalads intent theory, many transforming organizations of today are acting correspondingly with the tenets of mission statements and the core values propelling these statements. Actioning and the pursuit of these statements in all ramifications have in recent times gathered momentum. Transformation challenges nonstrategic and non-goal-oriented practices by specifying unit, departmental and overall organizational objectives, setting targets for employees as well as evaluating, directing and co-ordinating these achievements. Transformation requires the development of strategic commitments, an explicit statement of intent together with the destination of the organization. Strategic intent or the tenets of the mission statement must be meaningful to employees and most especially the team leaders. Talents in the transforming organization must believe in it to influence others and encourage a speedy change in attitude and behaviour. Mission statement or the strategic intent is a key component of corporate identity. Approaching transformation via strategic intent transmits signals of new identity to stakeholders. The signals project identities of new goals (see Halloran, 1986; Birkigt and Stadler, 1986) new targets, new commitments (Halloran, 1986); new methods of business approach (Kiriakidou and Millward, 2000; Marwick and Fill, 1997), new values (Soenen and Balmer, 1997), new ethos (Identity Group, 1997) new rules (Davies et al., 2003; Balmer, 1993) and new philosophies (Birkigt and Stadler, 1986; Kiriakidou and Millward, 2000). It also sends signals of speedy change in attitude and behaviour (van Riel and Balmer, 1997; Kiriakidou and Millward, 2000). These signals when received by stakeholders turn into corresponding images. Physical designs (Oldham, 1988) including interior designs, work spacing, house styles etc. constitute one of the strongest means through which corporate identity is projected to stakeholders. The physical setting constitutes one of the major components of organizational features and it is also one of the basis on which employee perceptions of corporate identity emerge (Anonymous, 2006). It is a means through which organizational personality, together with culture (Anonymous, 2006) are revealed. While a good physical working environment encourages productivity, conversely an ugly working environment causes dissatisfaction and stress at work. Plenty of evidence links poor workplace design to lower business performance and higher levels of stress experienced by employees. A good design contributes to better business performance and good return on investment (Hagginbottom, 2005). Change in the business environment coupled with the rising desire to shift towards competitive positions, have motivated organizations pursuing transformation programmes to seek more appealing internal and external architectural designs that facilitate change, communicate the character of the organization and create distinct identity (Olins, 1989) for organizations. Given the rise in the number of organizations seeking change, the physical business environment has witnessed the emergence of new internal and external architectural designs that we have never seen before. More and more organizations proposing transformation programmes have come to recognize that they cannot compete effectively operating their businesses from old and non-inspiring (Nadler and Tushman, 1997) monstrous, transistor-looking architectural designs (Olins, 1989). Organizations that take transformation seriously are investing huge capital, in the twenty first century, into internal and external architectural designs. As such, in todays business environment, there has been a gradual movement towards open plan office design style iconised by the coffee bar (Levin, 2005) and transformation of work place designs has gone beyond the idea of ordinary designs into facilitating an identity and imagery for organizations. The change witnessed in the environment is not limited to externalities. The physical aspect of
129
organizations interiors has also been tremendously affected. The nature of work has changed from production work to knowledge work. This has led to the development of work environments that accommodate work processes and support a knowledge-based worker community contained within an environment that is highly volatile and subject to ever changing worker needs. Until the 1980s, business processes were confined to the logical organization of human and material resources towards the production of a desired product (Burke, 2004). It was conceived as the logical organization of people, materials, energy, equipment and procedures into work activities designed to produce a specified end result (Davenport and Short, 1990) and was subsumed as a never ending cycle of industrial operations which ends in the production of a final product (Hawkins, 1984). A host of problems plagued business processes. Customer order fulfilment had error rates, customer orders went on for weeks unanswered and work was organized in a sequence of separate tasks and complex mechanisms were employed to monitor production processes. These conditions were made even worse with the development of policies founded on assumptions about technologies, demographics, human capital policies and goals, which have since become obsolete. In short, production processes were cumbersome, lacked creativity and in many cases created unnecessary delays. However, given the drive towards freer market competition, greater productivity (resulting from the economic recession of the 1980s) and demand for greater buyer value, a new wave of thinking described as business process re-engineering emerged. The concept of re-engineering was first put forward in literature by Hammer (1990). Re-engineering philosophy advocates total break-away from obsolete policies, philosophies and operations that impinge smoother and more efficient business operations. Re-engineering challenges business and operations philosophies founded on old assumptions, advocating the obliteration of policies that brought about gross inefficiencies and proposing the development of new policies that enhance greater efficiency, productivity and performance breakthroughs. It demands that organizations break loose from obsolete, cumbersome and inefficient business operations and processes to create new ones. Re-engineering requires looking at fundamental processes from a cross functional perspective by putting together teams representing the core functional units involved in an organizations core business operations and charging them with the responsibility of analysing and scrutinizing existing processes, determine steps that add real value to business operations and propose new ways of achieving results (Hammer, 1990). Re-engineering like any business activity communicates (Olins, 1995). By obliterating old business processes and developing entirely new ones, organizations project identity signs of process renewal to offer fast and efficient customer services. These, when processed by customers, become the organizations customer service image. Organizational and Employee Culture Transformation: Organizational culture is a way of life for people belonging to an organization. It is the unique quality and style and practices of members of an organization (Kilman et al., 1985) and the way things are done in organizations (Deal and Kennedy, 1982). Put in another way, it is the expressive non-rational qualities of an organization. Organizational culture is a very strong phenomenon dominating the beliefs and attitudes of people in organizations. It is commonly shared among employees (Siew Kim Jean Lee, Kelvin Yu, 2004) and it is a selfreinforcing set of beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. Given its dominance over organizational practices and its resistant nature, it is extremely difficult to change (Campbell and Kleiner, 2001). Culture cannot be changed in the short run. Many organizations that have pursued cultural transformation programmes committed long hours of operations to this cause. Cultural transformation programmes have been pursued by many organizations consistently re-enforcing these new cultures among employees over a long period with motivational messages and the right reward system. Cultural changes in organizations often begin with a thorough re-examination of existing cultural practices, beliefs and norms. Importantly, cultural messages relating to business priorities and organizational values sent from management to employees in
130
Olutayo Otubanjo
transforming organizations are thoroughly re-examined. Specifically issues relating to training, performance evaluation, and compensation packages are re-addressed and initiatives are taken to ensure that messages communicated conform completely with newly propagated cultural values. Cultural change is hugely dependent on the extent to which management convey new cultural messages to employees. The messages communicated, either verbally or by the action of management, provide the yardstick towards predicting the outcome of acceptable and non acceptable patterns of behaviour. New cultural messages must fit new organizational processes. It must ensure that the human element adjusts to reward. Hence the new culture will emerge with time (Campbell and Klein, 2001). Organizational culture is one of the major components of corporate identity (see Melewar and Jenkins, 2002; See Downey, 1986). When organizations change or transform their cultures, strong identity signals carrying messages about these changes are communicated to stakeholders. Consequently, these signals are interpreted by message recipients. Thus a new image, relating to these changes, is created.
FOURTH CARDINAL MANIFESTATION: THE CONSTRUCTION OF IDENTITY THROUGH INNOVATION

Innovation is the change that leads to the development of a new performance (Hesselbein et al, 2002). It is the creation and implementation of new ideas in order to add value (Rogers, 1998). Zhang et al. (2004) defined it as the development and implementation of new ideas by people who engage in transactions with others within an institutional context. More precisely, it is the generation of new ideas (Ling, 2002). Innovation is the introduction of new and improved products, services and processes developed for the commercialization of products and services (Gibbons, et al., 1994; see also Australia Bureau of Statistics questionnaire, Section B). Innovative identity, therefore, is the exhibition or the presentation of innovative characteristics including new product or service innovation (Miller and Friesen, 1983), process or technological innovation (Zaltman et al., 1973; Utterback, 1994; Cooper, 1998) market innovation (Gadrey and Gallouj, 1994) discovering new sources of supply and organizational innovation (Schumpeter, 1934). The concept of product innovation has been of paramount interest to organizations (Masaaki and Scott, 1995; Schmidt and Calantone, 1998) and is generating more interest among business organizations than ever before. Several factors are responsible for the recent drive towards product innovation. First is the deregulation of various productive industries coupled with the relaxation of various market control instruments. Second is increased market competition (arising from the deregulation of markets) and third is the desire to satisfy the ever changing needs of the customers (Slattery and Nellis, 2005). Fourth, many organizations in the late 1980s witnessed an untold amount of pressure, which had a profound effect on organizational performance and market share. Shepperd and Pervaiz (2000) argued that marketplace dynamics moved at top speed making it difficult if not impossible for organizations to track and identify changing customer needs. In addition, as market competition on the international scale became fierce, many organizations resorted to the use of product innovation (Zhang and Doll, 2001; Kessler and Chakranarti, 1996; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1994). These factors have made product innovation very important to businesses. This situation together with other market trends, forced many organizations to develop innovative approach to business. Today many organizations have become system-builders adapting to new structures of production and operations. In many cases organizations have created change given their desire to become historical figures in their industries. Many innovative products came into being given organizational ability to adapt to turbulent business environment through activities of trial and error and risk-taking (Fuglsang and Sundbo, 2005). The ever changing business environment has forced organizations to rethink their product innovation processes. Unlike several decades ago when innovation was deemed to emanate from senior managements, modern business organizations of this age now adopt the use of crossfunctional teams that deliver development projects more efficiently (see Drew and Coulson-Thomas, 1996; Hershock et al.,
131
1994). There is now an emergence of project-based organizations where teams form to deliver development projects and then disband to form new teams for new projects (Hobday, 2000) and there is evidence in theoretical literature to suggest that this new approach as adopted by many new business organizations is successful (see McDonough, 2000; Donnellon, 1993; Sethi, 2000; Hitt et al., 1996). Innovation is critical to the success of any product (Zirger, 1997; Sethi et al., 2001). It is a critical mechanism through which firms secure a place in the competitive world of the future (Van de Ven, 1986) and an essential process for firm success (Brown and Eisenhardt 1995). Product innovation is increasingly recognised as a vital component of organizational competitive strength, the survival strategy of most industries (Edquist, 2000; Laborde and Sanvido, 1994) and the sustainability of any organization depends largely on it (Henard and Szymanski, 2001). The introduction of new and innovative businesses and products present organizations with an unimaginable and unquantifiable opportunity to grow, expand into other areas of business, raise market or customer share and dominate the market. The development of new innovative products is central to the growth and prosperity of modern organizations (Sheperd and Pervaiz, 2000). Product innovation relates to the novelty and meaningfulness of new products (Slattery and Nellis, 2005). It is regarded as the perceived newness, novelty, originality, or uniqueness (Henard and Szymanski, 2001) of products. Organizations have pursued several types of product innovations but most notable are the routine and radical innovation systems, Nord and Tucker (1987). Under the routine innovation system, organizations introduce products that are new but similar to products previously developed by the organization. Using radical innovation, commonly regarded as breakthrough (Jean-Philippe Deschamps, 2005) organizations add new products that are completely different from existing product lines. Breakthroughs rarely occur but when they do they emanate unexpectedly through an unplanned bottom-up production process. 3Ms Post-It pads as well as Searles aspartame (Anonymous, 2006) emanated accidentally through such a process. Furthermore, radical innovation refers to changes in technology that facilitate significant improvements in the delivery of products (Foster, 1986; McKee, 1992). Baker and Sinkula (2002) argued that the movement towards radical innovation of products has in many organizations rendered state of the art technology obsolete. Time or timing is important to product innovation processes. As such organizations are now driven to implement production and operations changes that speed products through development and improvement processes (Griffin, 1997). Todays organizations speedily investigate existing opportunities competing for limited resources (no matter how large they are) and ensure they can be efficiently prioritised leading to improved sales volume and improved profit making for organizations. Recent research by Pavar et al. (1994), indicating a strong correlation between product innovation and organizational health, supports this view. Product innovation has increasingly become one of the most important functions of successful business organizations (Trygg, 1993). Furthermore, many organizations have recognized not only the need to develop innovative products but also sustainable innovative products as well. Anthony et al. (1992) argued sustainability holds the key to achieving product innovation success. Consequently, business organizations are ongoingly seeking product innovation as a source of competitive advantage (Bowen et al., 1996) in the marketplace. Product innovation is a form of sign to stakeholders. For Saussure, a sign is a word, image, sound, odour, flavour, act or object resulting from the association of the signifier with the signified. The signifier is commonly interpreted as the material (or physical) form of the sign that is seen, heard, touched, smelt or tasted. The signified, refers to stakeholders mental construct or meanings made of the signifier (Chandler, 2006). Following Saussure, therefore, it is conceived that anything including product innovation is a sign. The theory of signs begins with the sending of signals or signifier or any organizational activity, which may include buying, selling, hiring and firing, promoting through advertising. In the course of these activities as Olins (1995) argued, organizations communicate their identity to stakeholders. Similarly, when organizations introduce new and unique products, identity signals of novelty and originality (see Henard and Szymanski, 2001) are sent. These identities are processed in the minds of stakeholders and in return a product innovation image
132
Olutayo Otubanjo
emerges. Technological innovation refers to the invention of new technology and the introduction of products, processes or services based on new technologies (Betz, 1998). Pavit (1994) identified four characteristics of technological innovation including first, continuous and intensive collaboration and interaction among functionally and specialized groups and second that this intensive collaboration and interaction often remain profoundly uncertain. Third, they are cumulative involving the development and testing of prototypes and pilot plants and fourth, they are highly differentiated based on specific technological skills required in the innovation process. These characteristics help us to understand the meaning of technological innovation. Technology has made immeasurable contributions to changes witnessed in society (Twiss, 1993) and has played a crucial role in organizational development. All organizations (without exception) owe their origin and continued existence to the successful application of technology in the development of new products and improved manufacturing processes. The role of technology in business organizations has been profound, so much so that organizations failing to maintain technological innovative momentum will be overtaken by more youthful and vigorous organizations. As Twiss (1993) argued, a comparison of todays market leaders with those operating over two decades ago reveals how many of the once great names have declined in importance or been made extinct from the business environment, all due to their inability to anticipate the effects of new technology. The use of technological innovation could be traced to the period of industrial revolution of the 1800s (Wells et al. 1995). Industrial talents like Morgan, Rockefeller and Carnegie built enormous factories using latest technological innovation of their time. New products were created and state of the art transportation networks were established to deliver these products. This was followed in the 1900s by industrial geniuses like Ford and Watson who opened the door to mass production with new innovative technologies. Rather than reduce its pace, the Second World War of 1939 to 1945 had a significant and even more positive effect on technological innovation this time in the military. Newer technological innovations emerged in the form of war equipment. The Germans for instance developed automobiles that required no carburettor. Many factories in the United States became the hub of innovative war technologies. Tanks, jeeps, artillery and ammunition and fighter bombers were developed (Wells et al. 1995). After the war ended, western economies witnessed a new phase of technological innovation - the emergence of a new range of technologies founded primarily on information technology. In many business organizations and most especially the banking industry, technological innovation has been central to the achievement of organizational goals. The banking industry all over the world has embraced all forms of technology namely information technology, computers, automated teller machines to mention a few. Scarbrough and Lannon (1994) averred that major British banks were enthusiastic about the adoption of sophisticated technologies and that they were among the first financial institutions to automate the the heavy work load of back office operations fuelled by the increasing volume of bank operations in the 1950s and 1960s. Since then the use of information technology has grown rapidly. It has played an important role in the delivery of fast and efficient financial services to customers and has been the source of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Clemons, 1986; Clemons and Kimbrough, 1986; Clemons and Row, 1987; 1991a; Feeny, 1988; Feeny and Ives, 1990). More precisely, the use of innovative information technology has resulted in the proliferation of electronic cash dispenser networks. Today, customers no longer carry cash around as they now withdraw cash using the Automatic Teller Machines (ATM) which have been strategically distributed at various locations round the country. Unlike the back office automation systems of the 1960s and 1970s, the ATM technology promised competitive and immeasurable benefits (Scarbrough and Lannon, 1994) to customers and banks alike. While, banks no longer spend time preparing cash balances across the counter, customers carryout bank transactions withdrawing cash through the ATM at any place and at any time (even over the weekend). In addition the use of innovative information technology has provided the benefit of constant access to certain core services reducing the need to interact with bank staff for many people (Devlin, 1995). Another major technological innovation in the banking industry is home and telephone
133
banking, pioneered in the UK through the Nottingham Building Society (Devlin, 1995). Innovative technology has triggered the development of home and telephone banking systems. Customers can now carryout banking transactions, privately in the comfort of their homes and offices. Further technological innovations have stemmed and reduced the cost of entry into certain retail financial services markets by reducing the dependence on the existence of a branch network to distribute product offerings (Devlin, 1995). Through innovative technology, the banking industry moved rapidly towards increasing the ability of its customers towards transacting business online (Mullighan and Gordon, 2002). Many banks customers now interact with their banks online transacting business through the internet. In the comfort of their homes, offices or even under mobile circumstances, customers can now transfer funds from one account to another through the internet. In a nutshell, technological innovation through computerization and information technology allowed banks to centralize accounting systems and develop comprehensive database of customers, providing services online or over the telephone. The adoption of information technology through the internet and telephone brought fast and speedy and more efficient customer services. Customers no longer have to wait for hours on end to get their money. The adoption of computer, telephone and online technologies sent signals of better and more efficient customer service identities and resulted in favourable image for banks among stakeholders. Organizational innovation refers to the adoption of innovation in organizations. It involves the generation, development and implementation of new ideas. Organizational innovation may be founded on the adoption of a new product or service, a new production process technology, a new structure or administrative system, or a new plan of programmes relating to organizational members (Damanpour, 1991). Following Draft (1982); Damananpour and Evan (1984); Zaltman, et al. (1973), Damanpour defined organizational innovation stating thus: The adoption of an internally generated or purchased device, system, policy, programme, process, product or service that is new to the adopting organization Broadly speaking, the main intention (by organizations) in adopting new innovations is to contribute to the successful implementation or efficiency of its core business activities and operations. It is a means of re-aligning organizations to respond effectively to rapid changes witnessed in the business environment. The implementation of organizational innovation often requires the development of a new culture. The discipline of organizational innovation has been pursued by organizations in several ways. Organizational innovation evolves over time in three major ways (Subod, 2005). First is via a value based entrepreneurial system, second via a technology based functional system and third, through a strategic reflexive system. The value based system is the start of an exciting journey which will re-energize the organization. It occurs where organizations assume an entrepreneurial role with a spirit of independency and creativity. Writing in support of Sunbod (2005), an anonymous author identified seven factors impinging on value based innovation system. These include fear of failure, lack of step-change in growth and value, poor commitment from middle managers, poor shared commitment across boundaries, the running of good ideas out of momentum, pressure to manage measures more than value and unnecessary focus on processes and outcomes. Similarly three strategic ideas (immersion, innovation and impact) otherwise called 3is were put forward by the same author as a possible way out of this quagmire. First is to understand what the consumer wants and not sell what the organization can produce (immersion). Second is to gain insight into the business demand and re-defining resources (innovation) and third is to make innovation an organizational culture by engaging the entire organization in innovation (impact). Organizations build systems, create new structures, lead and create change and within a short period of the change become reference points and heroic and historic figures in the industry. The change or invention led by entrepreneurial organizations does not happen accidentally. It occurs through a series of activities of trial and error and risk-taking behaviour and organizations that change the business environment with
134
Olutayo Otubanjo
new innovations display leadership behaviours at each stage along the way. Entrepreneurial ability is, however, weaved together by organizational entrepreneurial charisma and personality relating to organizational behaviour and communication (Albert and Whetten, 1995) and resulting in organizational innovative identity. Importantly, it is observed that organizations involved in value based innovation systems automatically project industry leader identities and in return create similar image among stakeholders. Organizations that pursue technology based systems are mostly driven by institutional routines that lead to the production of specific goods and standardized technology-based services at specific prices and volume. Under this system, organizations are hierarchically structured through various socialization mechanisms, ranging from the patriarchal leadership of an individual person to more indirect forms of socialization, for example, in the professional organizations. Organizations that pursue the technology based system of innovation take a very careful route in the course of adapting to changes in the environment. The technological innovative policies pursued by such organizations (particularly pharmaceutical industry operators) rely heavily on empirical evidence and identifiable trajectories of change. Highly rigorous systematic routines existing within technical and natural science research are strictly and religiously followed in the course of the technological innovative process. Thus, a lot of time is consumed in arriving at the product through this innovation process. Consequently, this process send identity signals of the pursuit of laid down rigorous systematic scientific rules. Thus when received, the signals are processed and converted into perceptions of the quest for technological innovations founded on the pursuit of rigorous systematic routines existing within technical and natural science. The strategic reflexive organizational system is driven by the entire organization. Organizations operate in turbulent business environments where things occur for the good or bad at most times and forecasts and business predictions hardly come true. Organizational activities in most markets are highly dependent on the strategic moves made by other market operators. Organizations operating in the biotechnology industry for instance are forced to develop networks and strategic alliances, share information and take joint strategic decisions that affect all if they want to survive in business, but are left unsure about where to go and how to move. Strategic decisions are taken among such organizations because of the recognition that modern technological developments evolve rapidly, creating uncertainty concerning which technological fields companies need to focus on. Firms therefore tend to specialize in their core competencies and look for appropriate partners when it comes to activities that they have less competence. Thus, when deciding to establish partnerships, firms take into account their own needs as well as the core competencies of potential partners (Van der Valk, Tessa and Meeus, Marius and Hu, Haifen, 2003). The value or rule of behaviour of organizations in this context is called strategic reflexivity. Importantly, when organizations pool their resources together, share information and take strategic decisions that affect all market operators together, two conflicting signals are given. First, a harmonious identity is developed by market operators and sent to stakeholders. Second, a homogeneous identity is also drawn based on the similarities in the decision making activities of operators. Either way, organizations operating the strategic reflexive organizational system of innovation develop industry wide generic image on the one hand and a harmonious image on the other.
SUMMARY
This paper makes an attempt to broaden our academic and managerial understanding of the concept of corporate identity by developing a framework of manifestations, which explicate the grounds on which corporate identity evolve through the multifaceted factors that trigger them. The framework, which is grounded on generic, distinctive, transformative, and innovative perspectives to corporate identities, makes up the dominant contribution made in this study. This finding is unique because there are limited studies that are devoted primarily to this subject.
135
REFERENCES
1. 2. Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building strong brands, Free Press, New York. Adamson, G. Joe Pine, Tom Van Steenhoven, Jodi Kroupa (2006), How storytelling candrive strategic change, Strategy and Leadership, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp.36-41. 3. Albert, S. and Whetten, D.A. (1985). Organizational Identity, In Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research In Organizational Behaviour, Volume 7, pp263-95, Jai Press, Greenwich, CT. 4. 5. Anonymous (2006). Value Based Innovation, http://www.agendaforchange.co.uk/index.php Anthony, Shapiro and McGrath (1992). Product Development: Success Through Product & Cycle-Time Excellence (PACE), Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. 6. 7. Armey, D. (1996), How taxes corrupt, Wall Street Journal, p.A20. Baba, Yusif, (2012), Adopting a specific innovation type versus composition of different innovation types, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp.218-240. 8. Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (2002), Market Orientation, Learning Orientation and Product Innovation: Delving into the Organizations Black Box, Journal of Market Focused Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pg. 5 9. Balmer, J.M.T. (1988), The changing image of building societies, Unpublished MastersDissertation, University of Durham Business School, Durham. 10. Balmer, J.M.T. (1993), Corporate identity: the power and the paradox, Design Management Journal, pp.39-44. 11. Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), Corporate Identity and the advent of corporate marketing,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp.146-151. 12. Balmer, J.M.T. (2002), Mixed-up over identities, working paper No 02/32, Bradford School of Management, University of Bradford. 13. Balmer, J. and Soenen, G. (1998), A new approach to corporate identity management, International Centre for Corporate Identity Studies, Working Paper, 1998/5. 14. Balmer, J.M.T. and Stotvig, S. (1997), Corporate identity and private banking: a reviewand case study, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol.15 No. 5, pp 169-184. 15. Balmer, J.M.T. and Wilkinson, A. (1991), Building societies: change strategy andcorporate identity, Journal of General Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 20-33. 16. Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, pp.99-120. 17. Barsky, Robert B. and Sims, Eric R. (2012). Information, Animal, Spirits, and the meaning of innovations in consumer confidence, American Economic Review. Jun2012, Vol. 102 Issue 4, p1343-1377 18. Bartel, C.A. and Garud, R. (2009). Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation, Organization Science 20(1), pp. 107117, 19. Battistella, Cinzia; Biotto, Gianluca; De Toni, Alberto F. (2012), From design driven innovation to meaning strategy, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp.718-743. 20. Bekkers, V. Jurian Edelenbos and Bram Steijn (2011). Innovation in the public sector: linking capacity and leadership. Palgrave Macmillan, London, New York. 21. Belch, G. and Belch, M. (1995), Introduction to advertising and promotion, Irwin, Chicago. 22. Bernstein, D. (1984), Company image and reality: a critique of corporate communication, Holt Reinhart and Winston, Eastbourne.
136
Olutayo Otubanjo
23. Betz, F. (1998). Managing Technological Innovation: Competitive Advantage From Change, Wiley and Sons, New York. 24. Birkigt, K. and Stadler, M.M. (1986), Corporate identity, grundlagen, funktionen, fallspielen, Verlag Moderne Industrie, Landsberg an Lech. 25. Boje, D. M. (1995), Stories of the Storytelling Organization: A Postmodern Analysis of Disney as Tamara-land, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 9971035. 26. Bowen, H.K., Clark, K.B., Halloway, S.C. and Wheelwright, S.C (1996). The Perpetual Enterprise Machine: Seven Keys to Corporate Renewal through Successful Products and Process Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 27. Brown, M. H. (1990). Defining stories in organization: Characteristics and functions, Communication Yearbook, 13, 162-190. 28. Brown, S. and K. Eisenhardt. (1995). Product development: Past research, present Findings, and Future directions, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, Iss. 2, Pp 343-378. 29. Brownbridge, M. (1996), The Impact of Public Policy on The Banking System In Nigeria,
http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/bookshop/wp/wp31.pdf#search= (accessed Jan 2010). 30. Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of Meaning, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 31. Campbell, S. and Kleiner, B.H. (2001), New developments in re-engineering organizations, Management Research News, Vol. 24 No. 3/4, pp.5-8. 32. Capowski, G.S. (1993), Designing corporate identity, Management Review, June, P. 37. 33. Carls, K. (1989), Corporate coats of arms, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67, May/June, pp. 135-139. 34. Crane, F.G. (1990), The need for corporate advertising in the financial services industries: acase study illustration, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 31-37. 35. Cutler, B.D. and Muehling, Darrel, D. (1991). Another Look at Advocacy Advertising and theBoundaries of Commercial Speech, Journal of Advertising, December 1991; 20, 4; pg. 49 36. Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. (1963), A behavioural theory of the firm, Englewood, Prentice-Hall, Cliffs, NJ. 37. Damanpour, Fariborz; Walker, Richard M.; Avellaneda, Claudia N. (2009), Combinative effects of innovation types and organizational performance: a longitudinal study of service organizations, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No 4, pp.650-675. 38. Damanpour, F. and Evan, W. M.(1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 392-409. 39. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy Of Management Journal, 34: 555-590. 40. Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1983), Culture: a new look through old lenses, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp.498505. 41. Deschamps, J. P. (2005) Different leadership skills for different innovation strategies, Strategy and Leadership; 2005; Vol. 33, Iss. 5; pp. 31-39. 42. Devlin, J.F. (1995). Technology and Innovation in Retail Banking Distribution, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp.19-25.
137
43. Donnellon, A. (1993). Cross-functional Teams in Product Development-Accommodating the Structure to the Process, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 10, pp. 377-92. 44. DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983), The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organization fields, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, pp.147160. 45. Drew, S. and Coulson-Thomas, C. (1996). Transformation Through Teamwork: The Path to the new organization?, Management Decision, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 7-17. 46. Edquist, C. (2000). Systems of Innovation Approaches - Their Emergence and Characteristics, in Edquist, E. and McKelvey, M. (Eds), Systems of Innovation: Growth, Competitiveness and Employment, Cheltenham, UK; An Elgar Reference Collection, Northamton, MA, Vol. 1, pp. 3-37. 47. Esty, Daniel C. and Charnovitz, Steve (2012), Green rule to drive, Harvard Business Review. Vol. 90 Issue 3, p120-123. 48. Feeny, D. and Ives, B. (1990). In Search of Sustainability: Reading Long-Term Advantage from Investments in Information Technology, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol 7 Iss. 1, Summer, Pp 27-46 49. Feeny, D. (1988). Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage with IT, In Information Management: The Strategic Dimension, M. Earl, (Ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford UK. 50. Foster, R. (1986). Innovation: The Attackers Advantage, Summit Books, New York. 51. French, W.L., Bell, C.H. and Zawacki, R.A. (2000), Organizational development andtransformation: managing effective change, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA. 52. Friedrich, Tamara L.; Mumford, Michael D.; Vessey, Brandon; Beeler, Cheryl K.; Eubanks, Dawn L. (2010), Leading for innovation: reevaluating leader influences on innovation with regard to innovation type and complexity, International Studies of Management & Organization. Summer2010, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp.6-29. 53. Fukukawa, K. and Moon J. (2004), A Japanese model of corporate social responsibility? astudy of website reporting, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Winter, Iss. 16, p. 45. 54. Fuglsang, L. and Sundbo, J. (2005). The Organizational Innovation System: Three Modes, Journal of Change Management, London, Vol. 5, Iss. 3; p. 329 (16 pages) 55. Gable, J. (2005), Navigating the compliance landscape, Information Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, p. 28. 56. Garbett, Thomas F. (1983). Researching Corporate Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 23 (February/March), 33-37. 57. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M., 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London. 58. Govindarajan, Vijay (2012), A reverse-innovation playbook, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 90 Issue 4, p120124. 59. Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14, pp. 429-58. 60. Hamel G and Prahalad, C.K. (1989), Strategic Intent, Harvard Business Review, No 3, pp 6376. 61. Hamel, G. and Heene, A. (2000). The Concept of Core Competence. In Competence Based Competition, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester
138
Olutayo Otubanjo
62. Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1996), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business Press. 63. Hammer, M. (1990), Reengineering work: don't automate, obliterate, Harvard Business Review, July August, pp.104-112. 64. Hussey, D. (1998), Strategic management: from theory to implementation, Butterwood and Heinemann, London. 65. He, Hong-Wei and Balmer, J.M.T. (2005), The saliency of generic identity: an exploratory study of UK building societies, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 23 Nos 4/5; p. 334. 66. Henard, D.H. and Szymanski, D.M. (2001). Why Some New Products are More Successful Than Others, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 362-75. 67. Hershock, J., Cowman, C.D. and Peters, D. (1994). From experience: action teams that work, Journal of Product Innovation Management Vol. 11, pp. 95-104. 68. Hesselbein, F. Goldsmith, M and Somerville, I. (2002). Leading for Innovation and Organizing for Results, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 69. Hitt, M.A., Nixon, R.D., Hoskisson, R.E. and Kochhar, R. (1996). The birth, life and Death of a Cross Functional New Product Design Team, Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Report, pp. 96-111 70. Hobday, M. (2000). The Project Based Organization: An Ideal Form For Managing Complex Products and Systems?", Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 871-93. 71. Howcroft, J.J. and Lavis J. (1986), Retail banking: the new revolution in structure and strategy, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 72. Jabri, M. and Pounder, J.S. (2001). The Management of Change: A Narrative Perspective on Management Development, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20, pp. 682-90. 73. Jameson, F. (1985). The Political Unconsciousness: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act, London: Methuen. 74. Johansson, A. W. (2004). Consulting As A Story-Making, The Journal of Management Development, Bradford, Vol. 23, Iss 3/4, pg. 339 75. Kessler, E. and Chakranarti, A. (1996). Innovation Speed: A Conceptual Model of Contest,Antecedents, and Outcomes, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 1143-91. 76. Kilman, R., M. J. Saxton, and R. Serpa (1985), Introduction: Five Key Issues in understanding and changing culture, in R. Kilman et al. (Eds.), Gaining Control of the Organizational Culture, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 116. 77. Kotabe, M. and Swan, K.S. (1995). The role of strategic alliances in high-technology new product development. Strategic Management Journal 16(8): 621636. 78. Kuntz, R (1995). Attempt to Toughen Lobbyist Disclosure Law Leaves Huge Loophole For grass-roots Money, Wall Street Journal, p. A 16 79. Laborde, M. and Sanvido, V. (1994). Introducing New Process Technologies intoConstruction Companies, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management-ASCE, Vol. 120 No. 3, pp. 488-508. 80. Lee, B-H. and Yi, S. (2012), Organizational transformation towards industry unionism in South Korea, Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp.476-493 81. Levere, J.(1992),The value of added value, Incentive, Vol. 166, No. 5, vol. 2, pp. 18-21. 82. Levin, A.C. (2005). Changing the role of workplace design within the business organisation: A model for linking workplace design solutions to business strategies, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 3 No. 4 pp.299-311.
139
83. Lieberman, M.B and Asaba, S. (2006), Why do firms imitate each other? Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 366385. 84. Ling, T. (2002). Innovation: Lessons from the Private Sector A think piece in Support of the Invest to Save Study www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_ 03/innovation.pdf 85. Lord, M.D. (2000). Corporate Political Strategy and Legislative Decision Making, Business and Society, Chicago, March, Vol. 39, Iss. 1, pg 76, 18 pgs 86. Maklan, S. and Knox, S. (1997). Reinventing the Brand: Bridging the Gap Between Customers and Brand Value, Journal of Product and Brand Management, Santa Barbara, Vol. 6, Iss. 2, pg119 87. Martin, J., Feldman, M.S., Hatch, M.J. and Sitkin, S.B. (1993). The Uniqueness Paradox in Organizational Stories, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, pp. 438-53. 88. Marwick, N. and Fill, C. (1997), Towards a framework for managing corporate identity, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 5/6, pp. 396-409. 89. McDonough, E.F. III (2000). Investigation of Factors Contributing to the Success of Cross-Functional Teams, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 17, pp. 221-35. 90. McKee, D. (1992). An organizational learning approach to product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No, 3, pp. 232-245. 91. Melewar, T.C. and Bains, N. (2002), Industry in transition: corporate identity on hold?, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 2/3, pp. 57-66. 92. Mogens Holten Larsen (2000), How brands are taking over the corporation, In M Schultz, MJ Hatch, MH Larsen, Oxford University Press. 93. Morison, Ian (1997), Breaking the monolithic mould, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol.15 No. 5, pp.153-162 94. Morgan, S. Dennehy, R.F. (1997). The Power of Organizational Storytelling: A Management Development Perspective, The Journal of Management Development, Bradford, Vol.16, Iss. 7; pg. 494 95. Mullighan, P. and Gordon, S. (2002). The Impact of Information Technology of Customer and Supplier Relationships in the Financial Services, International Journal of service Industry Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp 29-46 96. Nadler, D. and Tushman, M. (1997), Competing by design: the power of organizationalarchitecture, Oxford University Press, New York. 97. Nagji, Bansi and Tuff, Geoff (2012), Managing your innovation portfolio, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 90 Issue 5, pp66-74. 98. Nevett, T.R. (1982), Advertising In Britain: A History, Heinemann, London 99. Newman, K.L. (2000), Organizational transformation during institutional upheaval, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, pp.602-619. 100. Nord, W. and Tucker, S. (1987), Implementing routine and radical innovations, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. 101. Oldham, G.R. (1988), Eects of changes in workspace partitions and spatial density onemployee reactions, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73, pp.253258. 102. Olins, W. (1978), The corporate personality: an inquiry into the nature of corporate identity, Design Council, London.
140
Olutayo Otubanjo
103. Olins, W. (1989), Corporate identity: making strategy visible through design, Thames and Hudson, London. 104. Orr, Gordon and Roth, Erik (2012), A CEOs guide to innovation in China, McKinsey Quarterly, Issue 1, pp.7483. 105. Otubanjo, B.O., Melewar, T.C. and Cornelius, N. (2008), The development of generic corporate identity in professional services firms, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1299728 106. Parida, Vinit; Westerberg, Mats; Frishammar, Johan (2012), Inbound open innovation activities in high tech SMEs: the impact of innovation performance, Journal of Small Business Management. Vol. 50 No. 2, pp.283309. 107. Pavar, K.S, Menon, V. and Reidel, J.C.K.H. (1994). Time to Market, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-22 108. Pavitt, K. (1994). What We Know About the Strategic Management of Technology. In Implementing New Technologies: Innovation and the Management of Technology, edited by Ed Rhodes and David Wield. Blackwell, UK 109. Piva, Evila; Rentocchini, Francesco; Rossi-Lamastra, Cristina (2012), Is open source software about innovation? Collaborations with the open source community and innovation performance of software entrepreneurial ventures, Journal of Small Business Management. Apr2012, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp.340-364. 110. Plunkard, J. (2004), Branching out architecturally, Bank News, June, No. 6, p. 28. 111. Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, London, Collier McMillan 112. Prahalad, CK. and Doz, Y.L. (1987), The multinational mission, The Free Press, NY 113. Prahalad, C. K. and G. Hamel (1994), The core competence and the corporation, Harvard Business Review, May June, pp.71 91. 114. Prahalad, C. K. and G. Hamel (1994), Strategy as a eld of study: Why search for a new paradigm?, Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue, 15, pp. 516. 115. Robert, B. and Sims, E.R. (2012). Information, Animal Spirits, and the Meaning of Innovation, American Economic Review. Vol. 102 No. 4, pp.1343-1377. 116. Rogers, M. (1998). The Definition and Measurement of Innovation, Working Paper, 10/98, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research, University of Melbourne 117. Rossouw, G.J. (2005), Business ethics and corporate governance: a global survey, Business and Society, Vol. 44 No. 1, p. 32. 118. Salu, A. (1994), Understanding Public Relations, Talkback Publishers, Lagos. 119. Scarbrough, H. and R.Lannon, 1989, 'The Management of Innovation in the FinancialServices Sector: a Case Study', Joumal of Marketing Management, Vol.5, No.l, pp.51-62. 120. Schmidt, K (1995), The quest for identity, Cassell, London. 121. Schmidt, J.B. and Calantone, R.J. Are really new product development projects harder to shut down? Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp.11123. 122. Schuman, David W, Jan M. Hathcote, and Susan West (1991), "Corporate Advertising in America: A Review of Published Studies on Use, sMeasurement, and Effectiveness," Journal of Advertising, 20 (3), 35-56. 123. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper and Row, New York.
141
124. Sethi, S. Prakash (1978). Advocacy Advertising:-The American Experience, California Management Review, Fall, Pg 55 125. Sethi, R., Smith, D.C. and Park, C.W. (2001). Cross-Functional Product Development Teams, Creativity, and the Innovativeness of New Consumer Products, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 73-85. 126. Sethi, R. (2000). New Product Quality and Product Development Teams, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 64, pp. 114. 127. Shephered, C. and Pervaiz, K. Ahmed (2000). NPD frameworks: a holistic Examination, European Journal of Innovation Management, Bradford, Vol. 3, Iss. 3; pg 160 128. Siew Kim Jean Lee, Kelvin Yu, (2004), "Corporate culture and organizational performance", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp.340 359. 129. Slattery, D. J. and J. G. Nellis (2005). Product development in UK retail banking developing a market-oriented approach in a rapidly changing regulatory environment." International Journal of Bank Marketing, 23(1): 90-106. 130. Stephenson, Carol (2011), The true meaning of innovation, Ivey Business Journal., Vol. 75 No, 2, pp12-12 131. Stebbings, H. and Braganza, A. (2009), Exploring continuous organizational transformation: morphing through network interdependence, Journal of Change Management. Vol. 9 No. 1, pp.27-48. 132. Tenkasi, R. V., and Boland, R. J. (1993). Locating Meaning Making in Organizational Learning: The Narrative Basis of Cognition. In R. W. Woodman and W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development (Vol. 7). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press 133. Tdtling, Franz and Lehner, Patrick and Kaufmann, Alexander (2008) Do different types ofinnovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? SRE - Discussion Papers, Institut fr Regional- und Umweltwirtschaft, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business,Vienna. 134. Thomas, R., Sargent, L.D. and Hardy. C. (2010), Managing organizational change: Negotiating meaning and power-resistance relations, Organization Science, Vol. 22 No.1, pp.22-41. 135. Trygg, L. (1993). Concurrent Engineering Practices in Selected Swedish Companies: A Movement or an Activity of the Few, Journal of Product Innovation Management, No. 10, pp. 403-15. 136. Twiss, B. C. (1993). Managing Technological Innovation, Pitman Publishing, London 137. Van de Ven, A.M. (1986). Central Problems in the Management of Innovation, Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 590-607. 138. Van der Valk, T., Meeus, M., Moors, E., Faber, J., Hu, H. (2004), Partnering among biotechnology companies: the role of inducements and opportunities in explaining partnering behaviour, Conference paper, DRUID Summer conference 139. van Rekom, J., van Riel, C.B.M. and Wierenga, B. (1991), Corporate identity. Van vaag concept naar hard feitenmateriaal, Working Paper, Corporate Communication Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam. 140. van Riel, C.B.M. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and management, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos. 5 and 6 pp.340-355. 141. Vollmann, T.E. (1996), The transformation imperative: achieving market dominance through radical change, Harvard Business Press, Boston. 142. Wells, W., Burnett, J. and Moriarty, (1995). Advertising: Principles and Practice, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
142
Olutayo Otubanjo
143. Wilkinson, A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1996), Corporate and generic identities: lessons from the Co-operative Bank, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp.22-35. 144. Wilson, Keeley; Doz, Yves L. (2011), Agile innovation: a footprint balancing distance and immersion, California Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 2, p.p6-26. 145. Wischnevsky, J.D. and Damanpour, F. (2006), Organizational transformation and performance: An examination of three perspectives, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp.104-128. 146. Yonggui Wang and Hing-Po Lo and Yongheng Yang (2004). An Integrated Framework for Service Quality, Customer Value, Satisfaction: Evidence from Chinas Telecommunication Industry, Information Systems Frontiers Vol. 6, Iss 4, Pp 325340. 147. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R. and Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and Organizations, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. 148. Zemke, R. (1990). Storytelling: back to basics, Training Magazine, Vol. 27 No. 3. 149. Zhang, Q. and Doll, W. (2001). The Fuzzy Front End and Success of New Product Development: A Causal Model, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol.4 No. 2, pp. 95-112. 150. Zietsma, C. and Lawrence, T.B. (2010), Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp.189-221. 151. Zirger, B.J. (1997). The Influence of Development Experience and Product Innovativeness on Product Outcome, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-97.
BIODATA
Olutayo Otubanjo is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at Lagos Business School. He is a Visiting Research Fellow at Warwick Business School, University of Warwick (UK) and was at a point a Visiting Scholar at Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, USA. He holds a PhD in Marketing with emphasis on industry construction of the meaning of corporate identity. Otubanjo attended University of Hull (UK) and was at Brunel University, London where he taught marketing modules at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. He is published in Academy of Marketing Science Review; Tourist Studies; Management Decisions; The Marketing Review; Journal of Product & Brand Management; Corporate Reputation Review; Corporate Communications: An International Journal etc. He has contributed to edited books on corporate reputation and corporate branding. His research interests sits at the interface between social constructionism, historical institutionalism, discourse analysis, on the one hand, and the elements of corporate marketing including corporate branding, corporate identity, corporate reputation, corporate image, corporate communications, on the other. He was at a time Director for Brand Strategy, CentrespreadFCB, Nigerias third largest advertising agency.

Four Cardinal Manifestations of Corporate Identity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Four Cardinal Manifestations of Corporate Identity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Business Management & Research (IJBMR) ISSN 2249-6920 Vol.

2 Issue 4 Dec 2012 113-142 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,