Lamprini P. Piha & George J. Avlonitis 2018

Journal of Marketing Management
ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20
Internal brand orientation: conceptualisation,

scale development and validation
Lamprini P. Piha & George J. Avlonitis
To cite this article: Lamprini P. Piha & George J. Avlonitis (2018) Internal brand orientation:
conceptualisation, scale development and validation, Journal of Marketing Management, 34:3-4,
370-394, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2018.1445658
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1445658
Published online: 07 Mar 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 805
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT, 2018
VOL. 34, NOS. 3–4, 370–394
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1445658
Internal brand orientation: conceptualisation, scale

development and validation
Lamprini P. Piha and George J. Avlonitis
Department of Marketing and Communication, Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Internal branding is increasingly acknowledged as a potential route to Received 17 March 2017
acquiring sustainable competitive advantage. However, to date no Accepted 21 February 2018
systematic attempt has been made to operationalise from an organi- KEYWORDS
sational perspective all imperatives for achieving brand internalisation. Brands; internal branding;
To address this omission, we introduce internal brand orientation as a coordination; scale
new construct that provides a measurable and more succinct picture development; empirical
of internal branding. Following the literature in measurement theory, study; orientation
we report a series of complementary studies and develop a scale
which comprises two dimensions: top management brand commit-
ment and shared brand values. The new scale demonstrates strong
psychometric evidence of reliability and validity, facilitating future
research in the area. Findings can be used as a guidance by business
executives in their effort to turn employees into brand ambassadors
and motivate everyone in the organisation towards brand supportive
behaviours.
Introduction
Internal branding literature has been attracting substantial attention during the last two
decades. One of the reasons for the momentum in the field is that business practitioners
are increasingly recognising that the success of brands depends critically on staff reinforcing
the desired values through appropriate behaviour (e.g. Merrilees & Frazer, 2013; Piehler, King,
Burmann, & Xiong, 2016). A growing number of companies are now viewing the role of
branding inside the firm to be as important as the one outside and undertake branding
initiatives targeted at their employees (e.g. Liu, Ko, & Chapleo, 2017). They understand that
merely communicating some aspects of the brand to employees is not enough since internal
customers need to be educated about the brand, committed to what it stands for and able to
see its values reflected through the company culture (Ind, 2001). When company members
care about and believe in the brand, they are motivated to work harder, their loyalty to the
company increases and customers are much more likely to experience a consistent delivery of
the brand promise (e.g. Löhndorf & Diamantopoulos, 2014; Mitchell, 2002).
While the extant research on internal branding has provided several definitions of the
concept, there is certain agreement that it pertains to an organisational commitment towards
facilitating the internalisation of brand values by employees and partners (Morhart, Herzog, &
CONTACT Lamprini P. Piha lamprinipiha@aueb.gr Department of Marketing and Communication, Athens

University of Economics and Business, 47A Evelpidon & 33 Lefkados Str., Athens 11362, Greece
© 2018 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 371
Tomczak, 2009), so that the brand promise is delivered with consistency to customers (Vallaster
& De Chernatony, 2005). However, the area of internal branding remains fragmented, as
multiple views can be found regarding its constituents (Saleem
& Iglesias, 2016). For example, some researchers conceptualise internal branding as entailing
primarily brand-focused human resource (HR) activities, including recruitment and training
based on the brand values, as well as recognition of exemplar brand supportive behaviour (e.g.
Chang, Chiang, & Han, 2012; De Chernatony & Cottam, 2009). Others maintain that internal
branding is utterly attached to the role of top managers who must legitimise and reinforce the
importance of brand delivery through their own behaviour (e.g. De Chernatony, 1999; Dunn &
Davis, 2003; Tosti & Stotz, 2001). Finally, some researchers assert that a basic component of
internal branding refers to internal communication of the brand’s mission, vision, goals and
values, given that messages conveyed to the employees and partners of an organisation are
just as important as those sent to customers (e.g. Burmann, Zeplin, & Riley, 2009; Mahnert
& Torres, 2007; Punjaisri, Evanschitzky, & Wilson, 2009).
This confusing picture of what constitutes an internal branding approach renders as
imperative the sound conceptualisation of internal branding from a company’s perspec-
tive, as well as its rigorous operationalisation. However, to date no systematic attempt has
been made towards this end and the relevant literature misses a reliable and valid scale
reflecting the activities necessary for achieving brand internalisation. As a consequence,
the advancement of research in this field is severely hindered.
To address this literature gap, we introduce in this study a new construct, namely Internal
Brand Orientation (IBO)1 that synthesises from a company’s perspective the internal organisa-
tional imperatives for turning employees into brand champions. To accomplish our goal, we
followed the scale development methodology (Churchill, 1979; Netemeyer, Bearden,
& Sharma, 2003) and conducted multiple complementary studies for the refinement and
testing of the new scale. After developing a sound conceptualisation and providing a defini-
tion of the new construct, we demonstrate psychometric evidence of the reliability and validity
of the new scale. In doing so, we contribute to the internal branding literature by offering a
measurable and more succinct picture of an IBO that can significantly facilitate future research
in this area. On the other hand, business executives are offered a guidance in their effort to turn
employees into brand ambassadors and safeguard the proper delivery of the brand promise to
customers from the inside-out.
The article is structured as follows: first, the theoretical section delineates the basic
dimensions of IBO that were emanated from a thorough literature review and were used
as a starting point for the scale development process. The research methodology section,
next, describes in detail the four studies conducted for the rigorous operationalisation of the
IBO scale, along with the respective results. Finally, the concluding part of the article
discusses in depth the academic and practical implications of the study, as well as its
limitations, and provides interesting directions for future research in the field.
Theoretical background
Internal perspective of brand management
From an external perspective, branding constitutes the platform for planning, designing
and delivering superior value to customers through brands, which in turn make a certain
372 L. P. PIHA AND G. J. AVLONITIS
promise about delivering a fulfilling experience and a level of performance (Kotler,

2005). It implies the definition of an organisation and its products and services, in
relation to competitors, designed to create differentiation (Keller, 2013). This external
perspective of brand management has long been empirically linked to increased levels
of company performance, given that well-designed and executed branding strategies
targeted to external stakeholders offer the desired brand image and eventually the
much desired brand equity (e.g. Baumgarth, 2010; De Chernatony, McDonald, & Wallace,
2011; Keller, 1993; Keller & Lehmann, 2006). But the experience promised to customers
through branding is ultimately the responsibility of the company’s employees who
should constantly make sure that the company’s products and services deliver what is
promised. In other words, the success of brands depends largely on staff reinforcing the
desired values through appropriate behaviour (King & Grace, 2012; Vallaster & De
Chernatony, 2005). This is the reason why alignment of employees’ behaviour with
brand values, in other words internal branding, is acknowledged as a potential route
to acquiring sustainable competitive advantage (Burmann et al., 2009).
‘Internal branding’ refers to the activities employed by a company to ensure that
employees understand the brand concept, commit to the brand and align their behaviour
with brand values (e.g. De Chernatony, 1999, 2001; Merrilees & Frazer, 2013; Thomson
& Hecker, 2000; Tosti & Stotz, 2001;). It is considered an effective and necessary tool for
creating and maintaining strong brands (e.g. Burmann et al., 2009) as it is strongly believed
that the behaviour of employees lies at the heart of any brand (Punjaisri & Wilson, 2007).
And this is considered true for the entire body of employees and partners, regardless of
hierarchical or functional role in the company, as everybody plays a crucial part in building
competitive advantage through branding and should, therefore, ‘live’ the brand (Hughes &
Ahearne, 2010; Merrilees & Frazer, 2013). Such an approach is also critical for all types of
companies. Although it is suggested that internal branding is of particular relevance to
services brands, where a key challenge is to overcome the variability at the ‘moment of
truth’ (Berry, 2000; Norman, 2000), it is nowadays considered as a prerequisite for every
company since all types of brands need to be effectively supported from the inside-out (e.g.
Davis & Dunn, 2002; Punjaisri & Wilson, 2007).
Need for a new construct

The majority of the insights on internal branding to date emanate from conceptual research
work on the topic which is mainly based on qualitative means of study such as case studies or
in-depth interviews (e.g. Berry, 2000; Foster, Punjaisri, & Cheng, 2010; King & Grace, 2008;
Punjaisri et al., 2009; Punjaisri, Wilson, & Evanschitzky, 2008; Whisman, 2009). Few research
efforts have appeared trying to operationalise the internal branding concept (e.g. King
& Grace, 2010, 2012; Morhart et al., 2009; Punjaisri et al., 2009; Punjaisri & Wilson, 2007,
2011). Most importantly, all these studies have developed constructs designed for and
measured from the employee side, operationalising the outcome of the company’s internal
branding efforts on employees’ attitudes and behaviours towards the organisation’s brands.
As a result, the relevant literature has not developed yet a construct to conceptualise and
operationalise the internal branding activities that companies should undertake in order to
achieve the requisite brand internalisation by employees. Only one study empirically investi-
gates, among others, the company’s perspective of internal brand management, through the
development of the ‘brand-centred human resource management’ construct (Chang et al.,

2012). However, the construct focuses explicitly on particular HR practices that evoke positive
staff attitudes and behaviours towards the organisation’s brands, leading to a narrow con-
ceptualisation and associate measure of internal branding from the company’s perspective.
This lack of focused research on the subject has rendered difficult further research in the area
since no commonly accepted measurement model exists to facilitate the empirical investiga-
tion of a solid internal branding theory. The IBO scale developed herein is based on a construct
conceptualisation that incorporates all known internal branding insights from an organisa-
tional perspective. Its careful operationalisation hopefully offers to the relevant literature a
clearer view of the constituents of internal branding and a reliable and valid construct to use in
the investigation of future research questions in the field.
IBO dimensions
By carefully examining the relevant literature that either focuses explicitly on internal
branding (e.g. Burmann et al., 2009; Devasagayam, Buff, Aurand, & Judson, 2010; King
& Grace, 2008; Vallaster & De Chernatony, 2006) or implicitly reveals significant insights on
the subject, by delving in the way organisations should work internally to build and
maintain strong brands over time (e.g. Aaker, 1996; Davis & Dunn, 2002; De Chernatony,
1999; Keller, 2013), we have ‘organised’ the relevant fragmented insights into the following
main dimensions of an IBO. These dimensions2 were used as the starting point for the
development of the IBO scale in this study.
Shared brand identity pertains to an organisational commitment towards generating a
common assimilation by all employees and partners of what the brand stands for. A critical
aspect of internal branding refers to the internalisation of brand identity and values by all
employees and partners (Berry & Parasuraman, 1991; Davis & Dunn, 2002; Hughes & Ahearne,
2010). If such an internalisation exists, employees feel proud for the brand (i.e. they deeply
admire the brand and feel honoured for delivering its promise) and willing to show passion for
it in their everyday work (Morhart et al., 2009). For employees to become passionate brand
advocates, the company must ensure that they all understand what the brand is, how it is built
and what it stands for (Bedbury, 2002; Davis, 2005; Urde, 1999). As Buckley and Williams (2005,
p. 320) report, ‘If employees understand and internalise the objectives established for the
brand, they can become an army of brand ambassadors, as opposed to inadvertent brand
saboteurs.’ To act as brand ambassadors, employees need to understand the brand values
and possess the right skills and organisational support (e.g. Ewing & Napoli, 2005).
Furthermore, they need to firmly believe in and internalise those values (e.g. Aaker
& Joachimsthaler, 2000; Vallaster & De Chernatony, 2005). Whatever the type of company,
getting employees to understand the brand identity and promise through adequate com-
munication and support is an essential part of building a brand-driven business that delivers
sustainable, profitable growth (Aaker, 1996; Davis & Dunn, 2002).
Shared brand behaviours refers to the company’s devotion towards facilitating the align-
ment of staff’s behaviour with brand values and positioning, so that the brand promise is
effectively delivered to customers. This alignment can be achieved through particular internal
brand management practices that can shape employees’ brand attitudes and behaviours,
positively affect staff satisfaction and performance in relation to the brand and, ultimately,
influence the way employees deliver the brand to customers (e.g. Baumgarth, 2010; Harris &
Ogbonna, 2006; Ind, 2001; Morhart et al., 2009; Punjaisri et al., 2008; Simoes, Dibb, & Fisk, 2005).
Aligning, for example, human capital strategy and internal communication with brand strategy
is critical for brand success since it ensures everyone in the company understands the brand
and a common vocabulary defines the brand’s characteristics (e.g. De Chernatony, Drury,
& Segal-Horn, 2003; Keller, 2013; Matanda & Ndubisi, 2013; Ostrom, Iacobucci, & Morgan, 2005).
Recruitment, induction, training and motivation based on the brand values are keys for brand
effectiveness (e.g. Berry & Parasuraman, 1991; King & Grace, 2010). As values are hard to
change, staff recruitment based on the level of value congruence is sometimes more valuable
than emphasising merely on technical or operational skills (De Chernatony et al., 2003).
Training and development programmes are essential to enhance employee performance
and bring consistency to the external brand experience (Vallaster & De Chernatony, 2005).
To maintain brand standards, an organisation should also reward employees accordingly
when they present exemplar brand behaviours; i.e. commendable behaviours that support
the brand and successfully deliver the brand promise, constituting positive examples worth
imitating (Hoffman & Mehra, 1999). Aligning such Human Resource Management (HRM)
polices behind the brand and employees being brand exemplars enhance brand success
(e.g. De Chernatony & Cottam, 2009; Gulati, 2007; Punjaisri et al., 2009; Punjaisri & Wilson, 2011).
Literature has even suggested the building of brand communities within organisations for
enhancing brand excellence (Devasagayam et al., 2010) or the use of ‘brand mantras’, in an
effort to signalise the importance of explaining and communicating the brand positioning
internally (Keller, 1999).
Top management brand commitment reflects top executives’ commitment and support
towards the company’s brands. The branding literature considers top managers’ role as
crucial in the context of an internal branding strategy since leaders should work across the
organisation to safeguard internal brand management efforts (e.g. Matanda & Ndubisi,
2013; Punjaisri, Evanschitzky, & Rudd, 2013), ensure that all relevant practices are in place,
and generate commitment, enthusiasm and consistent staff behaviour in delivering the
brand values to customers (e.g. Aaker, 1996; De Chernatony, 1999; De Chernatony & Cottam,
2009; Gromark & Melin, 2011). Senior management must be the first to deliver the brand’s
promise in an honest way, in other words, legitimise and reinforce the importance of brand
delivery through its own behaviour (Tosti & Stotz, 2001). It is not accidental that the concept
of internal branding extends to the leadership qualities of management required to build a
strong brand (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2007). More precisely, leaders must be able to thoroughly
understand, support and actively demonstrate commitment to the internal branding pro-
cess (Ulrich & Smallwood, 2007; Vallaster & De Chernatony, 2005). As Davis (2005, p.231)
states, ‘Top executives ultimately set the tone, enforce the development of a true brand-
based culture, and determine whether the necessary resources to accomplish this goal are
registered as investments or expenses.’
Research methodology
Based on the literature reviewed above, this section describes the development process of a
reliable and valid IBO scale. Respecting the scale development methodology (Churchill,
1979; Netemeyer et al., 2003) and relying on data from four complementary studies, we
describe the sound conceptualisation of the new construct, along with its careful operatio-
nalisation. Table 1 outlines the process, which includes a qualitative study; item generation
Table 1. Scale development process.

Stages of scale development process Details
Step 1: Construct definition and content ● 17 interviews
domain ● Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts to clarify the construct
and its dimensions
● This process further clarifies the construct’s dimensionality accord-
ing to the literature review and provides novel insights about the
organisational prerequisites needed for a successful internal brand
orientation strategy.
● Definitions of construct and its dimensions
Step 2: Item generation and expert review ● Generation of 44 items based on the two dimensions
● 31 items are retained after initial screening, content and face
validity check
● 10 expert marketing practitioners and 5 expert marketing faculty
members judge items in terms of representativeness and clarity
● 20 items are retained and 1 item is added following the experts’
suggestions
● 5 marketing doctoral researchers judge items for dimensionality
● 21 items are retained for the next step
Step 3: Scale purification ● Survey to 134 manager-level executives
● Initial reliability assessment ● 14 items meet the psychometric criteria and are retained for the
● Factor loadings next and final step
● Dimensionality
● Item reduction
Step 4: Finalisation of the scale ● Survey to 242 firms
● Reliability assessment and ● All 14 items meet the psychometric criteria and are retained for the
dimensionality validity tests
● Confirmatory factor analysis ● Validation of the scale
● Convergent validity ● Establishment of nomological validity
● Discriminant validity
● Nomological validity
and expert review; a quantitative study for the purification of the scale; and a quantitative
study for the finalisation of the scale.
Step 1: construct definition and content domain

The rigorous development of a reliable and valid scale of IBO presupposes a clear definition
of the new term (Churchill, 1979). For this purpose, in order to enhance the accuracy and
comprehensiveness of the construct’s domain, we supplemented our view of its dimension-
ality derived from literature by expert opinion (Netemeyer et al., 2003). We conducted a
qualitative study consisting of carefully planned in-depth interviews with experts and
individuals from relevant populations in multinational companies (mainly chief marketing
officers and brand managers). Interviews continued until IBO themes became saturated,
which in this case occurred at the 17th interview (Lee, Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999). The
majority of the sample was male, 40 years of age and older, and held at least one
postgraduate degree. Given the scope of investigation, all marketing executives participat-
ing in the study had several years of branding experience (M = 10.2 years) working on the
strategy and marketing planning of strong brands. Since the purpose of the study was
theory construction (i.e. elicitation of constructs and facets), it was important to tap a wide
range of experiences and perspectives in the course of the data collection. Therefore,
attention was paid in order to ensure that the sample included key informants in consumer,
industrial and service industries. However, most of the participants were members of fast-
moving consumer goods (FMCG) companies, where (a) long-lasting experience on branding
exists and (b) traditional brand building and brand management activities take place. A
standard format was followed for all interviews (see Appendix), aiming at further clarifying
the essence of IBO and investigating its domain. For this reason, interviewees were asked to
express their opinion on what they believe IBO is and what organisational aspects are
necessary in order to build and manage successful brands from the inside. Each in-depth
interview typically lasted 45–60 min, was audio-taped (apart from four interviews where the
interviewees were opposed to the recording and therefore extensive notes were taken
during the interview) and subsequently transcribed. Each transcript was then subjected to
detailed content analysis (Paisley, 1969), in which common themes were identified
(Kassarjian, 1977). Respondents were asked to freely express their views on IBO and the
way this orientation is manifested in organisations, without prior exposure to the received
view from the literature. Their ‘spontaneous’ insights were then incorporated into the
existing knowledge on IBO in order to further clarify the construct and its domain.
NVivo software was used to systematise, categorise and code the interview data
(Richards, 2002). The initial coding schemes developed a priori, based on the review of
the literature (Miles & Huberman, 1994), were re-examined accordingly during the
analysis of the transcribed interview data (King, 1994; Miller & Crabtree, 1999). This
iterative process resulted in 2 primary codes for all text referring to the general internal
branding dimensions and 10 secondary codes referring to more detailed aspects of the
two major themes, partly consistent with the literature. Table 2 presents the aforemen-
tioned themes, along with some indicative words of respondents for each theme
identified. Inter-rater reliability was established using an independent rater to check
the degree of consensus in the identification of the categories (Campbell, Quincy,
Osserman, & Pedersen, 2013; Goodwin & Goodwin, 1985; Krippendorff, 2004), yielding
a coefficient average of 0.84 which exceeds Miles and Huberman’s (1994) recommended
rate of 0.70.
As shown in Table 2, ‘top management brand commitment’ (TMBC) was confirmed
through the qualitative study as an internal branding dimension. A new perspective was
uncovered, though, regarding the dimensions of ‘shared brand identity’ and ‘shared brand
behaviours’, identified in literature. More specifically, the experts’ views regarding the
activities targeted at the alignment of employees and partners with the brand and what it
stands for can all be grouped under a single dimension representing the firm’s commitment
towards an internal alignment with the brand values. If such an alignment exists, brand
identity is shared among all employees and staff behaviour successfully supports, as a
consequence, the brand promise. Therefore, since the previous two dimensions (‘shared
brand identity’ and ‘shared brand behaviours’) can be argued to cover similar manifestations
of IBO, and given the fact that parsimony is and should be a continuous concern when
developing constructs (Epstein, 1984), those two dimensions were merged into one. The
new dimension was named after ‘shared brand values’ (SBV).
The 17 in-depth interviews provided a significantly clearer idea of the construct’s
domain and enabled us to offer a precise definition. Synthesising the received view from
the literature and the results of our in-depth interviews, we propose the following
definition for the new construct:
Table 2. Analysing interview data.

Frequency and percentage frequency
distributions of interview data in
analytical categories
Theme Indicative words of interviewees f %ª I.R.ᵇ
Top management brand commitment
Brand values’ infusion ‘It is important that top management shares 5 16 0.80
the vision and philosophy behind the
company’s brands with all employees and
partners.’
‘Our senior managers continuously work
throughout the organisation in order to
create an emotional connection to the
brand and stimulate company–wide brand
devotion, enthusiasm and loyalty.’
‘Top management must continuously work
for making employees and partners
understand the brand.’
Faith in the power of ‘No brand building effort can be successful 11 36 0.73
branding without the faith of the top management in
the importance of strong brands, and
without the trust and support towards the
marketing department of the firm, whose
role should be considered critical.’
‘Senior managers must believe in the power
of strong brands and their positive impact
for the firm.’
‘Top management should have a clear
vision for the firm and its brands, but
should also possess the requisite
knowledge regarding successful brand
building.’
Active involvement and ‘Every strategic decision regarding our brands 15 48 0.87
support is discussed with and should be approved
by our top management, so that the brand
identity and image is safeguarded.’
‘I was impressed once, when our CEO
coined himself in a discussion the slogan of
our flagship chocolate brand, in an effort to
best reflect the brand’s core values.’‘Brands
cannot be internalised by employees
without inspired leadership and strong
commitment to the brands’ vision.’
‘Company executives in our organisation
are committed to our brands from an early
stage.’
‘Brands cannot be internalised by
employees without inspired leadership and
strong commitment to the brands’ vision.’
‘Company executives in our organisation
are committed to our brands from an early
stage.’
Theme total 31 100
Shared brand values
Clarity ‘Once a year, an internal research takes place, 6 10 1.00
in order to assess whether our brands’
values are absolutely clear to all our
employees. And by all, I mean ALL.’
‘If our brands’ values are not clear to our
employees, we cannot expect our
customers to have a clear view of what our
brand stands for.’
(Continued )
Table 2. (Continued).
Understanding ‘All employees should understand our brands 11 19 0.91
and what they stand for, be committed to
our brands and able to successfully
communicate their values to customers.’
‘Our employees are ultimately responsible
for delivering what our brand promises. So,
they need a common understanding of the
brand’s values, in order to be able to
support the brand accordingly through
their everyday behavior.’
Internalisation ‘Let’s imagine an army where every soldier 10 17 0.80
has his own idea of how and where to
fight. This army, in a case of war, will
probably fail since there will be no
discipline, no clear direction and no
concrete strategy. Embodying common
brand values to all employees and partners
provides direction and consistency in the
delivery of the brand promise.’
‘Companies are managed by people and
people have personalities that are reflected
on their ideas. When someone has faith in
an idea, he/she defends and promotes it.
Hence, when people have identified with
the brand personality, values and ideas,
they are committed to achieving the goals
set for the brand.’
Recruitment ‘Through our recruitment process, we try to 4 7 1.00
make sure that entry employees can
identify with our brand values or that, at
least, have the necessary background to be
able to adopt the company’s brand
orientation through adequate training.’
‘Entry employees must believe in the role of
marketing and the power of developing
and maintaining strong brands.’
Training ‘Our internal communication structures make 7 12 0.71
sure that issues regarding our brands are
constantly spread throughout the
organisation.’
‘All employees, from their first moment in
the company, must be trained on the
company’s culture and philosophy, but also
on the values and identity of the brand
they will be responsible for.’
Rewarding ‘All staff, regardless of their level, should be 7 12 0.86
evaluated based on the support they
provide to our brands. Motivation and
reward systems have to ensure the long
term support of the brands from the inside
out.’
Alignment ‘It is critical that every single employee and 13 22 0.85
partner knows exactly how his role affects
our brand.’
‘Our brand stands for superior customer
service. You can, therefore, understand that
the role of our employees and partners in
delivering this promise is not only
important, but decisive for our brand’s
future.’
Theme total 58 100
ªPercentages have been rounded.
ᵇInter-rater reliability.
Internal Brand Orientation refers to the extent to which a company is committed to

generating the desired brand internalisation across the organisation and motivating
towards the alignment of staff behaviour with brand values.
By ‘brand internalisation’ we refer to employee identification with the brand, high-

lighting a deep understanding and commitment to the brand values (Balmer, 2008),
whereas ‘alignment of staff behaviour with brand values’ pertains to employee brand
consistent attitudes and behaviours to achieve compliance with the brand promise
(Tarnovskaya & De Chernatony, 2011).
Its domain is reflected in the following organisational aspects:
(a) TMBC, pertaining to a clear and consistent commitment of the top management to
the organisation’s brands, by supporting the infusion of the brands’ values across the
organisation and encouraging brand supporting behaviours.
(b) SBV, referring to the company’s dedication to generating a common assimilation
of the brand values by all internal stakeholders, so that the proper delivery of the
brands’ promise to customers is guaranteed.
Given that the two dimensions are different manifestations of the same construct
(Riefler, Diamantopoulos, & Siguaw, 2012; Wong, Law, & Huang, 2008), and given that
‘eliminating any of them would restrict the conceptual domain of the construct’
(MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2011, p. 301), we model IBO as a (reflective)
second-order factor with two (reflective) first-order dimensions.
Step 2: item generation and expert review

After accurately defining IBO and delineating its domain, the development of scale items
that can measure the strength with which each dimension exists in an organisation was
in order (Netemeyer et al., 2003). To accomplish this end, we generated a pool of items
with desirable psychometric properties in order to tap the domain of the construct (e.g.
Churchill, 1979; De Vellis, 1991). In particular, by conducting extensive literature search
and reading carefully all views expressed in the interviews, we generated a total of 44
items (TMBC: 15, SBV: 29). This stage involved the consideration of several issues
including wording clarity, redundancy and response formats (De Vellis, 1991).
After our initial screening, as well as content and face validity check, we retained 31
applicable items. Next, we asked 15 judges (10 expert marketing practitioners and 5 expert
marketing faculty members) to evaluate those items in a 5-point evaluation scale in terms of
representativeness and clarity, and raise any concerns as they completed the scale. Twenty
items were retained, whose average score on both criteria was satisfactory (mean score ≥ 4)
(e.g. Bearden, Hardesty, & Rose, 2001; Haynes, Richard, & Kubany, 1995). Some of the
remaining items were adequately refined and one new item was added, following the
experts’ suggestions (total 21 items: 8 items for TMBC and 13 items for SBV). Finally, in order
to further assess the content validity of the scale, we asked a panel of five members to assign
each item to one of the two dimensions, based on the relevance of the item with the
theoretical domain of the respective dimension (Haynes et al., 1995; Netemeyer et al., 2003).
Each member of this panel holds a doctorate degree and actively conducts research in the
area of marketing or branding. Independent of other panellists, each member was first
provided with the definition of IBO and its two dimensions, and then asked to assign each
item to one of the dimensions. An inter-judge reliability analysis using the kappa statistic
was performed to determine consistency among panellists (Landis & Koch, 1977). The
average inter-judge reliability for the five panellists was found to be kappa = 0.81
(p < 0.001), which indicates almost perfect agreement (Davies & Fleiss, 1982; Landis
& Koch, 1977).
Step 3: scale purification and dimensionality

As some psychometricians advocate (e.g. Clark & Watson, 1995), once an item pool is
thoroughly judged, modified and/or trimmed by expert and population judges, pilot
testing the items on a larger sample (n = 100–200) is in order. Although convenience
samples may suffice for pilot testing, it is preferable to use a sample from a relevant
population of interest (Netemeyer et al., 2003). We, therefore, decided to use 134
managers attending part-time postgraduate executive programmes at a local university
as respondents in this stage. After explaining the concept of IBO, participants were
asked to evaluate in a 7-point Likert scale the extent to which the 21 items, which were
put in random order, described behaviours in their company. Regardless of job position,
these managers have had several years of working experience and were in some way
aware of the internal branding policy of their firm.
Given that the main goals at this stage are (a) to reduce the number of items so that
the remaining ones maximise the explained variance in the scale and its reliability and
(b) to test the theoretical a priori factor structure of the construct, we conducted
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (e.g. Bearden et al., 2001).
In order to assess dimensionality, the Keiser–Guttman criterion was used, which implies
that factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 should be considered meaningful (e.g. Floyd
& Widaman, 1995; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998; Sharma, 1996). Specific criteria
were also used for retaining items with desired psychometric properties, such as avoidance
of cross loadings, factor loadings ranging between 0.40 and 0.90, corrected item-to-total
correlations of 0.50 and above, and average inter-item correlation greater than 0.30 (e.g.
Clark & Watson, 1995; Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998; Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman,
1991). Based on the above, EFA led to the deletion of seven items.
The final set or items retained for each IBO dimension, along with the respective psycho-
metric properties that confirm the suitability of the specific items, are presented in Table 3.
The EFA eventually revealed, consistent to theory, a clear two-factor structure with
eigenvalues greater than 1, explaining 68.87% of the variance. All items loaded predomi-
nantly on a single factor and satisfied all other necessary psychometric criteria, suggesting
that no further trimming was needed. Internal reliability of the two IBO dimensions was also
assessed by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha and the composite reliability (CR). Alpha
values were very satisfactory (TMBC = 0.91, SBV = 0.93), as each exceeded the accepted
reliability threshold of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978) and even 0.80 required for a new scale (Clark &
Watson, 1995). The same was the case for CR values (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). Based on corrected
item-to-total and inter-item correlations, all individual items retained within each dimension
indicated satisfactory levels of internal consistency.
Table 3. Exploratory factor and reliability analysis results.

Factor loadings
SBV TMBC Mean SD
(range:
Items Internal brand orientation 1–7)
Shared brand values (SBV)
1 Our company constantly safeguards that employees’ behaviours are 0.83 4.14 1.44
aligned with our brands’ values
2 All employees are communicated their role as advocates of our 0.80 4.39 1.42
brands
3 Everyone in our company has clearly communicated responsibilities 0.78 4.40 1.50
regarding our brands
4 Our brands’ values define in large our staff recruitment selection 0.77 4.04 1.55
criteria
5 Our company monitors whether all employees are proud of our 0.76 4.96 1.40
brands
6 All employees are well informed that their future in the company is 0.72 4.51 1.52
utterly attached with that of our brands
7 Our brands’ values are absolutely clear to all employees and partners 0.71 4.72 1.32
of our company
8 Exemplar brand behaviour is acknowledged and rewarded (e.g. salary 0.71 4.21 1.55
increase, promotion)
9 Entry employees are provided with the necessary information (e.g. 0.64 4.60 1.81
through manuals, videos) that clearly describes our brands’ values
Top management brand commitment (TMBC)
10 Top management seems particularly interested in issues that relate 0.84 5.47 1.20
with the building and maintenance of our brands
11 Our senior managers are the firsts to deliver the brands’ promise in 0.81 5.61 1.12
an honest way
12 Our top management is actively involved in the brand building 0.80 5.62 1.05
efforts
13 Top management considers issues regarding our brands as being of 0.80 5.52 1.16
high priority
14 Our senior managers work across the organisation to ensure 0.72 5.27 1.33
enthusiasm in delivering the brands’ values
Factors Number of items Corrected item – Average inter- Cronbach’s CR
total correlations item alpha
correlation
SBV 9 0.67–0.85 0.61 0.93 0.92
TMBC 5 0.66–0.84 0.67 0.91 0.90
Bold values indicate the factor on which each item predominantly loads.
Step 4: finalisation of the scale

After a scale is adequately purified through measurement item judging and pilot testing,
finalising the scale and further establishing its psychometric properties comes next
(Netemeyer et al., 2003). In order to finalise the IBO scale and confirm its dimensionality,
reliability and validity, we conducted another quantitative study. We formed a formal
questionnaire, which included the IBO scale developed, as well as three additional
constructs for discriminant and nomological validity testing purposes. In particular,
apart from the IBO scale, the questionnaire comprised the five-item inter-functional
coordination (INTCOO) scale (Narver & Slater, 1990), the seven-item interdepartmental
conflict (INTCONF) scale (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993) and five items measuring brand
performance (BP) (Wong & Merrilees, 2007).
The population of the study included large firms operating in Greece with a struc-
tured marketing department, so that the existence of an organised branding strategy is
guaranteed and certain branding skills are present. It is generally suggested that the firm
size (in terms of turnover and number of employees) affects the existence of an
autonomous marketing department (e.g. Ashill, Davies, & Thompson, 2003). Large con-
sumer, industrial and service firms were included in the research population in order to
tap a wide range of perspectives and increase the ability to generalise the results (Kohli
& Jaworski, 1990). As a sampling frame, we derived a list of 1431 firms from the database
of the Gallup’s subsidiary in the selected country, which satisfied our criteria. From these
companies, a stratified sample of 500 firms was selected. Adopting the key informant
methodology (Bagozzi, Yi, & Phillips, 1991; Kinnear & Taylor, 1996) and taking into
account the research topic, marketing and brand managers were selected as key
informants in this study as they should be knowledgeable about the particular organisa-
tional and internal branding issues related to the study. We then used a web-based
survey procedure for data collection (Dillman, 2007), through which questionnaires were
distributed via email to marketing or brand managers of the selected firms. Following
Dillman’s advices (2007), we used a multiple contact strategy for facilitating the data
collection process. Regular mails (personalised formal letters) and telephone contacts
were combined with personalised emails and electronic fulfilment of the research
instrument in order to achieve the highest possible response rate. From the 500 ques-
tionnaires sent, and with the aid of 2 follow-up efforts, 242 usable questionnaires were
returned (48.4% response rate). Details of the data collection process and response rate
are provided in Table 4, whereas Table 5 presents the sample profile.
Following Gerbing and Anderson’s (1988) recommendations, we used confirmatory
factor analysis to further evaluate the resultant scale. The overall fit of the measure-
ment model was good: χ2 = 189.36, p < 0.001, df = 76, Comparative Fit Index
(CFI) = 0.959, Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.951, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) = 0.907
and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.069. The ratio between
the χ2 statistic and the number of degrees of freedom was 2.49, indicating an
adequate fit. The psychometric properties of the IBO scale based on the CFA results
are shown in Table 6.
Based on the model fit statistics, no respecification of the IBO measurement model
was needed. The hypothesised factor structure of the construct is supported. The
loadings of items on each factor are all positive, high in magnitude and statistically
significant. These findings indicate that the measurement model has convergent validity
(Anderson, 1987; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). The paths from the second-order factor to
the first-order dimensions were also positive and significant.
Table 4. Data collection process and response rate.

Total number of managers contacted 500
Number of managers who declined to participate 76
Number of managers who did not participate eventually despite their initial 159
agreement and follow-up efforts
Completed questionnaires returned without any reminder 133
Completed questionnaires returned after one follow-up effort 95
Completed questionnaires returned after two follow-up efforts 37
Total completed questionnaires returned 265
Number of questionnaires excluded 23
Total number of usable questionnaires 242
Response rate 48.4%
Table 5. Sample profile.

Frequency Valid percentage
Sales volume (in millions €)
10–30 56 23.14
31–50 37 15.28
51–100 44 18.18
101–300 60 24.80
More than 300 45 18.60
Total 242 100
Number of employees
50–99 51 21.07
100–199 52 21.49
200–399 61 25.21
More than 400 78 32.23
Total 242 100
Market
B2C 194 80.17
B2B 28 11.57
Both 20 8.26
Total 242 100
Sector
Food and drink 91 37.60
Personal care and home care 35 14.46
Durables 33 13.64
Telecommunications 17 7.02
Apparel 14 5.79
Manufacturing – energy 13 5.37
Informatics 11 4.55
Commerce 10 4.13
Automobile 7 2.89
Tourism 5 2.07
Other services 6 2.48
Total 242 100
Products 193 79.75
Services 49 20.25
Total 242 100
FMCG 126 52.07
Non-FMCG 116 47.93
Total 242 100
Age (in years)
5–10 15 6.20
11–20 39 16.12
21–40 65 26.85
More than 40 123 50.83
Total 242 100
As far as internal consistency and reliability of the model is concerned, both average
variance extracted (AVE) and Cronbach’s alpha values for all factors exceed the thresh-
olds of 0.5 (Hair et al., 1998) and 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978), respectively. CR values are also
very satisfactory (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).
Based on Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) suggestion, we found that the AVE for each IBO
factor is higher than the squared correlation between that factor and any other construct
measured in the study, indicating that discriminant validity is not a problem (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). The results of the tests for discriminant validity appear in Table 7.
Nomological validity is based on evidence that a measure of a construct exhibits relation-
ships with measures of other constructs in accordance with relevant theory (Cronbach &
Meehl, 1955; Iacobucci, Ostrom, & Grayson, 1995). In assessing the nomological validity of the
new scale, we tested IBO in relation to INTCOO, INTCONF and BP. INTCOO and INTCONF were
384
Table 6. Psychometric properties of the IBO scale based on CFA results.

First-order dimension γ Item λ t-Value Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE
Top management brand commitment 0.86 Our top management is actively involved in the brand building efforts 0.80 12.14 0.93 0.93 0.73
Our senior managers work across the organisation to ensure enthusiasm in 0.86 15.41
delivering the brands’ values
Top management seems particularly interested in issues that relate with the 0.88 16.07
building and maintenance of our brands
L. P. PIHA AND G. J. AVLONITIS
Our senior managers are the firsts to deliver the brand’s promise in an honest way 0.84 15.03
Top management considers issues regarding our brands as being of high priority 0.90 16.69
Shared brand values 0.90 Our brands’ values are absolutely clear to all employees and partners of our 0.76 12.46 0.94 0.93 0.63
company
Our brands’ values define in large our staff recruitment selection criteria 0.72 11.63
Our company monitors whether all employees are proud of our brands 0.76 12.44
Entry employees are provided with the necessary information (e.g. through manuals, 0.70 11.34
videos) that clearly describes our brands’ values
Exemplar brand behaviour is acknowledged and rewarded (e.g. salary increase, 0.76 12.24
promotion)
Our company constantly safeguards that employees’ behaviours are aligned with 0.86 14.34
our brands’ values
All employees are communicated their role as advocates of our brands 0.90 15.34
Everyone in our company has clearly communicated responsibilities regarding our 0.85 14.05
brands
All employees are well informed that their future in the company is utterly attached 0.79 12.92
with that of our brands
γ: standardised second-order loading; λ: standardised first-order loading; AVE: average variance extracted.
Table 7. Discriminant validity test.

Squared
correlations
Construct AVE TMBC SBV
Top management brand commitment (TMBC) 0.73
Shared brand values (SBV) 0.63 0.61
Inter-functional coordination (COOR) 0.76 0.49 0.55
Interdepartmental conflict (CONF) 0.62 0.30 0.25
Brand performance (BP) 0.66 0.21 0.24
Correlation coefficients were estimated with CFA analysis in Amos 22, which included all first-order constructs
measured in the final study. Bold values indicate the AVE values of TMBC and SBV which represent the two
dimensions of our focal construct of interest (i.e. IBO).
chosen because theory suggests that successful internal branding goes hand in hand with a
harmonised and well-coordinated cooperation between all organisational departments
(Gulati, 2007; Huang & Tsai, 2013; Vallaster & De Chernatony, 2005). Building and sustaining
powerful brands is not just the responsibility of the marketing department since brands
depend on everyone in the company, from the CEO to anyone who has contact with
customers (De Chernatony et al., 2011). As a consequence, the consistent delivery of the
brand values across all customer contact points is strongly attached with a harmonious
organisational climate between all functions (M’ Zungu, Merrilees, & Miller, 2010). BP was
chosen because literature indicates that when internal branding efforts are implemented
employees and partners are more likely to embody what the brand stands for and adequately
deliver the brand promise to customers (Devasagayam et al., 2010). The passion, commitment
and organisational identification with the brand are thought to be ultimately responsible for
brand success (Vallaster & De Chernatony, 2005; Wentzel, 2009). As such, internal branding is
considered a principal driving force for organisations, given that it provides employees a
serious reason to care about the company and contribute to its success (Berry, 2000; Mitchell,
2002; Punjaisri & Wilson, 2011). For these reasons, the aforementioned three constructs
seemed adequate variables to test the nomological validity of the IBO scale.
To capture INTCOO, we used the five-item scale developed by Narver and Slater
(1990), whereas for the INTCONF we used the seven-item scale developed by Jaworski
and Kohli (1993). BP was measured with five items based on Wong and Merrilees (2007)
referring to brand awareness, brand reputation, brand loyalty, brand perceived quality
and brand trust on the basis of comparison against major competitors.3 All responses
were made on a seven-point Likert scale.
We included all variables in a CFA model in AMOS, where each measurement item was
loaded onto its respective variable and correlated all latent constructs (i.e. IBO, INTCOO,
INTCONF and BP). The model demonstrated good fit: χ2 = 876.68, p < 0.001, df = 426,
CFI = 0.957, TLI = 0.952, GFI = 0.910 and RMSEA = 0.050. Table 8 shows the correlation
coefficients between IBO and the constructs of interest. Consistent with theory, IBO has a
strong positive correlation with INTCOO, a negative association with INTCONF and a positive
relationship with BP. These results support the nomological validity of the IBO scale.
Discussion and concluding remarks

This study sought, first, to introduce a new construct in branding literature that clarifies the
domain of internal branding by synthesising for the first time the internal branding
Table 8. Correlation matrix: nomological validity assessment.

IBO INTCOO INTCONF BRP
Internal brand orientation (IBO) 1
Inter-functional coordination (INTCOO) 0.81 1
Interdepartmental conflict (INTCONF) −0.59 −0.61 1
Brand performance (BP) 0.53 0.41 −0.27 1
All correlation coefficients presented in the table are significant at the p < .001 level.
imperatives for turning employees into brand champions. Second, this study aimed at
developing and validating a measure of this new construct, thus, facilitating future research
in the area.
Results support our assertion that IBO is a second-order construct consisting of two
dimensions, namely TMBC and SBV. Our data indicate that the scale developed success-
fully meets standards for reliability and validity. These results offer a series of useful
theoretical and managerial implications.
Academic implications
Our main academic contribution is to offer a significant advance on the current literature
on internal branding. Overall, our results offer four main theoretical implications.
First, we introduce IBO as a new construct to measure for the first time from an organisa-
tional perspective the degree to which a company is oriented towards achieving high levels of
brand internalisation. We offer a sound definition of the new term and develop a conceptual
model with two dimensions (i.e. TMBC and SBV). Although some of the ideas included in the
conceptual model may be familiar to marketers, the value of the model is in its integration of
these fragmented internal branding aspects under a new construct that is operationalised to
provide a measurable and more succinct picture of an IBO.
Second, we provide new theoretical insight into the constituents of internal branding,
based on empirical evidence on a testable IBO scale that is parsimonious, reliable and valid.
From a methodological perspective, marketing scholars now have at their disposal a robust
theory of IBO, which provides an integrative concept of internal branding from the firms’
perspective. Four studies, including qualitative insights from interviews with managers and
two quantitative studies from a relevant population, confirm the reliability and validity of
the scale and offer confidence for any future scholarly research design.
Third, our results extend earlier studies in internal branding (e.g. Morhart et al., 2009;
Saleem & Iglesias, 2016) by providing an updated and comprehensive investigation into how
IBO is generated. In the broader internal branding literature, most studies are theoretical (e.g.
Berry, 2000), while the few empirical research efforts existing have operationalised the out-
come of the company’s internal branding efforts on employees’ attitudes and behaviours
towards the organisation’s brands (e.g. King & Grace, 2010). Our effort focuses on the
organisational perspective and offers a clear view regarding the constituents of an internal
branding strategy. Our results suggest that an internally brand-oriented organisation is one
which is characterised by a clear and consistent top management commitment to the
organisation’s brands (TMBC) and shared brand values across all internal stakeholders (SBV).
Considering that a contemporary branding strategy should transcend the whole organisation
at all levels (e.g. Hughes & Ahearne, 2010), our findings further corroborate this view by
introducing and testing an all-encompassing concept.
Fourth, nomological validity results corroborate studies emphasising the necessity of

getting the entire organisation to embrace the branding efforts and work collaboratively
towards the fulfilment of branding goals (e.g. Huang & Tsai, 2013; M’ Zungu et al., 2010), by
showing that IBO may well be positively related with inter-functional coordination and
negatively associated with interdepartmental conflict. Furthermore, our findings offer initial
evidence that internal brand orientation is positively correlated with brand performance,
supporting the theoretical assertion that internal branding constitutes an integral part of
brand success (e.g. Punjaisri & Wilson, 2011; Wentzel, 2009). Given that our conceptualisation
and empirical findings are encouraging, we have provided a useful foundation on which
further theoretical and empirical research in the field of internal branding can be built.
Managerial implications
This study also offers useful insights for practising managers. First, our findings suggest
interesting implications regarding the application of IBO in organisations. TMBC seems to
be a significant element of an internal branding strategy as it represents the consistent
engagement of senior executives to the infusion of brand values across the organisation
and the encouragement of brand supportive behaviours. For instance, top management
members should be actively involved in brand building efforts, treat branding issues as
being of high priority and continuously work across the organisation to ensure enthusiasm
in delivering the brand values. Our analyses also show that SBV comprise another distinct
dimension of IBO. In practice, this suggests that companies willing to be internally brand
oriented should generate a common assimilation of brand values by all employees and
partners, so that the proper delivery of the brand promise to customers is guaranteed. This
presupposes several internal branding activities, such as constant communication to all
internal stakeholders of their role and responsibilities regarding company’s brands, acknowl-
edgement and rewarding of exemplar brand behaviours and continuous safeguarding that
employees’ actions are aligned with brand values. Both IBO dimensions emerge from the
qualitative interviews and are later confirmed from the main survey, emphasising their value
as recommendations derived from practice.
Second, based on the above, the new scale could be used as a diagnostic tool by senior
managers in order to assess the degree to which their company is internally brand
oriented, pinpoint areas in which their company scores high, but also aspects where the
company falls short and needs to concentrate its efforts in order to motivate everyone in
the organisation towards brand supportive behaviours. In other words, IBO could serve as
a guidance in the effort to turn employees into brand ‘ambassadors’. Taking into account
that an IBO is difficult to engender, such a strategic orientation could be considered an
additional form of sustainable competitive advantage that is difficult to duplicate or
exceed, providing a superior long-term position over competitors.
Third, our analyses of nomological validity show that a firm with a high inter-functional
coordination and low levels of interdepartmental conflict is in a better position to adopt an
internal brand orientation and achieve brand excellence. Thus, it appears useful for managers
to promote interdepartmental connectedness and reduce conflict through physical proximity
of departments, interdepartmental training programmes, cross-functional activities and align-
ment of departmental performance objectives. Finally, the positive relationship of IBO with
brand performance should alert managers to the fact that internal customers should not be
neglected when dealing with brand strategy issues. As such, firms wishing to win the mind
and heart of customers through their brands need to carefully adopt an IBO and ensure that
brand internalisation is adequately supported across the organisation.
Limitations and future research directions

Our study represents an early attempt to build and test a conceptual framework of IBO.
The present findings are therefore indicative rather than conclusive. As a consequence,
several limitations of this study should be expanded upon in future research efforts.
From a methodological standpoint, the four studies conducted for the development
of a sound IBO scale resulted in strong evidence of the measurement’s applicability.
However, multiple tests and applications are required to more confidently infer the
construct’s validity, and some of these tests may even lead to a refinement of the
construct itself. Testing the scale in different contexts would be also useful for increasing
the generalisability of the construct. Future studies focusing on specific sectors or
industries, on firms of different size (e.g. small and medium-sized enterprises) or on
particular contexts (e.g. services, B2B) would help generalise the scale by drawing
comparative results and better understanding how IBO operates in various settings.
The relationships of IBO with other organisational factors examined in this study offer
evidence of nomological validity but are by no means exhaustive. Further research
should assess IBO along with other important marketing organisational constructs,
such as internal market orientation for example, as both orientations aim at strengthen-
ing the bond between the company and its employees. Furthermore, nomological
validity results could also encourage researchers to further examine the effect of IBO
on performance and provide empirical evidence on its importance for business success.
We followed the key informant approach for data collection in this study. Although
this methodology is considered adequate and appropriate for reliable and valid data
(e.g. Bagozzi et al., 1991; Kinnear & Taylor, 1996), other sources of information could be
also valuable and relevant as informants. In fact, it would be important to contrast a
firm’s degree of IBO as assessed by managers’ responses to questionnaires (as we have
done in this study) with the firm’s level of IBO as perceived by its employees who are the
‘target group’ of all internal brand-oriented initiatives.
In sum, further research work in the above directions should considerably increase
knowledge about IBO and its fundamental tenets. The current study and its novel
research findings open a new root for researchers to undertake pioneering work in
order to further validate and build on the proposed construct, contributing in this way
towards a solid internal branding theory.
Notes
1. The term is coined as an extension of ‘brand orientation’ which appeared in 1994 by Urde, in
order to describe an approach in which all organisational processes revolve around the
development and maintenance of strong brands over time.
2. The name of each dimension is coined in the context of this study in order to effectively
represent what literature is describing.
3. Taking into account that each company may have a different brand portfolio strategy
(Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000), respondents were asked to answer the performance ques-
tions having in mind either the corporate/master brand (in case a ‘branded house’
architecture was followed by their company or a single master brand was used for all
offerings with only descriptive sub-brands), or the average brand performance of the
different brands offered by the company (in case a ‘house of brands’ architecture was
followed, where an independent set of stand-alone brands are used for the different
offerings of the company).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editor-in-chief, the associate editor and the three anonymous
reviewers for their constructive comments and helpful guidance during the review process. The
authors would also like to thank Emmanuella Plakoyiannaki and Karolos-Konstantinos Papadas for
their valuable comments and wish to acknowledge the continuous encouragement provided by
†Paulina Papastathopoulou.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Dr Lamprini P. Piha is a Research and Teaching fellow at the Department of Marketing and
Communication of the Athens University of Economics and Business (AUEB), Greece. She is
also a Teaching Fellow at the Department of Economics of the National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens. She obtained her PhD in Branding from the AUEB and has been
awarded several state and private scholarships for exceptional performance throughout her
studies. Her current research interests revolve around brand building and management,
brand orientation, marketing strategy, services marketing and destination branding.
Additionally, she works as a marketing consultant. She is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at lamprinipiha@aueb.gr.
Dr George J. Avlonitis is an Emeritus Professor at the Department of Marketing and

Communication at the Athens University of Economics and Business (AUEB), Greece. He has served
as president of the European Marketing Academy-EMAC (2008–2010) and chairman of the Global Sales
Science Institute-GSSI (2010–2012). He has presented various works in United States, Canada and
Europe and has published more than 190 articles in international conference proceedings and the
most prestigious international scientific journals of marketing, including Journal of Marketing, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, International Journal of Research in Marketing, etc. He is also on
the editorial board of multiple international journals and has received several times Best Paper Awards.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York: Free Press.
Aaker, D. A., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand leadership. New York: Free Press.
Anderson, J. C. (1987). An approach for confirmatory measurement and structural equation
modeling of organizational properties. Management Science, 33(4), 525–541. doi:10.1287/
mnsc.33.4.525
Ashill, N., Davies, K., & Thompson, I. (2003). Characteristics of marketing organization in the New
Zealand financial services sector. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 21(2), 80–93.
doi:10.1108/02652320310461465
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. doi:10.1007/BF02723327
Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458. doi:10.2307/2393203
Balmer, J. (2008). Identity based view of the corporation. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9/10),
879–906. doi:10.1108/03090560810891055
Baumgarth, C. (2010). ’Living the Brand’: Brand orientation in the business-to-business sector.
European Journal of Marketing, 44(5), 653–671. doi:10.1108/03090561011032315
Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D., & Rose, R. (2001). Consumer self-confidence: Refinements in con-
ceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 121–134. doi:10.1086/
321951
Bedbury, S. (2002). A new brand world: 8 Principles for achieving brand leadership in the 21st century.
UK: Penguin books.
Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Strategy, 28
(1), 128–137. doi:10.1177/0092070300281012
Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1991). Marketing services: Competing through quality. New York: Free
Press.
Buckley, E., & Williams, M. (2005). Internal branding. In A. M. Tybout & T. Calkins (Eds.), Kellogg on
branding (pp. 320–326). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Burmann, C., Zeplin, S., & Riley, N. (2009). Key determinants of internal brand management success:
An exploratory empirical analysis. The Journal of Brand Management, 16(4), 264–284.
doi:10.1057/bm.2008.6
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured
interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological
Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. doi:10.1177/0049124113500475
Chang, A., Chiang, H., & Han, T. (2012). A multilevel investigation of relationships among brand-
centered HRM, brand psychological ownership, brand citizenship behaviors, and customer
satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 46(5), 626–662. doi:10.1108/03090561211212458
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73. doi:10.2307/3150876
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in scale development.
Psychological assessment, 7(3), 309–319. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. C. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302. doi:10.1037/h0040957
Davies, M., & Fleiss, J. L. (1982). Measuring agreement for multinomial data. Biometrics, 38(4), 1047–
1051. doi:10.2307/2529886
Davis, S. (2005). Building a brand driven organization. In A. M. Tybout & T. Calkins (Eds.), Kellogg on
branding (pp. 226–243). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Davis, S., & Dunn, M. (2002). Building the brand-driven business: Operationalize your brand to drive
profitable growth. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons, Jossey-Bass.
De Chernatony, L. (1999). Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand identity
and brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), 157–179. doi:10.1362/
026725799784870432
De Chernatony, L. (2001). From brand vision to brand evaluation – strategically building and
sustaining brands. Oxford: Butterworth – Heinemann.
De Chernatony, L., & Cottam, S. (2009). Interacting contributions of different departments to brand
success. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 297–304. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.12.005
De Chernatony, L., Drury, S., & Segal-Horn, S. (2003). Building a services brand: Stages, people and
orientations. The Service Industries Journal, 23(3), 1–21. doi:10.1080/714005116
De Chernatony, L., McDonald, M., & Wallace, E. (2011). Creating powerful brands (4th ed.). Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
De Vellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Devasagayam, P. R., Buff, C. L., Aurand, T. W., & Judson, K. M. (2010). Building brand community
membership within organizations: A viable internal branding alternative? Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 19(3), 210–217. doi:10.1108/10610421011046184
Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet Surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Dunn, M., & Davis, S. (2003). Building brands from the inside. Marketing Management, 12(3), 32–37.
Retrieved from Business Source Complete, Accession number: 10600467 http://www.ebscohost.
com
Epstein, R. (1984). The principle of parsimony and some applications in psychology. The Journal of
Mind and Behavior, 5(2), 119–130. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43853318
Ewing, M. T., & Napoli, J. (2005). Developing and validating a multidimensional nonprofit brand
orientation scale. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 841–853. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.09.012
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical
assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299. doi:10.1037/1040-
3590.7.3.286
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. doi:10.2307/
3151312
Foster, C., Punjaisri, K., & Cheng, R. (2010). Exploring the relationship between corporate, internal
and employer branding. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 19(6), 401–409. doi:10.1108/
10610421011085712
Gerbing, D. P., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimentionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192.
doi:10.2307/3172650
Goodwin, L. D., & Goodwin, W. L. (1985). Statistical techniques in AERJ articles, 1979–1983: The
preparation of graduate students to read the educational research literature. Educational
Researcher, 14(2), 5–11. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1174902
Gromark, J., & Melin, F. (2011). The underlying dimensions of brand orientation and its impact on
financial performance. Journal of Brand Management, 18(6), 394–410. doi:10.1057/bm.2010.52
Gulati, S. (2007). Silo busting: How to execute on the promise of customer focus. Harvard Business
Review, 85(5), 98–108. Retrieved from Business Source Complete, Accession number: 24635722
http://www.ebscohost.com
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2006). Service sabotage: A study of antecedents and consequences.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 543–558. doi:10.1177/0092070306287324
Haynes, S., Richard, D. C., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A
functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 232–247.
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238
Hoffman, J., & Mehra, S. (1999). Operationalizing productivity improvement programs through
total quality management. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 16(1),
72–84. doi:10.1108/02656719910250890
Huang, Y., & Tsai, Y. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of brand-oriented companies.
European Journal of Marketing, 47(11/12), 2020–2041. doi:10.1108/EJM-07-2011-0371
Hughes, D. E., & Ahearne, M. (2010). Energizing the reseller’s sales force: The power of brand
identification. Journal of Marketing, 74(July), 81–96. doi:10.1509/jmkg.74.4.81
Iacobucci, D., Ostrom, A., & Grayson, K. (1995). Distinguishing service quality and customer
satisfaction: The voice of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 277–303.
doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0403_04
Ind, N. (2001). Living the brand. London: Kogan Page.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of
Marketing, 57(July), 53–73. doi:10.2307/1251854
Kassarjian, H. H. (1977). Content analysis in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(1),
8–18. doi:10.1086/208674
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity.
Journal of Marketing, 57(January), 1–22. doi:10.2307/1252054
Keller, K. L. (1999). Brand mantras: Rationale, criteria and examples. Journal of Marketing
Management, 15(1–3), 43–51. doi:10.1362/026725799784870513
Keller, K. L. (2013). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity
(4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities.
Marketing Science, 25(6), 740–759. doi:10.1287/mksc.1050.0153
King, C., & Grace, D. (2008). Internal branding: Exploring the employee’s perspective. The Journal of
Brand Management, 15(5), 358–372. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550136
King, C., & Grace, D. (2010). Building and measuring employee based brand equity. European
Journal of Marketing, 44(7/8), 938–971. doi:10.1108/03090561011047472
King, C., & Grace, D. (2012). Examining the antecedents of positive employee brand-related
attitudes and behaviours. European Journal of Marketing, 46(3/4), 469–488. doi:10.1108/
03090561211202567
King, N. (1994). The qualitative research interview. In C. Cassel & S. London (Eds.), Qualitative
methods in organizational research: A practical guide (pp. 14–36). London: Sage Publications.
Kinnear, T. C., & Taylor, R. (1996). Marketing research, an applied approach (5th ed.). New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and
managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 1–18. doi:10.2307/1251866
Kotler, P. (2005). Foreword. In A. M. Tybout & T. Calkins (Eds.), Kellogg on branding (pp. ix–x).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310
Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organizational and
vocational psychology, 1979–1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(2), 161–187. doi:10.1006/
jvbe.1999.1707
Liu, C.-Y., Ko, W. W., & Chapleo, C. (2017). Managing employee attention and internal branding.
Journal of Business Research, 79(1), 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.05.021
Löhndorf, B., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2014). Internal branding: Social identity and social exchange
perspectives on turning employees into brand champions. Journal of Service Research, 17(3),
310–325. doi:10.1177/1094670514522098
M’ Zungu, S., Merrilees, B., & Miller, D. (2010). Brand management to protect brand equity: A
conceptual model. Journal of Brand Management, 17(8), 605–617. doi:10.1057/bm.2010.15
MacKenzie, S. В., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation
procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS
Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334. doi:10.2307/23044045
Mahnert, K. F., & Torres, A. M. (2007). The brand inside: The factors of failure and success in internal
branding. Irish Marketing, 19(1–2), 54–63. Review. Retrieved from Business Source Complete,
Accession number: 28748437 http://www.ebscohost.com
Matanda, M. J., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2013). Internal marketing, internal branding, and organisational
outcomes: The moderating role of perceived goal congruence. Journal of Marketing
Management, 29(9–10), 1030–1055. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2013.800902
Merrilees, B., & Frazer, L. (2013). Internal branding: Franchisor leadership as a critical determinant.
Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 158–164. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.07.008
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, W. L., & Crabtree, B. F. (1999). Using codes and code manuals: A template organizing style of
interpretation. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mitchell, C. (2002). Selling the brand inside. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 99–105. Retrieved from
Business Source Complete, Accession number: 5848101 http://www.ebscohost.com
Morhart, F. M., Herzog, W., & Tomczak, T. (2009). Brand-specific leadership: Turning employees into
brand champions. Journal of Marketing, 73(September), 122–142. doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.5.122
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability.
Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35. doi:10.2307/1251757
Netemeyer, R. G., Bearden, W. O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Norman, R. (2000). Service management: Strategy and leadership in service business (3rd ed.).
Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book.
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer
skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159–186. doi:10.1207/
s15327663jcp0702_03
Ostrom, A. L., Iacobucci, D., & Morgan, F. N. (2005). Services Branding. In A. M. Tybout & T. Calkins
(Eds.), Kellogg on branding (pp. 186–200). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Paisley, W. J. (1969). Studying style as deviation from encoding norms. In G. Gerbner, O. R. Holsti, K.
Krippendorff, W. J. Paisley, & P. J. Stone (Eds.), The analysis of communications content:
Developments in scientific theories and computer techniques (pp. 133–146). New York: Wiley.
Piehler, R., King, C., Burmann, C., & Xiong, L. (2016). The importance of employee brand under-
standing, brand identification, and brand commitment in realizing brand citizenship behavior.
European Journal of Marketing, 50(9/10), 1575–1601. doi:10.1108/EJM-11-2014-0725
Punjaisri, K., Evanschitzky, H., & Rudd, J. (2013). Aligning employee service recovery performance
with brand values: The role of brand-specific leadership. Journal of Marketing Management, 29
(9–10), 981–1006. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2013.803144
Punjaisri, K., Evanschitzky, H., & Wilson, A. (2009). Internal branding: An enabler of employees’
brand-supporting behaviors. Journal of Service Management, 20(2), 209–226. doi:10.1108/
09564230910952780
Punjaisri, K., & Wilson, A. (2007). The role of internal branding in the delivery of employee brand
promise. The Journal of Brand Management, 15(1), 57–70. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550110
Punjaisri, K., & Wilson, A. (2011). Internal branding process: Key mechanisms, outcomes and
moderating factors. European Journal of Marketing, 45(9/10), 1521–1537. doi:10.1108/
03090561111151871
Punjaisri, K., Wilson, A., & Evanschitzky, H. (2008). Exploring the influences of internal branding on
employees’ brand promise delivery: Implications for strengthening customer – brand relation-
ships. Journal of Relationship Management, 7(4), 407–423. doi:10.1080/15332660802508430
Richards, L. (2002). Introducing NVivo: A workshop handbook. Doncaster, VIC: QSR International.
Riefler, P., Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2012). Cosmopolitan consumers as target group
for segmentation. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(3), 285–305. doi:10.1057/
jibs.2011.51
Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation.
In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social
psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Saleem, F. Z., & Iglesias, O. (2016). Mapping the domain of the fragmented field of internal branding.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 25(1), 43–57. doi:10.1108/JPBM-11-2014-0751
Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Simoes, C., Dibb, S., & Fisk, R. P. (2005). Managing corporate identity: An internal perspective.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 153–168. doi:10.1177/0092070304268920
Tarnovskaya, V., & De Chernatony, L. (2011). Internalising a brand across cultures: The case of IKEA.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 39(8), 598–618. doi:10.1108/
09590551111148677
Thomson, K., & Hecker, L. A. (2000). The business value of buy-in. In R. J. Varey & B. R. Lewis (Eds.),
Internal marketing: Directions for marketing (pp. 160–172). London: Routledge.
Tosti, D. T., & Stotz, R. D. (2001). Building your brand from the inside out. Marketing Management, 10(2),
28–33. Retrieved from Business Source Complete, Accession number: 4966508 http://www.ebsco
host.com
Ulrich, D., & Smallwood, N. (2007). Building a leadership brand. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8),
93–100. Retrieved from Business Source Complete, Accession number: 25354749 http://www.
ebscohost.com
Urde, M. (1994). Brand orientation – a strategy for survival. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 11(3),
18–32. doi:10.1108/07363769410065445
Urde, M. (1999). Brand orientation: A mindset for building brands into strategic resources. Journal
of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), 117–133. doi:10.1362/026725799784870504
Vallaster, C., & De Chernatony, L. (2005). Internationalization of services brands: The role of
leadership during the internal brand building process. Journal of Marketing Management, 21
(1/2), 181–203. doi:10.1362/0267257053166839
Vallaster, C., & De Chernatony, L. (2006). Internal brand building and structuration: The role of
leadership. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7), 761–784. doi:10.1108/03090560610669982
Wentzel, D. (2009). The effect of employee behavior on brand personality impressions and brand
attitudes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(3), 359–374. doi:10.1007/s11747-009-
0140-6
Whisman, R. (2009). Internal branding: A university’s most valuable intangible asset. Journal of
Product and Brand Management, 18(5), 367–370. doi:10.1108/10610420910981846
Wong, C. S., Law, K. S., & Huang, G. H. (2008). On the importance of conducting construct-level
analysis for multidimensional constructs in theory development and testing. Journal of
Management, 34(4), 744–764. doi:10.1177/0149206307312506
Wong, H. Y., & Merrilees, B. (2007). Closing the marketing strategy to performance gap: The role of
brand orientation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 15(5), 387–402. doi:10.1080/
09652540701726942
Appendix
Interview outline with experts during the stage of construct definition and
content domain
(1) What do you believe internal brand orientation is?
(2) What specific activities does an internally brand-oriented company undertake?
(3) What do you perceive as important for a firm in order to build and manage successful brands
from the inside?
(4) Which internal stakeholders do you consider as critical for the successful delivery of the brand
promise to customers?
(5) What organisational factors do you think foster this orientation in organisations?
(6) What organisational factors do you think discourage this orientation in organisations?
(7) Based on your experience, what are the outcomes of an internal brand orientation for a
company?
Note: The above format provided a structure for each interview, although it was frequently
necessary to explain and clarify some of the questions, as well as probe deeper with additional
questions to elicit examples, illustrations and other insights.

Lamprini P. Piha &amp; George J. Avlonitis 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Lamprini P. Piha &amp; George J. Avlonitis 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Marketing Management

ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

Internal brand orientation: conceptualisation,

Lamprini P. Piha & George J. Avlonitis

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1445658

Published online: 07 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 805

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Internal brand orientation: conceptualisation, scale

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Lamprini P. Piha lamprinipiha@aueb.gr Department of Marketing and Communication, Athens

promise about delivering a fulﬁlling experience and a level of performance (Kotler,

Need for a new construct

development of the ‘brand-centred human resource management’ construct (Chang et al.,

Table 1. Scale development process.

Step 1: construct deﬁnition and content domain

Table 2. Analysing interview data.

Internal Brand Orientation refers to the extent to which a company is committed to

By ‘brand internalisation’ we refer to employee identiﬁcation with the brand, high-

Step 2: item generation and expert review

Step 3: scale puriﬁcation and dimensionality

Table 3. Exploratory factor and reliability analysis results.

Step 4: ﬁnalisation of the scale

Table 4. Data collection process and response rate.

Table 5. Sample proﬁle.

Table 6. Psychometric properties of the IBO scale based on CFA results.

Table 7. Discriminant validity test.

Discussion and concluding remarks

Table 8. Correlation matrix: nomological validity assessment.

Fourth, nomological validity results corroborate studies emphasising the necessity of

Limitations and future research directions

Dr George J. Avlonitis is an Emeritus Professor at the Department of Marketing and

You might also like

Lamprini P. Piha & George J. Avlonitis 2018

Lamprini P. Piha & George J. Avlonitis 2018