European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Management Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/emj

The impact of brand equity on employee attitudes

Myriam Ertz a, Dominique Rouziès b, *, Emine Sarigöllü c
a
LaboNFC, Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, 555 Boulevard de l’Université, Saguenay, Quebec, G7H 2B1, Canada
b
HEC Paris, GREGHEC, UMR CNRS 2959, l’Avenue de la libération, 78351, Jouy-en-Josas, France
c
LaboNFC, Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University, 1001 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1G5, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Using data from a large, cross-industry sample, this paper examines the impact of brand equity (BE) on employee
Brand equity attitudes. Stronger brands have both positive and negative effects on employee attitudes, contingent on orga­
Employee attitude nizational hierarchy. Specifically, the impact of stronger brands on employee attitudes is positive for lower-level
Human capital
employees, negative for mid-level executives, and not significant for top managers. This paper further details the
Internal marketing
Organizational hierarchy
extent to which alignment between top and mid-level executives ’ attitudes affects lower-ranking employees’
Executives attitudes. Because firms’ management of the impact of BE on employee attitudes has important implications, this
article recommends an approach that enables firms to regulate work relationships by investing in strong brands.
Given that such investments are less beneficial in certain circumstances, this study provides useful guidelines for
enhancing their effects.

1. Introduction
Brand equity (BE) from a consumer-based perspective (Keller, 1993;
Yoo et al., 2000) refers to consumers’ cognition, affect and behavior
toward a brand allowing that brand to reap more benefits than it would
without the brand name. Regardless of the perspective from which it is
conceptualized (Veloutsou et al., 2020), BE is shown to enhance desir­
able outcomes, including financial (such as premium pricing and higher
margins; Ailawadi et al., 2003; De Mortanges & Van Riel, 2003);
acquisition and retention (e.g., Stahl et al., 2012); organizational
attractiveness to job applicants (e.g., Brunner & Baum, 2020); and, firm
performance (Wang et al., 2015). All in all, firms devote significant re­
sources to develop, enhance, sustain, and protect their BE.
Firms also invest heavily in employees through internal branding,
employee-based branding (King & Grace, 2009), internal marketing, and
corporate wellness programs. For example, the French luxury company
LVMH recently increased its efforts on social and environmental issues
and discovered that “the percentage of pride in being part of the LVMH
group rose higher” and “this applied to the brand and group level“
(Spencer, 2021, p. 15). Given the respective importance of BE and
human capital, surprisingly little research has explored their relation­
ship. Consideration of the effects of BE on firms’ human capital (i.e.,
employees) is notably lacking, even though appraisal of brand value
cannot be complete without employee impacts. In principle, some
business cases seem to suggest that brand equity impacts positively
employee satisfaction. For example, Southwest Airlines is well-known
for using employer branding to retain employees by increasing their
satisfaction and motivational levels (Miles & Mangold, 2005). They
achieved an average employee turnover of 2.5% in 2017, which is the
lowest rate in the airline industry (Spiegelberg, 2017). Therefore, are
employees more satisfied when they work for firms with strong brands?
Recognizing its theoretical and practical relevance, Moorman and Day
(2016) called for research on the impact of BE on employee attitudes.
The current research responds to this call.
Examining the relationship between brand equity and employee
attitude is crucial because both synergistically affect firm performance,
with great managerial and economic significance (Moorman & Day,
2016). In fact, employees’ attitudes have a critical impact on customers’
experiences, especially in services, so it is crucial to ensure what in­
fluences employee attitude and how (Schlager et al., 2011). In addition,
focusing on the relationship between BE and employee attitudes extends
the domain of marketing to human resources, in line with previous
research that suggests strong branding lowers executives’ pay (Tavassoli
et al., 2014) and increases the efficiency of advertising and promotion
(Anselmsson, Bondesson, & Melin, 2016; King & Grace, 2009). More
specifically, the study sheds new light on the effect of brand strength on
employees’ attitudes across hierarchical levels since the internal mar­
keting and branding literature (e.g., Baker et al., 2014; Morhart et al.,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Myriam_Ertz@uqac.ca (M. Ertz), rouzies@hec.fr (D. Rouziès), emine.sarigollu@mcgill.ca (E. Sarigöllü).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.09.009
Received 25 February 2021; Received in revised form 29 August 2022; Accepted 22 September 2022
Available online 27 September 2022
0263-2373/© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Myriam Ertz, European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2022.09.009
M. Ertz et al.
2009; Wieseke et al., 2009) emphasized the role of leaders for conveying
brand strength and values to lower-ranking employees. The impact of
brand strength on employees’ attitudes differs according to their hier­
archical levels, but the clarification of these effects—or lack thereof,
remains largely unknown, especially in quantitative research, and
despite its importance as expressed in past research (Baker et al., 2014;
Morhart et al., 2009; Wieseke et al., 2009). To establish these contin­
gencies, we quantify the strategic relationship between brand manage­
ment (BE) and employee management and specify the role of marketing
activities in this relationship.
The objectives of this research are: (1) to study the impact of BE on
employee attitudes; and (2) to identify the boundary conditions of such
impact, using a unique data set that reflects employees’ attitudes across
hierarchical levels and industrial sectors. This research is relevant and
essential because employees lie at the crux of value creation and
particular care needs to be taken to improve their attitude and morale.
Toward this end, we specifically discuss how marketing can contribute
to desirable human capital outcomes. The recommendation is that
practitioners take a broader view of brand contributions to firm value
and more actively leverage their BE to improve employee attitudes.
Past research emphasized the crucial role played by management
control (Chen & Wu, 2016; George & Gronroos, 1989; Joseph, 1996),
employer branding (Mölk & Auer, 2018; Morhart et al., 2009; Russell &
Brannan, 2016; Wieseke et al., 2009), and symbolic and cultural rep­
resentation in explaining employee attitude (Endrissat et al., 2017;
Russell & Brannan, 2016; Tavassoli et al., 2014). Yet, none investigated
the influence of BE along with hierarchical position. Consequently, this
study makes two main contributions to theory and practice. First, by
focusing on the relationship between BE and employee attitudes, this
study emphasizes an intrinsically marketing–anchored approach by
which firms can regulate work relations by investing in strong brands.
Furthermore, it identifies instances in which such investments are less
beneficial. Second, the proposed model integrates research in manage­
ment with regards to human capital (Moorman & Day, 2016; Van
Marrewijk & Marcel, 2004); psychology, in relation to employee atti­
tude (Burchell & Robin, 2011; Bush, 2018; Gehrels, 2019), and mar­
keting with reference to brand equity (Keller, 1993; Veloutsou et al.,
2020; Yoo et al., 2000). The study thereby sheds new light on the effect
of BE on employees’ attitudes across hierarchical levels. The current
research is guided by studies that examine internal marketing (e.g.,
Mölk & Auer, 2018; Morhart et al., 2009; Russell & Brannan, 2016;
Wieseke et al., 2009) and that emphasize the role of leaders in conveying
BE and values to lower-ranking employees. This research also reveals the
extent to which alignment between top and mid-level executives ’ atti­
tudes affects lower-ranking employees’ attitudes. The strategic rela­
tionship between brand management and employee management is
quantified to establish these contingencies, and the role of marketing
activities in this relationship is specified. The understanding provided by
this study on the extent to which BE affects human capital has important
implications for the marketing literature, in general, and the internal
marketing literature in particular.
2. Research background
2.1. Social exchange theory
Social exchange theory (SET) originates in social psychology and has
been applied in various research domains, including business and mar­
keting (Lambe et al., 2001; Luo, 2002). A key tenet for organizational
contexts is that in addition to forming relationships with individual
coworkers and supervisors, people also develop relationships with firms
(Masterson, 2001). Different perspectives on social exchange theory
have led to the emergence of two main orientations (Cropanzano et al.,
2001). Early views from the 1960s–1970s emphasize the notion of
self-interest, such that long-term self-interest is served by conforming to
reciprocity norms (Becker, 1960). According to Emerson (1981) as well
2
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
as Foa and Foa (1974), people “repay” (un)favorable treatment they
receive from other social entities (Schminke et al., 2002). Most impor­
tantly, individuals reciprocate not only concrete material outcomes such
as pay, but also more particularistic socioemotional benefits such as love
and respect. Contemporary social exchange theories maintain the notion
of reciprocity but extend Blau’s (1964) economic-exchange continuum
to view social exchanges as a relationship between two or more parties
(Organ, 1988; Shore et al., 2006). Whereas economic exchange re­
lationships entail short-term exchanges, the transfer of pecuniary ben­
efits, and a quid pro quo orientation in which each party anticipates
payment for services rendered, social exchange relationships establish
long-term horizons, transfers of socioemotional benefits, and “tit-for-­
tat” orientations with diminished expectations of specific repayments
(Schminke et al., 2002). Employees enter both types of relationships.
Economic exchanges are directly associated with pay, but social ex­
changes are less concrete and utilitarian in nature.
2.2. Social exchange theory and brand equity
Adopting a contemporary social exchange perspective, this study
considers both individual and organizational-level relationships. As
providers of various socioemotional benefits to employees, brands
contribute to the development of social exchange relationships. Since we
consider both individual and organizational level relationships, the
important aspect of relationship in contemporary social exchange the­
ories is useful here. Brands are fundamentally intangible, but they have a
core identification role for many stakeholders (Berry, 2000). The liter­
ature also emphasized the various socioemotional benefits brands pro­
vide to employees such as pride or identity-creation potential (Endrissat
et al., 2017; Lievens et al., 2007; Tavassoli et al., 2014). In that sense,
brands contribute heavily to craft social exchange relationships.
3. Conceptual framework and hypotheses development
3.1. Brand equity
BE has been conceptualized from different perspectives, such as
consumer-, sales-, financial-, firm-, and employee-based BE (Veloutsou
et al., 2020). The most popular among these is the consumer-based
perspective (Keller, 1993; Yoo et al., 2000). Accordingly, BE pre­
disposes consumers (1) to choose the brand more often, yielding extra
income through bigger volume (premium); (2) to pay more for the
brand, generating income through higher prices (power); and (3) to stick
to the brand or try it in the future, indicating lower risk and potential
future growth (potential) (Alagon & Samuel, 2013). This conceptuali­
zation is adopted in this study.
3.2. Employee attitude
Human capital refers to firms’ social dimensions (Van Marrewijk &
Marcel, 2004) and include employee competence and attitude (Moorman &
Day, 2016). The former refers to the knowledge, skills, training,
know-how, experience, and abilities that reside with employees (Sirmon
& Hitt, 2009) and predicts employees’ efficacy, productivity, and per­
formance. The latter, i.e., employee attitude, refers to the extent to
which “employees trust the people they work for, have pride in what
they do, enjoy the people they work with” (Van Marrewijk & Marcel,
2004, p. 140). Multiple scholars have adopted this conceptualization of
employee attitude (e.g., Burchell & Robin, 2011; Bush, 2018; Gehrels,
2019), and the three core dimensions, namely trust, pride, and enjoy­
ment, have been further validated empirically by a broad range of
studies (Filbeck & Preece, 2003; Garrett et al., 2014; Gartenberg et al.,
2016, pp. 16–69; Guiso et al., 2015; Smithey Fulmer et al., 2003).
M. Ertz et al. European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

3.3. Brand equity, employer branding, and employee attitudes Table 1

Representative studies of brand equity, human capital, and firm performance.
The antecedents of employee attitude merit more consideration in Author Conceptual Methodology Key Findings
the literature. BE is one of them since past research showed that strong (year) Framework
brands could impact affective commitment (Bolton et al., 2014). More Combined impact of brand equity and human capital on firm performance
precisely, taking an employee-based perspective of BE, past research has Vomberg Resource-based Compiling variables Both human capital and
shown positive links between the perception of BE and several et al. view of the firm from three different brand equity interact to
HR-related variables (e.g., brand citizenship behaviors, employee (2015) data sources to influence firm
analyze the impact performance.
satisfaction, employee word-of-mouth, or intentions to stay with the of human capital and Both resources (i.e.,
company) (King & Grace, 2009; Supornpraditchai et al., 2007). Past brand equity on firm human capital and
research also provided evidence for the importance of employer performance and the brand equity) create
branding (Ambler & Barrow, 1996). Employer branding plays an moderating impact relatively better
of the sector performance in a
essential role in cultural reinforcement and symbolic representations at
contingency. service setting.
work, thus contributing to employee recruitment, selection, and inte­ Inter-relatedness of brand equity and human capital
gration (Lievens et al., 2007; Russell & Brannan, 2016). Further, past Siranni Brand Three between- Employee-brand
research demonstrates the complexity of employer brand management et al. personality subjects alignment increases
since no specific corporate brand personality aspect dominates (2013) model experimental overall brand
Context designs involving evaluations and
employer-relevant outcomes. congruity students in a customer-based brand
Notably lacking in the literature is a focus on the relationship be­ laboratory (Studies 1 equity, especially for
tween consumer-based BE, which is the most widely used measure of BE, and 3) and unfamiliar brands.
and employee attitudes, with a few exceptions as presented in Table 1. Mechanical Turk Conceptual fluency
(MTurk) participants underlies the effects of
Focusing on consumer-based BE is all the more critical since past liter­
in an online employee–brand
ature on employer branding emphasized that “employees also attach experiment (Study alignment on overall
importance to outsiders’ assessment of the organization (construed 2) brand evaluations for
external image)” (Lievens et al., 2007, p. S45). As outsiders of the or­ unfamiliar brands.
ganizations, consumers’ perceptions of the brand (consumer-based BE) Employee authenticity
enhances the
are as crucial to employees as the corporate image they perceive through
effectiveness of
internal employer branding efforts. Besides, the HRM function respon­ employee–brand
sible for employer branding, internal branding, and operations man­ alignment.
agement is also highly relevant in building customer-based brand equity Firms can leverage
employee behavior as a
(Anselmsson, Bondesson, & Melin, 2016). The current study addresses
brand-building
this void. It posits that customer-based BE contributes to employee at­ advantage, especially
titudes and investigates this premise across organizational layers and for new or unfamiliar
industries. brands.
Tavassoli Identity theory Compiling variables Executives value
et al. from six different working for a strong
3.4. Brand equity and employee attitudes (2014) data sources to brand. This positive
analyze the impact valuation leads them to
BE could have a direct effect on employee attitudes. On the one hand, of brand equity on accept substantially
strong brands may positively affect employee attitudes through the executive pay. lower pay. This effect is
more salient among
symbolic capital they provide. They offer identity-creating potential for
CEOs and younger
employees (Endrissat et al., 2017; Tavassoli et al., 2014). Employees executives.
derive pride and prestige from working for strong brands, thus Endrissat Framework of Single case study A brand is built partly
enhancing their ego and bolstering their self-esteem and motivation to et al. occupational approach of the from outside-in through
use their skills (Lievens et al., 2007). Therefore, BE via employer (2017) identity retail chain Genuine associations with
construction Groceries (GG) with employees who embody
branding is a powerful management tool for reinforcing organizational Theory of fieldwork brand-relevant features
culture and communicating the firm’s symbolic attributes (Russell & identity in their identities and
Brannan, 2016). In accordance with SET, since strong brands may pro­ incentive lifestyles.
vide superior identity-based benefits that offset Akerlof and Kranton’s
(2005) utility model of wages, employees will be more likely to recip­
that strong brand – both internally and externally - in the first place.
rocate toward the brand by holding positive views, satisfaction and
No empirical evidence confirms the direct effect of BE on employee
favorable predispositions (i.e., attitude) toward the brand.
attitudes nor the moderating effect of hierarchical level. However,
On the other hand, strong brands may require sacrifices from specific
Bolton et al. (2014) further demonstrated that strong brands impact
type of employees, namely executives. For example, executives who
employees’ affective commitment. Besides, noting research that has
work for strong brands accept lower wages (Rouziès et al., 2009;
identified the identity-creating potential of strong brands (Endrissat
Tavassoli et al., 2014). Internal branding is also a source of managerial
et al., 2017; Tavassoli et al., 2014), and tangential work hinted at the
complexity because it requires the managing of (1) organizational power
effects of strong brands on employee behavior (Lievens et al., 2007;
relations, (2) different interests, and (3) a diverse set of activities (e.g.,
Rouziès et al., 2009; Tavassoli et al., 2014), we posit that strong BE
defining and demarcating employer branding; developing and main­
positively affects employee attitudes. Therefore, we hypothesize:
taining cooperation within employer brand creation, or confirming and
contesting management ideas and structures beyond employer branding H1. The higher a firm’s brand equity, the more positive its employees’
[Mölk & Auer, 2017, p. 485]). Therefore, internal branding initiatives attitudes.
require heavy investment from middle and senior managers (Capon
et al., 2001). Therefore, although SET predicts executives should theo­
retically reciprocate toward the strong brand that they work for by
developing positive sentiment, this affective bond might be dampened
by the increased workload and responsibilities that come with crafting

3
M. Ertz et al.
3.5. Boundary conditions of the brand equity – employee attitude
relationship
In our theoretical framework, the primary relationship between an
entity and subjective perceptions is qualified by the entity’s hierarchical
level (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990; Rousseau, 1995; Schminke et al., 2001).
Relative to lower-level employees, those who are higher in the organi­
zational hierarchy experience higher pay, more influence over policy,
and tremendous respect (Homans, 1974). They receive treatment
perceived as both more advantageous and fairer (Schminke et al., 2002)
and have better access to high-level training to improve their occupa­
tional skills and more significant opportunities for career advancement
within the firm or externally. They may also have more interpersonal
relationships than lower-level employees and enjoy higher camaraderie
and trust (Whitener et al., 1998). These additional benefits are expected
to contribute to more positive employee attitudes for higher-ranking
employees compared to lower-ranking. Indeed, Mathieu and Zajac
(1990), as well as Brown (1996), found that employees at higher levels
show more significant commitment and higher involvement than em­
ployees at lower levels. Accordingly, it is hypothesized:
H2. The higher the employees’ levels in firms’ organizational hierar­
chies, the more positive their attitudes.
Social exchange theory also emphasizes the role of perceived rather
than actual benefits and recognizes that a particular element needs not
be of equal perceived value to everyone (Schminke et al., 2002). Those
who have less of something generally place a higher value on each unit
they possess and each marginal unit they obtain (Homans, 1974;
Schminke et al., 2002), whereas those who have more perceive any
given additional increment as proportionately less. Social exchange
theory thus predicts that the effect of organizational aspects—in our
case, brand equity—will be stronger for those of lower ranks and weaker
for those of higher ranks.
Higher-level employees can also be classified into top managers and
mid-level executives. The social exchange framework predicts a weaker
relationship between brand equity and attitudes of top managers
because they receive more compensation and are less involved in the
brand development and maintenance activities typically carried out by
mid-level executives (Morhart et al., 2009). Lower-level employees (e.g.,
agents, technicians, workers) handle operational tasks and are generally
not involved in strategic decision making (Schminke et al., 2002) or
brand-related initiatives except as frontline representatives of the brand.
The rest of the employees can be classified into top managers and
mid-level executives.
Relative to other organizational groups, mid-level executives face
more BE–related pressures (Clark et al., 2019). Mid-level executives
operate in between and articulate the interests of both lower-ranking
and higher-ranking groups. They help cultivate the company brand for
insiders and outsiders; articulate a unifying brand vision; provide indi­
vidualized support as coaches and mentors; specify codes; write scripts
for frontline employees, monitor their performance; and provide
adequate compensation (Morhart et al., 2009). Moreover, they
“become” or “live” the brand and act as appropriate role models,
following organizational brand values (Berry & Parasuraman, 1992).
The management or “custodianship” of brands has typically been
entrusted to middle management (Capon et al., 2001). These mid-level
executives likely feel even more pressure when their brand is vital
because such brands act as “bosses” (Endrissat et al., 2017; Kärreman &
Rylander, 2008). It might become more challenging to be the custodian
of stronger “boss” brands.
Top-level managers are less involved in brand development and
maintenance activities typically carried out by mid-level executives
(Morhart et al., 2009). However, they may derive substantially more
benefits from strong brands than mid-level managers. Stronger brands
being vectors of higher performance and profitability (Wang et al.,
2015), may increase top managers’ value of stock-option plans and other
4
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
benefit packages, but also their reputation in the industry, bringing them
public visibility, media appearances, political involvement, and chances
of joining other boards of administration, while these advantages are
typically absent for mid-level managers who act somewhat like the
anonymous enablers of that success. Their perception of benefits is thus
much lower than that of top managers. Hence, the higher the effort
required—with few incremental socioemotional or economic benefits as
compensation, the lower the attitude. Therefore, the extra pressure and
workloads of mid-level executives who work for strong brands will have
a dampening effect on their attitudes. Thus, we hypothesize:
H3. Employees’ levels in organizational hierarchies moderate the
relationship between brand equity and employee attitudes, such that
brands higher in BE improve top managers’ attitudes and dampen mid-
level executives’ attitudes.
Internal marketing literature draws heavily on Ashforth and Mael’s
(1989) social identity theory to emphasize the importance of executives
in building BE among lower-ranking employees (Baker et al., 2014;
Morhart et al., 2009; Wieseke et al., 2009). It is posited that this desir­
able outcome is most likely to occur when mid-level executives’ and top
executives’ attitudes are aligned. An essential aspect of social exchange
theory is reciprocity (Emerson, 1981; Foa & Foa, 1974; Schminke et al.,
2002). If mid-level executives are as satisfied as top managers, this may
increase commitment to infuse positive attitudes among employees.
Conversely, if mid-level executives perceive high discrepancies between
their treatment and top managers—for example, in unequal socioemo­
tional or utilitarian benefits—they may reciprocate in ways that reflect
their dissatisfaction and be less zealous about conveying positive atti­
tudes to lower-ranking employees. Accordingly, attitude alignment
(misalignment) between top managers and mid-level executives bolsters
(dampens) lower-ranking employees’ attitudes.
H4. The greater the alignment of top managers’ and mid-level execu­
tives’ attitudes, the more positive the attitudes of other employees.
The positive effects of strong brands and the negative impacts of
attitude misalignment on employee attitudes may vary by industry
sector. In service settings, a brand’s meaning is conveyed through store
atmospherics, products, and customer interactions with staff members,
who are expected to embody the soul of brands (King & Grace, 2009).
According to Berry (2000, p. 129), “a strong service brand is essentially a
promise of future satisfaction,” which involves four conditions of brand
excellence. First, the brand must be different; its personnel must exhibit
its difference. Second, it must perform effectively, reinforcing cus­
tomers’ experiences and staying true to its promise. Third, it must
connect emotionally through employees’ delivery of extensive socio­
emotional benefits to customers. Fourth, employees must internalize
and “live” the brand values. Yet for low-level service employees, who
often occupy frontline jobs and need to enact the corporate brand during
the service encounter throughout time (Henkel et al., 2007), those
conditions offer few advantages. They may rather induce additional
pressure, with typically lower reciprocity in terms of socioemotional or
utilitarian benefits (Harquail, 2007; Jha et al., 2017; Sliter et al., 2016).
Furthermore, misalignment between the attitudes of top managers
and mid-level executives tends to diminish lower-ranking employees’
perception of internal reciprocity, thereby lessening their positive atti­
tudes. When mid-level executives’ attitudes are misaligned with top
managers’ attitudes, service firms’ employees may experience less pos­
itive attitudes than manufacturing firms’ employees. We thus expect
that BE enhances the negative relationship between top management
and mid-level executives’ attitude misalignment and lower-ranking
employees’ attitudes in service settings.
H5. When top managers’ and mid-level executives’ attitudes are
aligned (misaligned), stronger brands increase (decrease) lower-level
employees’ attitudes, especially in services industries in comparison to
manufacturing ones.
M. Ertz et al.
The hypothesized relationships and interaction effects are displayed
in Fig. 1.
4. Research design
4.1. Data and measures
4.1.1. Dependent variable
Employee attitude (i.e., Human capital), is assessed using the Great
Place to Work GPTW® construct. Several scholars have suggested three
core dimensions of employee attitude, namely trust, pride, and enjoy­
ment (Filbeck & Preece, 2003; Garrett et al., 2014; Gartenberg et al.,
2016, pp. 16–69; Guiso et al., 2015; Smithey Fulmer et al., 2003). These
dimensions of employee attitude are well-reflected in the Great Place to
Work GPTW® measure, which is used in this study. GPTW measure
represents a broad range of employee attitudes (Ballou et al., 2003;
Smithey Fulmer et al., 2003) grouped under five dimensions; credibility,
respect, fairness, pride, and camaraderie. The GPTW measure has been
recurrently used and validated in past research (e.g., Branch, 1999;
Garrett et al., 2014; Gartenberg et al., 2016, pp. 16–69; Guiso et al.,
2015; Smithey Fulmer et al., 2003).
The GPTW dimensions also correspond to the facets of internal
marketing proposed by George and Gronroos (1989). Besides, as pointed
out by Joseph (1996), the various ways of effective internal marketing
are closely related to the dimensions of the GPTW® scale.
More generally, the dimensions of the GPTW scale share a com­
monality with the dimensions in some internal marketing studies
assessing the level of management’s care towards employees and how
employees perceive this care. In contrast, consumer-based BE assesses
the level of care taken by management to cater to the market. Thus, it is
interesting to consider the extent to which externally oriented care (BE)
affects internally oriented care perceived by employees (i.e., employee
attitudes).
The GPTW® organization invites firms that have been in business for
at least ten years and employ a minimum of 500 people to distribute a
59-item attitude survey to 250 randomly selected employees. The
GPTW® Trust Index© is designed to measure a broad range of attitudes
grouped under five dimensions; credibility, respect, fairness, pride, and
camaraderie.
(1) Credibility items assess employees’ perceptions of management’s
communication practices, competence, and integrity, which are
pivotal in promoting trustworthiness, leading to trust in the
workplace.
(2) Respect items capture employees’ perceptions of professional
support, collaboration, and involvement in decisions and the
level of care management shows for employees as people.
(3) Fairness items measure the equity, impartiality, and justice em­
ployees experience in the workplace.
Fig. 1. Hypothesized relationships of the study.
5
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
(4) Pride items determine how employees feel about their impact
through their work, their price in their team’s work, and their
price in the organization overall.
(5) Camaraderie items gauge whether employees believe their or­
ganization is a strong community where colleagues are friendly,
supportive, and welcoming (Great Place to Work® Institute,
2020).
Credibility is measured with 14 items; respect with 13 items; fairness
with 13 items; pride with eight items; and camaraderie with 11 items.
The GPTW database used for this study comes from France and includes
data from 22,918 employees of 20 public or private firms for 2015. To
match firms with BE data (through the brands), some observations were
excluded as the overlap between the two databases is not full, leaving a
sample of 11 firms and 8853 observations. Furthermore, to match firms
with all covariates, two firms were removed, representing a total of 512
observations, leaving thus a final of 9 firms and 8341 observations. The
firm sample offers a mix of both national (French) and private firms (2)
and public multinational organizations (7), representing a variety of
industries, including food processing, fast food restaurant, telecommu­
nications, banking and insurance, and sportswear manufacturing. Firm
size measured in the number of employees ranges between 480 and
210,000. Among the sample of nine firms, 5 are services firms repre­
sented by 4939 employees. While services firms have all operations in
the B2C market, a few also provide B2B services. So, the sample com­
prises high-contact service settings.
Due to the diversity in firm size, geographical location (the majority
of the companies are multinationals), and sector of operation, the
sampled companies have diverse branding styles. However, three gen­
eral types of branding mixes tend to emerge. First, companies in the
consumer semi-durables (sportswear) and non-durable goods (food
processing) sectors tend to focus on product branding retail branding on
some occasions. If they are multinational companies with an extensive
brand portfolio, they also recourse to cultural and geographic locations
to ensure glocality (a multinational company providing local branding
features). With product branding, branding occurs mainly via products
through tangible components such as packaging, texture, taste, and so
on. If they have their own stores, they complement that branding
strategy with retail strategy by turning stores into experiences to
enchant consumer experience. In that case, employees play a key role in
ensuring smooth and pleasant experiences contributing to craft BE.
Second, companies in the insurance and telecommunications sectors
tend to combine service branding and corporate branding types. Unlike
product branding, which is easily brandable through tangible artifacts
(e.g., packaging), service branding needs to be more creative. It relies
more heavily on employees, especially frontline ones at the consumer
interface, to convey brand identity and values. The pressure on em­
ployees might therefore be higher for service branding. Besides, in
contrast to the preceding branding types, corporate branding is much
more focused on branding internally to employees through a series of
actions and design choices articulating clearly the brand to employees,
investing heavily in company culture and recruitment while taking care
in responding to events and partnering with specific charities in line
with the business and that might strongly appeal to employees.
Third, fast food companies tend to limit themselves to service
branding.
4.1.2. Independent variable
The primary variable of interest is Brand equity. As stated above, it is
measured from a consumer perspective, and the 2015 BrandZ™ brand
power data by WPP and Kantar Millward Brown (2015) was used for the
corresponding GPTW® firms. The BrandZ™ measure is positively
correlated with other BE measures, such as those by Interbrand™,
Equitrend™, or Brand Health Index (Johansson et al., 2012; Mirzaei
et al., 2015), and has been validated in scholarly research (e.g.,
Johansson et al., 2012; Johansson et al., 2012; Mirzaei et al., 2015;
M. Ertz et al. European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Stone et al., 2004). The BrandZ™ index incorporates three BE di­
mensions that prompt people to buy and pay more for
brands—meaningfulness, difference, and salience—and sums them to
measure brand contributions (BrandZ™ Global Report 2020). Difference
is the extent to which brands are perceived as “unique in a positive way
and ‘set the trends,’ staying ahead of the curve for the benefit of the
consumer”; meaningfulness refers to the extent to which brands “appeal
more, generate greater ‘love’ and meet the individual’s expectations and
needs”; and salience is the extent to which brands “come spontaneously
to mind as the brand of choice for key needs” (BrandZ™ Global Report
2020). This study thus uses the BrandZ™ construct to operationalize the
consumer-based BE concept.
fairness = 0.529, pride = .563, camaraderie = 0.623) (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994), indicating convergent validity. All constructs satisfy
the stringent test of discriminant validity suggested by Fornell and
Larcker (1981) (see Table 2). Furthermore, all measurement scales
produce high-reliability indexes (i.e., Cronbach’s alphas and composite
reliabilities), greatly exceeding the 0.70 threshold (Raykov, 1997). Since
multiple regression analysis is used, we collapse the multiple items per
construct into a single item (i.e., credibility, respect, fairness, pride,
camaraderie) to conduct the analysis.
Furthermore, the high intra-class correlations within the five
GPTW® constructs (α = 0.953) confirmed the suitability of collapsing
each dimension into a single item, GPTW, before statistical analyses.

4.1.3. Moderating variable 4.2.1. Endogeneity test

Hierarchical level, provided in the GPTW database, is measured with a
nominal, four-category variable: 1 = employee/worker, 2 = agent/
technician, 3 = mid-level executive, and 4 = top manager/board
member. Furthermore, because our interest is to compare the service
sector to others, a sector variable comprising of a services dummy var­
iable is created (1 = services, 0 = other sectors). Services include
companies in the insurance, telecommunications, and fast-food sectors.
Other sectors mainly include companies in the consumer semi-durables
(sportswear) and non-durable goods (food processing) sectors. Finally,
since we explore the moderating impact of top- and mid-level management
attitude alignment, we use the difference between top- and mid-level
management attitude score on the GPTW® scale as a moderator.
4.1.4. Control variables
Five factors that might influence the relationship between BE and
employee attitudes were controlled. They are: tenure (1 = less than two
years, 2 = 2–5 years, 3 = 6–10 years, 4 = 11–15 years, 5 = 16–20 years,
and 6 = over 20 years), workload (1 = full-time, 2 = part-time), sex (1 =
female, 0 = male), and firm size (log of a firm’s sales.
Note that tenure and workload are included in the GPTW database,
whereas firm size and sector measures come from the Diane (2015)
database.
Two-stage least squares (2SLS) regression analysis is used to test the
assumption of independent errors that do not include a variable corre­
lated with the independent variable of BE. Since the model features
categorical variables (except for sales and firm size), sales are used as the
instrumental variable. The regression coefficient for power (i.e., BrandZ)
is 0.111 (see Table 3), but the regression coefficient of power obtained
from Two-Stage Least Squares (β = 0.585, t = 2.032, p < .05) is different
from the coefficient obtained from regression analysis, suggesting that
this independent variable might be endogenous. The Hausman’s test
reveals that power is indeed endogenous (F(1, 8338) = 28.903, p <
.001). The same results are obtained using the function as an instru­
mental variable. Yet, both variables are used as control variables, and
therefore, their effect is taken into consideration during the analysis.
Besides, the power scale has been used widely in brand-related research
(e.g., Johansson et al., 2012; Johansson et al., 2012; Mirzaei et al., 2015;
Stone et al., 2004). On a final note, lack of endogeneity does not deter
the meaningfulness and validity of results since studies missing evidence
of endogeneity are not infrequent in the literature (e.g., Handschuch &
Wollni, 2015) or not reported at all (e.g., Bommaraju et al., 2018). The
findings should, however, be interpreted with caution.
4.3. Empirical model

4.2. Measurement model
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (EQS 6.0) using the robust
maximum likelihood procedure on the 59-item GPTW measurement
scale offers a good fit ([χ 2(1749) )] = 20,113.23.00, GFI = 0.934, AGFI =
0.926, SRMR = 0.047, RMSEA = 0.035). The chi-square appears inflated
by the sample size (West et al., 2012). All item loadings are significant
and close to or over the 0.70 threshold (Bagozzi & Yi, 1989). The
average variances extracted (AVEs) of the GPTW® dimensions also are
above the 0.50 threshold (i.e. credibility = 0.586, respect = .513,
To test the effect of the interaction between BE and hierarchical level
on employee attitudes, a series of regression-based bootstrapping ana­
lyses of moderation (Hayes, 2017) was conducted, following previous
literature (e.g., Giebelhausen et al., 2016). Indeed, we can test whether
the interaction effects are of the moderating or mediating type. The
bootstrap PROCESS model 1 was specified with 10,000 resamples at a
95% confidence interval and all covariates. In addition, we include the
dummy variable “services” in our models to take into account the
multilevel structure of our data. The following equation was thus esti­
mated:

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelation matrix.
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Credibility 1
2. Respect .631*** 1
3. Fairness − .714*** − .550*** 1
4. Pride − .832*** − .626*** .698*** 1
5. Camaraderie .002*** − .033*** − .024*** .030*** 1
6. Brand equity .018 − .018 − .007 − .141*** − .027* 1
7. Hierarchical level .088*** .109*** .131*** .159*** .137*** − .072*** 1
8. Tenure − .086*** − .079*** − .093*** .042*** − .098*** − .305*** .001 1
9. Full-time .017 − .022* − .015*** − .169*** − .033** .409** − .271*** − .268*** 1
10. Female .043*** .060*** .062*** .046*** .053*** − .028*** .205*** − .039*** − .161*** 1
11. Services − .302*** − .315*** − .320*** − .344*** − .319*** .405*** − .238*** − .106*** .265*** − .216*** 1
12. Company size (log − .055*** − .065*** − .059*** .011 − .077*** − .024*** − .374*** .340*** − .100*** − .252*** .305*** 1
of sales)
M 42.60 26.26 29.07 20.31 39.53 173.64 1.74 3.45 0.83 0.51 0.59 20.81
SD 9.13 6.25 7.31 4.30 8.03 134.83 .89 1.71 0.37 0.50 0.49 1.01

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Note: The means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations are based on scores at the employee level.

6
M. Ertz et al. European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 3 of 20 firms (β = 0.058, p < .001). Furthermore, Fig. 2 confirms that

The effect of brand equity on employee attitude (bootstrapping results). employees at higher levels of the organizational hierarchy display more
Variables Bootstrapping (n = 8341) favorable attitudes (analysis of variance [ANOVA], F (3, 8337) =
68.045, p < .001). Both Tukey and Scheffé’s posthoc tests reveal that
β SE t-value
executives do not differ significantly from technicians/agents in terms of
Intercept (β0 ) − 1.983 .269 − 7.373*** employee attitudes; top managers show more favorable attitudes than
Control
Technicians/Agents (β2 ) .262 .028 9.289***
all other hierarchical levels. Overall, these results lend support to H2.
Executives (β3 ) .127 .031 4.142*** To test the relationship between BE and employee attitudes at
TMT (β4 ) .792 .065 12.193*** different employee levels in the firm hierarchy, the “workers” category
Full-time (β5 ) − .027 .034 − .789 (n.s.) was assigned as the reference group. Consistent with H3, the positive
Females (β6 ) .026 .022 1.195 (n.s.)
impact of stronger brands on employee attitudes is contingent on the
Services (β7 ) − .856 .026 − 32.640***
Tenure – 2 to 5 years (β12 ) − .311 .036 − 8.640*** organization’s level. As Table 3 specifies, the coefficient of the interac­
Tenure – 6 to 10 years (β13 ) − .519 .037 − 13.944*** tion term is positive for technicians/agents, negative for executives, and
Tenure – 11 to 15 years (β14 ) − .517 .040 − 12.933*** not significant for top managers. Fig. 3 reveals the conditional effect of
Tenure – 16 to 20 years (β15 ) − .551 .047 − 11.847*** BE across organizational-level groups: It is consistently positive for
Tenure – 20 years or more (β16 ) − .532 .039 − 13.555***
Firm size .131 .014 9.627***
workers and technicians/agents, negative for executives, and non-
Simple effects significant for top managers across all attitude dimensions.
Power (β1 ) .111 .013 8.332*** The findings further show that the positive relationship between BE
Interactions and employee attitudes is dampened in service industries (β = − .856, p
Power × Technicians/Agents (βi8 ) .110 .034 3.256**
< .001) and among more tenured employees especially from 6 years
Power × Executives (βi8 ) − .192 .032 − 5.977***
Power × Top Management (βi8 ) − .079 .069 − 1.152 (n.s.) tenure and over (2–5 years: β = − 0.311, p < .001, 6–10 years: β =
− 0.519, p < .001, 11–15 years: β = − 0.517, p < .001, 16–20 years: β =
R .428
R2 .183
− 0.551, p < .001, 20 years and over: β = − 0.532, p < .001). In other
F 116.564*** words, employees working for service firms tend to display less favor­
df1 16 able attitudes when their brands are strong, possibly because of the
df2 8324 stronger pressure imposed on them to convey brand strength directly to
*p < .05. consumers. Tenure is generally associated with broader experience and
**p < .01. highly correlated with age (r = 0.756, p < .001 in our sample); it also
***p < .001. signals executive positions. The negative effect of tenure as a control
Note: The dependent variable is employee attitude (i.e., GPTW overall score). variable on the moderation is strongest at 16–20 years of tenure, which
may correspond to executive positions, but is slightly lower at 20 years

/ /
EmployeeAttitudeij = β0 + β1 BrandEquityij + β2 Technicians Agentsij + β3 Executivesij + β4 TopManagementij + β4 BrandEquityij × Technicians Agentsij
+β4 BrandEquityij × Executivesij + β4 BrandEquityij × TopManagementij + β5 FullTimeij + β6 Femalesij + β7 Servicesij + β8 Tenure2 − 5Yearsij + β9 Tenure6
− 10Yearsij + β10 Tenure11 − 15Yearsij + β11 Tenure16 − 20Yearsij + β12 TenureMoreThan20Yearsij + β13 Firmsizeij + εij , (1)

and more, which may correspond to top management. A significant chi-

where i stands for employees, and j indicates the firm.
5. Results
H1 is supported, indicating that the impact of brand power
(BrandZ™) on employee attitudes (GPTW®) is significant and positive
(see Table 3). This significant relationship holds also for the total sample
square test of tenure and function (χ 2(1,15) = 667.469, p < .001) confirms
the strong association between tenure and hierarchical level. In sum­
mary, the results of this covariate analysis reaffirm H3, revealing the
tenure timeframe during which the negative impact of strong brands on
employee attitude is most likely to peak.
The squared difference between their attitudes was computed to test
the alignment between top managers’ and mid-level executives’ atti­
tudes (Homburg & Jensen, 2007). As shown in Table 4, the lower the
attitude alignment between top managers and executives, the lower
other employees’ attitudes (β = − .255, p < .001) support H4.
The interaction between BE and the alignment of top managers’ and
mid-level executives’ attitudes, related to employee attitude according
to industry type, was examined with bootstrapping analysis. As pre­
dicted in H5, service brands have an enhancing effect, such that lower-
ranking employees’ attitudes are even lower (poorer) if the attitudes
of top managers and mid-level executives are not aligned (β = − .121, p
< .001). Furthermore, this effect is non-significant in the manufacturing
industry (see Table 4).

6. Conclusions

6.1. Theoretical contributions

Fig. 2. Top managers’ more favorable attitudes than employees. The two strands of research – namely, BE and human capital – have

7
M. Ertz et al. European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 3. Executives’ less favorable attitudes when working for stronger brands.

Table 4
Regression analysis results for the impact of top management-executive misalignment on the brand equity – lower-ranking employee attitude link.
V Variables Model 1 (regression analysis) Model 2 (bootstrapping – Model 3 (bootstrapping –
services sample) manufacturing sample)

β SE t-value β SE t-value β SE t-value

Intercept (β0 ) 4.727 .694 − 6.811*** 3.754 .710 5.289*** 1.270 .133 9.527***
Control
Full-time (β5 ) .033 .038 2.215* .256 .042 6.066*** .006 .072 .077 (n.s.)
Females (β6 ) .011 .026 .890 (n.s.) .023 .030 .786 (n.s.) .016 .033 .478 (n.s.)
Services (β7 ) − .251 .039 − 13.944*** – – – – – –
Tenure – 2 to 5 years (β12 ) − .109 .043 − 6.731*** − .289 .047 − 6.175*** − .306 .056 − 5.423***
Tenure – 6 to 10 years (β13 ) − .197 .045 − 11.548*** − .459 .050 − 9.183*** − .432 .055 − 7.809***
Tenure – 11 to 15 years (β14 ) − .198 .047 − 11.514*** − .410 .055 − 7.431*** − .444 .058 − 7.609***
Tenure – 16 to 20 years (β15 ) − .164 .054 − 10.634*** − .332 .068 − 4.903*** − .557 .063 − 8.801***
Tenure – 20 years or more (β16 ) − .233 .045 − 12.417*** − .378 .057 − 6.650*** − .568 .055 − 10.371***
Firm size − .174 .034 − 5.496*** − .046 .028 − 1.648*** − .044 .029 − 1.554***
Simple effects
Top management – executive attitude misalignment (β1 ) − .255 .004 − 10.202*** .048 .017 2.849** − .032 .424 − .075 (n.s.)
Interactions
Top management – executive attitude misalignment × Power (βi8 ) − .121 .013 − 9.623*** − .021 .047 − .449 (n.s.)

R .355 .286 .305

R2 .126 .100 .103
F 90.886*** 39.970*** 34.695***
df1 10 11 10
df2 6295 4927 3391

Note: the dependent variable is lower-ranking employee attitude.

proceeded in parallel, with little cross-over, despite apparent synergy,
thus limiting the incorporation of research findings into corporate
strategy formulation. This article presents an attempt to explore the
nexus of these two areas answering previous calls for topical research (e.
g., Moorman & Day, 2016). The literature appears unequivocal about
the positive impacts of strong brands; but less so about its adverse effects
(Moorman & Day, 2016). This study emphasizes an intrinsically mar­
keting–anchored approach by which firms can regulate work relations
by investing in strong brands, and it identifies instances in which such
investments are less beneficial. In many cases, negative results are
attributed to “brand-building issues,” and both consultants and aca­
demics offer suggestions to prevent these problems (Christodoulides &
de Chernatony, 2010; De Chernatony, 2010). An emerging strand of
research examines the negative impact of brands (Fetscherin et al.,
2019; Hu et al., 2018; Veloutsou et al., 2020). However, these studies
essentially focus on consumers, with little research on employees,
despite the crucial implications for internal marketing and employer
branding. The current research contributes to this emerging area by
showing that stronger BE affects employee attitudes positively, but this
effect is subject to boundary conditions. The positive effect applies
specifically to workers, technicians, and agents. Yet, the effect is nega­
tive for mid-level executives and non-significant for top managers. Be­
sides, the influence of BE on employee attitudes is more prevalent in
services firms, consistent with the notion that BE is inherently more
important for service firms (Berry, 2000; Vomberg et al., 2015).
These findings enrich and extend the contemporary perspective on
social exchange theory (SET) which posits that people “repay” favorable
or unfavorable treatments that they receive from social entities,
including organizations and brands (Emerson, 1981; Foa & Foa, 1974;
Schminke et al., 2002). The results suggest that for employees, the
repayment is positive since they develop positive attitude toward strong
brand providing them higher socioemotional benefits (e.g., prestige,
pride, identity-building). In contrast, for middle-level managers, the
additional workload managers incur to sustain stronger brands (in
contrast to weaker ones) (Osterman, 2009), does lead to negative reci­
procity in the form of lower employee attitude. In other words, the tacit
reciprocity in relationship with the brand (Organ, 1988; Shore et al.,
2006) is seemingly negative at that specific hierarchical level.
Furthermore, our findings extend internal marketing research (e.g.,
Mölk & Auer, 2018; Morhart et al., 2009; Russell & Brannan, 2016;

8
M. Ertz et al.
Wieseke et al., 2009) that emphasize the role of leaders in conveying BE
and values to lower-ranking employees with novel insights about em­
ployees at other hierarchical levels. Indeed, our study sheds new light on
the effect of BE on employees’ attitudes across hierarchical levels: Beyond
recognizing the role of leaders in conveying BE to employees, prior
literature provides little insight into how this role may differ depending
on the extent to which alignment at the managerial team level is ach­
ieved. Hence our results suggest that the positive BE-attitude link is best
achieved when top managers and mid-level executives exhibit aligned
attitudes. Greater top manager/mid-level executive alignment
(misalignment) has a positive (negative) impact on lower-ranking em­
ployees’ attitudes.
On a more general level, our results challenge and extend established
thinking about the role of leaders in conveying BE to other employees.
The understanding provided by this study on the extent to which BE
affects human capital has important implications for the marketing
literature, in general, and the internal marketing literature in particular.
6.2. Managerial implications
Because the core responsibilities of mid-level executives are
increasing (Osterman, 2009), firms should consider implementing stra­
tegies to offset the dampening effect of BE on executives’ attitudes. They
should invest in marketing to create a strong BE because it is a powerful
way to improve most employees’ attitudes. To foster employee-based
brand equity, firms should communicate the brand and its BE more
intensively to employees through various branding strategies adapted to
internal branding such as brand ambassador programs (Schmidt &
Baumgarth, 2018) or classical advertising (Gilly & Wolfinbarger, 1998),
and more generally a stronger brand orientation (Urde, 1999) and
transformational leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Firms that seek to
implement internal marketing should adopt a comprehensive approach
by implementing the five facets of internal marketing, including (1)
management support (e.g., active care of staff), (2) education and
training (e.g., helping employees to understand customer needs), (3)
internal communications (e.g., conveying ideas and values to staff), (4)
personnel management (e.g., clear performance evaluation system), and
(5) external activities (e.g., enhancing employees’ identity through ac­
tivities) (Chen & Wu, 2016; George & Gronroos, 1989) or along with the
suggestions of Joseph (1996), the latter including comprehension of
employee morale or implementation of mechanisms to promote the
willingness of management to listen to employee opinions, among
others.
By emphasizing firms’ credentials as great places to work (Ambler &
Barrow, 1996), communications can leverage brands as a means to re­
cruit employees (Hieronimus et al., 2005), though mainly for
lower-ranking or top-management positions, by manufacturing firms,
for full-time jobs, and with new employees. Associations with brands
should be made less salient for mid-level executives, part-time jobs,
services settings, and long-tenured staff. Firms instead should invest in
offsetting the negative effects of strong brands on the attitudes of these
latter types of employees. The downside of greater expectations can be
offset by offering increased compensation, whether socioemotional (e.
g., rewards, recognition, concrete acts of appreciation) or utilitarian (e.
g., bonuses, free time, benefits). Firms also should invest in developing
their managers’ skills and knowledge to improve their capacity to
handle the increased expectations associated with strong brands
(Vomberg et al., 2015). The results suggest that branding has a key in­
fluence on employee attitudes. Yet, psychological and behavioral vari­
ables also play crucial roles.
6.3. Limitations and future research avenues
This study has some limitations which may inspire future research.
We lacked the necessary data to investigate how the hierarchical level
might directly affect employee attitudes. Studies could explore
9
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
theoretically related constructs that explain executives’ proclivity to
show less favorable attitudes when working for strong brands. For
example, the current theoretical framework suggests that perceived
advantages and efforts may lower attitudinal levels (Homans, 1974).
The psychology and behavioural literature could provide deeper insights
into this mechanism. Strong brands improve employee attitudes through
the symbolic capital and the identity-creating potential they provide for
employees (Endrissat et al., 2017; Tavassoli et al., 2014) so that they
derive pride and prestige from working for strong brands, which en­
hances their ego and bolsters their self-esteem and motivation to use
their skills (Lievens et al., 2007). Meanwhile, such strong brands require
sacrifices from employees, such as accepting lower wages for example
(Cable & Turban, 2003; Tavassoli et al., 2014). Therefore, future
research could investigate in greater depth those underlying mecha­
nisms related to symbolic capital, identity-creation, self-esteem, and
motivation to further explain the observed result of lower employee
attitude at the middle management level in the context of stronger BE.
Second, though the results were consistent with theoretical and empir­
ical underpinnings, additional studies should investigate the proposed
relations using other methodologies. For example, a longitudinal study
could examine the impact of evolutionary brand-building efforts on
employees’ attitudes over time. Third, although the measurement scales
used for BE and employee attitudes have been well supported in past
research, other scales could be considered. Fourth, our employee atti­
tude data came from a French sample. Although similar to Western
cultures in several respects, the French differ in their relationships to
authority. France’s score of 68 on Hofstede’s (2017) hierarchical dis­
tance dimension is closer to Japan’s (54), South Korea’s (60), or China’s
(80) than to those of the United States (40) or the United Kingdom (35).
Accordingly, the expectations of managers—that is, the mid-level ex­
ecutives who interface with both lower-ranking employees and the
highest-ranking executives—may be stronger. Our results should be
replicated in other countries and cultures with lower power distance
scores. Fifth, our quantitative approach prevented us from grasping
deeper insights related to the interplay of other potentially crucial var­
iables that could explain the observed effect in employee attitudes such
as management control (Chen & Wu, 2016; George & Gronroos, 1989;
Joseph, 1996), employer branding (Mölk & Auer, 2018; Morhart et al.,
2009; Russell & Brannan, 2016; Wieseke et al., 2009), and symbolic and
cultural representation (Endrissat et al., 2017; Russell & Brannan, 2016;
Tavassoli et al., 2014). Therefore, qualitatively-oriented research could
investigate how these variables intermingle and interact with BE and the
hierarchical level in explaining employee attitude. Finally, branding is
more related to the marketing function, and mid-level managers in this
area may benefit more while feeling higher work pressure from a firm’s
strong brand. Future studies could seek to investigate whether this
finding holds across other organizational functions.
Declarations of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgement
Support by the EDF Chair and a public grant overseen by the French
National Research Agency (ANR) as part of the Investissements d’Avenir
program (ANR-11-IDEX-0003/Labex Ecodec/ANR-11-LABX-0047) is
acknowledged and greatly appreciated by the authors.
References
Ailawadi, K. L., Lehmann, D. R., & Neslin, S. A. (2003). Revenue premium as an outcome
measure of brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 1–17.
Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2005). Identity and the economics of organizations. The
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 9–32.
M. Ertz et al.
Alagon, J., & Samuel, J. (2013). The meaningfully different framework, 01-05-2020 https
://www.millwardbrown.com/docs/default-source/insight-documents/articles-and-
reports/millwardbrown_meaningfullydifferentframework_april2013.pdf.
Ambler, T., & Barrow, S. (1996). The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management, 4(3),
185–206.
Anselmsson, J., Bondesson, N., & Melin, F. (2016). Customer-based brand equity and
human resource management image: Do retail customers really care about HRM and
the employer brand? European Journal of Marketing, 50(7/8), 1185–1208.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy
of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1989). On the use of structural equation models in experimental
designs. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(August), 271–284.
Baker, T. L., Rapp, A., Meyer, T., & Mullins, R. (2014). The role of brand communications
on front line service employee beliefs, behaviors, and performance. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 42(6), 642–657.
Ballou, B., Godwin, N. H., & Shortridge, R. T. (2003). Firm value and employee attitudes
on workplace quality. Accounting Horizons, 17(4), 329–341.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology press.
Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology,
66, 32–42.
Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28(1), 128–137.
Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1992). Services marketing starts from within. Marketing
Management, 1(1), 24–34.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bolton, R. N., Gustafsson, A., McColl-Kennedy, J., Sirianni, N. J., & David, K. T. (2014).
Small details that make big differences: A radical approach to consumption
experience as a firm’s differentiating strategy. Journal of Service Management, 25(2),
253–274.
Bommaraju, R., Ahearne, M., Hall, Z. R., Tirunillai, S., & Lam, S. K. (2018). The impact of
mergers and acquisitions on the sales force. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(2),
254–264.
BrandZTM global report. (2020). BrandZ top 100 most valuable global brands 2016 2020
[available at: https://online.pubhtml5.com/bydd/nfed/#p=5http://www.millward
brown.com/brandz/top-global-brands/2016. (Accessed 17 December 2017).
Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job
involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 235–255.
Brunner, C. B., & Baum, M. (2020). The impact of brand portfolios on organizational
Attractiveness. Journal of Business Research, 106, 182–195.
Burchell, M., & Robin, J. (2011). The great workplace: How to build it, how to keep it, and
why it matters. John Wiley & sons.
Bush, M. C. (2018). A great place to work for all: Better for business, better for people, better
for the world. Berrett-Koehler publishers.
Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2003). The value of organizational reputation in the
recruiting context: A brand equity perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
33(11), 2244–2266.
Capon, N., Berthon, P., Hulbert, J. M., & Pitt, L. F. (2001). Brand custodianship: A new
primer for senior managers. European Management Journal, 19(3), 215–227.
Chen, J. H., & Wu, S. I. (2016). The impact of customer relationship management and
internal marketing on business performance: A comparison of lodging industries.
Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 27(1–2), 17–33.
Christodoulides, George, & de Chernatony, Leslie (2010). Consumer-based brand equity
conceptualisation and measurement: A literature review. International Journal of
Market Research, 52(1), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.2501/S1470785310201053
Clark, P., Chapleo, C., & Suomi, K. (2019). Branding higher education: An exploration of
the role of internal branding on middle management in a university rebrand. Tertiary
Education and Management, 1–19.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to
organizational justice. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources
management. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier Science, Inc.
De Chernatony, L. (2010). Creating powerful brands. London: Routledge.
De Mortanges, C. P., & Van Riel, A. (2003). Brand equity and shareholder value. European
Management Journal, 21(4), 521–527.
Diane. (2015). Comprehensive information on companies. Brussels, Belgium: Bureau Van
Dijk Electronic Publishing.
Emerson, R. M. (1981). Social exchange theory. In M. Rosenberg, & R. Turner (Eds.),
Social psychology: Sociological perspective. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Endrissat, N., Kärreman, D., & Noppeney, C. (2017). Incorporating the creative subject:
Branding outside in through identity incentives. Human Relations, 70(4), 488–515.
Fetscherin, M., Guzman, F., Veloutsou, C., & Cayolla, R. R. (2019). Latest research on
brand relationships: Introduction to the special issue. The Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 28(2), 133–139.
Filbeck, G., & Preece, D. (2003). Fortune’s best 100 companies to work for in America:
Do they work for shareholders? Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 30(5–6),
771–797.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39–50.
Garrett, J., Hoitash, R., & Prawitt, D. E. (2014). Trust and financial reporting quality.
Journal of Accounting Research, 52(5), 1087–1125.
Gartenberg, C., Prat, A., & Serafeim, G. (2016). Corporate purpose and financial
performance. Columbia Business School Research Paper.
Gehrels, S. (2019). References’, employer branding for the hospitality and tourism industry:
Finding and keeping talent. Emerald publishing limited.
10
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
George, W. R., & Gronroos, C. (1989). Developing customer-conscious employees at
every level: Internal marketing. Handbook of Services Marketing, 29–37.
Giebelhausen, M., Chun, H. H., Cronin, J. J., Jr., & Hult, G. T. (2016). Adjusting the
warm-glow thermostat: How incentivizing participation in voluntary green programs
moderates their impact on service satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 80(4), 56–71.
Gilly, M. C., & Wolfinbarger, M. (1998). Advertising’s internal audience. Journal of
Marketing, 62(1), 69–88.
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2015). The value of corporate culture. Journal of
Financial Economics, 117(1), 60–76.
Handschuch, C., & Wollni, M. (2015). Traditional food crop marketing in Sub-Saharan
Africa: Does gender matter? Journal of Development Studies, 52(3), 343–359.
Harquail, C. V. (2007). Employee branding: Enterprising selves in the service of the
brand. Journal of Management, 23(4), 925–942.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford publications.
Henkel, S., Tomczak, T., Heitmann, M., & Herrmann, A. (2007). Managing brand
consistent employee behaviour: Relevance and managerial control of behavioural
branding. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 16(5), 310–320.
Hieronimus, F., Schaefer, K., & Schröder, J. (2005). Using branding to attract talent.
McKinsey Quarterly, 3, 12–14.
Hofstede, G. (2017). Hofstede’s online national culture compass [available at: https
://geert-hofstede.com/china.html. (Accessed 6 June 2017).
Homans, G. C. (1974). In Social behavior: Its elementary forms (revised edition). New York,
NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2007). The thought worlds of marketing and sales: Which
differences make a difference? Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 124–142.
Hu, M., Qiu, P., Wan, F., & Stillman, T. (2018). Love or hate, depends on who’s saying it:
How legitimacy of brand rejection alters brand preferences. Journal of Business
Research, 90, 164–170.
Jha, S., Balaji, M. S., Yavas, U., & Babakus, E. (2017). Effects of frontline employee role
overload on customer responses and sales performance. European Journal of
Marketing, 51(2), 282–303.
Johansson, J. K., Dimofte, C. V., & Mazvancheryl, S. K. (2012). The performance of
global brands in the 2008 financial crisis: A test of two brand value measures.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(3), 235–245.
Joseph, W. B. (1996). Internal marketing builds service quality. Journal of Health Care
Marketing, 16(1), 54–59.
Kantar Millward Brown. (2015). Unique methodology assesses brand equity and
competitive possibilities [available at:, 27-04-2020 http://www.millwardbrown.co
m/brandz/top-indian-brands/2015/brandz-analysis/definitions.
Kärreman, D., & Rylander, A. (2008). Managing meaning through branding: The case of a
consulting firm. Organization Studies, 29(1), 103–125.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(January), 1–22.
King, C., & Grace, D. (2009). Employee based brand equity: A third perspective. Services
Marketing Quarterly, 30(2), 122–147.
Lambe, C. J., Wittmann, C. M., & Spekman, R. E. (2001). Social exchange theory and
research on business-to-business relational exchange. Journal of Business-To-Business
Marketing, 8(3), 1–36.
Lievens, F., van Hoye, G., & Anseel, F. (2007). Organizational identity and employer
image: Towards a unifying framework. British Journal of Management, 18(1), 45–59.
Luo, X. (2002). Trust production and privacy concerns on the internet: A framework
based on relationship marketing and social exchange theory. Industrial Marketing
Management, 31(2), 111–118.
Masterson, S. S. (2001). A trickle-down model of organizational justice: Relating
employees’ and customers’ perceptions of and reactions to fairness. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86(4), 594–604.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and a meta-analysis of the antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 108, 171–194.
Miles, S. J., & Mangold, W. G. (2005). Positioning Southwest Airlines through employee
branding. Business Horizons, 48(6), 535–545.
Mirzaei, A., Gray, D., Baumann, C., Johnson, L. W., & Winzar, H. (2015). A behavioural
long-term based measure to monitor the health of a brand. Journal of Brand
Management, 22(4), 299–322.
Mölk, A., & Auer, M. (2018). Designing brands and managing organizational politics: A
qualitative case study of employer brand creation. European Management Journal, 36
(4), 485–496.
Moorman, C., & Day, G. S. (2016). Organizing for marketing excellence. Journal of
Marketing, 80(November), 6–35.
Morhart, F. M., Herzog, W., & Tomczak, T. (2009). Brand-specific leadership: Turning
employees into brand champions. Journal of Marketing, 73(September), 122–142.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com.
Osterman, P. (2009). The truth about middle managers: Who are they, how they work, why
they matter. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Raykov, T. (1997). Scale reliability, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, and violations of
essential tau-equivalence with fixed congeneric components. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 32(4), 329–353.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and
unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rouziès, D., Coughlan, A. T., Anderson, E., & Iacobucci, D. (2009). Determinants of pay
levels and structures in sales organizations. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 92–104.
M. Ertz et al.
Russell, S., & Brannan, M. J. (2016). “Getting the right people on the bus”: Recruitment,
selection and integration for the branded organization. European Management
Journal, 34(2), 114–124.
Schlager, T., Bodderas, M., Maas, P., & Cachelin, J. L. (2011). The influence of the
employer brand on employee attitudes relevant for service branding: An empirical
investigation. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(7), 497–508.
Schmidt, H. J., & Baumgarth, C. (2018). Strengthening internal brand equity with brand
ambassador programs: Development and testing of a success factor model. Journal of
Brand Management, 25(3), 250–265.
Schminke, M., Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. (2002). Organization structure and fairness
perceptions: The moderating effects of organizational level. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 89, 881–905.
Shore, L. M., Tetrick, L. E., Lynch, P., & Barksdale, K. (2006). Social and economic
exchange: Construct development and validation. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36, 837–867.
Siranni, N. J., Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., & Mandel, N. (2013). Branded service
encounters: Strategically aligning employee behavior with the brand positioning.
Journal of Marketing, 77(6), 108–123.
Sirmon, D. G., & Hitt, M. A. (2009). Contingencies within dynamic managerial
capabilities: Interdependent effects of resource investment and deployment on firm
performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(13), 1375–1394.
Sliter, M., Holland, B., Sliter, K., & Jones, M. (2016). View from the trenches:
Practitioners’ perspectives on key issues and opportunities in low-wage and frontline
jobs. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 174–181.
Smithey Fulmer, I. F., Gerhart, B., & Scott, K. S. (2003). Are the 100 best better? An
empirical investigation of the relationship between being a ‘great place to work’ and
firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 56, 965–993.
Spencer, M. (2021). In LVMH sets up support fund, Women’s Wear Daily (Daily edition, pp.
14–15). June 8.
Spiegelberg, A. (2017). The cloud nine culture. Brunswick Review, 13, 24–27.
Stahl, F., Heitmann, M., Lehmann, D. R., & Neslin, S. A. (2012). The impact of brand
equity on customer acquisition, retention, and profit margin. Journal of Marketing, 76
(4), 44–63.
Stone, M., Bearman, D., Butscher, S. A., Gilbert, D., Crick, P., & Moffett, T. (2004). The
effect of retail customer loyalty schemes—detailed measurement or transforming
11
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
marketing? Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 12(3),
305–318.
Supornpraditchai, T., Miller, K., Lings, I. N., & Jonmundsson, J. B. (2007). Employee-
based brand equity: Antecedents and consequences. In Australian and New Zealand
marketing academy conference. Otago University.
Tavassoli, N. T., Sorescu, A., & Chandy, R. (2014). Employee-based brand equity: Why
firms with strong brands pay their executives less. Journal of Marketing Research, 51
(6), 676–690.
Urde, M. (1999). Brand orientation: A mindset for building brands into strategic
resources. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1–3), 117–133.
Van Marrewijk, & Marcel. (2004). A value-based approach to organization types:
Towards a coherent set of stakeholder-oriented management tools. Journal of
Business Ethics, 55(2), 147–158.
Veloutsou, C., Chatzipanagiotou, K., & Christodoulides, G. (2020). The consumer-based
brand equity deconstruction and restoration process: Lessons from unliked brands.
Journal of Business Research, 111, 41–51.
Vomberg, A., Homburg, C., & Bornemann, T. (2015). Talented people and strong brands:
The contribution of human capital and brand equity to firm value. Strategic
Management Journal, 36, 2122–2131.
Wang, D. H. M., Chen, P. H., Yu, T. H. K., & Hsiao, C. Y. (2015). The effects of corporate
social responsibility on brand equity and firm performance. Journal of Business
Research, 68(11), 2232–2236.
West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural
equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling
(pp. 209–231). New York: Guilford.
Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as
initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding
managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 513–530.
Wieseke, J., Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., & van Dick, R. (2009). The role of leaders in internal
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73, 123–145.
Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix
elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2),
195–211.