Afshardoost Et Al (2021)

Journal of Strategic Marketing
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rjsm20
Internal brand management, brand

understanding, employee brand commitment, and
brand citizenship behavior: a meta-analysis
Mona Afshardoost, Mohammad Sadegh Eshaghi & Jana Lay-Hwa Bowden
To cite this article: Mona Afshardoost, Mohammad Sadegh Eshaghi & Jana Lay-Hwa Bowden
(2023) Internal brand management, brand understanding, employee brand commitment, and
brand citizenship behavior: a meta-analysis, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 31:5, 983-1011,
DOI: 10.1080/0965254X.2021.2016896
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2021.2016896
Published online: 30 Dec 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1221
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjsm20
JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING
2023, VOL. 31, NO. 5, 983–1011
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2021.2016896
Internal brand management, brand understanding, employee

brand commitment, and brand citizenship behavior: a meta-
analysis
a b c
Mona Afshardoost , Mohammad Sadegh Eshaghi and Jana Lay-Hwa Bowden
a
International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; bDepartment of
Management, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran; cMacquarie Business School, Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study examines the interrelationships between internal brand Received 12 May 2021
management (IBM), brand understanding (BU), employee brand Accepted 6 December 2021
commitment (EBC), and brand citizenship behavior (BCB) by synthe KEYWORDS
sizing existing empirical results via a meta-analysis. In addition, the Meta-analysis; internal brand
moderating effects of country and industry contexts on these inter management; internal
relationships are also investigated. The findings from 38 studies branding; brand
were used within the meta-analysis. The results demonstrate that understanding; employee
IBM plays a significant role in predicting both EBC and BCB. Among brand commitment; brand
all dimensions of IBM, brand communication was found to be the citizenship behavior
most crucial factor in predicting EBC, followed by brand-oriented
leadership. Of the different dimensions of IBM, brand-oriented
leadership has the greatest impact on BCB. Brand-centered HRM
had a modest impact on both EBC and BCB. In addition, BU had the
highest impact on BCB.
1. Introduction
Over the last two decades, in response to the changes in marketing logic (Vargo & Lusch,
2004), investigation of internal brand actors’ roles by various researchers has led to the
development of new approaches within the branding literature (Louro & Cunha, 2001).
The concept of internal brand management (IBM), which extended upon the commit
ment-trust theory of Morgan and Hunt (1994), has enriched identity-based brand man
agement (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005). Employees are considered a primary marketing target
of brand managers especially within the service industry (King, 2010). This is because the
role of the employee is simultaneously both an internal resource and a core part of
product (Yang et al., 2015). Similarly, Piehler et al. (2016) highlighted:
Competences rest on the organizational level but are inextricably linked with the people
(Freiling & Fichtner, 2010, p. 156)
Employees are strategically important to firm success (Viitala et al., 2020) as they are
ultimately responsible for fulfilling the brand promise (Piehler, 2018). Their perceptions of
brand value affect internal and external brand actors’ behavior through their interactions
CONTACT Jana Lay-Hwa Bowden Jana.bowden@mq.edu.au

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
984 M. AFSHARDOOST ET AL.
(Boukis & Christodoulides, 2020; Iyer et al., 2018). Management must therefore transfer
relevant brand information to employees in order to assist them in achieving the enter
prise’s goal (King & Grace, 2010). Aside from the cognitive aspect of employees knowl
edge, employees must also be affectively and behaviorally connected to brand value
(Burmann & Zeplin, 2005). To establish the brand internally, researchers have developed
conceptual models of IBM (see, Table 1) and they have explored three types of employee-
related outcomes of a cognitive, affective, and behavioral nature. The most common
sequence explored includes an examination of internal brand mechanisms>cognitive out
comes>affective outcomes>behavioral outcomes (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005; Piehler, 2018;
Porricelli et al., 2014). Among all the introduced variables, brand understanding (cognitive
outcome), employee brand commitment (affective outcome), and finally brand citizen
ship behavior (behavioral outcome) have drawn the most interest in the field (Piehler et
al., 2018).
Table 1. Summary of internal branding mechanisms.

Multidimensional/ Number Referenced
Unidimensional of Paper/
Authors Year Mechanisms/Dimensions IBM Citations Model
Punjaisri et al. 2009 Training, orientation, group Multidimensional 125 (Punjaisri &
meeting, and briefing Wilson,
2007)
Punjaisri et al. 2009 Training, orientation, group Multidimensional 364 (Punjaisri &
meeting, and briefing Wilson,
2007)
Burmann et al. 2009 Brand-focused HR, brand Multidimensional 412 (Burmann &
communication, and brand- Zeplin,
oriented leadership 2005)
Punjaisri and Wilson 2011 Internal communication tools and Multidimensional 313 (Punjaisri &
training program Wilson,
2007)
Chang et al. 2012 Brand-centered HRM Unidimensional 156 (Burmann &
Zeplin,
2005)
Porricelli et al. 2014 Brand-focused HR, brand Multidimensional 63 (Burmann
communication, and brand- et al.,
Yang et al. 2015 Internal branding Unidimensional 40 (Punjaisri et
al.,
2009b)
Du Preez and Bendixen 2015 Brand-focused HR, brand Multidimensional 130 (Burmann
Karimi Alavijeh et al. 2015 Brand-focused HR, brand Multidimensional NA (Burmann
Chiang et al. 2018 Brand-centered HRM Unidimensional 10 (Burmann
et al.,
2009)
Behzadi et al. 2019 Brand-focused HR, brand Multidimensional 0 (Burmann
Muhammad et al. 2019 Brand-centered communications Unidimensional 2 (Punjaisri et
al.,
2009b)
Dechawatanapaisal 2019 Internal branding Unidimensional 4 (Aurand et
al., 2005)
JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC MARKETING 985
The concept of brand citizenship behavior (BCB) has been introduced as a new
measurement tool through which the extent to which employees internalize the
brand and engage in discretionary behavior that promotes and supports the organiza
tion can be examined. BCB is considered a higher order construct (HOC) and an abstract
formed object (Rossiter, 2002). It is generally considered to be a dependent variable,
which is predicted by employee brand commitment (EBC) (Chiang et al., 2020), IBM (Du
Preez et al., 2017), and brand understanding (BU) (Piehler, 2018). To date, the concept of
BCB has been applied in sectors such as the airline industry (Erkmen & Hancer, 2015),
hoteling (Shaari et al., 2015), retailing (Burmann et al., 2009), the cement and construc
tion industry (Dechawatanapaisal, 2019), and telecommunication sector (Adamu et al.,
2020).
Despite these studies, the magnitude and the quality of factors influencing BCB remain
unclear. Although the theoretical relationships between IBM, BU, EBC, and BCB have been
well documented (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005; Karanges et al., 2018; King & Grace, 2010),
differences between the research context, research approach, and sampling methods
between studies have resulted in a lack of consensus across research findings
(Stepchenkova & Mills, 2010). Consequently, following a narrow review, researchers,
readers, and managers may encounter contradictory statistical results. For instance,
some researchers claim significant connection between EBC and BCB and one dimension
of IBM, namely, brand communication and EBC (Porricelli et al., 2014), whileothers have
not identified a significant relationship (Ahn et al., 2016; Erkmen & Hancer, 2015). More
importantly, reported R and F squares vary between studies, making it difficult and, in
some instances, impossible to predict BCB. For example, two highly different R squares
(0.354 vs. 0.57) for BCB have been reported for a specific model in the literature (Karimi
Alavijeh et al., 2016; Porricelli et al., 2014), meaning that predicting BCB behavior by
referring to only one published article may lead to interpretation bias. Research is
required to develop a comprehensive framework through a rigorous meta-analysis
procedure.
This study aims to propose a comprehensive framework, which examines the relation
ships between IBM and its most cited employee-related outcomes by conducting a
rigorous appraisal and synthesis of previous research. It is expected that the reduction
aspect of scientific progress (Hunt, 2003, p. 84) plus calling for extending methodologies
in the field (Piehler et al., 2018) will be satisfied through analysis of the estimated effect
sizes reported through the body of data, thus enabling the development of a more
reliable theory of IBM. This analysis will therefore provide internal brand managers with
a thorough review of the quantitative literature in major databases that have investigated
the relationships between four critical internal branding concepts.
2. Literature review
2.1. Internal brand management
The concept of IBM, or in some papers internal branding, is defined by Ragheb et al. (2018,
p. 83) as “a management tool for ensuring that employees have a shared understanding of
the desired corporate brand and that they are able and willing to reflect this image to other
stakeholders through their behaviour’. IBM is considered a mechanism by which the brand
promise is delivered through the indirect and direct practices of internal brand actors
(Piehler et al., 2018; Dechawatanapaisal, 2019). According to Iyer et al. (2018), the IBM
concept is beneficial since it facilitates operationalization of brand orientation, assists in
implementing branding activities, and ensures that internal brand actors share relevant
brand information. IBM is facilitated through the practice of internal marketing and is
differentiated from employer branding through its focus on existing employees (Barros-
Arrieta & García-Cali, 2021).
A plethora of research has been conducted in two major arenas focusing on an
investigation of IBM’s consequences including EBC (Punjaisri & Wilson, 2011), BCB
(Dechawatanapaisal, 2019), brand identification (Bravo et al., 2017), brand equity (Du
Preez et al., 2017), brand loyalty (Du Preez & Bendixen, 2015), brand knowledge (Piehler
et al., 2016), job satisfaction (Saleem & Iglesias, 2016), intention to stay (Ragheb et al.,
2018), and BU (Piehler et al., 2016). First, broaden the IBM framework through investigat
ing external brand actors and its effect on organization-related outcomes (IBM1) (e.g.
Kimpakorn & Tocquer, 2009; Tuominen et al., 2016). So far, the efforts in IBM1 have
resulted in proposing the third perspective of brand equity labeled employee-based
brand equity (EBBE) (King & Grace, 2009), with its effect on executive pay (Tavassoli et
al., 2014), customer-based brand equity (Hasni et al., 2018), brand performance (Iyer et al.,
2018), and finally, financial-based brand equity (Tuominen et al., 2016). However, the
arena has suffered from a lack of research investigating the role of external brand actors
(Piehler et al., 2018) as well as a lack of research exploring how organizations may recruit
the right candidates (Foster et al., 2010).
This paper focuses on deepening the IBM framework by examining the impact of IBM
on employee-related outcomes (IBM2) (e.g. Piehler et al., 2016; Terglav et al., 2016; Xiong
et al., 2013). We focus on IBM as a construct and examine its impact on employee-related
outcomes as well as its causal relations. With regard to conceptualizations of IBM,
Burmann and Zeplin (2005) through qualitative research introduced three internal
brand dimensions including brand-focused HR, brand communication, and brand-
oriented leadership. By emphasizing the role of internal branding, Punjaisri and Wilson
(2011) categorized internal branding mechanisms into internal communication tools and
training programs. Table 1 summarizes selected internal branding mechanisms in terms of
the authors, publication year, number of citations, dimensionality, and referred model.
The model presented by Burmann and Zeplin (2005) and Burmann et al. (2009) has been
the most heavily cited in the last decade, and therefore, following the suggestion by
Piehler et al. (2018), IBM is considered to be an abstract construct with three dimensions
including brand-focused HR, brand communication, and brand-oriented leadership.
However, given that some authors have viewed IBM and some of its dimensions as a
unidimensional variable (concrete variable), this approach has been considered, as well.
Second, with regard to the employee-related outcomes of IBM, researchers have
examined new variables such as EBC (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005), BCB (Burmann & Zeplin,
2005), identification (Piehler et al., 2016), BU (Xiong et al., 2013), brand psychological
ownership (Chang et al., 2012), employee brand trust, and intention to stay (Koo & Curtis,
2020). Piehler et al. (2018) stated that the outcomes can be classified into cognitive,
affective, and behavioral dimensions. However, when considering the way in which these
concepts have been operationalized, two theoretical gaps still exist in the field. First,
statements such as ‘I like to work for our brand’ (Piehler et al., 2016) as a metric for
measuring employee brand identification represents a favorable evaluation (White, 2014),

a desire (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2004), and a behavioral tendency (Bagozzi, 1992) that should
be considered as a preintention step (Perugini and Bagozzi, 2004). Therefore, a conative
dimension appears to be necessary in order to understand the outcomes of IBM. Second,
the literature currently presents two proposed avenues for predicting BCB, namely,
IBM>cognitive >affective>behavioral (e.g. Burmann & Zeplin, 2005) and cognitive>affec
tive>behavioral (Piehler et al., 2016). In contrast to the claim that cognitive aspect affects
the affective one (Gartner, 1994; King, 2010), there might be a possible reverse impact
according to Hudson et al. (2015). Activities with regard to the proto-self, which is
responsible for forming emotions and feelings, always precede activities in the core
consciousness where thoughts are shaped. This approach has been accepted in different
fields of study (e.g. Afshardoost & Eshaghi, 2020; Wilson & Liu, 2011). Adding conative
outcomes to the equation enables the development of a new avenue within the IBM2
literature since IBM may then be viewed as developing through a new path, namely,
>affective>cognitive>conative>behavioral.
Since the amount of existing statistically tested studies is the main foundation for
conducting meta-analysis, the three most highly cited employee-related outcomes,
namely, BU (cognitive dimension), EBC (affective dimension), and BCB (behavioral dimen
sion), were selected and entered into the meta-analysis procedure. The third part of IBM2,
tries to justify the theoretical interrelationships between IBM mechanisms and employee-
related outcomes or in some cases, between dimensions of IBM (IBM as a construct) and
employee-related outcomes. Table 2 briefly presents the inconsistent results of some
tested casual relations. In order to answer the contradictory results of the third subdivision
of IBM2 and to reach a free statistical bias model, a meta-analysis technique is employed in
this study.
2.2. Employee brand commitment

By considering EBC as synonymous with organizational commitment (OC), Burmann and
Zeplin (2005) defined EBC as the ‘extent of psychological attachment of employees to the
brand, which influences their willingness to exert extra effort towards reaching the brand
goals’. These premises led them to first conceptualize EBC as a three-dimensional con
struct including obedience (employee’s willingness to adjust his or her own views and
behavious in accordance with the requirements of the brand), identification (the extent to
which the employee believes to be a constituent of the brand and the firm), and
Table 2. Inconsistent results of some tested causal relations.

Casual Relation Authors Year Reported Beta
IBM on EBC Porricelli et al. 2014 0.203
Karimi Alavijeh et al. 2016 0.91
IBM on BCB Du Preez et al. 2017 (case 2) 0.636
Dechawatanapaisal 2019 0.11
EBC on BCB Chiang et al. 2018 0.731
King & Grace 2012 0.44
BU on EBC Piehler 2018 0.33
Piehler et al. 2016 0.03
BU on BCB Piehler 2018 0.53
Piehler et al. 2016 0.74
internalization (the degree to which the employee has incorporated the brand into his or
her thinking and behavior). Similarly, the concept of commitment in both customer
behavior and organization behavior studies has been conceptualized as a multidimen
sional construct, namely, normative, affective, and continuous/calculative (Allen & Meyer,
1990; Osuna Ramírez et al., 2017). However, later, researchers in the IBM field claimed that
both normative and continuous aspects of commitment are antithetical to the concep
tualization of employee’s brand-related behaviors such as BCB (Piehler et al., 2016) and, in
contrast to the affective aspect, are driven by external consequences (King & Grace, 2009).
As a result, EBC, as a unidimensional variable, is considered to be an affective conse
quence of IBM and predictor of an employee’s brand-related behaviors. According to the
EBC pyramid that accepts the cognitive>affective causal relationship, EBC is created
through providing technical and brand-related information to the employee (King &
Grace, 2008).
Numerous studies have reported the effect of IBM on EBC with different levels of
impact (Burmann et al., 2009; Chiang et al., 2020; Koo & Curtis, 2020; Du Preez & Bendixen,
2015; Punjaisri & Wilson, 2011). Arnett et al. (2002) conducted a study and found that job
satisfaction as an internal branding tool has a positive impact on employee commitment
towards their organization. Similarly, Porricelli et al. (2014) stated that internal brand
management has a positive and significant effect on EBC. In a study of employees of the
hospitality sector in Taiwan, Yang et al., (2015) discovered that internal branding had a
significant impact on EBC. As such, we propose that
H1: IBM is positively related to EBC.
Previous research has varied the research context when examining the relationship
between the dimensions of IBM and EBC. Based on social exchange theory, Ravens (2014)
argued that brand-focused HRM is a determinant of brand commitment when employees
feel that they are being supported by firms. Similarly, research conducted with 678 service
employees in Australia revealed that internal brand practices have a positive effect on EBC
(Piehler et al., 2016). Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1a: Brand-focused HRM is positively related to EBC.
Burmann et al. (2008), in their exploratory study, found a positive impact of brand-
oriented leadership on EBC. Chiang et al. (2020) further found that brand-specific trans
formational leadership is highly related to brand commitment for frontline employees in
the tourism industry. Here, we extend previous research (Morhart et al., 2009) that
suggests that brand-specific leadership positively influences employee brand behavior.
Thus, we assume that
H1b: Brand-oriented leadership is positively related to EBC.
Brand communication is also an important asset in internal branding management.

Sharma and Kamalanabhan (2014), in their studies of employees in the telecommunica
tion industry in India, found a positive relationship between internal brand
communication and EBC. Adileh and Çengel (2019), in their study of Palestinian employ
ees in the banking industry, also revealed a positive significant relationship between
brand communication and EBC. Therefore, we assume that
H1c: Brand communication is positively related to EBC.
2.3. Brand understanding

BU has been considered both a unidimensional variable (Kimpakorn & Tocquer, 2009) and a
multidimensional construct (Barros-Arrieta & García-Cali, 2021) in the IBM literature. Piehler
et al. (2016) defined BU as employees’ comprehension of brand-related information. The
connotation of BU is beyond just knowing since employees may call on brand values when
asked, but may not necessarily show those brand values in practice (de Chernatony and
Cottam, 2006). It is also beyond the technical scope of an employee’s job requirements
(King & Grace, 2010), and it encompasses both tacit and explicit knowledge (Murillo & King,
2019). On the other hand, although BU and brand knowledge have been used interchange
ably (Murillo & King, 2019), Piehler (2018) claimed that brand knowledge along with brand
relevance, behavior relevance, and brand confidence represent the four dimensions of BU.
Generally, BU is considered a mediating variable between organizational activities and
employee attitudes and behaviors (King & So, 2015). Surprisingly, there is a lack of studies
on the relationship between IBM (as a construct), its dimensions, and BU; however, by
adapting situated learning theory (SLT), the impact of the three IBM mechanisms on BU in
new hires has been investigated recently (Murillo & King, 2019). Therefore, we assume that
H2: IBM is positively related to BU.
H2a: Brand-focused HRM is positively related to BU.
H2b: Brand-oriented leadership is positively related to BU.
H2c: Brand communication is positively related to BU.
Furthermore, along with the classical causal relationship between the cognitive and
affective aspects of the phenomenon, Piehler et al. (2016), following organizational role
theory, highlighted the contribution of BU to the development of employees’ emotional
attachment to the brand. According to King and Grace (2010), strong BU may increase role
clarity and decrease role ambiguity, which, in turn, enhances employees’ emotional
attachment to the brand. Thus,
H3: BU is positively related to EBC.
In addition, BU as a cognitive aspect is an important prerequisite of brand-aligned

employee behavior (Piehler et al., 2016). Piehler (2018) stated, ‘employees cannot behave in
a way consistent with the brand identity or brand promise if they do not understand the
brand’. Following this argument, we assume that
H4: BU is positively related to BCB.
2. 4. Brand citizenship behavior

According to Porricelli et al. (2014), organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), which was
first introduced by Organ (1988), is the theoretical foundation of BCB and is defined as
‘individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal
reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organiza
tion’. Uçanok and Karabatı (2013, p. 89) claim that 'organizations need their employees to
engage in discretionary behaviors beyond formal job requirements’. OCB is considered to be
an intra-organizational concept, while BCB goes beyond the concept of OCB and includes
externally targeted behaviors (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005). BCB describes the intention of
employees to exhibit certain behaviors beyond the formal expectation of the system that
enhances brand identity (Burmann et al., 2009). BCB was first introduced and statistically
tested as a multidimensional construct, which included the dimensions of willingness to
help, propensity for further development, and brand enthusiasm (Burmann & Zeplin,
2005; Burmann et al., 2009). Following BCB as a multidimensional construct, Hoppe
(2018) suggested four dimensions for BCB including brand acceptance, brand promotion,
and social and functional participation. While Porricelli et al. (2014) claimed that the
balance of evidence clearly supported a multidimensional rather than unidimensional
view of BCB (which is true in terms of the number of citations in the IBM literature), a rival
approach with the same theoretical background (King & Grace, 2012) considered BCB as a
unidimensional construct. In contrast to Burmann and Zeplin (2005) who viewed BCB as
focusing on both internal and external brand actors (and therefore beyond the scope of
OCB, which includes externally targeted behavioral intentions), King and Grace (2012)
have assumed BCB to be the synonym of OCB noting that ‘organizations cannot possibly
predict all the appropriate employee behaviors that are required for organizational (or brand)
success’. Although discussion on the nature of BCB is beyond the scope of a meta-analysis
procedure, there are some points worth mentioning in this regard. The authors believe
that employee’s behavioral intentions that are related to the brand values as highlighted
by Burmann and Zeplin (2005) and Hoppe (2018) are measurable. In addition, brand
managers already handle subjects that seem more uncontrollable such as customer
engagement, EBC, and brand socialization. Brand as Company is only one interpretation
of the concept of the brand (De Chernatony, 2010, p. 30); therefore, BCB is not entirely
synonymous with OCB. Similarly, considering customers, guests, and tourists as partial
employees, the concept of customer citizenship behavior (CCB) has been adapted in the
tourism field (Tung et al., 2017). Finally, the suggested items for measuring unidimen
sional BCB are not concrete objects (Rossiter, 2002). Overall, BCB as HOC with several
context-based dimensions is suggested. Table 3 presents two nominal and practical
definitions of BCB.
Despite a lack of consensus concerning the conceptualization of BCB, almost all
researchers discuss BCB as a primary outcome of IBM, meaning that implementing
organizational mechanisms is responsible for shaping employees’ behavioral intentions
(Dechawatanapaisal, 2019; Piehler et al., 2016). Porricelli et al. (2014) found a significant
direct relationship between IBM and BCB. Similarly, Du Preez et al. (2017) reported that
Table 3. Nominal and practical definitions of BCB.

Authors Nominal Definition Practical Definition/Dimensions/Items Type of Model
Burmann BCB is an aggregate ● Willingness to help Reflective-
and construct that ● Brand enthusiasm formative
Zeplin describes a number of ● Propensity for further development
(2005) generic employee
behaviors that enhance
brand identity.
King and BCB is only present when ● Take responsibility for task outside of the own area Reflective
Grace employees feel ● Demonstrate brand-consistent behaviors
(2012) committed to the ● Consider the impact on brand before acting
brand values ● Show extra initiatives to maintain brand behavior pass
on brand knowledge to new employees
● Regularly recommend brand
● Interested to learn more about brand
IBM always affects BCB directly. Behzadi et al. (2019) studied the impact of IBM on BCB
among sales personnel of a FMCG company and found a significant relationship between
IBM and BCB. Therefore, we propose that
H5: IBM is positively related to BCB.
Like the relationship between IBM dimensions and EBC, researchers have tended to
investigate the relationship between the dimensions of IBM and BCB. For instance, Chiang
et al. (2018) considered the effect of brand-centered human resource management on
BCB and found a significant relationship. Chang et al. (2012) revealed that brand-centered
HRM has a significant impact on helping behaviors and brand consideration. Based on this
finding, the following hypothesis has been formulated:
H5a: Brand-focused HRM is positively related to BCB.
Shaari and Hussin (2015) have studied the impact of two aspects of brand leadership
including transactional brand leadership and transformational brand leadership on employee
brand citizenship behavior. Their results revealed that both leadership styles have significant
and positive relationships to BCB. Mahmoodi et al. (2017) in their study found that the brand-
oriented leadership is positively related to BCB. Therefore, we propose that
H5b: Brand-oriented leadership is positively related to BCB.
Piehler et al. (2018) hypothesized and supported the impact of brand communication on
BCB. This interrelationship is based on social learning theory (Kruis et al., 2020), which
explains that people learn new behaviors from other people by noticing the consequences
of those behaviors, Similarly, Lauer (2018) studied the impact of brand communication on
BCB cross-culturally and found a significant relationship. Thus, we propose that
H5c: Brand communication is positively related to BCB.

Aside from IBM, EBC is mentioned widely as another antecedent of BCB. According to
Ghenaatgar and Jalili (2016), EBC has an impact on BCB (Erkmen & Hancer, 2015; Lauer,
2018). Empirical evidence also indicates an effect of brand commitment on BCB (King &
Grace, 2010, 2012), meaning that the emotional aspect of employees led to their beha
vioral intentions. Therefore, along with previous studies, it is suggested that
H6: EBC is positively related to BCB.
2.5. Potential moderators

The results of Q-value and I2 tests in Table 4to6 indicate that the effect values of the study
samples are heterogeneous. It can therefore be concluded that there are some regulatory
variables that affect the associations. Several moderators might have led to the incon
sistent results of previous investigations. Previous studies concerning IBM have found that
the industry context in which the organization operates can explain the differences
between study results (Lundorff et al., 2017; Du Preez et al., 2017). This may be due to
the impact of the industry image as one of the characteristics of industry context, as
Burmann et al. (2008) stated ‘the industry image does not only have an impact on the
perceptions of potential investors but also on other relevant stakeholders (employees) of
corporate brand management’. In addition, Du Preez et al. (2017) has argued that factors
driving IBM are contextual and based on an organization’s strategies as well as the
environment in which it operates. Therefore, in this study, we will investigate the extent
to which industry context moderates the proposed relationships.
Although many researchers have examined the moderating impact of country con
text (such as cultural diversity) on employee organizational commitment and OCB at
country and individual levels in both western and eastern organizations (Chen &
Francesco, 2000; Felfe & Yan, 2009; Felfe et al., 2008), until now, there has been a lack
of research that has examined the role of culture in EBC and BCB. This is an important
gap in the literature since research has found that the cultural diversity between
western and eastern societies plays an important role in shaping outcomes (Hofstede,
2001; Oyserman et al., 2002).
We focus on the dimension of individualism-collectivism that has been the focus of
studies on commitment and citizenship behavior (Stanley et al., 2013). Eastern societies
are generally more collectivistic than western societies. Collectivism is expected to be
connected positively to affective and normative commitment as Cohen and Keren
(2008) stated that ‘it is embedded strongly in holding interdependence or in group
objectives as more important than sell-centered and independent objectives’. Similarly,
Cheng and Stockdale (2003) regard a stronger sense of identification to organizational
members from collectivistic societies. Therefore, studies were classified into western
(individualistic) and eastern (collectivism) countries based on their culture to see if the
country context moderates the interrelationships between constructs. Thus, we propose
that
H7a.b.c: Country context has a moderating effect on the relationships between IBM, EBC,
and BCB.
Figure 1. Proposed framework of the relationships.
H8a.b.c: Industry context has a moderating effect on the relationships between IBM, EBC,
and BCB.
Based on the review of the existing literature, a research framework and corresponding
hypotheses were proposed (see, Figure 1)
3. Methodology
The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) 2.0 was employed to compute the effect size of
each variable. This method that was initially developed in the field of psychology in the
1970s (Glass, 1976) was viewed as an analysis of outcomes of statistical results for
individual studies (Hedges & Olkin, 1984) and was utilized to combine different effect
sizes from multiple quantitative articles to assess the magnitude and direction of the
construct’s associations. The main advantages of CMA 2.0 include ease of entering the
data, calculation, and output (Martin, 2008). There are three measures for the primary
effect size: correlation coefficients (r), standardized mean differences (Cohen’s d), and
discrete data log odds ratios (Borenstein et al., 2009).
3.1. Record protocol and eligibility criteria

The record protocol included eligibility criteria to specify the characteristics of the study.
In this sense, the collected articles had to be scientific and focus on BCB, EBC, BU, and IBM,
as well as published in academic journals and dissertations. The articles collected were in
English and Persian. They had to be a quantitative study that reported correlation
coefficients, path coefficient or regression coefficients, and the sample size of respon
dents. Journal articles were selected based on the Q1-Q4 journal ranking in Scopus.
Articles in the Persian language were checked thoroughly by the authors in terms of
reliability of the reported data. We allowed for variations in the IBM definition since it is
frequently reported under varying labels such as internal branding. We did not consider
any time frame for the studies since some of the concepts have been introduced in the
last decade.
3.2. Data collection and coding procedure

To identify the studies on BCB, EBC, BU, and IBM, online reviews of major academic
databases were conducted on Google scholar, ScienceDirect, Emerald, SAGE journals,
Online Wiley Library, Taylor & Francis, EBSCO, and ProQuest. Studies written in Farsi were
searched in Iranian major academic databases. The studies were selected through a two-
step process. First, the papers were reviewed by titles and abstracts from major academic
databases, and 98 studies were selected. Then, following a more detailed review, 38
papers were found to be eligible for meta-analysis and the remaining studies were
excluded as they did not meet the eligibility criteria (see, section 3.1) or they considered
EBC and BCB multidimensional.
Accordingly, all the articles collected were classified based on different sets of reported
information including the article’s citation, publication type, source of article (database)
and type of study, sampling method, sample size and demographics about participants,
the country where the sample was collected, industry context, correlation, standardized
regression coefficients, t-value, p-value, and independent and dependent variables. Then,
the studies were coded according to the relationships they reported. Moderating analysis
was conducted to identify the causes of heterogeneity, including country context and
industry context. If more than three studies reported our required data, we conducted
between-group analyses of effects according to country context (Western countries: USA,
South Africa, Germany, Portugal, and Australia vs. Eastern countries: Iran, India, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Palestine) and industry context (Financial service vs.
Retailing vs. Hospitality vs. Manufacturing). Owing to a limited number of studies that
examined the effects of IBM dimensions on BU, EBC, and BCB and also BU on EBC and BCB,
the moderating effects could not be investigated in these relationships.
In order to calculate a proper correlation, variables were only selected if the relation
ship between each pair of variables had been analyzed by previous studies at least three
times. Some articles reported multiple measures of the same relationships with different
sources of samples, which were coded as independent studies. This resulted in 88
observations. Table 4 presents characteristics of included studies.
3.3. Publication bias

Several researchers have discussed the existence of publication bias against statistically
irrelevant results in peer-reviewed journals (Orwin, 1983; Rosenthal, 1979). Since this
study was limited to peer-reviewed articles and a specific period, this might cause
potential publication bias in the meta-analysis results.
Two approaches were adopted in this study to deal with this potential publication bias.
First, the funnel plot was plotted with the effect size and the sample size to show the
distribution pattern of studies around the weighted mean effect. A funnel plot showed
that the studies were more or less equally distributed around the mean (Duval & Tweedie,
2000). This means that there are some missing studies that could be included in meta-
analysis.
Table 4. Characteristics of included studies.

Sample
Study name Journal or publisher Country size Relationship Industry
1 Du Preez et al. (2017) Journal of Product & South 154 1, 2, 9 Financial service
Brand Management Africa
South 96 Telecommunication
Africa
USA 241 Retailing
2 Yang et al. (2015) Tourism and Taiwan 661 1 Tourism &
Hospitality Research hospitality
3 Du Preez and Bendixen (2015) International Journal South 156 1 Financial Service
of Bank Marketing Africa
4 Punjaisri et al. (2009b) Journal of Service Thailand 680 1 Tourism &
Management hospitality
5 Punjaisri et al. (2009a) Journal of Service Thailand 680 1 Tourism &
6 Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) Journal of Service Thailand 680 1 Tourism &
7 Mousavi and Golestani (2016) Journal of Iran 162 1 Financial service
Administrative
Management,
Education and
Training
8 Beigi and Esmaeili Far (2014) Journal of Iran 140 1, 2, 9 Financial service
Interdisciplinary
Research
9 Mouton (2018) Dissertation South 146 1 Public service
Africa
10 Javid et al. (2016) Procedia Economics Iran 136 1 Manufacturing
and Finance
11 Porricelli et al. (2014) Journal of Retailing USA 241 1, 9 Retailing
and Consumer
Services
12 Ghenaatgar and Jalili (2016) International Business Iran 89 1, 2, 9 Financial service
Management
14
13 Moghadam et al. (2012) Management Research Iran 122 1 Tourism &
in Iran hospitality
14 Behzadi et al. (2019) Journal of Business Iran 243 1, 2, 9 Manufacturing
Management
(Tehran University)
15 Karimi Alavijeh et al. (2016) Management Studies Iran 154 1, 2, 9 Financial service
in Development and
Evolution
16 Adileh and Çengel (2019) International Journal Palestine 614 1, 3, 5, 7 Financial service
of Commerce and
Finance
19
17 Eyvazloo et al. (2016) Dissertation Iran 268 1,2 Financial service
18 Garivani and Khorakian (2016) Dissertation Iran 269 1 Financial service
19 Dechawatanapaisal (2019) Industrial and Thailand 702 2 Manufacturing
Commercial
Training
20 Lauer (2018) Dissertation Portugal 91 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Multiple industries
Germany 228 8, 9
21 Burmann et al. (2008) Journal of Brand Germany 1783 3,5,7 Multiple industries
Management
22 Chiang et al. (2018) International Journal Taiwan 341 3, 4, 9 Tourism &
of Contemporary hospitality
Hospitality
Management
23 Chiang et al. (2020) Journal of Brand Taiwan 268 5, 6 Tourism &
(Continued)
Table 4. (Continued).
Sample
Study name Journal or publisher Country size Relationship Industry
24 Jandaghi et al. (2015) World Scientific News Iran 95 6 Financial Service
25 Shaari and Hussin (2015) Asian Social Science Malaysia 286 6 Tourism &
hospitality
26 Mahmoodi et al. (2017) Journal of Business Iran 210 6 Manufacturing
Management
27 Muhammad et al. (2019) Journal of Distribution Pakistan 263 7 Financial service
Science
28 Sharma and Kamalanabhan International Journal India 345 7 Telecommunication
(2014) of Business
Excellence
29 Piehler et al. (2018) Journal of brand Germany 790 9, 10, 11 Tourism &
management hospitality
30 Erkmen and Hancer (2015) Journal of Air Turkey 523 9 Tourism &
Transport hospitality
Management
31 Erkmen et al. (2017) Tourism Analysis Turkey 523 3, 5, 7, 9 Tourism &
hospitality
32 King and Grace (2012) European Journal of Australia 371 9 Service industry
Marketing
33 Piehler et al. (2016) European Journal of Australia 375 9, 10, 11 Tourism &
Marketing hospitality
34 Piehler (2018) Journal of brand Germany 790 9, 10, 11 Tourism &
management hospitality
35 Shaari et al. (2012) International Journal Malaysia 288 9 Tourism &
of Business and hospitality
Society
36 Zuhdiyani (2018) Dissertation Indonesia 183 9 Service industry
37 Shirazi and Sadeghi (2017) Quarterly Journal of Iran 215 9 Public service
Brand Management
38 Chang et al. (2012) European Journal of Taiwan 453 4 Tourism &
Marketing hospitality
Brand-oriented Leadership- EBC 5
Brand-oriented Leadership-BCB 6
Brand Communication-EBC 7
Brand Communication-BCB 8
IBM (Unidimensional)- EBC 1
IBM (Unidimensional)-BCB 2
Brand-focused HR-EBC 3
Brand-focused HR -BCB 4
Brand-focused HR-EBC 3
IBM-BCB 2
EBC – BCB 9
BU-EBC 10
BU-BCB 11
Note:
Measured relationships:
Second, a ‘Classic Fail-safe N’ test was conducted to determine the stability of meta-
analysis results by computing how many missing studies would be required before the p-
value became non-significant (Begg & Mazumdar, 1994; Rosenthal, 1979). Using a criterion
trivial level of 0.05, all of these numbers exceeded the suggested thresholds with 5 N + 10
(Duval & Tweedie, 2000). This shows that publication bias was not an issue in the study.
3.4. Analysis
As previously reported, to perform the statistical procedures of the meta-analysis, 38
studies that generated 88 observations were analysed. As reflected in Table 4, the studies
were published between 2008 and 2019. The selected articles were located across 14
countries. These countries generated the largest number of publications: Thailand with 4
studies (n = 2742), Germany with 4 studies (n = 3.591), and South Africa with 4 studies
(n = 1059). (We have not considered 14 studies from Iran due to the fact that most of them
were published in the Persian language.)
Table 5 shows the direct effect of the relationships. The total N reflects the total
number of effects used in the analysis. The point estimate is the strength or magnitude
of correlations for each relationship. Cohen’s (1992) guideline was applied to analyse the
effect sizes. Correlations of 0.10, 0.30, and 0.50 are considered small, medium, and large
effects, respectively.
The lower and upper limits show the confidence interval, which reflects the range
within which the actual effects are. Both p-values and z-statistics test statistical signifi
cance. The heterogeneity of the effect sizes between studies was checked with two
statistics. A Q-test (Hedges & Olkin, 1984) was implemented to measure the homogeneity
of effect sizes. Then, an I2 statistic showing the ratio of between-group variance to the
total variation across effect sizes was performed in order to reflect the amount of variation
in effect sizes due to the differences among studies. As the values increase, the hetero
geneity grows. Higgins et al. (2003) indicated that values of 0% reflect no heterogeneity,
50% reflect moderate heterogeneity, and 75% reflect high heterogeneity. The significant
results of heterogeneity tests for the effects of IBM and its dimensions on EBC and BCB
(see, Table 6) and the effects of BU on EBC and BCB indicated that there were significant
variabilities between studies; thus, this study utilized a random effect model.
4. Results
4.1. Relationship with employee brand commitment (EBC)
The results demonstrate that IBM is the top driver of EBC with a total effect size of 0.499.
The fail-safe N shows that it would take more than 87 studies to retrieve this effect. The
confidence interval ranges from medium to very large. Of the three dimensions of IBM, the
Table 5. Analysis of the direct effects.

Effect size and 95% interval Test of null (2-Tail)
From To N Sample size Point estimate 95% CI Z-value P-value

IBM (unidimensional) EBC 20 5932 0.499 (0.389,0.595) 7.847 0.000
BCB 11 2464 0.362 (0.237,0.475) 5.404 0.000
Brand-focused HR EBC 6 3580 0.151 (−0.088,0.373) 1.240 0.000
BCB 4 1113 0.198 (−0.006,0.387) 1.899 0.058
Brand-oriented leadership EBC 6 3507 0.357 (0.191,0.503) 4.061 0.000
BCB 6 1178 0.427 (0.166,0.632) 3.097 0.002
Brand communication EBC 7 3847 0.483 (0.389,0.568) 8.811 0.000
BCB 2 319 - - - -
BU EBC 3 1955 0.287 (0.204,0.366) 6.566 0.000
BU BCB 3 1955 0.525 (0.427,0.610) 9.014 0.000
EBC BCB 20 6076 0.296 (0.170,0.412) 4.476 0.000
Table 6. Heterogeneity analyses.

From To Q-value df (Q) P-Value I-Squared Fail-safe N
IBM (unidimensional) EBC 518.828 19 0.000 96.338 87
BCB 110.404 10 0.000 90.942 751
Brand-focused HRM EBC 215.882 5 0.000 97.684 126
BCB 33.187 3 0.000 95.688 53
Brand-oriented leadership EBC 115.958 5 0.000 96.093 622
BCB 121.053 5 0.000 95.870 391
Brand communication EBC 65.848 6 0.000 90.88 1511
BCB - - - - -
BU EBC 7.442 2 0.024 73.125 126
BU BCB 15.414 2 0.000 87.025 492
EBC BCB 416.423 19 0.000 95.437 2436
meta-analysis for brand communication is significant with an effect size of 0.483, where
the confidence interval falls between medium (0.389) and large (0.568). The fail-safe N
demonstrates that it would take 1511 studies to nullify the result. The summary effect size
for brand-oriented leadership and EBC is medium (0.357). The actual effect size falls
between small (0.191) and large (0.503). It would take 622 studies to nullify the effect.
The statistic for the relationship between brand-focused HR and EBC is small (0.151) where
the confidence interval is between a small (0.088) and a medium (0.373) effect. The fail-
safe N reflects that it would take 126 studies to nullify the result. Furthermore, BU has
shown the effect size of 0.287 with EBC, which is small-medium. The summary effect size
for this relationship falls between small-medium (0.204) and medium (0.366). It would
take 126 studies to nullify this effect.
Therefore, hypotheses H1, H1a.b.c, and H3 were supported.
4.2. Relationship with brand citizenship behavior (BCB)

IBM has a medium relationship with BCB (0.362), and the actual effect ranges from small-
medium (0.237) and large (0.475). It would take 751 studies to nullify this effect. Among
different dimensions of IBM, brand-oriented leadership has the highest effect size (0.427)
with BCB. The lower limit (0.166) is small, while the upper limit (0.632) approached a very
large effect. The fail-safe N indicates that there need to be 391 studies to nullify this effect.
The summary effect size for brand-focused HR and BCB is small (0.198) where the true
effect lies between very small and negative (−0.006) and medium (0.387). It would take 53
studies to nullify this effect. Unfortunately, studies of the relationships between brand
communication and BCB were not sufficient for meta-analysis. However, the result depicts
that BU is the top driver of the BCB among all independent variables with an actual effect
size of 0.525, where the confidence interval is between large (0.427) and very large (0.610).
The fail-safe N demonstrates that 492 studies are needed to nullify this effect. Finally, the
relationships between EBC and BCB were found to be small-medium (0.296). The lower
bound (0.170) is small, while the upper bound (0.412) is a large effect. A total number of
2436 studies would be required to nullify this effect. Thus, hypotheses H4, H5, H5a.b, and
H6 were confirmed. Furthermore, due to the insufficient number of studies on the
relationship between IBM and its dimensions on BU, the hypotheses H2 and H2a.b.c
were not supported.
4.3. Moderator analyses

To further study the reasons of heterogeneity between studies, a series of moderator
analyses were conducted for the relationships. For all moderator variables, the mixed-
effects models were applied.
A mixed-effects model is commonly considered more robust compared to the fixed-
effects model since it uses a random-effects model to combine studies into one subgroup,
while a fixed-effects model generates an overall effect by aggregating studies among
subgroups (Borenstein et al., 2009). From the coding of studies, we found significant
variance in terms of the country context and industry context that may cause contra
dictory results.
4.3.1. Country context

In Table 7, the influence of country context as a moderating factor on the relationships is
presented. The moderating analyses for both IBM relationships with EBC (Qbetween = 0.014;
p > 0.05) and BCB (Qbetween = 0.011; p > 0.05) resulted in non-significant Qbetween values.
Yet, moderation analysis showed no significant (Qbetween = 0.231; p > 0.05) difference for
this relationship, thus indicating that the effect of country context was not enough to be
considered as a moderator. Therefore, H7a.b.c were not supported.
4.3.2. Industry context

To determine whether industry context had an impact on the study relationships, we
conducted a moderation analysis with industry context as the conditional factor. Table 8
shows the results of moderation effects of industry context on the relationships. The
results indicated that industry context did not moderate the associations between IBM
and EBC (Qbetween = 0.014, p > 0.05) and BCB (Qbetween = 3.292, p > 0.05). Furthermore,
industry context did not moderate the relationship between EBC and BCB
(Qbetween = 3.391, p > 0.05), as well. Thus, H8a.b.c was not supported.
Table 7. Moderation analysis: country context.

Variables Country N Point estimate Confidence interval Z P Qbetween Qwithin P-value

From IBM
To EBC Western 6 0.490 4.718 0.000 0.014 63.884 0.907
[0.303,0.640]
Eastern 14 0.502 6.338 0.000 454.942
[0.364,0.619]
To BCB Western 4 0.353 3.69 0.000 0.011 20.413 0.915
[0.171,0.511]
Eastern 7 0.366 3.84 0.000 89.71
[0.186,0.522]
From EBC
To BCB Western 10 0.273 9.81 0.000 0.038 20.940 0.846
[0.220,0.324]
Eastern 10 0.296 2.416 0.000 367.568
[0.058,0.502]
Table 8. Moderation analysis: Industry context.

Confidence
Variables Industry N Point estimate interval Z P Qbetween Qwithin P-value
From IBM
To EBC Financial services 9 0.519 [0.332,0.666] 4.911 0.000 0.014 202.92 0.174
Hospitality 5 0.334 [0.113,0.524] 2.905 0.004 355.531
To BCB Financial services 5 0.432 [0.234,0.596] 4.037 0.000 3.292 39.740 0.07
Manufacturing 3 0213 [0.074,0.344] 2.976 0.000 48.218
From EBC
To BCB Financial services 5 0.096 [−0.183,0.361] 0.669 0.504 73.165 0.184
Hospitality 4 0.501 [0.142,0.744] 2.644 0.008 237.294
Retailing 3 0.191 [0.119,0.260] 5.170 0.000 3.391 1.099
5. Discussion
By applying a robust systematic review, this article aims to synthesize previous studies
into one overarching analysis based on drawing together related theories, models, and
statistical findings. This method of analysis has been applied in other marketing fields in
order to first reach a comprehensive framework, second understand the existing trend,
and more importantly, third guide future research (Zhang et al., 2014). The results show
support for the significant impact of IBM and its dimensions on EBC with different effect
sizes. The results also reveal that IBM and its dimensions, aside from brand communica
tion, have a significant impact upon BCB. The effects of BU on EBC and BCB and EBC on
BCB were also supported. However, the moderating effects of industry and country
contexts on the existing relationships between IBM, EBC, and BCB were not supported.
The study makes seven contributions to the literature. First, this study attempts to
synthesize and reconcile the diverse ways in which IBM has been dealt with in the
literature. As Table 1 shows, there are four existing approaches with regard to the practical
definition of IBM. These include a) defining IBM as a higher order construct (HOC) based
on Burmann and Zeplin (2005) and Burmann et al. (2009), b) defining IBM as a HOC based
on Punjaisri and Wilson (2007) and Punjaisri et al. (2009a), c) defining IBM as a lower order
construct (LOC) based on Burmann and colleagues or Punjaisri and colleagues, and d)
defining IBM as a LOC based on Aurand et al. (2005). In addition, different approaches
have been used to conceptualize BCB as depicted in Table 3, also leading to variability in
both conceptualization, interpretation, and analysis. We assume that these differences
originated from the fact that social constructs are context-based or as Avis et al. (2012)
stated, are researcher metaphors. This is problematic since it limits researchers’ and
practitioners’ collective (and consistent) understanding of these concepts. While different
researchers have measured constructs with similar labels albeit with different practical
definitions, they all refer to the general underlying connotation of IBM and BCB. On
balance, since higher order constructs help to achieve model parsimony, overcome the
bandwidth-fidelity dilemma, and reduce collinearity (Sarstedt et al., 2019), we suggest
that IBM and BCB should be considered as a higher order construct.
Second, the results of this study suggest that IBM is the most powerful predictor of EBC.
However, among all three dimensions of IBM, brand communication is found to be the
most powerful predictor of EBC. Unfortunately, due to limitations in the number of studies
available, the impact of brand communication as a separate variable on BCB was not
examined. Clearly, in contrast to the claim noted that communication with employees is a
fundamental premise of internal branding (Dechawatanapaisal, 2019), there is a lack of
investigation of the relationship between two variables. This may be attributed to the lack
of a comprehensive nominal definition for brand communication. In some cases, research
ers have included metrics related to measuring brand communication as a measure of
brand-focused HRM. For example, the item, ‘our company often transmits brand-related
value through formal communication platform’ was considered as a metric for brand-
focused HRM based on the reported factor loading in Chang et al. (2012). However, at
face value, this item appears to be a metric for brand communication. Moreover, brand-
oriented leadership that has two levels (macro and micro) as Burmann and Zeplin (2005)
stated is the second powerful predictor of EBC. While Du Preez and Bendixen (2015) stated
that brand leadership failed to emerge as a component of IBM in their research and
identified this as an area for future research to address, this study demonstrates that
brand-oriented leadership, as a component of IBM, is the most significant predictor of BCB
and one of the significant predictors of EBC, making it a critical factor within the internal
branding procedure.
Third, although BU has been recently appeared as one of the employee-related out
comes in the IBM2, the results suggest that it is the top driver of BCB. In addition, despite
the existing well-documented justifications on the relationship between IBM and BU,
surprisingly, there is a lack of empirical findings with this regard. As BU has larger effects
on BCB (0.525) than EBC on BCB (0.296) and the effect of BU on EBC is not highly
calculated (0.287), plus the lack of empirical documentations subject to the relationship
between IBM and BU, it might implicitly support the idea of preceding affective aspect on
cognitive aspect under circumstances, in accordance with Hudson et al. (2015) statement.
This proposition along with Piehler et al. (2016) noting that ‘understanding the brand does
not necessarily ensure positive emotional attachment’ is contrary to the common cogniti
ve>affective causal relation premise shown in the EBC pyramid (King & Grace, 2008).
Fourth, we note that researchers who have tended to conceptualize IBM and BCB as a
higher order construct have also applied reflective-formative measurement models for
BCB and less so for IBM. These studies have applied the psychometric approach of
Churchill (1979), namely, the use of exploratory factor analysis to simplify measures.
However, there are three other measurement models in accordance with Sarstedt et al.
(2019), namely, reflective-reflective, formative-reflective, and formative-formative.
According to Hunt, 2003, p. 155, ‘scientific realism acknowledges the possibility of both a
reflective measurement model and a formative measurement model being appropriate,
depending on the particular circumstances’. This holds true even for researchers who are
positioned in logical empiricism and who believe that all theoretical terms are only labels
given to collections of observables (Hunt, 2003, p. 155), meaning that they follow
formative measurement models (Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001). In this way, differ
ent practical definitions of both BCB and IBM are explainable in consonance with the
principle of the researcher metaphor (Avis et al., 2012). The inclusion of formative
measurement models in the internal branding literature not only might enrich an
understanding of the phenomenon but will also enrich future analysis. Therefore, for
those who are interested in developing formative models, we suggest that the C-OAR-SE
procedure should be followed (Rossiter, 2002).
Fifth, this study presented a comprehensive framework for understanding the inter
relationships between constructs within the literature. Results of previous research have
reported different magnitudes, contradictory outcomes, and even findings that were not
statistically supported. Unlike the results of a narrow review or an individual paper, this
paper provides the scientific community with a robust, transparent, replicable, and
objective framework based on a thorough meta-analysis that satisfies the reduction
aspect of scientific progress (Hunt, 2003, p. 84) through the accumulation of estimated
effect sizes. This contribution supports the development of a reliable theory within the
field of internal branding.
In the sixth contribution, by considering the concept of verisimilitude (Avis et al., 2012),
the proposed framework presents more clearly the interactions between reality, theory,
and empirical evidence. First, it is based on robust theories including OCB, organizational
commitment, relationship marketing, commitment-trust theory, and models of attitude
(theory-reality). Second, it was tested through reliable reported outcomes of previous
papers published in academic journals addressing the need for research to explore the
connection between theoretical observations, measurements, and experience. Third, it
reviews these outcomes within different contexts. Finally, it assesses these interrelation
ships across a wide range of industries addressing the need to understand the connec
tions between reality observations, measurements, and experience. Thus, it supports
advancement in the literature by presenting a reliable theoretical foundation through
which to reach a general theory of IBM.
Seventh, according to White (2014), behavioral intentions and conative aspects are
different constructs. The theory of planned behavior, which is widely applied in different
fields of studies, has largely ignored the existence of conative outcomes (Afshardoost &
Eshaghi, 2020). Yet the conative aspect of employee-related outcomes explains a desire
for conducting behavior (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2004) or a behavioral tendency (Bagozzi,
1992) that should be considered a preintention step (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2004).
Scrutinizing the existing models and current classifications of employee-related outcomes
(Barros-Arrieta & García-Cali, 2021; Piehler et al., 2018) revealed the absence of well-
defined conative outcomes in IBM2. However, sporadic items used such as ‘I like to work
for our brand’ (Piehler et al., 2016), ‘I am not thinking of moving to another company’
(Dechawatanapaisal, 2019), might make the foundation of conceptualization of conative
employee-related outcomes. Therefore, two following scenarios for predicting the beha
vior of BCB are suggested: 1- IBM mechanisms> cognitive>affective>conative>behavioral
(intentions) and 2- IBM mechanisms> affective>cognitive> conative>behavioral
(intentions).
5.1. Managerial implications

The comprehensive framework of IBM, BU, EBC, and BCB proposed in this study is
designed to support managerial decision-making in three ways. First, by collecting
empirical evidence from 38 papers on the topic, it draws together somewhat disparate
studies on the constructs identified, and through a comprehensive empirical analysis, it
provides a clear overview of their interrelationships. This enables management to identify

specific drivers of BCB and to therefore make more accurate and informed decisions
concerning their investment strategies when it comes to IBM, BU, EBC, and BCB.
Second, given that BCB was found to be influenced by BU (large effect), EBC (small
medium effect), and IBM (medium effect), management has three avenues for increasing
employees’ brand supporting behaviors. The first avenue for influence is via IBM. It was
revealed that, among IBM’s dimensions, leading the brand at all levels inside the organi
zation is the most crucial practice. This proposition supports the idea that internal
branding needs to be started from the top of the organization in order to influence
both internal and external brand perceptions. Given that brand-oriented leadership was
found to act as an important initiator of EBC, management should also focus on instilling a
strong sense of brand leadership. This is in line with the suggestion of Erkmen and Hancer
(2015), who emphasized that when employees have more trust in both the CEO and top
management team, they are more likely to adopt brand supporting behaviors. According
to self-determination theory (Du Preez et al., 2017), as a first step, employees need to
understand, absorb, and become immersed within the organization’s brand values. This
high level of immersion is then more likely to transfer to the market and to therefore be
perceived by external brand stakeholders. This is important since Porricelli et al. (2014, p.
750) stated that even ‘associates want to feel informed about the brand and what it stands
for’. Although there is a lack of research investigating the subject of brand leadership
styles (we only found one article dividing brand leadership (not leadership) into transac
tional and transformational brand leadership), top managers may encourage internal
brand actors through verbal communications and social interactive behaviors (Shaari et
al., 2012), such as promoting brand values, showing brand commitment, acting as brand
ambassadors, helping employees to fulfil customers’ needs, and so forth.
Three types of brand communication can be employed for preparing employees to
embody authentic brand messages, namely, central communication, cascade communi
cation, and lateral communication. Central communication follows the push principle,
conducted by a central department, and is useful for distributing general up-to-date
information about the brand. Cascade communication is a time-consuming method,
starts at the top of the organization, and is more convincing to skeptical employees.
Lateral communication is regarded as informal information transmitted among employ
ees regardless of their position. The latter type of communication is considered the best
way to influence decisions and actions of internal brand actors. Thus, managers, based on
the industry working in, should apply the proper communication types (e.g. central,
cascade, and lateral) and tools (e.g. organized events, learning maps, team workshop
without supervisor, and organizational storytelling) to ensure that employees absorbed
the organizational brand values.
As another dimension of IBM, brand-centered HRM seems to have an impact on both
EBC and BCB. As it is documented, brand-oriented HRM practices, like brand-centered
recruitment or selection, reduce the socialization phase of new hires, enhance assimilation
into the brand culture and associated values, and assist with immersion in terms of brand
identity. The institutionalized socialization has a significant positive effect on shaping
employee brand commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990), which, in turn, leads to BCB.
Therefore, organizations could build brand strength by applying HR practices via pro-
brand rewarding and training, selection, and evaluations.
The results of this study also reveal that the second major avenue to enhance employ
ees’ brand supporting behaviors is through EBC. According to Piehler et al. (2018), brand
commitment as an affective unidimensional construct impacts brand endorsement, brand
development, and brand compliance. Therefore, managers can enhance employee’s
emotional bonds through internal brand mechanisms, which, in turn, supports BCB.
Emotional engagement has been found to support extra-role behaviors on both an
internal and external basis. According to the employee brand commitment pyramid
(EBCP), employees go through a commitment journey including four steps namely,
technical information, commitment (to job), brand-related information, and brand com
mitment, which, in turn, collectively enhances brand citizenship. Employees with the high
level of brand commitment are more likely to engage in brand-citizenship behaviors such
as attracting potential employees and customers, defending organizations against critics,
developing skills and actively participating in training programs, and so forth.
The third avenue for increasing employees’ brand supporting behaviors is through BU.
According to Piehler et al. (2016), employees cannot provide customers with a proper
brand promise if they do not absorb brand value and its relations to their roles. It is also
suggested that delivering brand-related information increases employees' brand commit
ment (King & Grace, 2008). By increasing the level of employees’ understanding of the
brand values, their role will become clearer and the exhibition of brand supportive
behaviors will be increased, thereby customer value cocreation would be enhanced. It
is also recommended that IBM mechanisms that are responsible for increasing operant
resources’ brand understanding are consistent with the external marketing communica
tions policy that are mainly dealing with shaping external brand actors’ expectations
(Xiong et al., 2013).
5.2. Limitations and future research

The current study can be seen as a comprehensive quantitative meta-analysis of previous
researches on IBM and its employee brand-related outcomes. This represents a major
contribution to research in terms of both theory and practice. This study is, however,
subject to a number of limitations.
First, this study may be subject to language bias since selected studies were written in
English and Persian languages. Future studies can be conducted that are published in
other languages in order to decrease language bias. Second, the present study was also
limited in that it employed the unidimensional forms of BU, EBC, and BCB due to the
limited number of published articles. Future researchers should focus on the multidimen
sionality of BU, EBC, and BCB since other researchers have confirmed and emphasized on
the multidimensional scale of BU, EBC, and BCB rather than the unidimensional scale
(Chang et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2014).
Moreover, the number of papers studied in terms of IBM dimensions was relatively
small that some relationships could not be investigated due to the limited number of
effect sizes such as brand communication. Besides, the impact of IBM and its dimensions
on BU could not be investigated due to the insufficient amount of studies. We urge
researchers to conduct more studies on the impact of IBM dimensions on BU, EBC,
and BCB.
In addition, the moderation analyses in this study could not fully reveal the causes of
heterogeneous associations due to the limited number of studies. Further studies should
investigate the impact of other moderators including participant characteristics (e.g.
gender, age, the number of front-line staff vs. managers, work experience) and sampling
method. Although the study did not support the moderating role of culture in the
relationships, future research should further explore this concept since we only focused
on only one dimension of culture (individualistic-collectivistic).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Mona Afshardoost http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0717-3345
Mohammad Sadegh Eshaghi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3078-6687
Jana Lay-Hwa Bowden http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5681-5709
References
Adamu, L., Ghani, N. H. A., & Rahman, M. A. (2020). The internal branding practices and employee
brand citizenship behavior: The mediating effect of employee brand fit. Journal of Environmental
Treatment Techniques, 8(4), 99–106. http://www.jett.dormaj.com/docs/Volume8/Issue%201/The%
20Internal%20Branding%20Practices%20and%20Employee%20Brand%20Citizenship%
20Behavior%20The%20Mediating%20Effect%20of%20Employee%20Brand%20fit.pdf
Adileh, N., & Çengel, Ö. (2019). Internal branding and brand commitment: The role of years of
experience & monthly income. International Journal of Commerce and Finance, 5(1), 79–91. http://
ijcf.ticaret.edu.tr/index.php/ijcf/article/view/111
Afshardoost, M., & Eshaghi, M. S. (2020). Destination image and tourist behavioural intentions: A
meta-analysis. Tourism Management, 81(December), 104154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.
2020.104154
Ahn, Y.-J., Hyun, S. S., & Kim, I. (2016). City residents’ perception of MICE city brand orientation and
their brand citizenship behavior: A case study of Busan, South Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research, 21(3), 328–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2015.1050422
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). Organizational socialization tactics: A longitudinal analysis of links
to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 847–
858. https://doi.org/10.5465/256294
Arnett, D. B., Laverie, D. A., & Mclane, C. (2002). Using job satisfaction and pride as internal-marketing
tools. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001088040204300209
Aurand, T. W., Gorchels, L., & Bishop, T. R. (2005). Human resource management’s role in internal
branding: An opportunity for cross-functional brand message synergy. Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 14(3), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601030
Avis, M., Aitken, R., & Ferguson, S. (2012). Brand relationship and personality theory: Metaphor or
consumer perceptual reality? Marketing Theory, 12(3), 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1470593112451396
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786945
Barros-Arrieta, D., & García-Cali, E. (2021). Internal branding: Conceptualization from a literature
review and opportunities for future research. Journal of Brand Management, 28(2), 1–19. https://
doi.org/10.1057/s41262-020-00219-1
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for
Publication Bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 1088. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446
Behzadi, M., Abedi, E., & Hashemi, S. M. (2019). Investigating the behavioral/attitudinal conse
quences of internal brand management among sales personnel of farmand company. Journal
of Business Management, 11(3), 505–524. https://jibm.ut.ac.ir/mobile/article_72535.html?lang=en
Beigi, S., & Esmaeili Far, B. (2014). Factors affecting the formation of citizenship behavior of brand
among Asia insurance staff. Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 8(2), 173–195. http://www.
magnanimitas.cz/ADALTA/070101/papers/A_031.pdf
Borenstein, M., Cooper, H., Hedges, L., & Valentine, J. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. Russell
Sage Foundation.
Boukis, A., & Christodoulides, G. (2020). Investigating key antecedents and outcomes of employee-
based brand equity. European Management Review, 17(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.
12327
Bravo, R., Buil, I., De Chernatony, L., & Martínez, E. (2017). Managing brand identity: Effects on the
employees. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 35(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-10-
2015-0148
Burmann, C., Schaefer, K., & Maloney, P. (2008). Industry image: Its impact on the brand image of
potential employees. Journal of Brand Management, 15(3), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1057/
palgrave.bm.2550112
Burmann, C., Zeplin, S., & Riley, N. (2009). Key determinants of internal brand management success:
An exploratory empirical analysis. Journal of Brand Management, 16(4), 264–284. https://doi.org/
10.1057/bm.2008.6
Burmann, C., & Zeplin, S. (2005). Building brand commitment: A behavioural approach to internal
brand management. Journal of Brand Management, 12(4), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1057/
palgrave.bm.2540223
Chang, A., Chiang, H. H., & Han, T. S. (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. https://doi.org/10.1108/
03090561211212458
Chen, Z. X., & Francesco, A. M. (2000). Employee demography, organizational commitment, and
turnover intentions in China: Do cultural differences matter? Human Relations, 53(6), 869–887.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536005
Cheng, Y., & Stockdale, M. S. (2003). The validity of the three-component model of organizational
commitment in a Chinese context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62(3), 465–489. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00063-5
Chiang, H. H., Han, T. S., & Mcconville, C. (2020). A multilevel study of brand-specific transformational
leadership: Employee and customer effects. Journal of Brand Management, 27(3), 312–327.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-019-00182-6
Chiang, H. H., Han, T. S., & Mcconville, D. (2018). The attitudinal and behavioral impact of brand-
centered human resource management: Employee and customer effects. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(2), 939–960. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-02-2016-
0103
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal
of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110
Cohen, A., & Keren, D. (2008). Individual values and social exchange variables: Examining their
relationship to and mutual effect on in-role performance and organizational citizenship beha
vior. Group & Organization Management, 33(4), 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1059601108321823
Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783
De Chernatony, L. (2010). Creating powerful brands. Routledge.
De Chernatony, Leslie, and Cottam, S. 2006 Internal brand factors driving successful financial
services brands. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5/6), 611–633. https://doi.org/10.1108/
03090560610657868
Dechawatanapaisal, D. (2019). Internal branding and employees’ brand outcomes: Do generational
differences and organizational tenure matter? Industrial and Commercial Training, 51(4), 209–227.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-10-2018-0089
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An
alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277. https://doi.org/
10.1509/jmkr.38.2.269.18845
Du Preez, R., & Bendixen, M. T. (2015). The impact of internal brand management on employee job
satisfaction, brand commitment and intention to stay. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 33
(1), 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-02-2014-0031
Du Preez, R., Bendixen, M., & Abratt, R. (2017). The behavioral consequences of internal brand
management among frontline employees. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 26(3), 251–
261. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-09-2016-1325
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). A nonparametric “trim and fill” method of accounting for publication
bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(449), 89–98. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905
Erkmen, E., Hancer, M., & Leong, J. K. (2017). How internal branding process really pays off through
brand trust. Tourism Analysis, 22(3), 309–322. https://doi.org/10.3727/
108354217X14955605216050
Erkmen, E., & Hancer, M. (2015). Linking brand commitment and brand citizenship behaviors of
airline employees: The role of trust. Journal of Air Transport Management, 42(January), 47–54.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.08.001
Eyvazloo, M., Karimi Allvijeh, M., & Torkestani, M. S. (2016). The effect of internal branding on
perception of brand performance through mediating variables of brand citizenship behavior,
brand commitment and brand loyalty (Case study: Maskan Bank branches). University of Allame
Tabataba’I (ATU).
Felfe, J., & Yan, W. H. (2009). The impact of workgroup commitment on organizational citizenship
behaviour, absenteeism and turnover intention: The case of Germany and China. Asia Pacific
Business Review, 15(3), 433–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602380802667411
Felfe, J., Yan, W., & Six, B. (2008). The impact of individual collectivism on commitment and its
influence on organizational citizenship behaviour and turnover in three countries. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(2), 211–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595808091790
Foster, C., Punjaisri, K., & Cheng, R. (2010). Exploring the relationship between corporate, internal
and employer branding. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 19(6), 401–409. https://doi.org/
10.1108/10610421011085712
Freiling, J., & Fichtner, H. (2010). Organizational culture as the glue between people and organiza
tion: A competence-based view on learning and competence building. German Journal of Human
Resource Management, 24(2), 152–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/239700221002400204
Garivani, M., & Khorakian, A. (2016). Investigating the effect of internal branding on brand commitment
through the mediating role of job satisfaction (Case study: Mellat Bank of Iran). Ferdowsi University.
Gartner, W. C. (1994). Image formation process. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 2(2–3), 191–
216. https://doi.org/10.1300/J073v02n02_12
Ghenaatgar, A., & Jalili, S. M. (2016). Study of the effect of internal brand management on brand
citizenship behavior in presence of brand commitment and job satisfaction of employeess in
banking industry. International Business Management, 10(18), 4200–4208. https://doi.org/
10.36478/ibm.2016.4200.4208
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10),
3–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003
Hasni, M. J. S., Salo, J., Naeem, H., & Abbasi, K. S. (2018). Impact of internal branding on customer-
based brand equity with mediating effect of organizational loyalty: An empirical evidence from
retail sector. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 46(11), 1056–1076. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-07-2017-0148
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1984). Nonparametric estimators of effect size in meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 96(3), 573–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.573
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in
meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.
557
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s recent consequences: Using dimension scores in theory and research.
International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/
147059580111002
Hoppe, D. (2018). Linking employer branding and internal branding: Establishing perceived
employer brand image as an antecedent of favourable employee brand attitudes and behaviours.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 27(4), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-12-2016-
1374
Hudson, J. L., Rapee, R. M., Lyneham, H. J., McLellan, L. F., Wuthrich, V. M., & Schniering, C. A. (2015).
Comparing outcomes for children with different anxiety disorders following cognitive beha
vioural therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 72(September), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.brat.2015.06.007
Hunt, S. (2003). Controversy in marketing theory: For reason, realism, truth, and objectivity. Me Sharpe.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315290898
Iyer, P., Davari, A., & Paswan, A. (2018). Determinants of brand performance: The role of internal
branding. Journal of Brand Management, 25(3), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-
0097-1
Jandaghi, G., Bahamin, F., & Abaei, M. (2015). The effects of brand leadership styles on employees-
based brand citizenship behavior. World Scientific News, 15(22), 25–39. http://yadda.icm.edu.pl/
yadda/element/bwmeta1.element.psjd-f22e970d-de82-4308-84ec-26cc9f5f6861
Javid, H., Monfared, F. S. A., & Aghamoosa, R. (2016). Internal brand management relationship with
brand citizenship behavior, job satisfaction and commitment in Saipa Teif Company. Procedia
Economics and Finance, 36(3), 408–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30053-3
Karanges, E., Johnston, K. A., Lings, I., & Beatson, A. T. (2018). Brand signalling: An antecedent of
employee brand understanding. Journal of Brand Management, 25(3), 235–249. https://doi.org/
10.1057/s41262-018-0100-x
Karimi Alavijeh, M. R., Es-haghi, S. M. S., & Ahmadi, M. M. (2016). Factors affecting employees’ brand
citizenship behaviors. Management Studies in Development and Evolution, 25(80), 119–142.
doi:10.22054/jmsd.2016.4032
Kimpakorn, N., & Tocquer, G. (2009). Employees’ commitment to brands in the service sector: Luxury
hotel chains in Thailand. Journal of Brand Management, 16(8), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1057/
palgrave.bm.2550140
King, C., & Grace, D. (2008). Internal branding: Exploring the employee’s perspective. Journal of
Brand Management, 15(5), 358–372. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550136
King, C., & Grace, D. (2009). Employee based brand equity: A third perspective. Services Marketing
Quarterly, 30(2), 122–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332960802619082
King, C., & Grace, D. (2010). Building and measuring employee-based brand equity. European Journal
of Marketing, 44(7), 938–971. https://doi.org/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), 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1108/
03090561211202567
King, C., & So, K. K. F. (2015). Enhancing hotel employees’ brand understanding and brand-building
behavior in China. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 39(4), 492–516. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1096348013491602
King, C. (2010). “One size doesn’t fit all”: Tourism and hospitality employees’ response to internal
brand management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(4), 517–
534. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111011042721
Koo, B., & Curtis, C. (2020). An examination of the role of internal brand management: Impact of
contractual models. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29(4), 503–525. https://doi.
org/10.1080/19368623.2019.1650155
Kruis, N. E., Seo, C., & Kim, B. (2020). Revisiting the empirical status of social learning theory on
substance use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Substance Use & Misuse, 55(4), 666–683.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2019.1696821
Lauer, J. F. (2018). The moderating effect of culture on the interactions of internal brand management
practices and its outcomes. Universidade Catolica Portuguesa.
Louro, M. J., & Cunha, P. V. (2001). Brand management paradigms. Journal of Marketing Management,
17(7), 849–875. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725701323366845
Lundorff, M., Holmgren, H., Zachariae, R., Farver-Vestergaard, I., & O’connor, M. (2017). Prevalence of
prolonged grief disorder in adult bereavement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Affective Disorders, 212(1), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.01.030
Mahmoodi, M., Golkari, S., Samei Nasr, M., & Mehrmanesh, H. (2017). Investigating the mediating role
of employees’ trust in the brand on the relationship between leadership style Transformational
and citizenship behavior of the brand in the ceramic tile industry. Journal of Business
Management, 4(9), 877–904. https://doi.org/10.22059/jibm.2017.241856.2756
Martin, C. M. (2008). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between emotional intelligence
and leadership effectiveness [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. East Carolina University
Moghadam, A., Jamali, S., & Rezaei, M. (2012). Modeling the effect of internal branding on brand
citizenship behavior in hotel industry. Management Research in Iran, 16(3), 209–226. https://www.
sid.ir/en/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=326915
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal
of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. doi:10.1177/002224299405800302
Morhart, F. M., Herzog, W., & Tomczak, T. (2009). Brand-specific leadership: Turning employees
into brand champions. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.
122
Mousavi, S. N., & Golestani, M. (2016). The effect of internal branding on brand performance with
moderator role of job satisfaction. Journal of Administrative Management, Education and Training,
12(4), 681–689.
Mouton, E. (2018). The effect of internal brand management on brand commitment and brand trust.
University of the Western Cape.
Muhammad, S., Salleh, S. M., & Yusr, M. M. (2019). The role of brand knowledge in explaining
relationship between brand-centered communications and brand commitment: Evidence from
public banks Pakistan. The Journal of Distribution Science, 17(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.15722/
jds.17.1.201901.33
Murillo, E., & King, C. (2019). Examining the drivers of employee brand understanding: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 28(7), 893–907. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-09-
2018-2007
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. In Lexington
Books/DC Heath and Com.
Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8
(June), 157–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164923
Osuna Ramírez, S. A., Veloutsou, C., & Morgan-Thomas, A. (2017). A systematic literature review of
brand commitment: Definitions, perspectives and dimensions. Athens Journal of Business and
Economics, 3(3), 305–332. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajbe.3.3.5
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism:
Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3. https://
doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.128.1.3
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004). The distinction between desires and intentions. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.186
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 beha
viour. European Journal of Marketing, 50(9), 1575–1601. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2014-
0725
Piehler, R., Schade, M., & Burmann, C. (2018). Employees as a second audience: The effect of external
communication on internal brand management outcomes. Journal of Brand Management, 26(4),
445–460. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-0135-z
Piehler, R. (2018). Employees’ brand understanding, brand commitment, and brand citizenship
behaviour: A closer look at the relationships among construct dimensions. Journal of Brand
Management, 25(3), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-0099-z
Porricelli, M. S., Yurova, Y., Abratt, R., & Bendixen, M. (2014). Antecedents of brand citizenship
behavior in retailing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(5), 745–752. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.06.002
Punjaisri, K., Evanschitzky, H., & Wilson, A. (2009a). Internal branding: An enabler of employees’
brand-supporting behaviours. Journal of Service Management, 20(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.
1108/09564230910952780
Punjaisri, K., Wilson, A., & Evanschitzky, H. (2009b). Internal branding to influence employees’ brand
promise delivery: A case study in Thailand. Journal of Service Management, 20(5), 561–579. https://
doi.org/10.1108/09564230910995143
Punjaisri, K., & Wilson, A. (2007). The role of internal branding in the delivery of employee brand
promise. Journal of Brand Management, 15(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/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), 1521–1537. https://doi.org/10.1108/
03090561111151871
Ragheb, S., Ahmed, A., & Hussein, H. (2018). Internal corporate branding impact on employees’
brand supporting behaviour. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 27(1), 79–95. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2016-1112
Ravens, C. (2014). Relevance of brand commitment in a cross-cultural context. Springer.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86
(3), 638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8116(02)00097-
6
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. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-11-2014-
0751
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. R., Cheah, J. F., Becker, J.-H., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and
validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 27(3), 197–211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003
Shaari, H., & Hussin, Z. (2015). The effect of brand leadership styles on employees’ brand citizenship
behavior. Asian Social Science, 11(18), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n18p86
Shaari, H., Salleh, M. D., & Hussin, Z. (2015). Employees brand citizenship behavior: Front-liner versus
backstage employees’ perspective. International Journal of Management Studies (IJMS), 22(1), 23–
32.
Shaari, H., Salleh, S. M., & Hussin, Z. (2012). Relationship between brand knowledge and brand
rewards, and employees’ brand citizenship behavior: The mediating roles of brand commitment.
International Journal of Business and Society, 13(3), 335. http://www.ijbs.unimas.my/index.php/
volume-11-20/volume-13-no-3-2012/794-relationship-between-brand-knowledge-and-brand-
rewards-and-employees-brand-citizenship-behavior-the-mediating-roles-of-brand-commitment
Sharma, N., & Kamalanabhan, T. J. (2014). IT employees’ brand attitudes and the role of internal
corporate communication: A survey of Indian IT industry. International Journal of Business
Excellence, 7(1), 52–75. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBEX.2014.057858
Shirazi, A., & Sadeghi, F. (2017). Investigating the effect of service brand identity on brand pride,
mediated by brand commitment and brand citizenship behavior. Brand Management Quarterly, 4
(9), 79–106. https://doi.org/10.22051/BMR.2018.13499.1243
Stanley, L., Vandenberghe, C., Vandenberg, R., & Bentein, K. (2013). Commitment profiles and
employee turnover. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(3), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.5465/
AMBPP.2012.273
Stepchenkova, S., & Mills, J. E. (2010). Destination image: A meta-analysis of 2000–2007 research.
Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 19(6), 575–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19368623.2010.493071
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. https://doi.
org/10.1509/jmr.13.0435
Terglav, K., Ruzzier, M. K., & Kaše, R. (2016). Internal branding process: Exploring the role of mediators
in top management’s leadership–commitment relationship. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 54(April), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.12.007
Tung, V. W. S., Chen, P. J., & Schuckert, M. (2017). Managing customer citizenship behaviour: The
moderating roles of employee responsiveness and organizational reassurance. Tourism
Management, 59(April), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.07.010
Tuominen, S., Hirvonen, S., Reijonen, H., & Laukkanen, T. (2016). The internal branding process and
financial performance in service companies: An examination of the required steps. Journal of
Brand Management, 23(3), 306–326. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2016.9
Uçanok, B., & Karabatı, S. (2013). The effects of values, work centrality, and organizational commit
ment on organizational citizenship behaviors: Evidence from Turkish SMEs. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 24(1), 89–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21156
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
Viitala, R., Vesalainen, J., & Uotila, T.-P. (2020). SME managers’ causal beliefs on HRM as success factor
of the firm. Journal of Small Business Management, 11(August), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00472778.2020.1758528
White, C. J. (2014). Ideal standards and attitude formation: A tourism destination perspective.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 16(5), 441–449. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1938
Wilson, J. A., & Liu, J. (2011). The challenges of Islamic branding: Navigating emotions and halal.
Journal of Islamic Marketing, 2(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/17590831111115222
Xie, L. S., Peng, J. M., & Huan, T. C. (2014). Crafting and testing a central precept in service-dominant
logic: Hotel employees’ brand-citizenship behavior and customers’ brand trust. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 42(September), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.05.
011
Xiong, L., King, C., & Piehler, R. (2013). That’s not my job: Exploring the employee perspective in the
development of brand ambassadors. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35
(December), 348–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.07.009
Yang, J.-T., Wan, C.-S., & Wu, C.-W. (2015). Effect of internal branding on employee brand commit
ment and behavior in hospitality. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 15(4), 267–280. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1467358415580358
Zhang, H., Fu, X., Cai, L. A., & Lu, L. (2014). Destination image and tourist loyalty: A meta-analysis.
Tourism Management, 40(February), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.06.006
Zuhdiyani, D. (2018). The role of employee’s brand understanding, brand identification, and brand
commitment on the establishment of brand citizenship behavior. Universitas Islam.

Afshardoost Et Al (2021)

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

Afshardoost Et Al (2021)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Strategic Marketing

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rjsm20

Internal brand management, brand

Mona Afshardoost, Mohammad Sadegh Eshaghi & Jana Lay-Hwa Bowden

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2021.2016896

Published online: 30 Dec 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1221

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

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

Internal brand management, brand understanding, employee

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Jana Lay-Hwa Bowden Jana.bowden@mq.edu.au

Table 1. Summary of internal branding mechanisms.

measuring employee brand identification represents a favorable evaluation (White, 2014),

2.2. Employee brand commitment

Table 2. Inconsistent results of some tested causal relations.

H1: IBM is positively related to EBC.

H1a: Brand-focused HRM is positively related to EBC.

H1b: Brand-oriented leadership is positively related to EBC.

Brand communication is also an important asset in internal branding management.

H1c: Brand communication is positively related to EBC.

2.3. Brand understanding

H2: IBM is positively related to BU.

H2a: Brand-focused HRM is positively related to BU.

H2b: Brand-oriented leadership is positively related to BU.

H2c: Brand communication is positively related to BU.

H3: BU is positively related to EBC.

In addition, BU as a cognitive aspect is an important prerequisite of brand-aligned

H4: BU is positively related to BCB.

2. 4. Brand citizenship behavior

Table 3. Nominal and practical definitions of BCB.

H5: IBM is positively related to BCB.

H5a: Brand-focused HRM is positively related to BCB.

H5b: Brand-oriented leadership is positively related to BCB.

H5c: Brand communication is positively related to BCB.

H6: EBC is positively related to BCB.

2.5. Potential moderators

Figure 1. Proposed framework of the relationships.

3.1. Record protocol and eligibility criteria

3.2. Data collection and coding procedure

3.3. Publication bias

Table 4. Characteristics of included studies.

Table 5. Analysis of the direct effects.

From To N Sample size Point estimate 95% CI Z-value P-value

Table 6. Heterogeneity analyses.

4.2. Relationship with brand citizenship behavior (BCB)

4.3. Moderator analyses

4.3.1. Country context

4.3.2. Industry context

Table 7. Moderation analysis: country context.

Variables Country N Point estimate Confidence interval Z P Qbetween Qwithin P-value

Table 8. Moderation analysis: Industry context.

5.1. Managerial implications

provides a clear overview of their interrelationships. This enables management to identify

5.2. Limitations and future research

You might also like