Pacific B usiness R eview I nternational

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management Indexed With Web of Science(ESCI)
ISSN: 0974-438X
Impact factor (SJIF):8.396
RNI No.:RAJENG/2016/70346
Postal Reg. No.: RJ/UD/29-136/2017-2019
Editorial Board

Prof. Mahima Birla
(Editor in Chief)

Dr. Khushbu Agarwal
(Editor)

Dr. Asha Galundia
(Circulation Manager)

Editorial Team

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

Assessing the Impact of Internal Branding on Organizational Citizenship Behavior among Hotel Employees in Bangladesh

 

Dewan Mehrab Ashrafi

School of Business Administration,

East Delta University, Bangladesh

 

Ahasanul Haque

Department of Business Administration,

International Islamic University of Malaysia,

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

*Corresponding author

 

Md. Atiqur Rahman Sarker

Post Graduate Research Fellow,

Department of Business Administration,

International Islamic University Malaysia,

Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

 

Naila Anwar Chowdhury

Post Graduate Research Fellow,

Department of Business Administration,

International Islamic University Malaysia,

Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

 

 

Abstract:

 

The purpose of the paper is to investigate the relationship between internal branding and organizational citizenship behavior in the hotel industry from the context of Bangladesh. A quantitative approach was employed to gain an understanding regarding the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and internal branding. The sampling method is characterized by convenience sampling and 253employees from various hotels holding different designations were surveyed through a structured questionnaire. Moreover, factor analysis and regression analysis have been carried out to assess the relationship between internal branding and organizational citizenship behavior. Results indicated that there is a significant positive relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and internal branding. Finding of this study can help the practitioners as well as policymakers of organizations to apprehend the crucial significance of internal branding. Nevertheless, it can assist human resource managers and practitioners in developing effective strategies to enhance organizational performance through organizational citizenship behavior.

 

Keywords: Bangladesh, Hotel, Internal Branding, Organizational Citizenship Behavior.

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 

The hospitality industry has become evidently competitive in recent time, and hotel brands have gained relevance in the hospitality business. The creation of a strong brand by providing superior customer service and ensuring customer loyalty has become an arduous task for hotels as most of the hotels offer similar services and put forward identical offers. As the industry is highly competitive, a brand serves as an indicator of quality in the consumer's mind. A brand also reduces the uncertainty, the time involved in searching for alternatives by indicating that the service will be as per the expectation of the customers. Moreover, effective brand management leads to increased profit, market share, loyalty, and brand awareness (Kayaman & Arasli, 2007). On the other hand, hotels have a major interest in communicating and delivering its brand promises to consumers at present (Xiong & King, 2015). A brand's success largely depends on the employees in the hospitality sector (Lohndorf & Diamantopoulos, 2014) because their behavior significantly impacts the way customers perceive the brand (Burmann, Zeplin, & Riley, 2009).  Particularly in the service sector, employees should adapt to specific behaviors that are consistent with its brand values.  However, these values are commonly shared amongst the employees within the organization (Xiong, King, & Piehler, 2013). Thus, the internalization of these brand values can shape an employee's experience in the job. Nevertheless, it also acts as a precursor to the impeccable deliverance of the brand promises and superior service quality.

Every organization desires and strives to have a stronger brand, and therefore, researchers have consistently explored the field from various aspects (Buil, Martínez, & Matute, 2016; Khademi, Kasraei & Shafei, 2015). Branding activities carried outside the organizations have drawn the attention of many researchers and academicians. However, not many studies have focused entirely on internal branding, which has a crucial implication on an organization's performance (Khademi, Kasraei & Shafei, 2015).From the context mentioned, researchers have been interested in identifying and scrutinizing the relationship between internal branding activities and desirable employee behaviors (Huang &Rundle-Thiele, 2014; Burmann et al., 2009). Most of the researchers primarily concentrated on investigating the internal branding activities that result in desirable employee behavior (Punjaisri & Wilson, 2007; Bansal, Mendelson, & Sharma, 2001). Although there have been recent developments, studies on internal branding yet lacks empirical evidence in contemporary academic studies due to the reason of being particularly theoretical (Gapp & Merrilees, 2006).

On the contrary, most of the researchers have ignored the way employees consider internal branding activities and generally focused more on the managerial aspect (Arendt & Brettel, 2010; Davies, 2008). Prior empirical researches on internal branding have given rise to a debate regarding its impact on factors such as performance, brand commitment, and loyalty (Du Preez & Bendixen, 2015; King& Grace, 2008). However, only a limited number of studies have focused on organizational citizenship behavior. Thus, both researchers and academicians have argued that relationships between internal branding and organizational citizenship behavior require further exploration and investigation (Buil, Martínez, & Matute, 2016; Khademi, Kasraei & Shafei, 2015).

The way employees experience and internalize a brand is crucial to deliver the brand promises, especially in the hospitality sector. Therefore, it is vital to apprehend how internal branding activities can provide a strategic advantage to form desirable attitudes of hotel employees and how they affect organizational citizenship behavior.

Investigating the relationship between internal branding and organizational citizenship behavior is particularly relevant in the hospitality sector, because employees tend to go beyond their job description when they feel that the organization has become an integral component of their self-identity (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).The research aim is to understand employees’ perception regarding the process of internal brand management and how the constituents of internal branding shape the behavioral dimensions of the employees from the hospitality industry. Specifically, this research investigates the association between components of internal branding such as training, communication and HR involvement on organizational citizenship behavior of employees from the hospitality industry of Bangladesh. The research also aims to contribute to the literature by closing and bridging the gap since no studies have previously focused on the relationship of those two variables from the context of Bangladesh. It also broadens the previous researches by investigating the way internal branding components affect the behavioral responses of the employees working in the hospitality sector. Moreover, this research has both practical and meaningful implications for HR practitioners in the hospitality business. The study also provides valuable insights into the way the components of internal brand should be managed to facilitate organizational citizenship behavior. The study also provides valuable insights on managing internal branding components to build desirable working conditions, which, in turn, promotes the growth of organizational citizenship behavior of the employees.

 

Literature Review

 

Internal Branding

Internal branding is organizational actions that are strategically taken for the purpose of ensuring employee buy-in. However, those are not only intellectual but also emotional (Mahnert & Torres, 2007). It is considered as a pivotal route for achieving competitive advantage (Özçelik & Fındıklı, 2014). Internal branding is a systematic process and it augments the brand behavior guidelines those are considered or hold as acceptable into the daily work conducts of employees. Hence, it enables the employees to provide customers the promise which is assured by the brand (Matanda & Ndubisi, 2013).Top management of organizations demands the employees to act and serve as brand ambassadors through the internalization of brand identity. Moreover, profound adaptation and rational incorporation of the brand values are imperative for an employee if he or she is to serve as a brand ambassador (Burman, Zeplin, & Riley, 2009). Top management wants their employees to take the lead not only for delivering the brand promises but also for publicizing positive word of mouth regarding the employer brand (Asha & Jyothi, 2013).  The commitment of an employee towards brand can spring up if firms can make sure that the organizational members are being able to recognize themselves with the values being offered by their employer brand (Özçelik & Fındıklı, 2014). Before satisfying the external customer base, the internalization and adaption of the brand values is imperative (Miles & Mangold, 2004). Therefore, inside of an organization; internal branding can be argued to be a pivotal strategic process (Asha &Jyothi, 2013).

 

 

 

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Performing the tasks only from the job description is not sufficient these days if the organizations are to be sustainable (Katz, 1964) and researches suggest that the behaviors of employees should not be restricted to their assigned role definitions, rather should go beyond that in order to create a positive impact within the entire organization (Mohanty & Rath, 2012; Walz & Rush, 2000).Employees carry out several tasks within an organization without having the expectations to be rewarded and these behavioral characteristics or features augments the brand identification of employees (Asha & Jyothi, 2013). It is called “Extra-role activities” which employees carry out voluntarily, without having any sort of extrinsic motivation (Özçelik & Fındıklı, 2014). In the beginning, these sorts of behaviors were termed as “pro-social organizational behavior”. However, afterwards, the establishment of the conception regarding extra role activities developed; and it has been termed as organizational citizenship behavior (Özçelik & Fındıklı, 2014).

According to Podsakoff et. al. (2000), when an employee performs these ‘extra role activities’ from their own discretion, it can be called as organizational citizenship behavior. Bolino and Grant (2016) argued organizational citizenship behavior as “Prototypical prosocial behavior” and activities like helping coworkers, abiding by the law of organizations, providing suggestions for making change, volunteering, dealing with unusual work inconveniences, always spreading good words about organization are significant aspects of OCB (Organ et al., 2006).

As no connection exists between organizational citizenship behavior and receiving rewards in an organization (Özçelik & Fındıklı, 2014), till now; it is argued to be merely job related. Therefore, employees do not engage in such behaviors in order to get any sorts of rewards or additional facilities from an organization; rather they do it voluntarily with an intention to promote welfare (Organ, 1988).

 

The Social Exchange Theory

The literature of organizational behavior suggests that the action of employees is dependent upon the relationship, which is purely psychological, that they have with their company (Van Knippenberg et al., 2007). The Social exchange theory is considered as one of the most prominent theories that provide valuable insights into behaviors at workplace (Cropanzano &Mitchell, 2005). However, the fundamental assumption of the theory is that when an interaction takes place, it creates a sort of corresponding duties and responsibilities among both of the individuals (Emerson, 1976). According to Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005), reciprocity is a pivotal factor to consider, and this interchange is the repayment of give and take, which takes place among the employees (Keysar et al.,2008). Social exchange theory points out that when employees feel that they are a part of their organization, they exhibit increased organizational citizenship behavior and lower turnover intentions (Riketta 2005). On the other hand, according to Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), a similar result is manifested when employees have an exchange of relationship with their employers. This psychological relationship between employees and organizations has not been contemplated earlier by researchers within the context of Bangladesh. Therefore, a major question which remains unanswered is whether internal branding leads to organizational citizenship behavior. For addressing the research question, the social exchange theory can serve as a reference point to investigate the link between internal branding and organizational citizenship behavior. Nonetheless, employees have to receive excellent service internally so that they can provide superior service to consumers (Heskett, 1987). Moreover, when employees are given benefits, they respond in a way that benefits the organization as a whole (Gergen, 1978). Hence, the social exchange theory can be argued as an appropriate fit for this study.

 

Conceptual Framework between IB and OCB

Literature suggests that organizational citizenship behavior has been studied and examined from the perspective of five behavioral dimensions (Organ, 1998) namely courtesy, civic virtue, sportsmanship, altruism and conscientiousness (Asha & Jyothi, 2013); then again, other behavioral types includes individual initiative, sportsmanship, civic virtue, organizational loyalty, self-development, helping behavior and organizational compliance (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Helping behavior refers to the activity of assisting and supporting co-workers in business related issues while sportsmanship is a kind of behavior which is targeted towards increasing both the effectiveness and efficiency of an organization through generating creative, constructive and valuable notions under unanticipated conditions (Podsakoff et al., 2000).  Organizational commitment is marked by the feeling of a harmonious, powerful and firm connection with the organizational as well as its members (Özçelik & Fındıklı, 2014) According to Lee, Kim & Kim (2014) organizational compliance refers to an individual’s propensity to accept and adhere to the rules and regulations of an organization. Individual initiatives are voluntary actions taken individuals with an aim to foster organizational welfare and enhance organizational performance (Acar, 2006). According to Podsakoff et al. (2000) skill development incorporates behaviors that are carried out by an individual’s own discretion with a goal to enhancing the knowledge, skills and abilities.

However, OCB has been recognized within the scope of the scale developed by Podsakoff and Mackenzie in 1994 and three dimensions namely civic virtue, helping behavior, and sportsmanship have been employed to examine organizational citizenship behavior.

On the other hand, a review on the internal branding literature asserts that the subject area been examined under three measurements namely training, human resources involvement and internal communication (Matanda & Ndubisi, 2013). The training component of internal branding increases both employee commitment and identification (Tyagi, 1982; De Chernatony, 2002). It also guides and teaches employees the ways to adopt the brand values (Maxwell & Knox, 2009).Internal communication isone of thepivotal aspects of internal branding dimension and itprovides employees an idea regarding the brand (Punjaisri & Wilson, 2011).Malmelin & Hakala (2009) mentioned internal communicationas a process that inspires employees to promote not only the organizational values but alsothe brand’s vision. On the other hand, Keller (2003) mentioned human resources involvement as a method of engaging employees in its tasks and plans. If the human resources are not correctly involved, internal branding remains incomplete (Aurand et al., 2005) and employees from all levels are required to work in a coordinated manner in order to deliver the brand promises effectively (Davis, 2000).

Overall,internal branding can assist the organizational members in building up a responsible engagement with the brand values and the brand itself. If the brand values are compatible with the values of both employee and organization, a feeling of obligation and commitment is formed within the organizational members (Matanda & Ndubisi, 2013). The sense of commitment can be attained by internal branding through the promotion of the brand within an organization (Drake et al., 2005). Internal branding positively affects the behavioral facets in case of delivering the brand promises. For an employee to deliver the brand promises naturally, having brand commitment is imperative. This commitment assists to foster the development of internalization of that individual with that specific firm. On that point, the brand as well as organizational ownership can be established through the support of internal branding efforts (Asha & Jyothni, 2013). Punjaisri & Wilson (2011) believes that, the practice of both internal marketing and human resource management is vital for the establishment of internal branding.  Therefore, to make the internal branding a successful process; the need of a sound coordination among the human resources department and corporate communication is vital and cannot be underestimated (Sumathi et al., 2011). The following framework has been development base on above mentioned literature to test the relationship between IB and OCB. Here, IB is the independent variable where OCB is dependent variable. HR Involvement, Training and Internal Communication are the elements of Internal Branding (Matanda & Ndubisi, 2013) whereas while helping Behavior, Civic Virtue and Sportsmanship are considered as the elements of Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Özçelik& Fındıklı, 2014).

Helping Behavior

Civic Virtue

HR Involvement

Training

Internal Communications

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Sportsmanship

Internal

Branding

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Conceptual framework between IB and OCB

Hypothesis development

Previous studies carried out by researchers depicted that a positive relationship is existent between organizational citizenship behavior and internal branding (Asha & Jyothi, 2013; King et al., 2012; Lohndorf & Diamantopoulos, 2014).Nevertheless, existing literature that examines the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and internal branding is insufficient; therefore, additional studies and investigations are required for establishing the actual and authentic connection amongst these two variables. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed.

 

Hypothesis: Internal branding has a positive significant association with organizational citizenship behavior.

 

Methodology

A structured questionnaire, consisting of 35 items, has been used for obtaining data from respondents. The sampling method adapted for this study isconvenience sampling. For data collection, overall, 337 questionnaires were circulated among the employees from different hotels in Bangladesh and 253 were returned; securing a response rate of 75%.

For measuring internal branding, the scale of Matanda and Ndubisi (2010) has been adopted; which incorporates sub-dimensions like human resources engagement, internal communication, and training. Overall, 13 items were included to measure internal branding construct.

Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1994) scale has been employed for measuring organizational citizenship behavior which included 14 items; including sub-dimensions which are sportsmanship, helping behavior and civic virtue. Despite being conceptually distinctive, both employers and employees tend to perceive it as an arduous task to make the distinctions among a variety of organizational citizenship behaviors. On the other hand, the scales of peacemaking, courtesy, altruism and cheerleading have been incorporated to form and develop the dimension entitled “Helping behavior”. A 6 point Likert scale has been used for the purpose of data collection (1='Completely Disagree' and 6='Completely Agree'). 6 point likert scale has been used not only because it provides higher reliability values but also it does not be the burden of the respondents (Chomeya, 2010).

Data was collected from the respondents of two areas of Bangladesh namely Dhaka and Cox’s Bazar (See table 2) and has been analyzedby using SPSS and SMART PLS 3.0. Nevertheless, respondents were required to specify their age, total years of work experience, gender, duration of serving the current organization and the level of education. Finally, the proposed associations were investigated by undertaking exploratory factor analysis followed bya regression analysis.

 

Results

Profile of Participants

The survey was conducted on employees holding various designations from selected hotels.From 337 questionnaires, 253 were returned and have been considered for further analysis. While on the other hand, it has been ensured that a questionnaire having any missing value was ignored for the purpose of data analysis.Table 1 demonstrates that among the respondents, 184 were male, contributing to 72.8% of the total sample size; contrarily, the percentage of female respondents was 27.2%.

 

Table 1: Profile of the participants

Variable

Frequency

Percentage (%)

Mean

Standard Deviation

Range

Gender

   

-

-

 

Male

184

72.8

     

Female

69

27.2

     

Age

   

-

-

21-60

20-30 years

102

40.31

     

31-40 years

65

25.69

     

41-50 years

47

18.57

     

51-60 years

39

15.41

     

Education Level

   

-

-

 

High School

-

-

     

Graduate

148

58.5

     

Post Graduate

105

41.5

     

Duration with current organization (Years)

   

-

-

0-23

Less than 1 year

32

12.64

     

2-5 years

121

47.82

     

5-7 years

72

28.45

     

More than 10 years

28

11.06

     

Total work experience (Years)

   

-

-

 

1-3 year

127

50.19

     

3-5 year

80

31.62

     

6-10 years

33

13.04

     

More than 10 years

13

5.13

     

 

Table 2: Selected hotels and number of participants

   

Hotel name

Location

Number of participants

Long beach hotel

Cox's Bazar

38

Hotel Silver Bay

Cox's Bazar

36

Hotel Water Orchid

Cox's Bazar

27

Praasad Paradise

Cox's Bazar

34

Royal Tulip Sea Pearl Beach & Spa

Cox's Bazar

33

Le Meridien

Dhaka

33

The Westin

Dhaka

29

Six Seasons Hotel

Dhaka

23

         

 

Correlations, Means & Standard Deviations

Table 3 exhibits the alpha coefficients, mean, standard deviation, and correlations among the dimensions that have been considered for the study. The inter-correlations were found both positive and significant. In order to measure the internal consistency, scores of Cronbach Alpha Coefficient were assessed.According to the viewpoint of Hair, Wolfinbarger, Ortinau, & Bush (2010), values more than .80 can be considered as a high reliability and it was found that the scores of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the constructs namely internal branding and organizational citizenship behavior were .90 and .83 respectively which demonstrated a high internal consistency among the items.

 

Table 3: Correlations of sub-dimensions, Coefficient Alphas, Means & Standard Deviations

Variables

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. IB1 - HR involvement

0.623

0.43**

0.533**

.242**

.394**

.235**

2. IB2 – Training

.429**

0.564

.797**

.236**

.324**

0.104

3. IB3 - Internal Communication

.527**

.786**

0.579

.220**

0.073

.470**

4. OCB1 - Helping Behavior

.375**

.237**

.113**

0.716

.483**

0.063

5. OCB2 -Civic Virtue

.364**

.363**

.274**

.349**

0.346

0.079

6. OCB3- Sportsmanship

.342**

0.059

0.118

0.089

0.152

0.692

Means

16.158

35.758

11.947

19.058

17.638

9.427

Standard Deviation

4.743

3.537

3.765

3.896

5.947

5.042

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

           

Exploratory Factor Analysis

The factor analysis of the 'Internal Branding' exhibited in table 4 showed that the components of internal communication and training were observed to be loaded on the same factor. Therefore, the factors of internal branding were minimized to sub-dimensions namely, Internal Communication & Training and HR involvement.

Table 4 indicated that internal communication and training explained 29.54% of the variance while on the other hand; percentage of variance explained by human resource involvement was 64.462. Overall, total variance for internal branding dimension was73.67%.Furthermore, as demonstrated in table 5; the percentage of variance explained by sportsmanship, helping behavior and civic virtue were 18.174, 33.258 and 22.683 respectively. Moreover, the total percentage of variance explained for organizational citizenship behavior was 65.433 (%).

 

Table 4: Factor analysis of internal branding dimension

Internal Branding (Total Variance Explained (73.67%)

Components

HR Involvement

Internal Communication

HR involvement, percentage of variance explained (64.462), Mean: 16.158, Standard deviation: 4.743

 

 

Our organization’s brand values guide the way I deal with customers

0.785

 

Brand values are included during our training in this organization.

0.737

 

I use knowledge about the company brand to perform my job.

0.825

 

I am aware of the skills I need to deliver brand values.

0.852

 

Internal Communication & Training, percentage of variance explained (29.54% ), Mean: 19.563, Standard deviation: 4.295

 

 

I receive communication from the personnel department on a regular basis

 

0.852

My organization informs employees in a good way the things that are relevant to them

 

0.834

I am adequately informed about my company’s financial position

 

0.767

People who work here are encouraged to come up with new ideas to improve our organization

 

0.812

I am made aware of the overall policies and goals of my organization

 

0.751

The training provided by my organization enables me to deliver the brand promise

 

0.807

Written communications are adequate within this organization

 

0.752

We are encouraged to suggest ways to improve our organization.

 

0.835

I am regularly notified of important changes that occur in my organization

 

0.742

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

Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

 

Table 5: Factor analysis of organizational citizenship behavior dimension

Organizational citizenship behavior (Total Variance Explained 65.433 %)

Components

Helping behavior

Civic virtue

Sportsmanship

Helping Behaviour, Percentage of Variance Explained (33.258 %), Mean: 29.357, Standard Deviation: 4.753

 

 

 

Takes steps to try to prevent problems with other personnel in the company

0.694

 

 

Is a stabilizing influence in the agency when dissention occurs

0.61

 

 

Willingly gives of his or her time to help other who have work-related problems

0.834

 

 

Acts as a “peacemaker” when others have disagreements

0.512

 

 

Is willing to take time out of his or her own busy schedule to help with recruiting or training new individuals

0.727

 

 

Encourages other employees when they are down

0.822

 

 

“Touches base” with other before initiating actions that might affect them

0.662

 

 

Civic virtue, Percentage of Variance Explained (22.683  %), Mean: 17.378, Standard Deviation: 3.273

 

 

 

Attends and actively participates in meetings

 

0.698

 

Attends functions that are not required but help the company image

 

0.752

 

Attends training/information sessions that agents are encouraged but not required to attend

 

0.857

 

Sportsmanship, Percentage of Variance Explained (18.174  %), Mean: 13.425, Standard Deviation: 4.621

 

 

 

Always focuses on what is wrong with this or her situation rather than the positive side of it

 

 

0.899

Consumes a lot of time complaining about trivial matters

 

 

0.921

Tends to make “mountains out of molehills”, makes problems bigger than they are

 

 

0.914

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

Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

 

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

In order to analyze the data, both validity and reliability were assessed. Hair et al. (2010) suggested that loadings should be higher than 0.70 while on the other hand, several studies stated that loadings of above 0.50 are acceptable (Truong & McColl, 2011; Hulland, 1999). For the purpose of the study, the threshold of the item loading was 0.60.An item of Sportsmanship (S1) had a loading below the threshold of. 0.60, and therefore, was omitted (Chin, Gopal & Salisbury, 1997; Hair et al., 2006). Table 6 shows that all the standardized factor loadings were above the recommended level and therefore, achieved the criteria.

 

Table 06: Convergent validity and Reliability Assessment

Construct

Item

Reliability

 

Convergent validity

 

 

 

Cronbach’s alpha

Composite reliability

Standardized factor loading

AVE

HR Involvement

HRI1

0.786

0.863

0.868

0.613

 

HRI2

   

0.684

 
 

HRI3

   

0.736

 
 

HRI4

   

0.83

 

Internal Communication & Training

ICT1

0.892

0.912

0.736

0.537

 

ICT2

   

0.764

 
 

ICT3

   

0.651

 
 

ICT4

   

0.703

 
 

ICT5

   

0.779

 
 

ICT6

   

0.777

 
 

ICT7

   

0.729

 
 

ICT8

   

0.737

 
 

ICT9

   

0.709

 

Internal Branding

HRI1

0.918

0.930

0.868

0.507

 

HRI2

   

0.684

 
 

HRI3

   

0.736

 
 

HRI4

   

0.83

 
 

ICT1

   

0.736

 
 

ICT2

   

0.764

 
 

ICT3

   

0.651

 
 

ICT4

   

0.703

 
 

ICT5

   

0.779

 
 

ICT6

   

0.777

 
 

ICT7

   

0.729

 
 

ICT8

   

0.737

 
 

ICT9

   

0.709

 

Helping Behavior

HB1

0.711

0.843

0.767

0.65

 

HB2

   

0.758

 
 

HB3

   

0.767

 
 

HB4

   

0.814

 
 

HB5

   

0.712

 
 

HB6

   

0.648

 
 

HB7

   

0.731

 

Civic Virtue

CV1

0.746

0.856

0.749

0.665

 

CV2

   

0.871

 
 

CV3

   

0.822

 

Sportsmanship

SS2

0.865

0.896

0.896

0.554

 

SS3

   

0.904

 

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

HB1

0.903

0.919

0.767

0.554

 

HB2

   

0.758

 
 

HB3

   

0.767

 
 

HB4

   

0.814

 
 

HB5

   

0.712

 
 

HB6

   

0.648

 
 

HB7

   

0.731

 
 

CV1

   

0.749

 
 

CV2

   

0.871

 
 

CV3

   

0.822

 
 

SS2

   

0.896

 
 

SS3

   

0.904

 

 

Composite reliability and Cronbach’s alpha values were used to measure the reliability of the items. The Cronbach’s alpha values of HR involvement, Internal communication and training, Internal branding, Helping behavior, Civic virtue, Sportsmanship and organizational citizenship behavior were 0.863, 0.912, 0.930, 0.843, 0.856, 0.896, 0.919 respectively and the Composite reliability values were above the recommended threshold of 0.70 suggesting that the results were reliable. The convergent validity was assessed by calculating Average variance extracted (Chiu and Wang 2008) and the recommended level of AVE is 0.50 (Hair et al., 2006). Results indicated that all of the AVE values were above than 0.50 demonstrating that the items have met the required recommended level.

The construct correlations and the square root of the values of AVE were compared to measure discriminant validity.

Table 7 demonstrates that square root of AVE values replaced the diagonal components in the correlation matrix and all of the values are higher than the construct correlations. Hence, the discriminant and convergent validity has been made confirmed (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Table 07: Discriminantvalidityoftheresearchmodel

 

Construct

Civic virtue

HR Involvement

Helping Behavior

Internal Branding

Internal Communication & Training

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Sportsmanship

Civic virtue

0.816

           

 

HR Involvement

0.614

0.783

         

 

Helping Behavior

0.672

0.744

0.784

       

 

Internal Branding

0.653

0.712

0.887

0.901

     

 

Internal Communication & Training

0.624

0.733

0.786

0.874

0.976

   

 

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

0.868

0.783

0.684

0.542

0.839

0.863

 

 

Sportsmanship

0.703

0.525

0.529

0.542

0.513

0.764

0.944

 

                       

The diagonal (bold) elements are the square roots of AVE values and the off-diagonal elements are the correlations among the constructs

 

For the purpose of the study GOF has been estimated which isthe geometric mean of average variance extracted (AVE) and the average of  (Tenenhaus, Vinzi, Chatelin, & Lauro, 2005). Results from equation 1 showed that the value of GOF is 0.603.According to Cohen (1977, 1988) the value of GOF is substantial when it exceeds 0.36 provided that the value of AVE is above 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).) The results showed that the average communality is 0.5831 and therefore, the GOF value is calculated as 0.603 which is substantial for the study (Cohen, 1977, 1988).The formula of calculation is given below:

 

= ……………………. (1)

GOF=

GOF= 0.603

 

Hypothesis Testing/Path Analysis:

Furthermore, path analysis has been performed to test the hypothesis and it is revealed thatinternal branding (β=0.624; p=.000) has a positive significant association with organizational citizenship behavior. As the adjusted R square is 0.745 results demonstrate that internal branding (Independent variable) explicates 74.5% of the variances caused in organizational citizenship behavior. In other words, 74.5% of the changes in the outcome (organizational citizenship behavior) are explained by the predictor (Internal branding). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected, supporting the alternative hypothesis (H1).

 

Table 08: Path Coefficient and Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis

Path from

Path to

Coefficient

t value

Result

H1

Internal Branding

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

0.624

5.78

Supported

Figure 2: Path Diagram of the Impact of internal Branding on Organizational Citizenship Behavior

 

Discussion

Internal brand management has been asserted to have a positive association with organizational citizenship behavior and the results of data analysis has confirmed the relationship between internal branding and organizational citizenship behavior. The results obtained from the exploratory factor analysis of internal branding dimensionshowed that the components of internal communication and training were observed to be loaded on the same factor. In addition to that the percentage of variance explained by HR involvement and internal communication and training were 64.462 and 29.54 respectively. Overall, the internal branding dimension depicted that the overall variance explained for IB was 73.67%, while for OCB, it was 65.43 %. Nevertheless, the percentage of variance explained by sportsmanship, helping behavior and civic virtue were 18.174, 33.258 and 22.683 respectively.

On the other hand, results of Path analysis indicated that organizational citizenship behavior is explained by 74.5% by internal branding. One of the reasons behind it might be associated with the fact that being comparatively a new concept in the literature, organizations might be a little hesitant and reluctant to emphasize on the implementation. On the contrary, to the best of the knowledge, no study has been conducted before in Bangladesh specifically in hotel that has explored and investigated the association between internal branding and organizational citizenship behaviors. Hence, the surveyed respondents might be unable to form a thorough comprehension of the notion called internal brand management.The finding is consistent with the study carried out by Asha and Jyothi (2013) and (Özçelik & Fındıklı, 2014) where it has been revealed that internal branding and organizational citizenship behavior were positively correlated. Therefore, if internal brand management is carried out effectively in organizations, employees will engage themselves in demonstrating citizenship behaviors (Gözükara & Hatipoğlu, 2016). The objective of internal branding is not only to satisfy but also exceeding customer expectations.In essence, the goal of internal branding is to make the organization a powerful brand. Hence, by perceiving the brand as a part of self-identity, employees demonstrate citizenship behavior, which eventually impacts customers, peers, and the organization.

Moreover, as internal branding strengthens the power of an organization’s brand, its impact on organizational citizenship behavior should not be underestimated (Rahimnia & Sadeghi, 2016; Gözükara & Hatipoğlu, 2016). The result of the study is also consistent with the findings of Buil, Matute & Martínez (2016) and Khayeri et al. (2014) suggesting that the significance of internal branding in developing employee’s citizenship behavior is crucial.Being committed to the brand and its values act as a precursor to the development of anemployee’s intrinsic motivation. Therefore, they go an extra mile to promote the superiority of their organization, implying that, the extent to which employees demonstrate citizenship behavior depends on the degree of commitment and attachment they have with their organization. It is also connected to their eagerness and enthusiasm to exhibit additional efforts towards attaining organizational goals. Furthermore, when employees perceive the brand as a part of their self-identity, they make attempts to provide additional efforts like helping other employees, supporting peers, and engage themselves in discretionary activities within the organization.It can, therefore, be considered that the importance of strengthening citizenship behavior is key to improving organizational effectiveness. In addition to that,an employee forms his or her perceptions regarding the intention of the organization from the HR policies and practices (Wie et al, 2010). Apart from that, it assists them in building both positive attitudes and perceptions regarding the organization they work for. Therefore, for creating brand ambassadors, the functioning of marketing and HR should be collective and mutual.

 

 

 

Conclusion

Finally, the purpose of study was to comprehend and unveil the influence of internal branding on organizational citizenship behavior. The result was derived from Bangladeshi employees holding different designations in a variety of companies in order to understand the role of internal branding of organizational citizenship behavior. The study highlights that both experiencing and internalizing the brand is crucial for employees in order to ensure superior service quality in the hospitality sector. It also mentionedthe importance ofmanaging the brand internally which enables employees to demonstrate citizenship behavior. The influence of OCBinensuring and promotingthe welfare of an organization is also highlighted. Implementing this research in the hotel industry with an emphasis on internal branding can assist in exposing the potential presence of such associations that were found in the study.The main intention is to make the policy makersaware and understand that internal branding can motivate employees to get engaged in extra-role behaviors.So, it is vital to apprehend how internal branding activities can provide a strategic advantage to form desirable attitudes of hotel employees and how they affect organizational citizenship behavior.Therefore, its importance should not be underestimated and is worth mentioning.

 

Limitation and direction for future research

The first limitation of this study is the adaptation of the convenience sampling method. Another limitation of the study is to the number of organizations from which responses were collected. Employees who participated in this study were from five major tourist cities of Bangladesh; Dhaka, Chittagong, Cox’s Bazar, Sylhet and Khulna. However, these results are merely valid for the employees serving the companies from where responses have been obtained.

This study can serve as a reference point for other researches for conducting further investigations on internal branding and organizational citizenship behavior in Bangladesh. Nevertheless, the researcher can select organizations that purposefully emphasize more on the internal branding process. If the research is executed within a well-organized organization with a strong orientation towards internal branding, it has the capacity and potential to assist in explaining the presence of the noteworthy connections within the subject boundaries. This research can be both useful and used to expand to sub-themes of OB discipline. On the other hand, it can also be employed to manifest the probable positive impacts and contributions of internal branding on the performance of organizations as well as its members.

 

References

 

  • Acar, Z. A. (2006). Örgütsel Yurttaşlık Davranışı: Kavramsal Gelişimi ile Kişisel ve Örgütsel Etkileri, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 7(1), 1-14.
  • Arendt, S., & Brettel, M. (2010). Understanding the influence of corporate social responsibility on corporate identity, image, and firm performance. Management Decision, 48(10), 1469-1492.
  • Asha, C. S., & Jyothi, P. (2013). Internal Branding: A Determining Element of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Journal of Contemporary Management Research7(1).
  • Aurand, T. W., Gorchels, L., & Bishop, T. (2005). Human resource management’s role in internal branding: An opportunity for cross-functional brand message synergy. Journal ofProduct and Brand Management, 14, 163–169.
  • Bansal, H. S., Mendelson, M. B., & Sharma, B. (2001). The impact of internal marketing activities on external marketing outcomes. Journal of Quality Management, 6(1), 61-76.
  • Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The Bright Side of Being Prosocial at Work, and the Dark Side, Too: A Review and Agenda for Research on Other-Oriented Motives, Behavior, and Impact in Organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 599-670.
  • Buil, I., Martínez, E., & Matute, J. (2016). From internal brand management to organizational citizenship behaviours: Evidence from frontline employees in the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 57, 256-271.
  • Burmann, C., Zeplin, S., & Riley, N. (2009). Key determinants of internal brand management success: An exploratory empirical analysis. Journal of brand management16(4), 264-284.
  • Cable,D. M., & Parsons, C. R. (2001). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 1-
  • Chomeya, R. (2010). Quality of psychology test between Likert scale 5 and 6 points. Journal of Social Sciences6(3), 399-403.
  • Cropazano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of management31(6), 874-900.
  • Davies, G. (2008). Employer branding and its influence on managers. European Journal of Marketing, 42(5/6), 667-681
  • Davis, S.M. (2000), Brand Asset Management: Driving Profitable Growth through Your Brands, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
  • De Chernatony, L. (2002), Would a brand smell any sweeter by a corporate name?, Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3),114-32.
  • Drake, S. M., Gulman, M. J., & Roberts, S. M. (2005). Light their fire. Chicago: Dearborn.
  • 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
  • Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335-362
  • Gapp, R., & Merrilees, B. (2006). Important factors to consider when using internal branding as a management strategy: A healthcare case study. Journal of Brand Management, 14(1), 162-176.
  • Gerge, K. J. (1978). Experimentation in social psychology: A reappraisal. European Journal of Social Psychology8(4), 507-527.
  • Gergen, K. J. (1978). Toward generative theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(11), 1344-1360
  • Gözükra, İ., & Hatipoğlu, Z. (2016). The effect of employer branding on employees’ organizational citizenship behaviors. International Journal of Business Management & Economic Research7(1), 37-57.
  • Hair Jr, J. F., Wolfinbarger, M. F., Ortinau, D. J., & Bush, R. P. (2010). Essential of Marketing Research. McGraw Hill.
  • Hesket, J. L. (1987). Lessons in the service sector. Harvard Business Review, 65(2), 118-126.
  • Huang, Y. T., & Rundle-Thiele, S. (2014). The moderating effect of cultural congruence on the internal marketing practice and employee satisfaction relationship: An empirical examination of Australian and Taiwanese born tourism employees. Tourism Management, 42, 196-206.
  • Katz, D. (1964). Motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131–146.
  • Kayaman, R., & Arasli, H. (2007). Customer based brand equity: Evidence from the hotel industry. Managing Service Quality, 17(1), 92-109.
  • Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
  • Keysar, B., Converse, B. A., Wang, J., & Epley, N. (2008). Reciprocity is not give and take: Asymmetric reciprocity to positive and negative acts. Psychological Science19(12), 1280-1286.
  • Khademi, S., Kasraei, K., & Shafei, R. ( 2015). The Relationship between strategizing Corporate Identity on Corporate Image in the Food Industry of Kurdistan. International Academic Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. 2(12), 1-12.
  • Khayeri, Bahram, Sheikh Esmaeili, Saman, Abdoli, Maryam. (2015). Investigating the Effects of internal Branding on Brand Citizenship Behavior by Considering the Mediating Role of Person-Organization Fit (Study of Major Drug Buyers in Tabriz). Special Issue Journal of Research- scientific in New Marketing Research, National Conference on Marketing Research, Shahid Beheshti International Conference Center, Tehran.
  • King, C., & Grace, D. (2008). Internal branding: Exploring the employee's perspective. Journal of Brand Management, 15(5), 358-372.
  • King, C., Grace, D., & Funk, D. C. (2012). Employee brand equity: Scale development and validation. Journal of brand management19(4), 268-288.
  • Lee, Y. K., Kim, S., & Kim, S. Y. (2014). The impact of internal branding on employee engagement and outcome variables in the hotel industry. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research19(12), 1359-1380.
  • Lohndorf, B., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2014). Internal branding social identity and social exchange perspectives on turning employees into brand champions. Journal of Service Research, 17(3), 310-325.
  • Mahnert, K. E., & Torres A. M. (2007). The Brand Inside: The Factors of Failure and Success in Internal Branding, Irish Marketing Review, 19(1/2), 54-63.
  • Malmelin, N., & Hakala, J. (2009). Guided by the brand: From brand management to integrative corporate communications. Business Strategy Series, 10, 248–258.
  • Matanda, M. J., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2013). Internal marketing, internal branding, and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of perceived goal congruence, Journal of Marketing Management, 29 (9), 1030-1055.
  • Maxwell, R., & Knox, S. (2009). Motivating employees to ‘live the brand’: A comparative case study of employer brand attractiveness within the firm. Journal of Marketing Management, 25, 893–907
  • Miles, S. J. & Mangold, G. (2004). A Conceptualization of the Employee Branding Process, Journal of Relationship Marketing, 3 (2/3), 65-87.
  • Mohanty, J., & Rath, B. (2012). Influence of Organizational Culture on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A Three-sector Study. Global Journal of Business Research , 6 (1), 65-76.
  • Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., and MacKenzie, S. B. (2006) Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences, London: Sage
  • Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
  • Özçelik, G., & Fındıklı, M. A. (2014). The relationship between internal branding and organizational citizenship behaviour: the mediating role of person-organization fit. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences150, 1120-1128.
  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B. and Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Critical Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature and Suggestions for Future Research, Journal of Management, 26 (3), 513-563.
  • Podsakoff, P., & MacKenzie, S. (1994). Organizational Citizenship behaviors and Sales Unit Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research , 31 (1).
  • 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.
  • Punjaisri, K., & Wilson, A. (2011). Internal branding process: key mechanisms, outcomes and moderating factors. European Journal of Marketing, 45(9/10), 1521–1537.
  • Rahimnia F., Sadeghi F. (2016). Investigating the role of the mediator of the job satisfaction on the impact of internal brand management and job anchors on the willingness to stay, a case study: a government organization in Mashhad. Journal of Scientific Research in New Marketing Research, 6 (4), 67-88.
  • Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the literature. Journal of applied psychology87(4), 698.
  • Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of vocational behavior, 66(2), 358-384.
  • Rousseau, D. M., & McLean Parks, J. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. Research in organizational behavior15, 1-1.
  • Ruiz-Palomino, P., & Martínez-Cañas, R. (2014). Ethical culture, ethical intent, and organizational citizenship behavior: The moderating and mediating role of person–organization fit. Journal of business ethics120(1), 95-108.
  • Shafia, S. & Seyyed Naghavi, M. (2019).Intenral Brand Management Model in Tehran Hotels. Bagh-e- Nazar, 15(68), 27-40.
  • Sumathi, G. N., Kamalanabhan, T. J., & Thenmozhi, M. (2011). Work experiences, perceived organizational support and job performance among medical personnel. International Conference on Management and Industrial Engineering. Niculescu Publishing House.
  • Tyagi, P. K. (1982). Perceived organizational climate and the process of salesperson motivation. Journal of Marketing Research19(2), 240-254.
  • Van Knippenberg, D., Van Dick, R., & Tavares, S. (2007). Social identity and social exchange: Identification, support, and withdrawal from the job. Journal of Applied Social Psychology37(3), 457-477.
  • Walz, S., & Rush, M. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: Their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 24 (3), 301-319.
  • Wei, Y.C. (2012). Person-organization fit and organizational citizenship behavior: Time perspective. Journal of Management & Organization18(6), 833-844.
  • Xiong, L., & King, C. (2015). Motivational drivers that fuel employees to champion the hospitality brand. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 44(January), 58-69.
  • 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.