Journal of Marketing Management, 2013

Vol. 29, Nos. 9–10, 1007–1029, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.796323

Brand orientation and brand values in retail banking

Elaine Wallace,National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland
Isabel Buil, University of Zaragoza, Spain
Leslie de Chernatony, Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK

Abstract This exploratory study seeks to provide an appreciation of brand

orientation in retail banking. Through in-depth interviews at head office and
branch level, we explore managers’ brand mind-set. We also surface managers’
views about the relationship between market and brand orientation. Further, we
examine managers’ perceptions about the role of brand values as resources in
creating a brand orientation. In a large-scale study of front-line employees, we
examine the level of agreement with brand values, and describe differences in
brand buy-in across employee clusters.

Keywords brand orientation; values; in-depth interviews; employee survey;

cluster analysis

Introduction

This study explores brand orientation and examines the success of a brand orientation
programme implemented through brand values. Brand orientation is a relatively
young paradigm (Louro & Cunha, 2001) which considers the brand as a resource
and the basis of increased performance. Brand orientation offers a source of strategic
competitive advantage (Urde, Baumgarth, & Merrilees, 2013), as it allows the firm to
differentiate itself from competitors and engage with customers by aligning strategy
with the brand. Urde (1999) defines brand orientation as ‘an approach in which
the processes of the organisation revolve around the creation, development and
protection of brand identity in an ongoing interaction with target customers with the
aim of achieving lasting competitive advantages in the form of brands’ (pp. 117–118).
From early inception (Urde, 1994), brand orientation research explored the processes
of the firm in creating and protecting brand identity to derive competitive advantage
from brands (Urde, 1999), when top management accord high relevance to branding
(Baumgarth, 2010).
Our study offers a contribution to the brand orientation concept, as it explores
brand orientation from the perspective of both managers and employees in
retail banking. The banking sector is of interest, as bank brands are uniquely
challenged in branding due to the intangibility of the bank offer and a lack
of product differentiation between competing brands (Bravo, Montaner, & Pina,
2010; O’Loughlin & Szmigin, 2005). These challenges have been compounded by
the damage to bank brands caused by the ongoing financial crisis. In 2012, the
© 2013 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
1008 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29

500 banking brands evaluated by Brand Finance (2012) saw their value fall by
US$94.78 billion. Strong brands will be critical to rebuilding consumer trust (Hensley,
2012). Specifically, we explore managers’ views in order to elicit the brand mind-set
in an industry challenged externally by economic tsunami. Further, we draw on the
market and brand orientation matrix (Urde et al., 2013) to illustrate managers’ views
about their brand strategies. We also offer insights into employees’ brand orientation
by exploring their attitudes about brand values, and we draw on quantitative findings
to cluster employees into three types according to their values adoption. These
findings may be helpful to managers in banking and related sectors seeking to embed
a brand orientation through brand values.
Our paper opens with a review of the brand orientation literature. We then
describe our research methodology. We present our findings from in-depth interviews
with managers, and the results of our large-scale survey of employees. We describe
the theoretical and practical applications of our findings, and conclusions are drawn.

Brand orientation

Brand orientation is a mind-set whose characteristics include the importance

attributed to the brand identity, namely its mission, vision, and values (Urde et al.,
2013). Brand-oriented companies ‘generate value and meaning via their brands’
(Urde, 1999, p. 124). Choosing a strategy of brand orientation enhances a firm’s
long-term survival (Wong & Merrilees, 2005). In brand-oriented firms, senior
management ‘pay attention’ (Wong & Merrilees, 2005, p. 156) to the brand, and
align business strategy with brand strategy (Aaker, 1996), ultimately leading to higher
brand equity (Gromark & Melin, 2011). Recent findings (Wong & Merrilees, 2007)
have shown that brand orientation positively moderates the relationship between
marketing strategy and brand performance. When employees express and interpret
the core values of the organisation (Urde, 1999) they ‘live the brand’ (Ind, 2007;
Macrae, 1996), their behaviour enhances brand identity, and they become a strategic
resource for the firm (de Chernatony, 2010; Urde, 1999). Further, Baumgarth (2010)
found evidence of brand orientation’s positive influence on a firm’s performance.
Clearly, brand orientation is invaluable to firms wishing to achieve a sustainable
competitive advantage.

The dynamic between market and brand orientation

It is important to delineate the concept of brand orientation from market orientation.

Market orientation is an ‘outside-in approach’ concerned with brand image and
customer wants, whereas brand orientation is an ‘inside-out approach’ concerned
with brand identity, where the brand anchors the firm’s strategy and its response to
customers (Urde et al., 2013, p. 4). Urde et al. (2013) propose that these orientations
are dynamic, with firms often moving over time to a hybrid of the two perspectives
(either market and brand orientation, or brand and market orientation). In the former
hybrid, consumer insights inform the choice of brand, often the end point for market-
oriented firms. By contrast, many brand-oriented firms move to the latter hybrid,
where the brand identity comes first but customer needs influence corporate strategy
and culture. Following Urde et al.’s (2013) call to examine the nature of orientation
 Wallace et al. Brand orientation and brand values in retail banking 1009

and the possibility of the two hybrid orientations, we explore the position of the
studied banks on the brand and market orientation matrix proposed by these authors.
The literature on brand orientation is often normative or prescriptive (Wong &
Merrilees, 2007). As explained earlier, this study examines the success of a brand
orientation programme implemented through brand values. To provide theoretical
support for our approach, we next describe the relationship between these two
constructs.

Brand orientation and brand values

Recent literature has highlighted the criticality of ‘approach’ and ‘implementation’
for successful brand orientation, where ‘approach’ is the company’s overall approach
to brands, and ‘implementation’ is the extent to which the company uses the
brand as a ‘beacon’ to inspire the employees and allow ‘every employee to be an
efficient brand ambassador’ (Gromark & Melin, 2011, p. 401). The ‘approach’
and ‘implementation’ approach suggested by Gromark and Melin (2011) informs
our research, as we seek to understand managers’ views about their brand, and we
measure employees’ adoption of brand values.
Understanding brand values and measuring their adoption is critical to
understanding the implementation of brand orientation (de Chernatony, Drury, &
Segal-Horn, 2006). Reid, Luxton, and Mavondo (2005) identify shared brand vision,
shared brand functionality, brand symbolism, and shared brand positioning as critical
elements of brand orientation, with brand values a strategic tool to facilitate these
goals. Likewise, in the quantitative model of brand orientation, Baumgarth (2010)
suggests ‘layers’ of brand orientation: values, norms, artefacts, and behaviours create
‘a causal chain from brand-oriented values to brand-oriented norms, which create
brand-oriented behaviours’ (p. 665). In this model, brand values are critical for
creating brand-oriented norms (Baumgarth, 2010). Previous studies also recognise
that front-line employees are critical to ‘live’ the brand through values adoption
(Barrow & Mosley, 2005; Boyd & Sutherland, 2006; de Chernatony & Cottam,
2009; Fram & McCarthy, 2003; Ind, 2007; Ind & Bjerke, 2007).
Therefore, following our review of the extant literature, our research questions
are as follows. What is the brand mind-set of bank managers? Where is the banks’
strategic approach to brand located on the brand and market orientation matrix
(Urde et al., 2013)? To what extent are brand values resources in creating a brand
orientation? Do front-line employees buy into their brand through brand values?
We next describe the method used in our study, and then present our findings.

Methodology
This study explores brand orientation in retail banking in Ireland. From our review
of the literature, there is little exploration of brand orientation within the banking
sector. The rationale for exploring this sector is explained in part by economics.
In Ireland, 6% of all those in employment work in financial services (CSO, 2012),
and the Irish Financial Services Sector (IFSC) accounts for C22 billion or 35% of
Irish service exports (Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, 2009). The
economic crisis has damaged the Irish financial services sector, and the literature
1010 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29

has emphasised the criticality of a recalibration of customers’ trust and a revision

of banks’ brand identity (Kuehner-Herbert, 2009; Silverstein, 2009). From a brand
orientation perspective, the banking sector is particularly in need of strong brands due
to diminishing consumer trust (Colton & Oliveira, 2009; Kuehner-Herbert, 2009).
After a comprehensive analysis of the retail banking sector in Ireland, two
banks were selected for the study. We mapped the characteristics of these banks
against those of other banks in the sector, and their profiles were similar to all
of the leading players in the Irish banking industry in terms of size, number of
staff, branch structure, and product offerings. Both banks were established almost
200 years ago, with long-developed brands that have featured in all of their marketing
communications. However, although the banks have a long brand history, both banks
had recently ‘launched’ their brands through the development of new values, and the
implementation of internal branding campaigns. The impetus for this new strategic
focus on brand arose due to economic recession, combined with changes in the
competitive environment, and increasing customer expectations regarding service.
Recently, these brands had experienced a collapse in brand league tables, with a
significant fall in brand value and brand rating for both institutions (Brand Finance,
2012). As part of their response to this decline, both banks had engaged consultants
to develop brand values and implement internal branding campaigns. These banks
were therefore of interest for our study, as we were seeking to understand how
managers might implement a brand orientation, and we considered that eliciting
views of managers in banks where brands had been challenged might reveal new
insights.
The study consisted of two phases: qualitative and quantitative. In the initial phase,
in-depth interviews were conducted with key management across two banks. In the
second phase, a survey was conducted using a random sample of all employees across
one of the banks. Regrettably, it was difficult to gain access to the banks, and only one
of the two banks would cooperate with the second phase of the study, the employee
survey. We discuss the implications of access in our limitations section. First, we
present the method of each phase and our findings.

Phase 1: Interviews with managers

The objective of the first phase of our study was to explore managers’ brand mind-set
and to locate banks’ orientation on the brand and market orientation matrix (Urde
et al., 2013). Further, as the second phase of our study elicited employees’ attitudes
about their brand values, our interviews first surfaced managers’ views about the role
of brand values in creating a brand orientation.
We gained access to undertake these managerial interviews at Head Office and
branch level across the two banks. Theoretical sampling was used to identify suitable
interviewees. As we sought to understand managers’ views about managers’ approach
to the brand and its role in strategy, we interviewed the brand strategists in both banks
(see Appendix 1). These individuals are responsible for the development of their
brand and brand values. We also interviewed the banks’ HR directors, as they were
responsible for the implementation of the brand and brand values throughout their
banks. To understand branch level attitudes better, we interviewed branch managers,
HR managers, and customer service officers who managed service standards within
the branches. We were granted access to conduct a total of nine interviews, each
lasting between one and two hours. Each interviewee was assured confidentiality,
 Wallace et al. Brand orientation and brand values in retail banking 1011

and permission was granted to record interviews using a Dictaphone. Each interview
was transcribed and compared with the recorded interview to ensure that the
transcriptions were accurate replications of the conversation (Miles & Huberman,
1994). Data analysis followed. Our data coding was supported by independent coding
provided by a senior Irish academic. Intercoder reliability was 92%, exceeding the
90% ideal recommended by Patton (2002).

Phase 2: Survey research

To examine front-line employees’ attitudes about brand values, we administered a
survey questionnaire to a sample of employees in one of the retail banks. Regrettably,
Bank 1 (see Appendix 1) refused survey access to their employees.
Our sample was randomly drawn from Bank 2’s list of employees. The sample
was not stratified, as the bank confirmed that they did not tier branches in any
way (such as size or location), nor did it distinguish between branch managers and
other branch staff – all were considered ‘employees’ for the purpose of our study.
Employees received an envelope containing the survey via the bank’s internal post.
The pack also contained a response paid envelope addressed to one of the author’s
employer university, and all respondents were assured of confidentiality. Respondents
were anonymous, and, following the bank’s request, individual branches were not
identified in the survey. The bank gave permission to contact 750 bank employees,
and replies were received from 438 employees, a response rate of 58%. There were
no significant differences between ‘on time’ and late respondents, suggesting that
responses from non-respondents would not significantly influence the survey findings.
Of the 438 responses returned, 423 usable surveys were retained in the quantitative
study. Respondents are profiled in Appendix 2.
We sought to identify whether employees bought into their brand identity,
represented by their brand values. Our interviews reveal that brand values were
the primary mechanism to implement a brand orientation within the banks, as
values helped to communicate brand-supporting behaviours to employees, allowing
them to bring the brand message to life. We therefore elicited employees’ attitudes
about their company’s values. The values statements provided by the company were
included in the questionnaire. These values had already been communicated to all
employees by the bank. Our approach is consistent with studies conducted by Lankau,
Ward, Amason, Ng, Sonnenfeld, and Agle (2007) and Somers (2001), which used
company values to assess employees’ beliefs. Respondents were asked to indicate on
a seven-point Likert scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree’; 7 = ‘strongly agree’) their level of
agreement with 11 values statements. As the values were provided by the bank as a
confidential document on the understanding that they would not be published, the
values cannot be presented in this paper.
Boyd and Sutherland (2006) asserted that employees’ buy-in to brand values is
influenced by their commitment to the organisation and by leadership. Therefore,
our study included measures of commitment and attitudes about leadership.
Commitment was measured using the three-component model developed by Allen
and Meyer (1990). Eighteen items measure employees’ affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organisation, on seven-point Likert scales. Affective
commitment is ‘an emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement
in the organisation’ (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002, p. 21).
Continuance commitment is ‘the perceived costs of leaving the organisation’ (Meyer
1012 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29

et al., 2002, p. 21). Normative commitment is ‘a perceived obligation to remain in the

organisation’ (Meyer et al., 2002, p. 21). Leadership was measured using the 20-item
Leader Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) developed by Stogdill (1963).
Ten items measure ‘consideration’ or ‘the degree to which a leader shows concern
and respect for followers, looks out for their welfare and expresses appreciation and
support’ (Judge, Piccolo, & Iles, 2004, p. 36). Ten items measure ‘initiating structure’,
defined as ‘the degree to which a leader defines and organises his role and the role
of followers, is oriented toward goal attainment and establishes well-defined patterns
and channels of communication’ (Judge et al., 2004, p. 36).

Findings
Phase 1: In-depth interviews with managers
What is the brand mind-set of bank managers?
Brand-oriented firms start with the brand as a strategic platform, recognising the
brand as a strategic resource (Urde, 1999). In our study, both banks had long-
established brands, but managers revealed they were currently and actively involved
in brand development, using the existing brand name but with a new focus on their
brands. The focus on ‘brand’ as a strategic platform was evident across both banks.
Baumgarth (2010) also asserts that brand orientation is distinguished by the relevance
accorded by senior management. In our study, the impetus for ‘brand’ arose at a
senior level. Consistent with Evans, Bridson, and Rentschler’s (2012) findings, a new
brand orientation arose also at a time of leadership change:

We had a new head in our area, he saw the link between stronger bottom line
profits and a stronger brand. As far as he was concerned a strong brand would
set us apart from our competitors. . .customers would come to us first and give
us more of their business. . .its building the bottom line but building it with a
reason. (Brand Strategist 2)

Extant literature identifies drivers of brand orientation among decreasing product

divergence, increasing media costs, and market integration (Urde, 1994), as well as
competitive intensity and a desire for revenue generation through differentiation
(Evans et al., 2012). In our study, managers recognised the relationship between a
strong brand, differentiation, and bottom-line profits. They also appreciated that
brand orientation arose due to increasing competitive pressure, on one hand, and
customers’ desire for value-added experience, on the other, with all of our managers
describing ‘differentiated customer experience’ as a desired outcome of brand
strategy. Further, managers in both banks stressed that customer relationships were
a critical goal of brand strategy. Urde (1999) asserted that brand-oriented companies
generate value and meaning via brands (p. 124). Our findings indicate that brand
strategists in the Irish banks in our study perceive the brand as not only a means
to create the customer experience, but as a minimum requirement to communicate
better practices for customers. Further, although inertia is often considered to be a
feature of consumers’ relationships with banks (Aldlaigan & Buttle, 2005), managers
did not consider their customers to be inert. Instead, managers were very concerned
that customers were demanding a higher service level and a brand that differentiated
 Wallace et al. Brand orientation and brand values in retail banking 1013

their bank from its competitors, and they were striving to offer a brand to meet these
needs:
Customers were looking for outstanding, straightforward service and they said,
‘Nobody is doing that here in Ireland at the moment’. That was the rock we started
on, you can’t go beyond that. Unless you get that right, they won’t go any further
with you. (Brand Strategist 2)

Where is the banks’ strategic approach to brand located on the brand and market
orientation matrix (Urde et al., 2013)?
We sought to locate the banks’ strategies within the 2 × 2 brand and market
orientation matrix postulated by Urde et al. (2013). An initial review of our
findings would suggest that banks are adopting ‘image-driven branding’ or a market
orientation (Urde et al., 2013). For example, managers suggested that their brand is
a reaction or a response to an increasingly competitive marketplace, and part of a
battle for survival:
There is no plan B. If we don’t make ourselves different, if we don’t excel in our
customer service, we aren’t going to have a job, we are not going to be able to
handle the competition that is coming our way. (Customer Service Officer 2)

In both banks, consumer insight studies informed the brand design process:
We did a lot of research on our customer expectations. We have defined the brand
at a number of different levels with an overarching customer proposition. (Brand
Strategist 1)
We used an external agency to get us to the brand definition and we implemented
it ourselves (we asked), ‘What is our brand, what do our customers feel our brand
should be, and what have customers said they really want?’ (Brand Strategist 2)

However, managers recognised that an inside-out approach was also required, with
brand identity supporting customer experience. Thus, the mission, vision, and values
of the firm become the ‘guiding light’, and the organisation becomes vital to the
brand-building process (Urde et al., 2013):
There’s no point spending a fortune on brand identity and communication if the
customer experience doesn’t reflect the promise – they say a brand is a promise
delivered. (Brand Strategist 1)

Our findings suggest that the banks adopt a market and brand orientation, a
hybrid that relates to the market but recognises the importance of brand identity
(Urde et al., 2013). Brand strategists describe their brand development using words
such as ‘customer proposition’ and ‘customer value relationship’. Bank managers at
all levels insisted that their brands extend beyond the customer service/customer
experience concept. They highlighted the importance of employee brand adoption
for customer retention, as well as for employee loyalty and retention. Findings
support Wong and Merrilees (2005) who assert that brand orientation should be
a common goal and integrated effort across all aspects of the firm, as managers at
every level recognised the importance of brand identity. These comments from branch
managers are illustrative of this view:
1014 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29

. . .the brand responsibility is actually everybody’s responsibility . . . there is no

point in spending a fortune on brand identity if the customer experience doesn’t
reflect the promise. (Brand Strategist 1)
If we don’t stand for everything that’s good about the bank, if we don’t stand for
the history that’s there, the trust, the integrity, the loyalty, the brand is useless.
Because if someone walks in the door (of the branch) and gets a bad feeling, it
just dilutes the brand. (Branch Manager 1)

Branch managers viewed their customers and employees as inseparable components

of the brand:

We looked at the brand from two sides: one internally, our own people. And the
second one is the customer. And they go hand in glove, which is more important?
You can debate. The customer pays the salary but if we don’t have the right people
dealing with them you won’t have the customer for long. So it’s a chicken and egg.
(Branch Manager 2)

Clearly, managers recognise the criticality of a strong brand identity through

employee adoption of the brand identity as a means to achieve a positive customer
experience. Furthermore, managers’ comments illustrate that customer insights
inform the banks’ market orientation. However, they recognised that a drive towards
‘brand’ would not succeed if efforts were compartmentalised within a marketing
department. Managers identified the importance of the involvement of all staff in
‘living the brand’ (Ind, 2007), and recognised the role of the brand identity in guiding
employee behaviour towards more positive customer experience. Drawing on these
comments, we illustrate that the banks in our study are adopting a market and brand
orientation strategy.
In Figure 1, we represent the comments from managers in both banks on the
market and brand orientation matrix (Urde et al., 2013). It is important to note
that our research is exploratory, and therefore we do not suggest that our findings
describe the orientation of the wider banking sector. Further, we emphasise that our
suggestion of a market and brand orientation hybrid is based on managers’ comments,
and does not consider consumer feedback or independent assessments of the banks’
orientation. However, we believe that this illustration is helpful to understand the
nature of brand orientation in banking better, and to support the possibility of a
hybrid orientation (Urde et al., 2013).
We also present an additional finding in relation to the market and brand
orientation hybrid. Although Urde et al. (2013, p. 6) assert that this hybrid approach
may evolve when a market-oriented firm ‘adds a strong dose of branding’ to an extant
market orientation, our study suggests that both orientations were new to banking.
Managers admitted that their banks had not adopted either a market orientation or a
brand orientation strategy until the changing competitive environment and increased
customer demands forced change. Bank managers admitted that they had operated
a financial strategy without an emphasis on customers or employees. They now
recognise the criticality for a hybrid of both customer and internal brand focus to
achieve survival and business success. We illustrate this assertion with the following
comments:
 Wallace et al. Brand orientation and brand values in retail banking 1015

Figure 1 Positioning the banks’ strategic approach to brand on Urde et al.’s

(2013) brand orientation matrix’.

OUTSIDE-IN APPROACH

Brand & Market Market Orientation

Orientation

IDENTITY IMAGE
DRIVEN DRIVEN
BRANDING BRANDING
BANKING

Brand Orientation Market and Brand

Orientation

INSIDE-OUT APPROACH

We’re a retail outlet – there’s no point in actually being under the table about
it. We have demanding objectives to achieve and satisfy shareholders. (Bank
Manager 1)
Even though we push and push and push the customer service part of it, if we
don’t make the mortgages, there is no point in having the customers because
we are not going to make any money. The boys up in head office are looking at
percentage profits at the end of the day. (Customer Service Officer 2)
[We] were delighted when the brand came out, as it said, ‘Look, we are customer
focused’, up to that we felt we weren’t answering our customers’ needs at all, we
were literally trying to flog products, you might as well have been standing in the
car park selling out of the boot of your car. (Customer Service Officer 2)
As these findings suggest that a market and brand orientation are both new
approaches in both banks studied, we sought to understand the process employed
to implement the brand concept in these firms, and to evaluate the success of brand
implementation among employees. In the second part of this section, we describe
findings from our quantitative study measuring front-line employees’ adoption of
their brand values. We first sought to identify the importance of brand values in
creating a brand orientation. Therefore, we explore managers’ views about their
brand values.

To what extent are brand values resources in implementing a brand orientation?

In both banks, brand values had been recently developed. Each bank had a single set
of values. Brand Strategist 1 explained:
Some people have a set of brand values and they have a set of employee values
and I think that’s rubbish. I think that one set of values, if they’re properly
connected, should be able to work. [Brand Strategist 1]
1016 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29

The impetus for brand values coincided with the banks’ shift in strategy to a market
and brand orientation (Urde et al., 2013). Managers spoke of a brand ‘revamp’ in
both banks. Part of this ‘revamp’ illustrated a market orientation, as brand values
were defined by consumer research:
We tried to define what behaviours we should be exhibiting to our customers in
order to deliver service, so we picked our brand values from the research with
the customers. (Brand Strategist 2)
Managers also recognised the role of brand values in creating a brand identity that
supported customer experience:
Values are not simply for people on the front-line serving customers; it’s very
hard for a front-line employee to be able to deliver the customer experience if
the back office are not delivering what they need to. (Brand Strategist 1)
We built a brand pyramid with the customer up here [top], we developed action
plans around delivering better service from a branch perspective. There was a
commitment from head office to say we are here to serve the branches who serve
the branches and we have to commit to a certain level of service for the branches
to deliver. (Brand Strategist 2)
These comments suggest that brand values were designed to support the customer
experience. However, managers also recognised the importance of the employee
brand experience:
We don’t just live the values with our customers, we live them among ourselves
in terms of how we work together . . . the employee experience has to see that
happening all around them. (Brand Strategist 1)
We sought to understand the role of brand values in implementing a brand
orientation. Urde (1999) notes that ‘the concept of identity is central to a brand-
oriented organisation and provides an understanding of the lasting inner values’, and
cautions that employees of a firm should understand ‘what does the brand stand for?’
(p. 127). In our study, head office management were confident that local managers
understood the brand, and allowed managers latitude to interpret the values as
relevant to them:
You know, you have to give employees a certain amount of flexibility, you have to
trust them to be able to interpret the values in the appropriate circumstances.
(Brand Strategist 1)
They had to say, down at a local level, how they were going to live every one of
the values. (Brand Strategist 2)
We found that ownership of the brand identity was dependent on local managers’
interpretation of the values, but this was problematic:
There is little bit of unease . . . People are saying, on the one hand, there is too
much communication about them [the values] and, on the other, because of the
multi-locational nature of the organisation, we’ve been left off on our own to apply
them. (HR Director 2)
There is an awful lot of jargon with it. We have [the values] up on the wall, we get
bumf every couple of months from head office but at the end of the day, these are
 Wallace et al. Brand orientation and brand values in retail banking 1017

just words really. I know you have to have something there to say ‘this is where
we are going’, but . . . this is where the brand falls down because each manager
will try and put his own little quirk on it. (Customer Service Officer 2)
However, at a local level, managers were moving towards a brand orientation,
albeit with their own interpretation of ‘brand’:
We get central stuff, we do have a whole load of brand stuff, you know, but if we
meet all the things off our staff survey, if we are doing all those things [we are
successful], we don’t bandy around the word brand, we don’t. (Branch Manager 2)
Urde (1999) emphasises that brand-oriented firms integrate and combine the brand
with the firm’s other resources. Our findings suggest that managers are passionate
about their brand, but recognise that it is manifested in different ways in the
organisation. Baumgarth (2010, p. 656) describes the ‘behavioural perspective’ of
brand orientation (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990), where brands are described in terms of
concrete behaviours, and the organisation’s ‘practices are oriented towards building
brand capabilities’ (Brïdson & Evans, 2004, p. 404). This approach contrasts with
the ‘cultural’ alternative, where the process of brand orientation takes more of an
organisational view (Baumgarth, 2010). In our study, we found that, although values
were defined, and senior managers asserted that the bank was striving towards a
values-driven culture, managers ‘on the ground’ adopted the behavioural approach.
Branch managers did not use the word ‘brand’. Instead, they translated brand
meaning into examples that had greater meaning for branch employees. These
comments from branch managers illustrate this perspective:
I’d have a question mark in my own head about standing up talking about brand
values, I think people would be looking at me saying, ‘What’s he on about?’
Whereas we can clearly identify [value supporting] behaviour with a mystery
shopping report that says, ‘A customer phoned and here is their experience’.
(Branch Manager 2)
I mean that’s all lovely jargon, ‘the brand’, but the bottom line is if you are not
being accurate, the word brand and all of this jargon that goes with it useless. It is
all very well [talking about brand], if people aren’t delivering on the ground . . .
we break [values] down [for employees] into what brand means to you in your
daily life. (HR Manager 1)
We suggest that this ‘behavioural’ perspective of brand orientation offers
advantages for banking, as the approach is more easily implemented in a ‘root and
branch’ structure than an abstract corporate ideal would be. We also suggest that the
‘behavioural’ perspective at branch level can coexist with the ‘cultural’ view of senior
management, as the ‘behavioural’ approach offers a pragmatic way for managers to
implement strategy in a meaningful way. In both cases, brand orientation remains
consistent, as managers are orienting goals and behaviours towards the brand. In this
approach, brand values help to implement the values. Local managers can adapt the
more ‘corporate’ brand values into behaviours that translate the brand for employees
at the local level, ensuring more successful dissemination of brand values.
Urde (1999) asserts that a brand-oriented approach can manifest itself in ‘. . .being
impassioned, seeing the brand as a mission and a vision. . .’ (p. 124). The findings
illustrate that branch managers have a positive attitude towards interpreting the
brand, and take pride and ownership in developing brand identity at the branch level:
1018 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29

We developed our own mission statement here in the branch. We didn’t go

anywhere else or seek any external output or input to it. (Branch Manager 2)
We have our own mission statement here in the branch in terms of what we
want to do and what we want to achieve – it’s all hung under the [brand] banner.
(Branch Manager 1)

Therefore, although head office and branch managers had different views about
brand implementation, the consistent comment from all interviewees was that ‘brand’
was about customer service and also about enabling employees to ‘live the brand’
(Ind, 2007). In Figure 2, we present a summary of our qualitative findings.
In summary, managers identified a number of factors that placed ‘brand’ at the
centre of their strategic agenda. These factors included an increasingly difficult
market place, a recognition of a need for differentiation, and a resulting shift from
a ‘selling’ to a ‘best service’ mind-set, with a drive for customer value relationships.

Figure 2 Summary of managers’ views about ‘brand’ and its implementation.

ORGANISATION'S
STRATEGIC STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
APPROACH TO
IMPETUS IMPLEMENTATION DISSEMINATION
BRAND

Organisational
Internal and Hybrid: market & Driven by brand view with
external forces brand orientation values behavioural
approach

- Head office
disseminate brand
- Battle for - Customer - Customer communication
survival in difficult expectetions expectations
- Branch managers
market (New) inform values
define values in
- Need for - Customer - Customer and context
differentiation experience (New) brand values are - Branch writes
one own mission
- Shift from - Employee role in statement
'selling' to 'best creating customer - One set of values
- Word 'brand' is
service' mindset experience (New) for all
avoided, focus is
on behaviour
- Drive for - Employee role in - Values are
customer value supporting disseminated to all - Other metrics are
relationship colleagues (New) employees proxy for brand
supporting
performance
 Wallace et al. Brand orientation and brand values in retail banking 1019

The banks operate a hybrid market and brand orientation strategy (Urde et al., 2013).
While customer expectations and customer experience drive their strategies, they are
cognisant of the need for employee performance to support the brand message. In our
study, managers suggested that both orientations were new and replaced a previous
‘selling’ approach that had little focus on the customer, on service, or on employees.
Managers view employees as internal customers who must ‘live the brand’ for
others. Senior strategists provided the example of one group of employees (head-
office support) offering ‘best service’ to another group of employees (front-line staff)
to enable them to live the brand for their customers. As Figure 2 also shows, the bank
uses values to implement a brand orientation. A hybrid market and brand orientation
approach drives values development; customer expectations inform the values, values
are also used to enhance customer brand experience and employee support for
the brand. While head office develops values, branch managers are permitted to
interpret those values within the context of their branch. Branch managers take a
‘behavioural’ approach to disseminating values. Those managers write their own
mission statements with their branch teams, and measure the success of values
adoption using ‘everyday’ metrics, such as mystery shopping. Those other metrics
are proxy metrics for branch employees’ brand orientation.
Managers recognise that the brand is communicated through branch-developed
interaction with employees, informed by brand values. The extant literature suggests
that brand values are the core of a brand orientation strategy (Urde, 1999) and
the critical first step in encouraging employees to ‘live the brand’ through brand-
supporting behaviours (Baumgarth, 2010). Therefore, we sought to elicit employees’
attitudes about their brand values. We present these findings next.

Phase 2: Findings from survey research

Do front-line employees buy into their brand through brand values?
The aim of this second phase was to measure employees’ attitudes about their brand’s
values. This analysis involved three steps. First, to identify underlying dimensions
that could explain different patterns in front-line employees’ buy-in behaviours,
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed on their ratings of
the bank’s values statements. Second, the mean factor scores were subjected to
cluster analysis to identify homogenous employee groups. Support for this approach
is provided by Ind’s (2007) theoretical typology of service employees. Ind (2007)
suggests that employees can be clustered according to the extent to which they buy
into the service brand values. Cluster analysis was therefore a means to identify
whether homogeneous groups existed, based on brand values buy-in. Further, Boyd
and Sutherland (2006) advocate employee commitment to the organisation and
leadership style as antecedents to employees ‘living the brand’. Therefore, our third
step explores differences between the clusters based on their levels of commitment to
the organisation and their attitudes about bank leadership.
Factor analysis was undertaken to explore the dimensionality of the company
values. The values statements resulted in a two-factor solution accounting for 63%
of the variance explained. One item was deleted in this process. We term the
first factor ‘strategy’, as the items relate to the current strategic activities of the
bank. We name the second factor ‘planning’, as the items relate to development
activities and statements about the aspirations of the bank. Scale reliability for
1020 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29

all items was assured, as Cronbach’s alpha measures were greater than .7 for
each of the factors. This was followed by a confirmatory factor analysis using the
robust maximum-likelihood estimation method. Two items from the first factor were
dropped, as their standardised parameter estimates were below .5. After this deletion,
both factors comprised four items. The results yielded satisfactory fit statistics:
Satorra-Bentler (S-B) χ 2 (19) = 66.04, p < .001, comparative fit index (CFI) = .93,
incremental fit index (IFI) = .93, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) = .07. Remaining factor loadings were above .5 and statistically significant,
demonstrating adequate convergent validity. Composite reliability indices exceeded
the recommended minimum standard of .7, and the average variance extracted for
each construct exceeded the minimum of .5. The confidence interval around the
correlation estimate between the two factors was examined, and it did not include
1.0. Likewise, the square root of the AVE for both constructs was greater than the
correlation estimate. These results provide evidence of discriminant validity.
The next step in the analysis involved examining whether employees fell into
meaningful groups according to their factors scores. Cluster analysis was performed.
Following the validation process, a single composite measure for each of the two
factors (i.e. strategy and planning) was calculated. These means were used as the
dependent variables in the cluster analyses. A two-stage analysis was followed to
determine the number of groups. First, a hierarchical procedure, Ward’s method,
using SPSS 17, and measuring the distance between cases using the square of the
Euclidian distance, was performed. We explored a three-, four-, and five-cluster
solution. According to the dendogram, the distances at which each cluster is formed,
and the profile of each cluster, the three-cluster solution was considered optimal.
Second, a K-means clustering analysis was performed for the three-cluster solution.
The initial centroids of the three clusters were used as the starting centres for the
analysis. The solution provided the greater contrast between the groups (Hair, Black,
Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Finally, to confirm the existence of groups,
a discriminant analysis was performed. This analysis checks the robustness of the
cluster solution. The clustering characteristics were used as independent variables,
and the cluster memberships were represented by the dependent variables. The
solution showed that 98.8% of the original groups’ participants were classified
correctly, lending further support to the appropriateness of the three-cluster solution.
An ANOVA test was conducted to test for differences amongst the three clusters.
Table 1 shows the cluster means and the F-values. Post hoc multiple comparison
tests using Tukey’s HSD when variances were equal and Games–Howell for unequal
variances were conducted to investigate significant group differences amongst means.
The final step in the analysis involved testing for significant differences between
the three clusters in terms of their commitment and leadership (discussion of the

Table 1 Clusters, ANOVA, and post hoc analyses.

Cluster 1: Cluster 2: Cluster 3: Post hoc

Dimensionsa Champions Investors Cynics F-value testsb
Values – Strategy 6.51 5.41 3.38 758.50∗ 1–2; 1–3; 2–3
Values – Planning 6.73 6.04 4.92 213.26∗ 1–2; 1–3; 2–3
No. of cases (%) 182 (43) 193 (45.6) 48 (11.3)
Note. N = 423; a Seven-point scale; b significant differences (p < .05) between the clusters. ∗ p < .05.
 Wallace et al. Brand orientation and brand values in retail banking 1021

Table 2 Composition of clusters in terms of their commitment and leadership.

Cluster 1: Cluster 2: Cluster 3: Post-hoc

Dimensionsa Champions Investors Cynics F-value testsb
Commitment
Affective commitment 5.33 4.51 3.92 23.50∗ 1–2; 1–3
Continuance 4.88 4.93 4.67 .46 –
commitment
Normative commitment 4.56 3.51 2.68 38.44∗ 1–2; 1–3; 2–3
Leader
Leader initiating 4.36 4.03 3.59 30.52∗ 1–2; 1–3; 2–3
structure
Leader consideration 3.83 3.51 2.98 25.68∗ 1–2; 1–3; 2–3
Note. a Seven-point scale; b significant differences (p < .05) between the clusters. ∗ p < .05.

psychometric properties of these measures is reported in the Appendix 3). Table 2

shows the results.
We also sought to identify any differences across the clusters based on
demographic variables in our study. Only one variable, age, was significantly different
across all three clusters. However, in Table 3 we highlight differences between clusters
that may be helpful in explaining the significant differences between clusters above.
We next describe the cluster profiles.

Cluster 1: ‘Champions’
To describe our clusters, we draw on the terminology of Ind (2007) who suggested
that employees who ‘lived the brand’ were ‘champions’, those who were ‘not involved
with the brand idea’ were ‘cynics’ (p. 74). We use this terminology for clusters 1 and
3 respectively. Champions have greater levels of agreement with both planning and
strategy values. They have higher levels of affective commitment and higher ratings of
leader behaviour than their colleagues. These employees are older than other groups,
with the longest length of service. However, this group also has greater levels of
normative commitment than their colleagues, which suggests they buy into their
values in part because they feel they ought to. We suggest more senior employees
express buy-in to set an example to junior employees.

Cluster 2: ‘Investors’
We also found a middle cluster. In his employee typology, Ind (2007) suggested the
existence of ‘agnostics’ who were ‘interested but not committed’ (p. 74). We do
not see evidence of this type, as we find employee commitment across all clusters.
Ind (2007) also proposed the ‘saboteur’ who actively works against the brand idea
(p. 74). In our study, all employees buy into the brand values, and we are therefore
avoiding the title ‘saboteur’ for any employee cluster. In our study, we call the middle
cluster ‘investors’. These employees buy into both strategy and planning values.
Although similar to champions with high levels of affective commitment and positive
attitudes about leadership, they are lower in normative commitment. Normative
commitment is a measure of ‘oughtness’. If an employee is high in normative
1022 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29

Table 3 Demographic composition of clusters.

Cluster 1: Cluster 2: Cluster 3:

Champions Investors Cynics
Demographic variable n % n % n % χ2
Gender
Males 63 34.6 62 32.1 11 22.9 2.38
Females 119 65.4 131 67.9 37 77.1
Age
16–25 27 14.8 29 15 6 12.5 13.65∗
26–35 35 19.2 45 23.3 21 43.8
36–45 61 33.5 67 34.7 12 25
46+ 59 32.4 52 26.9 9 18.8
Current job
Non-manager 129 70.9 133 68.9 36 75 .713
Manager 53 29.1 60 31.1 12 25
How long in company
≤1 year 15 8.2 13 6.7 3 6.3 12.77
2–5 years 27 14.8 29 15 12 25
6–10 years 31 17 36 18.7 12 25
11–15 years 11 6 16 8.3 1 2.1
16–20 years 16 8.8 27 14 2 4.2
20+ years 82 45.1 72 37.3 18 37.5
Team
<3 17 9.3 20 10.4 8 16.7 4.49
4–9 61 33.5 51 26.4 12 25
10+ 104 57.1 122 63.2 28 58.3
Note. Some columns by demographic variable do not sum to 100% due to rounding. ∗ p < .05.

commitment, they have a sense of obligation to the organisation. We suggest that

these employees do not feel obliged to buy in. We note this cluster has higher levels
of continuance commitment than champions or cynics. We suggest that this cluster
is motivated instead by ensuring continuance of employment, and are buying into
the values, at least in part, as an investment into continued employment – hence
our title ‘investors’. Investors may see a relationship between values adoption and
organisation success through customer differentiation. They may therefore buy in as
a means to an end, where customer retention means job survival in an increasingly
competitive marketplace.

Cluster 3: ‘Cynics’
In contrast to cluster 1, ‘cynics’ have the lowest levels of agreement with planning
and strategy values. They also have the lowest level of affective and normative
commitment, which suggests that they are least likely to be emotionally attached
to the bank, and least likely to feel a sense of obligation to buy in. These employees
are the youngest group surveyed, with 56.3% of these employees aged 35 years or
 Wallace et al. Brand orientation and brand values in retail banking 1023

younger. There are also more female employees in this cluster than in other clusters.
Although we did not find significance between groups based on length of service,
we note that this group have worked with their bank for the shortest time. We also
note that the cluster has the largest number of employees who work in small teams
(fewer than three people), and have the least favourable attitudes about leadership.
Perhaps these employees feel isolated, or less involved with the organisation, and
therefore less likely to buy into the brand and its values. We observe that the levels
of continuance commitment for this group are higher than affective or normative
commitment. This finding suggests that these employees remain with the organisation
in part due to the ‘sunk costs’ associated with leaving (e.g. salary or pension benefits),
or were perhaps attracted to the bank due to favourable working conditions, rather
than admiration for the organisation and its brand.

Discussion

Our study offers a contribution to the growing body of literature on brand

orientation. Specifically, we provide insights into brand orientation from both
managers’ and employees’ perspectives in organisations that had only recently, as
managers admit, adopted a market and brand orientation. We provide unique insights
into managers’ brand mind-set in large banks undergoing a shift from ‘selling’ to
‘service’. We also provide insights into three distinct employee clusters, segmented by
their level of agreement to their brand’s values.
Consistent with Baumgarth (2010), we first note that the impetus for brand
orientation arose with a change in leadership. We identified contextual changes,
predominantly increasing competition and customer demands that forced managers
to see brand as a differentiation tool. However, we question whether retaining a
market and brand orientation is still dependent on leadership and the vision of senior
managers who view ‘brand’ as a means to achieve differentiation. We advocate future
research to explore the relationship between leadership style and market and brand
orientation when leaders change.
We found that banks adopted a hybrid strategy of market and brand orientation,
with both strategies new to the banks. Managers identified the influence of customer
research in driving the brand, but emphasised the criticality of internal brand
adoption to achieve brand communication through employee performance. Our
research revealed that brand values were instrumental in informing brand-supporting
behaviours for both front-line employees and those support staff on whom front-line
performance is dependent.
Our interviews revealed that brand strategists offered local branch managers
freedom to interpret the brand values. Thus, the values became a beacon for
behaviour, but adapted to local contexts. Branch managers and other local managers
were reluctant to talk about ‘brand’. Instead, they describe brand supporting
behaviours for staff, using descriptors staff identify with. These findings provide
insights into proxy metrics for brand orientation. We advocate that managers
seeking to explore the success of their internal brand communication could examine
employee attitudes to the values, but also local outcomes such as mystery shopping
reports and service standards metrics as evidence of brand-supporting behaviours and
brand adoption. We question whether brand adoption is dependent more upon local
leadership than more senior managers. We recommend that future research exploring
1024 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29

brand orientation in hierarchical ‘root and branch’ structures such as banking should
explore the role of the local manager in developing brand identity, and we advocate
research exploring the influence of the local leader and their team on branches’ value
adoption.
Our survey reveals three employee clusters in relation to values buy-in: champions,
investors, and cynics. While all groups buy into brand values, we find differences
across groups in their levels of commitment and attitudes about leadership, as well as
their age in particular. In line with Ind’s (2007) typology, we profile champions and
cynics. Champions are older, longer-serving employees with high levels of affective
and normative commitment. They have high levels of agreement with their brand’s
values due, in part, to their feeling of obligation to their employer. We suggest
that managers should harness such employees to ‘lead’ teams of employees in brand
adoption. Managers may achieve this by selecting long-serving employees as values
ambassadors within branches, creating values-supporting norms for colleagues.
We call our second employee cluster ‘investors’, as these employees have a strong
belief in the values but also greater continuance commitment and less normative
commitment. Therefore, they are motivated by avoiding sunk costs associated with
leaving the bank, rather than a sense of obligation to the bank. They buy into
the values to ensure high levels of performance that ultimately secure their own
positions. However, we question whether investors’ buy-in is any less genuine than
champions’ buy-in, as the latter group are motivated by normative commitment.
We suggest that future research should consider the relationship between types of
commitment, values buy-in, and outcomes such as front-line service performance to
determine whether ‘selfish’ motives such as job continuance have a different influence
on employee performance than employees’ sense of obligation to the firm.
Finally, we note cynics among younger employees. These employees buy into
the values but at a significantly lower level of agreement. We suggest that this is,
in part, due to their youth and relatively short service with the bank. We advocate
longitudinal research to explore values adoption as an employee extends their career
in an organisation. We note the lower levels of affective and normative commitment
among this cluster and higher levels of continuance commitment. These employees
may be a product of a changing environment where contracts are shorter term and
a ‘job for life’ is less guaranteed. This cluster may not see their future tied to the
future of the bank, and may be less engaged with values a consequence, focusing
instead on securing employment. Although the bank did not disclose the nature of
employee contracts, the current economic climate may create a feeling of uncertainty.
We advocate research to consider whether employees’ contracts or their perceptions
about longevity are changing in light of economic pressures, and if so, how these
changes in employee contracts might influence employees’ adoption of brand values.
As with all research, limitations arise. Our study explored brand orientation in
large retail banks. Further, our findings are limited to the banking sector and to Irish
banking in particular. Although the Irish banking sector is small, and we gained access
to two of the main players within the industry, we acknowledge that a survey or
interviews with employees and managers of other banks may have offered additional
insights. Further, although we interviewed managers across two banks, our employee
survey was conducted in one of the banks. Regrettably the other bank, Bank 1, would
not permit access to conduct an employee survey, and therefore we cannot make
comparisons between the two banks.
 Wallace et al. Brand orientation and brand values in retail banking 1025

Although extant research advocates analysis at branch level (e.g. Moutinho &
Philips, 2002), the banks in our study would not allow us to differentiate between
branches, nor to identify branch managers in any way. Therefore, a comparison across
branches was not possible. Moreover, we acknowledge that our findings may not be
generalisable to other banks, or to countries where banking has a greater or lesser
role to the economy. Further, our findings may not be generalisable to other types
of firms. For example, our findings are limited to contexts where firms are large.
In their research on SMEs, Wong and Merrilees (2005) identify a ‘brand barrier’
where small firms perceive a dearth of financial and temporal resources for branding
activities, and Baumgarth (2010) found that smaller firms were characterised by lower
brand orientation. As the banks in our study did not face these constraints, we
advocate further research on smaller banks or financial institutions may contribute
to brand orientation theory by taking firm size and resources into account. However,
the purpose of our study was not to test theory. Rather, we sought to add to the
existing knowledge about brand orientation. We do not claim generalisability, but we
hope that our findings prompt further investigation of the role of brand orientation
in banking and other sectors. Further, while our study provides important insights
into brand values adoption in a ‘job for life’ environment, the inclusion of brand
performance measures was outside the scope of our study. Moreover, our data are
limited to in-company interviews and survey findings, and we did not have access
to measures of brand image or brand equity. We also echo Baumgarth’s (2010) call
for research to explore the relationship between the variables identity, image, and
equity to understand better the impact of brand orientation on the success of an
organisation.

References

Aaker, D. (1996). Building strong brands. New York, NY: Free Press.
Aldlaigan, A., & Buttle, F. (2005). Beyond satisfaction: Customer attachment to retail banks.
International Journal of Bank Marketing, 23, 349–359. doi: 10.1108/02652320510603960
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63,
1–18. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
Barrow, S., & Mosley, R. (2005). The employer brand, bringing the best of brand management
to people at work. London: Wiley.
Baumgarth, C. (2010). ‘Living the brand’: Brand orientation in the business-to-business sector.
European Journal of Marketing, 44, 653–671. doi: 10.1108/03090561011032315
Boyd, G., & Sutherland, M. (2006). Obtaining employee commitment to living the brand of
the organisation. South African Journal of Business Management, 37, 9–20.
Brand Finance. (2012). Banking 500. Retrieved from http://www.brandfinance.com/images/
upload/best_global_banking_brands_2012_dp.pdf
Bravo, R., Montaner, T., & Pina, J. M. (2010). Corporate brand image in retail banking:
Development and validation of a scale. The Service Industries Journal, 30, 1199–1218. doi:
10.1080/02642060802311260
Brïdson, K., & Evans, J. (2004). The secret to a fashion advantage is brand orientation.
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 32, 403–411. doi:
10.1108/09590550410546223
1026 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29

Colton, S., & Oliveira, P. (2009). Banking on it: The role of the corporate brand in
rebuilding trust. Interbrand: Creating and managing brand value. Retrieved from http://
www.interbrand.com
CSO. (2012). Employment and unemployment. Retrieved from http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/
labourmarket/principalstatistics/
de Chernatony, L. (2010). From brand vision to brand evaluation. Oxford: Butterworth
Heinemann.
de Chernatony, L., & Cottam, S. (2009). Interacting contributions of different
departments to brand success. Journal of Business Research, 62, 297–304. doi:
doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.12.005
de Chernatony, L., Drury, S., & Segal-Horn, S. (2006). Communicating services
brands’ values internally and externally. Services Industries Journal, 28, 819–836. doi:
10.1080/02642060601011616
Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (2009). Government highlights importance of
Ireland’s financial services sector with investment in strategic five-year industry/academic
research project. Retrieved from http://193.178.1.129/press/2009/20091014.htm
Evans, J., Bridson, K., & Rentschler, R. (2012). Drivers, impediments and manifestations of
brand orientation: An international museum study. European Journal of Marketing, 46,
1457–1475. doi: 10.1108/03090561211259934
Fram, E. H., & McCarthy, M. S. (2003). From employee to brand champion. Marketing
Management, 12, 24–29.
Gromark, J., & Melin, F. (2011). The underlying dimensions of brand orientation and
its impact on financial performance. Journal of Brand Management, 18, 394–410. doi:
10.1057/bm.2010.52
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate
data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hensley, D. (2012). Re-building trust in banks and banking. Brand Finance Banking
500 report, p. 56. Retrieved from http://www.brandfinance.com/images/upload/best_
global_banking_brands_2012_dp.pdf
Ind, N. (2007). Living the brand: How to transform every member of your organization into a
brand champion (3rd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Ind, N., & Bjerke, R. (2007). Branding governance: A participatory approach to the brand
building process. Chichester: John Wiley.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Iles, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration
and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36–51.
doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research
propositions and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54, 1–18.
Kuehner-Herbert, K. A. (2009). Growing defection: More clients ready to switch as trust
wanes. American Banker: The Financial Services Daily. Retrieved from www.interbrand.
com/.../-1_AmericanBanker_May1409_Interbrand.pdf
Lankau, M. J., Ward, A., Amason, A., Ng, T., Sonnenfeld, J. A., & Agle, B. R. (2007).
Examining the impact of organizational value dissimilarity in top management teams.
Journal of Managerial Issues, XIX, 11–34.
Louro, M., & Cunha, P. (2001). Brand management paradigms. Journal of Marketing
Management, 17, 849–875. http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725701323366845
Macrae, C. (1996). The brand chartering handbook: How brand organizations learn ‘living
scripts’. London: Economist Intelligence Unit.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates
and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
jvbe.2001.1842
 Wallace et al. Brand orientation and brand values in retail banking 1027

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. H. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Moutinho, L., & Phillips, P. A. (2002). The impact of strategic planning on the competitiveness,
performance and effectiveness of bank branches: A neural network analysis. International
Journal of Bank Marketing, 20, 102–110. doi: 10.1108/02652320210424188
O’Loughlin, D., & Szmigin, I. (2005). Customer perspectives on the role and importance of
Branding in Irish retail financial services. The International Journal of Bank Marketing, 23,
8–27. doi: 10.1108/02652320510577348
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Reid, M., Luxton, S., & Mavondo, F. (2005). The relationship between integrated marketing
communication, market orientation, and brand orientation. Journal of Advertising, 34,
11–23. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2005.10639210
Silverstein, B. (2009). What now for the money brands? Retrieved from http://www.
brandchannel.com/start.asp?fa_id=484
Somers, M. J. (2001). Ethical codes of conduct and organizational context: A study of the
relationship between codes of conduct, employee behaviour and organizational values.
Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 185–195. doi: 10.1023/A:1006457810654
Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire form XII: An
experimental revision. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
Urde, M. (1994). Brand orientation – A strategy for survival. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
11, 18–32. doi: 10.1108/07363769410065445
Urde, M. (1999). Brand orientation: A mindset for building brands into strategic resources.
Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 117–133. doi: 10.1362/026725799784870504
Urde, M., Baumgarth, C., & Merrilees, B. (2013). Brand orientation and market
orientation – From alternatives to synergy. Journal of Business Research, 66, 13–20. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.018
Wong, H. Y., & Merrilees, B. (2005). A brand orientation typology for SMEs: A
case research approach. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14, 155–162. doi:
10.1108/10610420510601021
Wong, H. Y., & Merrilees, B. (2007). Closing the marketing strategy to performance
gap: The role of brand orientation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 15, 387–402. doi:
10.1080/09652540701726942

Appendix 1 Interview respondents.

Assigned Title Location Bank

Brand Strategist 1 Head Office 1
Brand Strategist 2 Head Office 2
HR Director 1 Head Office 1
HR Director 2 Head Office 2
Branch Manager 1 Branch 1
Branch Manager 2 Branch 1
Branch HR Manager Branch 2
Customer Service Officer 1 Branch 2
Customer Service Officer 2 Branch 2
1028 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 29

Appendix 2 Demographic profile of respondents.

Gender 67.8% female

Median age 36–45 years
What is their job? 5.4% Support Staff
0.2% Graduate Trainee
54.6% Cashier/Bank Assistant
1.9% Section Specialist/Manager
2.8% Senior Team (HRM/CSM)
21.7% Deputy Manager
7.8% Manager
5.4% Other
Level of permanency 13.7% perm. part-time
76.8% perm. full-time
9.5% other
How long with their company? 7.3% 1 year or less
16.1% 2–5 years
18.7% 6–10 years
6.6% 11–15 years
10.6% 16–20 years
40.7% >20 years
How often do they work directly with customers? 94.6% Daily
3.1% Occasionally
2.4% Rarely
Have they received brand training? 94.3% Yes

Appendix 3. Commitment and leadership: Scale validation

Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test the dimensionality, reliability, and validity
of commitment and leadership measures using EQS 6.1. Nine items were deleted from the
commitment measure, and three items were dropped from the measure of leadership due
to standardised parameter estimates being below .5. Results indicated a reasonable fit for
the final models. Commitment: S-B χ 2 (24) = 66.37 (p < .001), RMSEA = .06, CFI = .97,
IFI = .97; Leadership: S-B χ 2 (118) = 300.16 (p < .001), RMSEA = .06; CFI = .93; IFI = .93.
All the items loaded substantively (.65 or above) and significantly on their factors (p < .001).
Composite reliability indices and the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct
exceeded the recommended minimum standard of .7 and .5 respectively. Discriminant validity
was also supported, as the AVE for any two constructs was always greater than the squared
correlation estimate. Furthermore, none of the confidence intervals included one.

About the authors

Elaine Wallace is a senior lecturer in marketing at the J. E. Cairnes School of Business and
Economics, National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland. Elaine completed her doctorate at
the University of Birmingham, working with Professor de Chernatony. Her subsequent research
has explored the antecedents and components of service employee performance, the role of the
 Wallace et al. Brand orientation and brand values in retail banking 1029

front-line employee as brand champion, and the nature and management of brand sabotage.
She has published her research in international journals, including the Journal of Business
Research, European Journal of Marketing, and Journal of Marketing Management, supported
by funding from the Irish Research Council.

Corresponding author: Elaine Wallace, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, J. E. Cairnes School

of Business and Economics, National University of Ireland Galway, Ireland.
T +353 91 492603
E elaine.wallace@nuigalway.ie

Isabel Buil is a senior lecturer in the department of marketing management at the University of
Zaragoza, Spain. She holds a PhD in Business Administration. She has been a visiting scholar
at Aston Business School and Birmingham Business School, UK. Isabel is a member of the
research group Generes recognised by the Government of Aragon. She has published research
papers in both local and international journals. She has attended and presented research papers
at national and international conferences.

T +34 976 761 000

E ibuil@unizar.es

Leslie de Chernatony is honorary professor of brand marketing at Aston Business School,

Birmingham, UK and managing partner at Brands Box Marketing & Research Consultancy.
His research is globally disseminated through his books (e.g. From Brand Vision to Brand
Evaluation, Creating Powerful Brands, etc.), frequent international conference presentations,
and a significant stream of international journal articles, some of which have won best paper
prizes. Leslie is a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing, a fellow of the Market
Research Society, and a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Marketers. He has run many
highly acclaimed branding workshops globally. His advice has been sought by organisations
throughout the world on developing more effective brand strategies. On several occasions, he
has acted as an expert witness in court cases over branding issues.
E dechernatony@btinternet.com
Copyright of Journal of Marketing Management is the property of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.