Brand, Identity and Reputation: Exploring, Creating New Realities ...

To be Similar or Unique? Implications for Strategic Reference Groups
Rumina Dhalla, University of Guelph
Introduction
Much of the organisational literature concerned with corporate branding, reputation and identity focuses on the
distinctiveness or uniqueness of an organisation. For example, organisational branding is described as a projection of
distinctiveness and organisational positioning (Hatch & Schultz, 2003) by the organisation to distinguish itself from its
competitors to gain favourable impressions (Forman & Argenti, 2005) and branding is how organisations express
themselves discretely (Kowalczyk & Pawlish, 2002). Corporate brand is closely linked and interrelated to reputation
and it has been suggested that reputation is ―characterized as the result of corporate branding‖ (Schwaiger, 2004, p. 48).
Reputation is generally defined as the cumulative perception and evaluation of organisations made by external
constituents (Rindova & Fombrun, 1998). Studies of organisational reputation also emphasize the distinctiveness or
uniqueness of an organisation, and suggest that well regarded organisations strive for uniqueness to gain prestige, status
and fame (Fombrun, 1996). Mitra and Golder (2006) suggest that brands have a high reputation and a low reputation;
high reputation brands are those that are highly ranked in brand orderings. Others suggest that corporate branding is the
creation, maintenance and projection of a favourable and positive organisational reputation (van Riel & van Bruggen,
2002) and can improve an organisation‘s reputation and recognition (Hatch & Schultz, 2003).
Organisational uniqueness also preoccupies organisational identity scholars who argue that organisations are both
different and similar to others (Deephouse, 1999). Much of the literature on organisational identity is based on the
definition of organisational identity set forth by Albert and Whetten (1985) who explain identity as core characteristics
of an organisation and address the three fundamental criteria of centrality, endurance and distinctiveness when the
organisation is compared to others.
Organisations strive to stand out from others within their organisational field so that they can develop competitive
advantage over others (Ferguson, Deephouse, & Ferguson, 2000). They need to be unique and distinct from others to
enable their constituents to separate them from others, and uniqueness leads organisations to have a reputation that
belongs solely to that organisation and allows it to be favourably viewed when compared to others (Whetten & Mackey,
2002). It is well established in literature that organisational uniqueness is an intangible organisational asset that is
difficult for competitors to imitate or duplicate, and therefore contributes to barriers to entry and performance
differences (Barney, 1991, 2001; Brown, Dacin, Pratt, & Whetten, 2006; Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Hall, 1992; Oliver,
1997; Rao, 1994; Rayner, 2003; Wernerfelt, 1984, 1995).
While the organisational benefits of being unique and distinct from competition are well accepted, what is less known
are the implications for organisations who are similar to others and thus potentially indistinguishable, and therefore may
not have a strong, unique and distinct corporate brand or reputation. In particular, what is less known is how
organisations who are members of an isomorphic, dominant strategic reference group therefore having less identifiable
individual identities, distinguishable brand or unique reputation gain advantages due to their similarity to other
members in that strategic reference group.
Members of a strategic reference group have a strong shared identity and tend to be similar, and may be viewed as a
group rather than on their individual uniqueness or distinctiveness. For example, Porter (1979) defines strategic groups
as firms that pursue strategies similarly and ―resemble one another closely‖ (p. 215). Glynn (2008) refers to the shared
identity within an institutional environment as ―claim similarity‖ (p. 419). In addition, the organisations selected for
comparison against must be similar enough so that they are relevant for comparison (Labianca, Fairbank, Thomas,
Gioia, & Umphress, 2001). This suggests that organisations within a strategic reference group are similar to others in
that strategic reference group which allows them to compare themselves to each other and be recognized as members of
that strategic reference group. We were also interested in the implications of uniqueness for organisations not part of
the strategic reference group, thus not similar to dominant group, however, operating in that institutional field, in the
presence of these strong and dominant members.
Research Methodology
Using a qualitative case study methodology (Eisenhardt, 1989), this research examines four cases in the Canadian
banking industry. Canadian banks are well known and are well recognized for their comprehensive products and
service offerings, extensive distribution networks, prominent presence in the public media, and their mainstay position
in the Canadian stock market. This industry is dominated by a group of five big banks, generally referred to as the Big
5, and these banks possess considerable power and influence in that industry. Darroch and McMillan (2007) stressed
the importance and dominance of the Big 5 and stated that ―[t]o most people, Canada‘s financial system is the story of
five large banks that have dominated the life of every city, town and village in the country‖ (p. 4). Three of the banks in
this study were part of the dominant strategic reference group and one was not a member of this reference group.
179