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

for understanding, Deshpande and Webster (1989) provide a succinct description as a, 'shared pattern of beliefs and
values that shape behavioural patterns and norms' while Harris and Ogbonna (2002) offer, '... a pervasive eclectic,
layered and socially constructed phenomenon which is generated through values, beliefs and assumptions but expressed
through artefacts, structures and behaviours'.
Smircich (1983) and Huczynski and Buchanan (2000) have pointed out there are two broad streams of thought on
culture. One, the 'interpretivist', deriving more from the social sciences, has viewed organization as culture - culture
being intrinsic to, and root metaphor for the organization as a collection of patterns of meanings, shared values and
behaviours that may be multi-layered, complex and dynamic (Alvesson, 2002). The other, the 'functionalist', on which
the more management-oriented literature is founded, takes a perspective in which culture is seen as something an
organization 'has' rather than 'is' (Wilson, 2001) - an internal variable which can, to an extent, be managed or changed,
and which mediates and helps define organizational behaviour, performance and outcomes. To go some way towards
reconciling these, Martin (1992) offers three perspectives on an organization's culture, those of integration,
differentiation and fragmentation, which each recognise different degrees of complexity, difference, conflicts, layers
and subdivisions within it.
2. Organizational culture and performance
The integration perspective, within which much of the more managerialist literature lies, is the more relevant for the
research question posed here. It takes the functionalist view, described above, in which there is an assumption, to a
degree at least, of there being a reasonably clear and shared set of values and assumptions within an organization. From
this standpoint, an organization's culture can be considered to have a direct influence on both its performance outcomes
as well as its reputation with consumers and other stakeholders (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Roberts and Dowling, 2002;
Schneider 1980). Culture is seen as a medium which can act to enable, or conversely frustrate, managers in achieving
organizational goals (Harrison, 1972; Moseley, 2007). However, scholars have offered differing perspectives on the
relationship between culture and performance, and in various studies, what has been considered to constitute
'performance' has differed widely. Kotter and Heskett (1992), for example, have shown evidence of a link between
culture and some types of organizational financial performance, while Reid and Hubbell (2005) have identified certain
elements in what have been described as 'performance cultures'. Other researchers have considered the role of some
dimensions of culture as they affect performance, such as participative decision making, power sharing, support and
collaboration and tolerance for risk and conflicts (Ke and Wei, 2008), common commitment (Eicher, 2006; Campbell
and Yeung 1991) and leadership style (for example, Goffee and Jones 1996; Leffingwell 2001). However, the literature
in this area is fragmented and there is little consensus.
3. Organizational culture and delivery of brand experience
A successful corporate brand embodies a unique identity and set of values perceived as attractive and valuable by its
consumers and other stakeholders, such as shareholders (Harris and de Chernatony 2001). Within the relatively new and
emerging brand delivery literature itself , there seems to be some agreement that a congruence between those values
represented by the organization's brand (such as integrity, luxury, stylishness, fun, youthfulness etc.) - how the brand
presents itself to consumers and the outside world - and those values inherent within the organization's own culture, is
critical to successful delivery of the expected brand experience to consumers and other stakeholders (De Chernatony
and Cottam, 2006, 2008; Ind and Bjerke, 2007; Gotsi, Andriopoulos & Wilson, 2008). De Chernatony (1999) has
proposed that one measure of what might be termed 'brand performance' is the gap between a brand's perceived identity
and its actual reputation with consumers who have experienced it. In this respect, particular aspects of a culture which
encourage employees to 'live the brand' in order to deliver the experience it promises have been explored, such as
organizational leadership (Vallaster and de Chernatony, 2006), internal communication (Chong, 2007) and employees'
level of engagement and motivation (Harris and De Chernatony, 2001; Sartain & Schuman, 2006). Anisimova and
Mavando (2003) have drawn attention to the importance of minimizing the perceptual gaps between internal
(employee), external (customer) and strategic (senior management) groups of stakeholders in aiming to achieve
alignment between the values prevalent in an organization's culture and those represented in its brand.
Conclusions
The paper reviews and attempts to draw together two strands of literature relevant to the issue of successful delivery of
brand experience in a co-creation context, in which successfully delivery and consumption of such an experience is seen
as critical to an organization's ability to create long term, superior industry value. It concludes that, while there is
growing scholarly and practitioner interest in this important area, the literature on the relationship between
organizational culture and performance in terms of successful delivery of brand experience is both diverse and
embryonic, and no coherent body of theory as yet exists to underpin it. It seems clear that linkages do exist; researchers
have identified particular elements of culture that may contribute to superior performance in terms of of brand delivery.
However, there is little empirical evidence and the overall picture that emerges about the nature of this relationship
between culture and 'brand performance' is as yet partial, complex and fragmented. Further work is necessary to
86