پویایی کاریزمای برند شرکت : عادیسازی و فعالسازی در فناوری اطلاعات کالسبرگ
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|3369||2013||16 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Scandinavian Journal of Management, Available online 8 April 2013
This article describes how Carlsberg Group's IT unit (CIT) made use of Carlsberg's corporate brand to develop its identity following centralization and downsizing of the IT function. Our observations suggested using the concept of brand charisma and thereafter we framed our analysis with Weber's theory of the routinization of charisma. The study took place in the relatively unusual context of a truncated rollout of a formal corporate branding program, which allowed us to study the processes by which brand charisma was routinized. Findings indicate the important intermediary role played by middle managers who selected and systematized the set of brand beliefs taken up within the CIT project, and how employees accommodated these beliefs to their everyday work life. Accommodation was found to take place within four subdomains of activity: subculture, communication, technology, and hierarchical control. A key finding is that, through their reception and activation of brand charisma, the CIT employees contributed greatly to the endowment of charisma their brand carried. A revised Weberian model of the dynamic relationships between the routinization of charisma and its reception and activation constitutes our contribution to corporate branding theory. The article also offers empirical evidence in support of extending Weberian scholarship further into the field of brand management.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The CIT case reported here stands in contrast to studies of large scale rollouts of formal corporate identity programs such as those described by Schultz and Hatch (2003), Ravasi and Schultz (2006) and Kärreman and Rylander (2008) and recommended by Olins (2003), Aaker and Joachimstahler (2000) and Davis and Dunn (2002), among others. By doing nothing more than developing and presenting The Stand, leaving it to be led by those positioned further down the organizational hierarchy, Carlsberg Group's Executive Committee stopped what might have been a typical top-down formal implementation process in its tracks during the time of our study. We argue that this situation gave us unusual access to the processes through which brand charisma operates in an organization, and it has been these processes that occupied our efforts to understand the dynamics of brand charisma. By following the halted corporate branding program into middle level management and lower hierarchical levels we were able to show that it was ultimately the CIT employees who activated the corporate brand's charisma within their spheres of action, in this case by receiving and activating one of their brand's slogans (“Thirst for Great”) and the company's heritage of passion for brewing beer, as evidenced by their enthusiastic engagement in brewing and drinking their own beer together. That “Thirst for Great” and a passion for brewing beer are only two parts of Carlsberg's corporate branding platform, and that their meanings were elaborated and extended by CIT employees in ways that carried these meanings far from their origins in top management's introduction of The Stand, shows how routinization reduced the scope and scale of The Stand's charismatic potential while at the same time elaborating and enriching its substance. From this finding we conclude that a charismatic brand conforms to the highly varied needs and purposes of those most in control of endowing it with charisma – the brand's stakeholders. Among the stakeholders of corporate branding our theorizing gave a central position to middle managers, but this does not imply that middle managers should or even can be programmed to align their beliefs about the brand with top management's wishes. If employees sense that their immediate managers are only towing the corporate line, the processes of reception ↔ activation may be undercut and even reversed. What is more, middle managers themselves require activation to engage in the endowment process and if they are faking it, this activation will not occur. This is because the managers will have been cut off from receiving the brand beliefs that license and inspire their action. As was seen with the head of CIT, brand beliefs inspired him to go against expressed wishes of top management that he focus entirely on IT problems and cost containment. In other words, we believe our case study shows that middle managers, and in particular brand managers, must have the freedom to act in accordance with their own emotional and esthetic reception ↔ activation cycles. We imagine that, if the corporate brand were to take hold in other parts of Carlsberg Group to the extent that it did in CIT, it would undergo further routinization within other subcultures, with additional instances of scope and scale reductions and substance enrichment. Such routinization would also unleash the potential for even greater activation of brand beliefs, and with critical mass could lead to contagion, unleashing the much greater force of charismatic fervor that characterizes the charismatic brand. In practical terms we conclude that it is unwise to expect the implementation of a corporate branding initiative to conform to expectations that accompany its formal introduction. We suggest that by anticipating this, brand managers can help executives appreciate the richness added to brand symbolism by the activation of employees who respond to it, each in their own unique ways. This can be done, for example, by celebrating local interpretations of brand ideas and licensing mid-level managers to engage employees in branding processes designed to serve their units’ unique purposes in relation to subculture and identity building, as the Brewing Greatness Project illustrates. Once this activity begins, contagion to other parts of the organization can be nurtured through communication and collaboration with first movers. Within this process executives should anticipate the simultaneous restrictions on the initial uptake of their ideas as well as appreciating the blossoming variability of ensuing meaning making activity. They should also guard against difficulties presented by top management strategies and objectives that run at cross-purposes to branding messages. In particular our study indicated how hierarchical control can obstruct brand charisma and that such obstructions need to be anticipated and deflected. Threats to brand charisma, such as the one we observed, present a challenge to executives who, by introducing corporate branding initiatives, hope to achieve predictable and sustainable outcomes. For example efforts to control costs need to be balanced against the enthusiasm small investments in corporate branding can generate. Executives should bear in mind that the work of activation ↔ routinization done by middle managers and employees is where the real action of charismatic corporate branding is to be found. This places responsibility for brand charisma within the domain of everyday organizational life where it remains in the control of employees and other stakeholders, and where middle managers can play pivotal roles. Finally, our application and extension of Weber's theory implies that instead of seeing the concept of “being branded” only in employees who act as brand champions (e.g., Ind, 2001, Ind, 2003 and Maxwell and Knox, 2009), organizations can experience the state of “being branded” when employees and external stakeholders respond to and thereby activate the charisma of their corporate brands. In this organizational sense, “being branded” is driven by stakeholder and employee reception ↔ activation that lies within their personal and interpersonal domains of influence, wherein middle managers, standing at the interface between employees and executives, can play crucial creative and facilitative roles. We conclude from our extension of Weber's ideas that “being branded” is as much about what employees and other stakeholders do to an organization as it is about what organizations do to them.