ایجاد نام های تجاری (برند) بانک : چگونه رفتار رهبری بر تعهد کارکنان تاثیر می گذارد ؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|2046||2013||7 صفحه PDF||22 صفحه WORD|
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای سایت یا وبلاگ شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای کتاب شما
- تولید محتوا با مقالات ISI برای نشریه یا رسانه شما
پیشنهاد می کنیم کیفیت محتوای سایت خود را با استفاده از منابع علمی، افزایش دهید.
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Business Research, Volume 66, Issue 2, February 2013, Pages 165–171
2. چارچوب مفهومی
1.2- تعهد کارمند و بانک برندهای موفق
2.2- رفتار ریاست و تعهدات کارمندان:
جدول 3: همبستگی ها و آمارهای توصیفی
جدول 4: نتایج مدل ساختاری
5. بحث و مذاکره
Front line employees are critical to service brand success, as their performance brings brand promises to life. Banking employees, like others, must remain committed to their employers, to live the brand, particularly during periods of economic uncertainty and customer frustration. Employees' commitment influences their brand adoption and brand-supporting behavior during service encounters. Effective leadership fosters employee commitment and brand supporting behaviors. This study examines the nature of employee commitment in banking, distinguishing between affective, continuance and normative commitment. The study explores bank leaders, examining whether initiating structure leader behavior or considerate leader behavior is most effective in encouraging employee commitment. Data from a sample of 438 employees in a leading Irish bank reveals the optimal leadership style for employee commitment.
Building a differentiated and successful service brand requires the commitment of all employees across the service organization (Balmer, 2001). As the quality of service is a key differentiating factor between competitors, committed, high quality staff are critical (Rafiq & Ahmed, 2000), because these employees embody the service brand in their service interactions (de Chernatony & Cottam, 2009). Highly committed employees are more likely to fulfill their brand promises because they are emotionally attached to the company brand (Thomson, de Chernatony, Arganbright, & Khan, 1999). Yet front line employees are “often underestimated” as a success factor in service brand building (Burmann, Zeplin, & Riley, 2009, p. 282). Malhotra and Mukherjee (2004, p. 163) caution “organisations pay insufficient attention to understanding the nature of… the organisational commitment… of employees who represent the organisation to the customer”. Committed employees build a service brand in two ways: their service encounter behavior plays a positive role in communicating the brand experience to customers, and their interaction with colleagues facilitates a work environment, which supports brand-supporting behaviors (King & Grace, 2008). Personal contact with familiar service personnel creates a competitive advantage, and therefore the literature suggests that committed employees who remain with service firms will enhance customer brand experience, as customers have positive emotional connections with familiar service employees (Hansen, Sandvik, & Seines, 2003). Employees are more committed when supported by appropriate styles of leadership (Mitchell, 2002). Internally, the relationship between management and employees, the level of autonomy granted by managers to employees, and the level of flexibility managers allow employees in service delivery influence branding messages (Punjaisri & Wilson, 2011). Employee buy-in, where a company's brand values are “deeply rooted in the minds of all organizational members constitutes a sustainable competitive advantage” for service firms (Wieseke, Ahearne, Lam, & van Dick, 2009, p. 123). When employees buy into a company's values and adopt a customer service orientation, they live the organization's brand in their interactions with customers at the service front line (Ind, 2004). Leaders are therefore indispensible in instilling a company's values and vision to front line employees (Wieseke et al., 2009). This paper explores the relationship between leadership behavior and employee commitment, cognizant of the multi-faceted nature of commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Specifically, this study examines the influence of structured or considerate leadership on employee commitment in retail banking, adopting the three-component conceptualization of commitment postulated by Meyer and Allen (1991). The paper opens with a discussion about the relationship between commitment and brand development. The literature review distinguishes between considerate and structured leadership behaviors, and hypotheses explore the relationship between leadership behaviors and employees' affective, continuance and normative commitment. Section 3 explains the methodology. The following section presents the results of the study. Finally, the paper outlines the conclusions, implications and limitations of the research.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Extant literature suggests that employees' commitment to the organization positively influences their acceptance of the service's brand-supporting activities (Shum et al., 2008) and internal branding efforts (Punjaisri & Wilson, 2011). Further, employees' commitment to the organization enhances their adoption of proactive behaviors (Strauss et al., 2009) which champion the service brand by bringing the brand message to life for the customer through service performance (Ind, 2004). This research adds to the literature exploring the relationship between leader behavior and employee commitment, within the banking sector. Findings suggest that employees perceiving considerate leadership are more likely to attach emotionally, or commit affectively to the organization. ACS relates with higher levels of service performance (Meyer & Allen, 1991), which supports the brand message (Ind, 2004). This study finds that considerate leadership behavior is most suitable to encourage ACS. This research also suggests that perceived considerate leadership reduces CCS. In addition, employees perceiving considerate leader behavior are more likely to have higher NCS, which suggests that employees may be likely to adopt brand communication out of a sense of obligation. Seniority levels moderate the relationship between IS and ACS. When employees have a managerial role, perceived IS leader behavior increases their ACS. Several reasons may explain this finding. Perceived IS leader behavior may support commitment through task clarity and employees' perceived responsibility (Dale & Fox, 2008). IS leader behavior sets out clear job requirements and responsibilities. Probably, promotion is the reward for those managers who respond to more senior managers' directions. “When an individual achieves rewards used by others to shape his behavior” (Meyer & Maltin, 2010, p. 331) and if the work is satisfying, the rewards enhance well-being, which increases ACS (Meyer & Maltin, 2010). Managers may therefore experience greater ACS when they know what their own managers expect of them, and when they experience rewards for performing accordingly. Middle managers, such as HR managers and customer service managers may appreciate direction from senior, experienced managers. Clarity from senior colleagues may enhance their ACS. Further, IS behavior clarifies communication (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Clear communication may encourage middle managers to feel informed and involved, enhancing their ACS. However, directive leadership and hierarchical communication could be patronizing (Mitchell, 2002) for junior employees. This study finds that perceived IS leader behavior reduces ACS for non-managers. Therefore, leaders perceived to be directive reduce non-managers' emotional attachment to the organization. Previous studies suggest that employees with higher ACS are more likely to engage in activities to support the organization (Strauss et al., 2009) and have less job dissatisfaction (Park & Rainey, 2007). Therefore this study cautions that IS leader behavior curtails the brand-supporting role of non-managers. Findings suggest that IS has further, negative, influences on employee commitment. For all employees, perceived IS leader behavior increases CCS. When employees perceive that managers adopt IS leader behavior, they are more likely to stay with the organization due to costs associated with leaving. CCS may be particularly high in a service sector such as banking, where employees have relatively greater permanency and have potentially higher pay and associated rewards than employees in other services. Malhotra and Mukherjee's (2004) assert that the typical length of service within banking increases employees' costs of leaving. This study supports Malhotra and Mukherjee's (2004) assertion, as 40% of respondents have worked with the bank for over 20 years. As CCS is the commitment type likely to result in reduced performance (Meyer & Allen, 1991), managers must ensure that its level of control and direction does not detract from the brand-supporting behaviors of its employees. This study found that perceived IS leader behavior did not increase employees' NCS. NCS exists where employees feel a sense of obligation or indebtedness to their organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Employees with high levels of NCS may adopt brand-supporting behaviors out of a sense of duty. Controlling, regimental leadership probably constrains and frustrates employees who perceive IS leader behavior (Ellinger et al., 2011), and as a result, do not feel any obligation to perform or live the brand (Ind, 2004). Therefore, among non-managers, perceived IS leader behavior increases CCS, reduces ACS and does not affect NCS. This study raises a concern regarding employees' brand supporting behavior in controlled environments where IS leader behavior exists. Due to compliance requirements, the banking sector is heavily regulated, and IS leader behavior may ensure employees adopt good practice. However, such leader behavior may inadvertently diminish to brand-supporting behaviors. Employees who stay with their employer only to retain pay and other rewards may become jaded, or worse, adopt deviant or sabotage behaviors (Coelho et al., 2010, Harris and Ogbonna, 2006, Skarlicki et al., 2008 and Wallace and de Chernatony, 2009). If employees believe that they are stuck within the organization, their perceptions that managers display high levels of IS leader behavior augments this. For non-managers, perceived IS leader behavior may result in anti-brand behavior, as previous research has shown that higher CCS may result in brand sabotage (Wallace & de Chernatony, 2009). The findings of this study advocate further exploration of the relationship between IS and the potential outcomes of these variables on employee performance and brand adoption, among non-managers. Employees who perceive IS behavior but have attained management status themselves, have higher levels of ACS, but also have higher levels of CCS. Future research could helpfully explore potential positive outcomes of CCS, when this type of commitment coexists with high levels of ACS among employees who have achieved promotion to management level. For example, employees promoted to management could have a vested interest in the success of the organization to retain pay and benefits (CCS), but could also be emotionally attached with the organization (ACS). As such, job specific factors influence brand identification and brand loyalty among employees (Punjaisri & Wilson, 2011). The research findings have several managerial implications. Managers wishing to develop a strong bank brand among junior employees will encourage greater commitment by adopting considerate leader behaviors. These findings support Dale and Fox (2008) who advocate greater social interaction between leaders and subordinates. Informal employee discussion groups with managers and employees at branch level may open brand communication. Such communication could support employees' brand understanding and communicate the “formal and informal… procedures” (Dale & Fox, 2008, p. 113) needed for brand-supporting behaviors. Perceived IS leader behavior enhances ACS for managers. Task clarity and direction encourage a positive response from those who achieve promotion by complying. Senior managers wishing to foster ACS and brand-supporting behavior among middle managers may achieve greatest success through a directive approach, clear brand communication, and clarifying associated rewards for brand adoption. Although IS enhances ACS among managers, middle managers must adopt a considerate leadership style when disseminating the brand to subordinates. HR practices should encourage different leader behaviors to encourage commitment and brand-supporting behavior at different levels of the banking hierarchy. Considerate leader behavior supports junior staff to engage with the brand message, and enforces their sense of obligation to the organization and its brand. By reducing CCS, considerate leaders also curtail anti-brand behaviors among dissatisfied subordinates. As with any research, limitations exist. The focus on the Irish banking sector limits the generalizability of the results. Future research should consider the applicability of findings in other industry contexts, cultures and other countries. This study did not include employees from head office, as the research only surveyed branch employees. Further, the study measures employee perceptions about leadership, but employees may perceive leaders differently. Future research could compare senior managers' self-evaluation of their leadership style with branch employees' attitudes about leadership, and draw comparisons between perceptions of leadership style across groups of front line employees. The study did not distinguish between employees in terms of tenure. For example, Hoffman et al. (2011) identify the moderating role of tenure on the relationship between leader behavior and value congruence. Although most employees in this study had tenure or permanent contracts, replication of the study in a service sector with lower levels of permanency could explore the moderating effects of this variable. Finally, the study used cross-sectional data. Consequently, the time sequence of the relationships between leadership and commitment is unknown. A longitudinal framework would provide more insight into probable causation.