Growing the employee brand at ASI: a case study.

The message audit was the third step in ASI's comprehensive assessment of its message systems. Each person working at ASI was asked to fill out a questionnaire containing 99 items measuring the degree to which each value was communicated through each message system. Responses were based on a 5-point Likert-type scale with answer categories of strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree. For purposes of the message audit, the "defect-free interactions with one another" value was broken down into each of its components--respect for others, open communication, teamwork, integrity, attention to detail, and conscientiousness. The results of the survey are reported in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 provides a summary of average scores by value. Table 4 provides means for individual items organized by value assessed. Melissa was relatively pleased with the overall data, although there were some indicators to mark trouble spots. She would have to monitor these systems very closely, along with employee perceptions, as she developed her plan to grow the employee brand.

Challenges Ahead

The big challenge for Melissa was to grow the employee brand along with the business so that ASI would continue benefiting from low turnover, high morale, and exceptional customer relations. Melissa was familiar with the employee branding process, so she knew she needed to develop and manage the organizational message systems. She also had to ensure that the systems grow the employee brand while ensuring that the processes were legally sound and scientifically based. As she developed her plan, she knew that any changes the organization made had to reflect the organization's values and mission and take its psychological contract with employees into account. She was confident that once the message systems were orchestrated to reflect the organization's values and mission, the organization would be able to achieve its dual goal of product quality and total customer satisfaction.

Melissa felt that the first step was to examine the extent to which each value was communicated by each organizational message system. For example, she asked herself, which message systems most effectively communicated the "attention to detail" value in Table 4? Which message systems least effectively communicated the value? She wondered if there were message systems that consistently ranked high or low in terms of the extent to which they communicated the various values. If a message system was found to rank consistently low, Melissa would need to work closely with ASI's employees and management to determine the underlying causes and the remedies that would be needed. In addition, she also needed to ensure that the systems were legally sound.

Authors' Note: Teaching notes are available upon request. Please send requests to Sandy.Miles@murraystate.edu. Please include your university affiliation and an office number. This will help to ensure the legitimacy of requests.

References

Mangold, W. G., & Miles, S. J. (in press). The employee brand: Is yours an all star? Business Horizons.

Miles, S. J., & Mangold, W. G. (2004). A conceptualization of the employee branding process. Journal of Relationship Marketing, 3 (2/3), 65-87.

Miles, S. J., & Mangold, W. G. (2005). Positioning Southwest Airlines through employee branding. Business Horizons, 48, 535-545.

Sandra Jeanquart Miles

W. Glynn Mangold

Murray State University

Sandra Jeanquart Miles, DBA, SPHR, is a professor of management in the Department of Management, Marketing, and Business Administration, College of Business and Public Affairs, Murray State University, Murray, KY 42071; e-mail: sandy.miles@murraystate.edu. She is certified as a Senior Professional of Human Resources by the Human Resource Certification Institute. She has published many articles pertaining to supervisory and subordinate relations and, most recently, the employee branding process. She has also held several leadership positions in the Midwest Academy of Management and the Society for Human Resource Management.

W. Glynn Mangold, PhD, is a professor of marketing in the Department of Management, Marketing, and Business Administration, College of Business and Public Affairs, Murray State University, Murray, KY 42071; e-mail: glynn.mangold@murraystate.edu. Whereas much of his research has focused on marketing of services, his academic interests are diverse, with more than 30 peer-reviewed publications to his credit. He has served as Editor of the Journal of Business and Public Affairs, Electronic Resources Editor for Marketing Education Review, and is a member of the editorial review board for Journal of Services Marketing as well as several other journal review boards. Table 1 ASI's Mission and Values Mission ASI will continuously improve its products and processes to exceed the expectations of its internal and external customers. We will deliver to those customers defect-free products and services on time, every time. Values

Defect-free products

Defect-free transactions

Defect-free interactions

Respect for others

Open communication

Teamwork

Integrity

Attention to detail

Conscientiousness

Continuous improvement through continuous learning Table 2 ASI's Organizational Message Systems Organizational staffing process Training process Performance appraisal process Compensation system Formal communications and public relations Corporate culture Leadership and decision making Table 3 Summary of Average Mean Scores by Value

Front Manufacturing

All Office Facility Value Employees Workers Workers Defect-free products 3.85 3.75 4.02 Attention to detail (component 3.81 3.74 3.96

of defect-free interactions

with one another) Defect-free interactions with 3.80 3.78 3.85

customers Conscientiousness (component of 3.75 3.72 3.85

defect-free interactions with

one another) Teamwork (component of 3.69 3.66 3.78

defect-free interactions with

one another) Continuous improvement through 3.65 3.64 3.68

continuous learning Integrity (component of 3.62 3.59 3.69

defect-free interactions with

one another) Respect for others (component 3.62 3.60 3.70

of defect-free interactions

with one another) Open communication (component of 3.48 3.38 3.65

defect-free interactions with

one another) Table 4 Mean Scores for Individual Items Organized by Value

Front Manufacturing

All Office Facility Value Employees Workers Workers Attention to detail

1. Training process 4.10 3.97 4.25

2. Supervisors encourage 4.07 3.97 4.26

employees to pay

attention to detail

3. Hiring process 4.05 3.97 4.18

4. Top management encourages 4.00 3.88 4.19

employees and supervisors

to pay attention to

detail

5. Performance appraisal 3.97 3.97 4.04

6. Supervisors pay attention 3.90 3.73 4.11

to detail

7. Coworkers 3.79 3.69 3.93

8. Newsletters and public 3.72 3.66 3.82

relations

9. Compensation system 3.56 3.38 3.82

10. Top management pays 3.54 3.50 3.65

attention to detail

11. Budget allocations 3.30 3.50 3.40

Average 3.81 3.74 3.96 Conscientiousness

12. Supervisors encourage 4.10 4.09 4.19

employees to work

conscientiously

13. Top management encourages 3.97 3.94 4.04

employees and supervisors

to work conscientiously

14. Training process 3.95 3.97 3.96

15. Performance appraisal 3.92 3.94 3.96

16. Hiring process 3.90 3.78 4.04

17. Supervisors work 3.82 3.69 4.04

conscientiously

18. Coworkers 3.72 3.56 3.93

19. Newsletters and public 3.70 3.66 3.79

relations

20. Top management works 3.69 3.60 3.81

conscientiously

21. Compensation system 3.48 3.44 3.61

22. Budget allocations 3.00 3.25 3.00

Average 3.75 3.72 3.85 Continuous improvement through continuous learning

23. Hiring process 3.89 3.91 3.86

24. Performance appraisal 3.88 3.97 3.81

25. Supervisors encourage 3.83 3.78 3.93

employees to continuously

improve through

continuous learning

26. Top management encourages 3.77 3.88 3.67

employees and supervisors

to continuously improve

through continuous