This document summarizes a study on the importance of human resources and brand management in the corporate reputation process. It discusses how an organization's reputation is influenced by how employees perceive the company's brand personality and values. The study aims to examine how brand personality is understood from the employees' perspective at one company. Understanding employees' perceptions can provide insights into the relationship between corporate reputation and strategic human resource management, including the growing importance of employer branding and aligning the internal and external brand. Future research suggestions include using additional methods like Q methodology to better understand how brand propositions are communicated and perceived by employees, and where gaps may exist.

1. Kurumsal İtibar Sürecinde İnsan Kaynakları ve
Marka Yönetiminin Önemi
Müberra YÜKSEL
Kadir Has Üniversitesi
2.Uluslararası İtibar Yönetimi Konferansı
3-4 Ekim 2013, İstanbul

2. BRAND MANAGEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTING & RETAINING
REPUTATION CAPITAL IN EMERGENT MARKETS
2
Müberra Yüksel, Ph.d.
muberray@khas.edu.tr
The 2nd INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
2013

3. ÖZET
Kurumsal İtibar Sürecinde İnsan Kaynakları ve Marka
Yönetiminin Önemi
 Bu çalışmanın amacı, marka yönetimi sürecinde çalışanlarının kurumsal itibsar üzerindeki etkisini
incelemektir. Önceki araştırmaların çoğu ya ağırlıkla firma dışındaki sosyal paydaşların, öncelikle müşterilerin
beklentilerine karşılık vermeye ve güvenini kazanmaya odaklanmış ya da iç müşteri olan çalışanların rolü
gözardı edilmiştir.
 Son zamanlarda gündemde olan “İşveren markası” kavramı, firmalararası rekabetin artmasıyla, insan
kaynakları yöneticilerinin marka yönetimine ait temel ilkeleri hem uygulamalarında hem de iç iletişimlerinde
kullanmalarıyla yaygınlaşmıştır. İçsel pazarlama ve iletişimle, çalışanların marka kişiliği, değeri ve itibarı
hakkında algılarını oluşturmak ve yönetmekle kurumun itibarı arasında doğrudan bir ilişki vardır. Bu nedenle de,
çalışanların işletmenin temel misyon, vizyonuyla uyumlu olması yanısıra, marka kişiliğini anlamaları ve
benimsemeleri de gerekmektedir.
 Bu araştırma çalışanlar gözünden marka kişiliğinin nasıl anlaşıldığına bir işletme içinden bakacaktır. Böylelikle,
firma çalışanlarının algılarının kurumun itibarıyla olan ilişkisi incelenerek, stratejik insan kaynakları açısından
artan önem arzeden işveren markası ve marka kişiliği birlikte ele alınarak, içerden dışarıya itibar oluşum
sürecinde önemine dikkat çekilecektir.
3

4. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
 Scholars of reputation management now realize that there is a need
for further refinements of conceptualization and method in scholarly
work on reputation as a strategic resource in communications and
management studies (Bergh, Ketchen, Boyd, & Bergh, 2010).
 Responding to that call, this paper aims to address such concerns in
the following ways:
1. to highlight the core theoretical findings in studies of organizational
reputation; then
2. The ultimate goal is to provide conceptual clarity for future
research that seeks to develop a better understanding of
employer branding in the context of SHRM practice (on-going
research)
4

5. INTRODUCTION
 Much of this work on organizational reputation, however, has been often
been informed more by intuition than any rigorous method (Bergh, Ketchen,
Boyd, & Berg, 2010). Critics of such methodological laxity generally focus on
three concerns:
1. Conceptually, organizational reputation has been loosely defined (Rindova &
Fombrun, 1999). Conceptually, organizational reputation is defined as “a
global (i.e. general), temporally stable, evaluative judgment about a firm that
is shared by multiple constituencies, and can provide the firm with an
intangible asset that affects subsequent performance.”
2. Operationally, past research tends to use Fortune ratings to measure
reputation. But these ratings are considered to be “theoretically weak” (Rhee
& Valdez, 2009, p. 146), and inference is restricted because of “well
documented problems with these measures” (Baucus, 1995; Brown & Perry,
1994; Fombrun, 1996; Fryxell & Wang, 1994; Sodeman, 1995; Wood, 1995;
quoted in Deephouse, 2000, p. 1091). Operationally, organizational reputation
is measured as a broad, multidimensional single construct of which value is
determined through the interactions and interrelationships of multiple
attributes.
5

6. SIGNIFICANCE
 The ultimate goal is to provide conceptual and methodological clarities for future
research that seeks to develop a better understanding of organizational reputation
in the context of management (SHRM) practice.
 This commentary should contribute to reputation-management research by
situating the concept at a higher conceptual, operational, and cross-cultural level.
 Coping with uncertainty, crises and risks along with increasing openness and
connectedness via new media have led public diplomacy to use «soft power» e.g.,
education, arts and culture, sports, science and technology more and to become
more people-oriented.
 Likewise, companies have also emphasized such means of soft power through
«corporate diplomacy» in line with their longer term strategic visions. Since
demarcation line between different target groups, stakeholders and sectors have
also been blurred, SHRM has to focus on both internal branding & communication.
 It is argued that the success of employer branding depends on creating a realistic
analysis of the external and internal brand propositions, only them aligning them if
there is a broad agreement between the two through core employee value
propositions (Barrow, 2005; Ulrich 2012).
6

7. Within the framework of HRM
CONCEPTUALIZING OR CONTEXTUALIZING
REPUTATION
7

8. CONCEPTUALIZING
 Over the past two decades, reputation scholars from several disciplines, such
as management, economics, sociology, and marketing have generated multiple
definitions of reputation that vary in their focus and specificity.
 Bergh, Ketchen, Boyd, and Berg (2010) distinguish reputation from status, and
delineates the following three features of reputation: dynamics, attributes, and
temporal dimension (pp. 28-29).
 Highhouse, Broadfoot, Yugo, and Devendorf (2009) concluded that corporate
reputation is a global (i.e. general), temporally stable value judgment about a
firm that is shared by multiple constituencies.
 Furthermore, adopting a perspective that emphasizes effectiveness as well as
evaluative criteria, Rindova & Fombrun (1999), Barney (1991), and Dierickx and
Cool (1989) consider organizational reputation as an organization’s ability to
deliver valued outcomes and to provide the firm with an intangible asset that
affects subsequent performance (Barney, 1991; Dierickx & Cool, 1989).
8

9. DRIVING (BRAND) REPUTATION FROM
INSIDE OUT :
 Reputation is subjective; different stakeholders may perceive
reputations of the same company differently based on their own
economic, social, and personal background (Bromley, 1993;
Fombrun, 1996).
 Recent work in the field has also shown that reputation (and
image) can be actively managed by a firm (Fombrun & Rindova,
2001) while status usually cannot (Bergh, et al., 2010).
 Reputation should also be assessed from the organization’s
perspective within the context of cultural/ corporate diplomacy.
9

10. Employer Brand
SITUATING ORGANIZATION
REPUTATION WITHIN THE SHRM
10

11. PURPOSE - STRATEGY - SHRM MODEL FOR BRAND REPUTATION
SHRM FOR CULTURALLY SUSTAINABLE
ORGANIZATIONS
HUMAN
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
(advocates)
REPUTATION
MANAGEMENT
(guardians)
BRAND MANAGEMENT
(ambassadors)
Corporate Communication
CORPORATE
BRAND
EMPLOYER
BRAND
INTERNAL
BRAND
Brand Values/ promises

12. SUSTAINABLE & STRATEGIC HRM MODEL
(REDEFINIONS CORPORATE/CULTURAL DıPLOMACY)12

13. CAPTıVATıNG MAGNET COMPANY + DEVELOPING & ENGAGING
EMPLOYEES
Page
13
INSIDE-OUT PERSPECTIVE OF SHRM
1. The employer brand as promise EVP
2. The brand as
Experienced &
perceived by
the employees as the
internal customer
3. The brand as medium
Coordination of 1 & 2

 

14. EMPLOYER BRAND
HOW ARE EMPLOYEES TREATED?
14

15. On-going…
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF THE
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
15

16. BRAND PERSONALITY
( WHAT ABOUT CONTEXT? )
16

17. Sahici 80%
İlkeli 71% 41% 29%
Samimi 68% 37% 31%
Ayakları yere basan 65% 29%
Dürüst 63% 42% 31%
Başarılı 58% 40% 37%
Özgüvenli 56% 43% 32%
Güzel 54% 52% 37%
Salam 53% 44% 28%
Özgün 48% 42% 30%
Benzersiz 46% 29% 39% 42%
Erkek / Maskulin 70%
İhtişamlı 68% 32% 35%
Sporcu 66% 28% 38%
Teknolojik 64% 30% 36%
Kadın / Feminen 62%
Kurumsal 43% 62% 30% 33%
Asil 45% 56% 33% 33%
Lider 30% 54% 40% 43%
Cool 53% 40%
Modayı takip eden 45% 44% 38% 30%
Çalışkan 83%
Mücadeleci 34% 73%
Zeki 52% 60%
Sempatik 36% 39% 56%
Güçlü 38% 38% 55% 29%
Güvenilir 53% 53% 26%
Gözü pek 35% 25% 48% 44% 25%
Aile odaklı 26% 48% 26%
Doaya dönük 43% 47% 26%
Yol yordam bilen 43% 40% 44% 34%
Genç 42% 36%
Günceli takip eden 32% 82%
Yaratıcı 31% 65%
Bağımsız 46% 38% 52% 29%
Neşeli 29% 75%
Dost canlısı 29% 70%
Duygusal 69%
Coşkulu 31% 42% 55% 27%
Halkın içinden 25% 37% 54%
Heyecan verici 33% 39% 31% 53% 27%
Çağdaş 35% 34% 27% 41% 61%
17

18. WHAT IS NEXT?....
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH
18

19. PRACTıCAL IMPLıCATıONS…19
 In addition to analyzing how brand personality is perceived
from inside with full spectrum of viewpoints (looking at
internal gaps (e.g., managers and employees), Q
methodology (semi-quantitative for small sample) will be
additionally employed to understand how brand propositions
(of EVP) are delivered and perceived by employees and
whether they are communicated and conceived well and
where are the gaps are the next steps in our interpretation of
employer branding…
 So far what have we learnt? As in all business services, if we first
find out what needs and demands there are, and then adapt our
services to those needs & demands and deliver them afterwards.
(Basic: understanding that only attracting competent people is not
sufficient; developing & retaining them through EVA is suggested).

20. READINESS & PARTICIPATION &
CASCADıNG VALUES, BRAND PERSONALıTY
Participation
highlow
high
Forced
voluntary
performance

21. “IF YOU HAVE ALWAYS DONE IT THAT WAY, IT IS PROBABLY WRONG.”
muberray@khas.edu.tr
Thank you…