Assessing the Six-Station Corporate Identity Model: A Polymorphic Model

Dr. Jean Yannis Suvatjis*

Athens Graduate School of Management
Email: jean58@otenet.gr

Leslie de Chernatony
Professor of Brand Marketing
Universit della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland and Aston Business School, UK
Email: dechernatony@btinternet.com

Dr. John Halikias

The Athens University of Economics and Business

Journal of Product and Barnd Management, Vol. 22, issue 3. Spring, 2012 pp. 153-166.

Keywords: Corporate Identity Modeling

*Author for Communication

February 2011

Suvatjis, de Chernatony and Halikias 2011

Assessing the Six-Station Corporate Identity Model: A Polymorphic Model

Abstract
In this challenging information age, effective maintenance of corporate identity necessitates
creating a succession of new ideas and revitalizing stagnant internal concepts so that
organizations can present a contemporary and relevant face to stakeholders. This paper addresses
the issue of corporate identity modeling. A corporate identity model that is grounded in the
literature is introduced. Qualitative and quantitative research was conducted to assess the models
managerial applicability. The findings supported the six-station model, which according to the
respondents reflected the corporate identity concept, and was considered applicable in creating
and managing corporate identity.

Creating and Assessing a New Corporate Identity Model

Introduction
Corporate identity has attracted a lot of academic and managerial attention, although debate
continues about how corporate identity can be modeled. This paper shows how a model of
corporate identity, which has academic rigor and managerial relevance, was developed and
assessed.
Corporate identity is an important concept because it demonstrates corporate ethos, aims and
values, and presents a sense of individuality that can help differentiate an organization from its
competitors (Hatch and Schultz, 1997). According to Zinkhan et. al. (2001:154), corporate
identity represents the ways a company chooses to identity itself to all the publics as what an
organization is. Corporate identity can be viewed as a vehicle by which a companys character is
conveyed to different audiences (Erikson, 1960).

Literature Review
A lack of consensus in defining a standardized corporate identity construct has led to confusion in
determining the corporate identity context (Melewar and Jenkins, 2002) and its management. The
need for an indepth analysis to decode the essence of corporate identity construct and its derivates
(Cornelinssen and Elving, 2003) urged academics and practitioners to deeply scrutinize the
concept. Recent findings and studies regarding the dimensions of corporate identity transmitted
the first signs of convergence among researchers (Otubanjo and Melewar, 2007).
The existing various models that have advanced knowledge about forming and managing
corporate identity offered a number of diverse approaches and perspectives that have led to
questions about each models capabilities and limitations.

More specifically, Kennedy (1977) introduced a conceptual model of the image formation
process accompanied by empirical research. The main focus of this model is how the company
image is formed. The model declares the importance of employees in the process of company
image formation.
Bernstein (1984) introduced the spider web method, which was designed to reveal the
companys desired corporate identity. This method investigates the views of senior management
to reveal the key attributes of the organizations identity. This is a qualitative technique based on
a group discussion with top management, communication managers and one or more
representatives of the organizations departments. The entire process involves all the participants
completing a form rating selected characteristics, regarding the actual (perceived) and the desired
corporate identity. The entire process technique results in the representation of the ideal attributes
of the corporate identity.
Dowling (1986) come up with a conceptual model focusing on corporate image formation
rather than the identity formation process. The model introduces methods for conducting research
into and measuring corporate images. Dowling introduces communication internal,
interpersonal and marketing media communications. The models core philosophy is that of
directing the companys communication policies from within the corporate strategy-corporate
identity-corporate image triangle (van Riel, 1995: 19).
Abratt (1989) developed a model which constituted a new approach to corporate identity
management. This model seeks to differentiate the concepts of corporate identity and image by
introducing the concept of corporate identity / corporate image interface. Corporate personality
was firstly included as a major parameter and was properly linked with the other parameters of
the model.

Van Reil (1995) created the Rotterdam Organizational Identification Test (ROIT). The ROIT
measures the affinity of individuals with their organization along nine dimensions: perception of
belonging, congruence between goals and values, positive evaluation of membership, need for
affiliation, perceived benefits of membership, and perceived support, acknowledgement,
acceptance, and security. In later work, three factors emerged the assessment of these
dimensions: pride and involvement; acknowledgment and perceived opportunities; and
likemindedness/congruence (Smidts et al. 1998).
Stuart (1994, 1998/9) introduced a model which was actually a revision of Abratts model
formulated in 1994 and updated in 1998. The model retained the notion of corporate
identity/corporate image interface. Corporate strategy, culture, corporate symbols, internalexternal marketing and personal communication had prominent positions in the model. Taking
into account all the significant factors of previous models and the current thinking on corporate
identity management, Stuart (1999), updated her model so that it more clearly defined the
corporate identity management process. Her model is thoroughly described in a paper titled
Towards a Definitive Model of the Corporate Identity Management Process (1999).
Balmers Affinity Audit (1996) technique was based on the grounded theory (Glaser and
Strauss, 1967), and it attempts to explain the driving forces that sustain an organizations identity.
This technique required the researcher to gain access to the organization so as to reveal its
dominant system of values. This involves a four-stage process, namely 1) to establish the
corporate mission and strategy, 2) to reveal the dominant systems of values and beliefs within the
organization, 3) to evaluate such systems of values against the corporate mission and strategy and
to nurture those values which support the corporate mission and strategy
Furthermore, Balmer and Soenen (1999) developed the ACID test series of corporate identity
management that assesses the degree of misalignment among different identity types, and it also

explores issues related to variously defined concepts of identity, namely, Actual, Communicated,
Ideal and Desired. These distinctions were made in order to allow for the interfaces that corporate
identity managers must consider.
Developing on this, a revised version of this model was introduced. The new framework is
called the AC2ID Test that is the acronym that encapsulates a mosaic of five, rather than four,
identity types namely, Actual, Communicated, Conceived, Ideal and Desired.
The intention of this newer model is to align the five identities so they are broadly congruent
with each other. What must be taken into consideration in this alignment process are the five
issues of reality, communication, perception, strategy and vision.
The new approach has the objective of reconciling the five identity types which impinge upon
any corporate entity and to draw also on the diverse disciplinary strands which conform to our
understanding of an organizations identity.
Van Rekom (1997) introduced the laddering technique to investigate the concept of corporate
identity. The technique focused on employees and it intended to explain what is important for
them. Through the use of open interviews employees were asked to describe the nature of their
jobs, how they conduct their daily work activities and business tasks, why they work in a specific
pattern or methodological way (i.e. behavior) and why they consider this type of applied behavior
important in their employment. Using the accumulated data on the values of personnel would
reveal important insights about an organizations identity (van Riel and Balmer, 1997).
Markwick and Fill (1997) developed a framework called the corporate identity management
process which seeks to articulate the means by which corporate communications are used to
harness the valuable information generated through image research studies. By utilizing the
images held by key stakeholders of important attributes, strategic development opportunities arise
which may allow organizations to develop competitive advantages. According to the authors,

corporate identity lies at the heart of effective and integrated strategic management (Markwick
and Fill, 1997: 407).
Allesandri (2001) structures a model where corporate identity is engineered as a bottom-up
process, since a companys mission affects identity, identity affects image, and image, in its turn,
forms reputation over time.
All of the aforementioned models contributed to the development of the concept of corporate
identity, but at the same time they failed to agree on a corporate identity construct with common
and acceptable corporate identity components.

The Development of the Six-Station Corporate Identity Model

Having reviewed the corporate identity literature and appreciated the limitations of existing
models, the six-station model was created to smooth the anomalies of the concept, and to
provide an integrated model of corporate identity.
The literature review revealed that almost all of the existing corporate identity models were
conceptual models. They applied limited perspective concerning the objective of identity and
were concerned mainly with image formation. The majority did not place enough importance on
corporate structure or the companys profile, and they assumed a single corporate image among
stakeholders. They did not consider the external forces that affected the corporation, nor did they
consider the aspect of business to business relationships. The concept of corporate culture was
not incorporated in models until lately. Some of them adopt a narrow marketing perspective, with
no consideration of corporate branding. The majority of models have drawn excessive attention
to symbolism and corporate communication, excluding the contribution of the concept of
reputation (Balmer, 2001).

Indeed, there is no universal definition or construct of corporate identity in the current

literature. Regardless of the existing corporate identity models, what defines corporate identity is
unclear, since different authors use parameters interchangeably and proceed to form corporate
identity constructs that only scratch the surface of the concept. Despite the attention given to
corporate identity over the past twenty years, an acceptable corporate identity construct is highly
debatable, and academics and practitioners have been unable to define the concept precisely.
Corporate identity as a concept encapsulates numerous variables which, based on their
properties, linkage and placement within the concept, attempt to identify and depict the corporate
identity context. The concept is difficult to standardize because of the variety of its constituent
elements and the lack of consensus among researchers and practitioners. This is due to the
interchangeable use of some variables and the fact that researchers interpret corporate identity
variables in a variety of ways.
The formulation of the upcoming six station corporate identity model followed Churchills
(1979) paradigm to specify domain and the generation of items. A detailed literature review was
undertaken to identify the dimensions constituting corporate identity. The literature review was
not limited to corporate identity literature, but also included disciplines underpinning corporate
identity such as leadership, marketing, advertising, branding, strategy, stakeholders theory, group
dynamics and digital communication.
During the literature review several parameters were identified and examined. These will be
discussed in no particular order of importance.
An initial focus concerning the concept of corporate identity was that effective, facilitative
leadership, exercised by skillful top management who forge the companys vision, mission and
values, along with suitable corporate identity objectives is vital. Senior management plays a
crucial role in setting values, attitudes and ideas, which will be reflected in administrative

policies influencing corporate identity. Top managers encounter multiple roles introduced by
different organizational members whose behavior patterns alter. These changes create revolving
attitudes and roles, either insider-employee or outsider-customer, which have an effect on
organizational identity and image (Hatch and Schultz, 1997). Every organization is required to
have a strategic vision to guide it in policy development and its daily activities, and it should
contain enough detail to hold stakeholders accountable in the years to come (Lucas, 1998). On
the other hand, mission statements should communicate the description and image of the
organization, which will enable current and prospective employees, customers, investors and
other constituencies to determine their affiliations with the organization (Bartkus, Glasman and
McAfee, 2000).
Furthermore, defining an organizations primary values is the vital step to a value-based
culture approach where values must be embedded in the corporate mission and vision of the
organization (Begley and Boyd, 2000).
Upon examining strategy, it became apparent that strategy results from consensus among top
executives interacting with each strategic unit. Corporate strategy is used by the marketing
department to devise a brand or product strategy. Abratt (1989) believes that corporate strategy
lies within the personality of the organization. It is the strategy process which stays in line with
the personality, while the strategy content may change often. (in Markwick and Fill, 1997). Olins
(1989), along with the strategy scholars Gray and Smeltzer (1985), argues that identity is an
integral part of strategy by rendering it visible through design.
The concept of branding is considered to be directly related to the concept of corporate
identity since it is alleged that corporate brand must be viewed as both an organizing move that
helps to form an organizations values and culture (Mitchell, 1999), and as a strategic tool of
management, which can direct the organizational processes that generate and support value

creation (Urde, 1999). Corporate branding determines the strategic direction for an organizations
activities, offering consistency via the connection between positioning, communication and
employee working behavior (de Chernatony, 1999).
Finally, according to de Chernatony and McDonald (2000), marketing should be considered
the process of managing a companys marketing assets. Marketing assets are considered to be
those assets that maintain value and contribute directly or indirectly to profitable sales in the long
or short run. Managing marketing assets effectively, the company can build successful marketing
strategies and a unique corporate identity.
An examination of visual identity revealed that an organizations visual identity is the outer
sign of inward commitment that includes product, environment and communication, since there
are five major components of a corporate visual identity system: its name, logotype or symbol,
typography, color and slogan (Melewar, 2001). The center of a firms image is their corporate
visual identity system (Dowling, 1994; Olins, 1989) and standardized Corporate Visual Identity
Systems achieve communications benefits that extend beyond the traditional marketing context
(Melewar and Saunders, 1998).
The systematic use and exposure of corporate identity, utilizing marketing and advertising,
assist in increasing public awareness about the company, since over the long term, a companys
corporate identity tends to affect the publics perception of the firm (Alessandri, 2001).
The impact of communication on the entire organization, both stakeholders and the company
staff, is closely monitored and considered in the corporate identity context. Ind (1992) describes
corporate communication as the process which translates corporate identity into image (in
Markwick and Fill, 1997: 400) in his attempt to establish the link between corporate
communication and identity image by aligning the organizations cue process towards companys
different constituencies. Moreover, van Riel (1995) perceives corporate communication as a

combination of three major elements: management, marketing and organization communication.

Markwick and Fill (1997), based on van Riels (1995) explanations, state that marketing and
organization communication tend to explain the communication link between identity and image
and between image and strategic management, while management communication forms part of
the link between personality and identity and between strategic management and both personality
and identity. Corporate communication is the in which a companys philosophy is effectively
conveyed to all its stakeholders and simultaneously reveals its corporate culture.
Examining staff as a major variable to the concept of corporate identity, it seems evident that a
major element of an organizations identity is in the values of the personnel (Balmer and Wilson,
1998). Personnel behavior has a dynamic effect on an organizations corporate identity (van Riel
and Balmer, 1997). Corporate identity thus demonstrates an organizations unique characteristics
rooted in and affiliated with the behavioral patterns of its employees (Balmer and Wilson, 1998).
The human factor and the concept of corporate identity are closely related. The human
element contributes to the formation of a corporate ethos. The values, attitudes and opinions of
internal and external stakeholders influence the way a corporation can convey its identity.
Many corporations are releasing an increasing amount of information to the market in order to
better communicate with stakeholders, since organizations feel more transparent when revealing
their corporate social performance (Swift 2001). It is known that effective management of an
organizations identity achieves favorable corporate image, excellent reputation, satisfied and
fulfilled stakeholders (Balmer and Wilson, 1998). Stakeholders identify and perceive a
companys organizational entity in terms of its image projection (van Rekom1997). As such, it is
important to consider the attitudes or behavior of the organization and the managers towards
stakeholders.

Finally, Markwick and Fill (1997) observe that corporate identity is obtained through
understanding an organization's personality and its corporate values. Balmer (1996) states that a
company acquires identity only after its values combine to form its personality. By acquiring a
good reputation, a company has competitive advantage over its rivals (Balmer 2001). Barich and
Kotler (1991) note that consumers' beliefs, attitudes and impressions create a concept of 'image'
and contribute to a companys reputation. Furthermore, Fombrun (1996) states that reputation is
formed by the production of different images, whereas corporate reputation represents the net
affective or emotional reaction of customers, investors, employees and the general public to the
companys name. Actually, reputation is the accumulation of corporate images over time.
Lastly, Ind (1990) states that corporate image is the picture that the public or certain
audiences have of an organization through the accumulation of all messages received, while
Stuart (1998) suggests that corporate image is all perceptions collected concerning an
organization, which facilitate public knowledge of the organization and thus display corporate
identity.
Based on the literature review, the six-station model portrayed in diagram 1 was posited as
reflecting the process of creating and managing corporate identity. The corporate identity model
is made up of six-stations, each of which is composed of three corporate elements. Although all
stations are independent, each station interacts with the others to form a corporate neural
network. Identity formation involves cognitive and affective components (cf Kunde 1999). The
model depicts an aggregate of business tasks and interlinked synergies.
The first station is the Head Station, which incorporates the elements of top management,
mission, vision values, and the leadership style of the company. The Strategy Station and its
mechanisms revolve around Corporate Strategy, Brands/Products & Services and the role of
Marketing. Station three, the Creativity Station (Visual Identity, Corporate Visual Identity

Systems, Advertising), incorporates the necessary corporate creativity functions and their
evolution and interrelation with corporate advertising. The Communication Station (External,
Internal and Digital Communication) is the fourth station. It is characterized by the establishment
of multidimensional communication channels both for the transmission and reception of
information. Stakeholders, the Organizations Staff and Group Dynamism are the corporate
elements which comprise the Human Corporate Power Station. In the Critical Triplet Station
(Corporate Reputation, Image, Personality) the formulation of a companys corporate personality,
reputation and image is judged by external stakeholders. The components of this station reach out
to external stakeholders.
Diagram 1 here

Assessing the Model: Research Design

After devising the model, a dual research technique including qualitative and quantitative
methods for triangulation purposes, was used to investigate the models applicability. Firms with
annual sales revenues of approximately 800 million to 1 billion were randomly selected so
that their approach to corporate identity management could be investigated by interviewing their
top managers. The reason for this was that such relatively large firms would have qualified and
experienced managers that would respond to the questionnaire and take it seriously.
Triangulating findings offers precise and reliable results and explanations (Gable 1994;
Kaplan and Duchon 1988; Markus 1997; Minger 2001; Lee 1991). The goal of mixed methods
research is not to replace either of these approaches, but rather to draw from the strengths and
minimize the weaknesses of both in a single research study and across studies.

Qualitative Research and Findings

In the qualitative research, purposeful sampling (Patton 1990) was employed. In-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted with 28 corporate identity consultants and business
managers (appendix 1). This sample was selected from highly reputable companies operating in
Greece in manufacturing, commerce, industry and services and the interviewees were CEOs,
General Managers, corporate identity managers, marketing managers, advertising managers and
human resources managers. The respondents provided a foundation for the initial stage of the
research, giving a good indication of issues relating to corporate identity through their response to
the questionnaire.
The model was presented so that they could comment on its managerial applicability.
Interviews were recorded, transcribed and content analysis was performed with two researchers
following the accepted practice (Krippendorff 1980; Miles and Huberman 1994). Emergent
coding was used to evaluate responses, and categories were established following preliminary
examination of the data. Some broad descriptive codes were redefined further, and more
indicative sub-codes within these were developed as the researchers were acquainted further with
the data. Inter-researcher differences were resolved through discussion as suggested by Miles and
Huberman (1994). Inter-coder reliability was calculated at 89%.
Content analysis revealed that the model was regarded as useful and having managerial
applicability, although business managers would prefer more training and guidance on how to use
the model. Some disagreement was expressed, but this was limited to requests for a step by step
methodology on how to use the model in vivo. Finally, the model was perceived as being
representative of corporate identity and as clearly depicting the concept of corporate identity.
Respondents felt the model presented the numerous components of corporate identity in an
interlinked, holistic manner

Depiction of Corporate Identity

Corporate identity consultants seemed to be satisfied with the models effective depiction of
the concept of corporate identity. The following theme emerged which justified the above
perception:

An Integrated model
The corporate identity consultants regarded the six station corporate model as an integrated
and holistically efficient model. A Communications Manager noted the importance of the
analytical model structure and its completeness, stating the model is quite analytical and
includes all-important factors that contribute to building corporate identity. A Marketing
Consultant highlighted and supported the presence of all pertinent variables critical to the concept
of corporate identity by pointing out that this model lists all variables, or parameters, of
corporate identity. The model presents the concept in a holistic and integrated manner.
The business managers and executives expressed very open opinions about this question and
the majority was of the view that the model reflects clearly the concept of corporate identity. The
following theme emerged:
Concept of corporate identity is depicted holistically and in a synergistic manner
The corporate identity consultants and the business executives expressed the view that the
model clearly depicts the concept of corporate identity in a holistic and synergistic manner. More
specifically, the CEO of a well-known trade company stated that the model, synergistically
depicts the entire concept of corporate identity in a unique manner. The General Manager of a
manufacturing company stated that the model depicts accurately the concept of corporate

identity in a holistic manner, since all of its parameters are known to participate in the formation
and management of corporate identity.
Respondents accepted that the six stations of the model, with their elements, reflect the
fundamentals of corporate identity. The consultants and business managers did not express
concerns about inadequacy of the model.

Model Applicability.
The purpose of examining the applicability of this model was to define firstly, the degree of
appropriateness as far as the concept of corporate identity is concerned, secondly, to identify how
receptive business stakeholders are to the model, and thirdly, how the model is perceived by
managers and employees. The comments received from the sample presented a wide range of
opinions.
The discussion with the consultants revealed a number of themes:
Ease of Implementation
The comments from the business consultants were vague, brief but positive. For example one CEO stated
that Taking for granted that it is a valid model and fits with reality, this appears to be a model rather
easily put into practice. The observations are in line with Albers (2000) position that there is a need to
develop models that fit business realities and are responsive and adaptable. A Creative Director stated that
the model, despite its unavoidable complexity, can be easily put into practice, while a Public Relations
Manager declared that the model appears to be workable, although in most cases in reality the
interrelations and interactions between all the factors depicted in the diagram are much more complex and
require intensive work. Finally, a Communications Consultant stated that the model is easy to put into
practice Up to Stage 3 but he fails to indicate why he perceived complexity and difficulty for the rest of
the model.

Applicable when managed by experienced managers

Corporate identity consultants highlighted the necessity of having experienced managers to
facilitate applicability, adoption and implementation. Specifically a Creative Director thoughts
that the model appeared to be applicable for managers and for communications experts, but
inapplicable for middle managers who do not have the time or inclination to study and understand
the entire model process. The same attitude was conveyed by an HR manager who maintained
that the model was applicable but noted that experienced managers needed to undertake control.
He stated that the model is applicable when experienced managers handle it because it is
difficult to be operationalized by low level employees.

Guidelines and explanations facilitate increase applicability

Business managers and executives think that it would be easier to apply the model if
guidelines and specific explanations were supplied. A Financial Manager stated that the model
requires more explanations and guidelines for exploring the model components. More
specifically, the model requires the help of all company departments interaction in order to be
applied in a holistic manner. Only then will it be applicable. So explanations and the assistance
and guidance of experienced people will make it applicable.
The necessity of a tailor made, step-by-step methodology was an issue noted by a few business
managers. For example, one General Manager observed that regardless of how applicable the
model appears, a methodology must be introduced to facilitate the best application in the event
that there is lack of or limited expertise. The same opinion was voiced by a General Manager
who noted that the model looks applicable. But for the full utilization of this model, a clear
methodology will facilitate better implementation of applicability.

Quantitative Research - Data Analysis and Findings

The quantitative phase was based on a sample of corporate identity consultants, academics and
business managers who participated in the study.
The quantitative research design was based on the testing of a population which has a stake in
the determination of what corporate identity means and how corporations go about achieving a
positive corporate identity. This population consisted of consultants specializing in corporate
identity and corporate executives.
It included two research phases. Firstly respondents were presented with the six-station
model. Secondly these respondents completed a self administered questionnaire regarding the
applicability of the model. The items in the questionnaire were developed from previous research
conducted by Kennedy (1977), Stuart (1998) and Greyser (1999) and feedback from the
qualitative research stage. A five-point scale (1: strongly disagree to 5: strongly agree) was used.
A pilot study was undertaken with 15 business executives and corporate identity consultants who
offered well-justified changes refining the questionnaire. Alpha coefficients were calculated for
the total number of items as well as for the items of each of the six stations whose values
exceeded 0.60 (Nunally 1967) ( alpha = 0.97, 12 general items: alpha=0.89, 19 items of station-1:
alpha=0.89, 15 items of station-2: apha=0.86, 9 items of station-3: apha=0.86, 8 items of station4: apha=0.79, 8 items of station-5: apha=0.84, 15 items of station-6: apha=0.91).
Nunally (1967) argues that in the early stages of basic research reliabilities of 0.50 to 0.60 are
sufficient. In this particular study, alpha coefficients were calculated for each of the scale
components. Since all of the alpha coefficients exceeded 0.60 the instrument was deemed worthy
for further testing.
In order to identify firstly whether the six-station model reflected respondents perceptions
about the models appropriateness to facilitate creation and management of corporate identity and

second to provide an understanding of the structure of the variables as they were provided by the
interviewees, principal component analysis with varimax rotation was performed on the
quantitative data. Thus, using Churchills recommended last research testing stage. Bartletts Test
of Sphericity (5.663, sig. 0.0000) and the Kaiser Meyer Olkin test (0.611) indicates that the data
is suitable for this analysis.
It was expected that a large number of factors would arise due to the large number of variables
and the multidimensionality of the data. Based on the results, and taking into consideration the
observations, the number of variables involved in factor analysis was reduced.
More specifically, we excluded the variables which exhibited loadings less than 0.55 and/or
cross loading factors, i.e. loadings of relatively same value in more than one factor. Therefore,
following this procedure, the number of variables was progressively reduced from the initial set
of 74 variables to a final set of 21.
Factor analysis performed on the final set of 21 variables revealed a set of six factors. All
loadings, except one, exhibit values higher than 0.60.

Table 1 here
As it is a standard procedure followed by other researchers such as Stuart (1998), Simoes,
Dibb and Fisk (2005), Sabiote and Roman (2005), only those extracted factors accounting for a
notable percentage of total variance are reported.
The six factors shown below explain 68.16% of the total variance. Apart from the first factor
which explains 32.16% of total variance, the contribution of the rest 5 factors ranges from 9.9%
to 4.9%.

Table 2 here

Based upon the statistical analysis, six factors were derived from the samples responses
constructing a response-based model, which matches the structure of the theoretical six-station
model initially introduced. The extracted factors (table 1 Rotated Factor Matrix: Sorted Form of
Variables Loadings) identified and revealed their compatibility with stations and their elements
of the six-station model.
a) The Critical Triplet Factor, namely, corporate reputation, corporate image and corporate
personality.
b) The Strategy Factor, composed of corporate brands, corporate strategy and marketing.
c) The Head Factor, including mission, vision, values leadership and indirectly top
Management.
d) The Communication Factor, namely, traditional channels of communication along with
digital communication.
e) The Creativity Factor, comprising visual symbolism, corporate visual identity systems.
f) The Human Factor, composed of employees and stakeholders.

Following the identification of the factors, confirmatory factor analysis was undertaken to test
if the model fits the data. More specifically, we used the same set of data (n = 105) including
only 21 variables, which form the aforementioned six factors. A number of fit statistics were
estimated to test how well the six-factor model fits the data. Specifically, the following fit indices
showed acceptable levels of fit: Tucker-Lewis (TLI) = 0.97, Comparative fit Index (CFI) = 0.98,
and Bollen Fit Index (IFI) = 0.98. All indices present values greater that 0.95 indicating that the
model fits the data. Also, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) took a small
value of 0.03 which is acceptable. Lastly, the chi square criterion, which tests the hypothesis that
the model is consistent with the pattern of covariation among the observed variables, took a nonsignificant value (X2(174) = 192.73, p = 0.157) which supports the null hypothesis.

Factor Discussion
The first factor encapsulates a synthesis of three elements namely, corporate image, corporate
personality and corporate reputation. It was determined that outside forces affect and form
reputation, corporate image is the result of an aggregate process by which the public evaluates a
firm and still corporate image is the overall impression made on the public about the firm. Lastly,
noted that corporate personality interacts with all the other corporate identity variables.
The second factor introduces a series of elements namely, corporate brands, strategy and
marketing functions. This factor expressed the strategic synergy required between corporate
strategy, corporate brands and the marketing function in formulating the overall course of the
firms corporate strategy.
The third factor consists of issues related primarily to mission, vision, values, as well as to
the concept of leadership to emphasize the importance of the role of the top management. All
these elements reveal an interlinked relationship and a synergistic task functioning. The bonding
relationship communicates the interdependence of the elements.
The fourth factor indicates that the model shows the relations between digital and other forms
of communication and also that the model is aware that the internet may be important for a
business to develop its corporate identity. More specifically, the dimension of digital
communication tends to substitute and support the external communication element to a great
extent, since digital communication and more specifically the internet in its various forms tends
to fulfill a substantial part of the functionalities and properties of external communication. On the
other hand, traditional communication forms include all marketing functions that serve as
mediums for conducting and initiating external as well as internal communication purposes.

The fifth factor emphasizes the importance of visual identity symbolism and corporate visual
identity systems, which highlight the direct interrelation of these elements. The evolution of the
traditional concept of corporate symbolism to the advancement and implementation of corporate
visual identity systems was conveyed in this factor.
The sixth factor indicates the physical presence and participation of the staff in the entire
model. The direct involvement of the employees is acknowledged in this model because nothing
functions without the intervention of the human factor. The human factor in this model can be
detected under different roles, executing various activities.

Table 3 here
The integrative nature of these six factors reflects most of the fundamentals of the corporate
identity concept. The literature supports the structure of the six- station model. More specifically,
Birkigt and Stadler (1988), Schmidt (1995) and Balmer and Soenen (1997) introduced models
that included some parameters that were identical to those of the six station corporate identity
model. Other corporate identity models also exhibit similarities with the six-station model (e.g.
Abratt, 1989; Dowling, 1986; Stuart, 1999; Markwick and Fill, 1997; Allessandri, 2001) and
include similar parameters but in a more expansive manner.

Managerial Implications
Although research into corporate identity modeling has been undertaken by academics and
practitioners, the evolution of the subject will require substantial effort to promote its significance
and importance in the corporate world. The concept of corporate identity is often overlooked and
is only examined negative signs necessitate the practice of corporate remedies. The managerial

implications of this research address the following important issues related to corporate identity
and modeling:
The idea of managing corporate identity requires a firm understanding of exactly what we
intend to pursue and what behavioral and non-behavioral synergies are needed. For a manager to
work towards creating and managing corporate identity is comparable to managing for high
efficiency, optimizing efforts and outcomes. Managers must know what organizational attributes
are most desirable and valued by internal and external stakeholders and which contribute to
desirable organizational ends. The six-station model incorporates all these aspects, allowing
management to proceed with confidence in implementing the model.
The new model demands concentration on the production of synergies within the organization.
This model of corporate identity involves thinking of it in terms of an integrated system of
mutually activated synergies to confront the endogenous and exogenous forces impacting the
corporate identity concept. It is the synergistic idiosyncrasy of the model to attain sustainability
and consistency with regard to the management of corporate identity programs rather than
focusing on dogmatic, one way and ephemeral solutions. The model suggests that centralized
management will be needed to ensure that the model functions well. One possible benefit derived
from a centralized approach will be increased control over the behavior of the internal and
external stakeholders.
The implementation of the six-station model constitutes a feasible approach to creating and
managing corporate identity and generating value and trust in the company. Firstly, conveying
corporate identity is like developing an exchange relationship with all stakeholders. Secondly,
management should observe and monitor individual employee contribution to the management of
corporate identity. Thirdly, the six-station model calls for the initiation and adaptation of an
empowerment program among all internal stakeholders and employees.

The management of corporate identity differs from one corporation to the other. Managers
must be able to relate to the model so that they feel comfortable dealing with it and more
specifically so that it fits their corporate environment and business case. The elaboration of model
variables to produce manageable data is a key goal. Every variable is structured to present and
maintain its own complexity, framework, idiosyncrasy, contribution and peculiarity to the
corporate identity model. It is up to management to define an evaluation system based on a
continual monitoring of the variables related to corporate identity and to define the impact of all
and each of them separately. The six-station corporate identity model offers this capability of
examining each variable separately in terms of defining their impact on corporate identity.

Conclusions
The model urges managers to identify the multidimensionality of their corporate identity and
manage this from a systems perspective, recognizing the manner in which changes in one
variable affects others. The model also calls for a new multi-knowledgeable manager who can
cope with ever changing corporate challenges and corporate identity management. The model
highlights the areas that must be looked at and directs the manager to adopt the segmented model
approach to pursue the formation and management of corporate identity. The integrative nature of
the model and the dynamism of its variables encourages managers constantly to appraise the
internal and external environment, benchmarking performance against expectations through
continuous evaluation. Managers could utilize the qualitative and quantitative research
instruments from this study to design their own tools to evaluate the suitability of their corporate
identity.
Research findings verified the existence of the six-station model. It is believed that we have
posited an applicable, robust and dynamic corporate identity model for managers to use it.

Appendix 1.
Number of companies and employee titles Qualitative Research.
Consulting Companies
CEO
General Manager
Marketing Oriented Consultant
Communication Oriented Consultant
Public Relations Managers Consultants
Design Creative director
Total

3
3
2
1
1
1
1
9

Firms
CEO
General Manager
Marketing Manager
Sales Manager
Financial Managers
HRD Managers

7
4
3
3
3
3
3
19

Appendix 2
Description and alignment of the Extracted Factors
Factor 1 - aligned to Station 6 of the 6-station model The Critical Triplet Factor
v80_s6e2. The model shows that corporate image is the result of an aggregate process by
which the public evaluates a firm
v81_s6e2. The model emphasizes that corporate image is the overall impression made
on the public about the firm
v75_s6e1. The model includes the consideration of outside forces affecting reputation
v82_s6e2. The model emphasizes the importance of the entire companys work force in
the creation of corporate image
v84s6e3. The model includes a consideration of the importance of corporate personality
v85_s6e3. The interaction between corporate personality and other corporate identity
variables is clear in the model
Factor 2 - aligned with Station 2 of the 6-station model The Strategy Factor
V35_s2e1. The model emphasizes the relevance of developing a branding strategy as
part of a corporate strategy.
v37_s2e1. Relationship between corporate strategy and marketing product/services is
clearly represented in the model.
v34_s2e1. The model shows that brands should be linked to vision, values and
companys corporate culture.
v36_s2e1. The model shows that brands contribute to the perception of a companys
identity.
v46_s2e3. The model points out that marketing strategy is part of corporate strategy
Factor 3 - aligned with Station 1 of the 6-station model The Head Factor
v20_s1e1. The model emphasizes that the vision of a company should be evaluated regularly.
v41_s2e2. The model highlights that a firms values should be fundamental to corporate
success
v22_s1e1. The model emphasizes the relationship between corporate identity and
leadership
v14_sle1. The model reflects all variables, which are relevant for the mission of a
corporation.
Factor 4 - aligned with Station 4 of the 6-station model The Communication Factor
v62_s4e3. The model is aware that the internet may be important for the business to
develop their corporate identity.
v63_s3e2. The model shows the relations between digital and other forms of
communication.
Factor 4 - aligned with Station 3 of the 6-station model The Creativity Factor
v50_s3e2. That a firm should effectively use the aspect of Corporate Visual Identity
Systems standardization to project its identity is evident in the model
v51_s3e2. The model stresses that a firm must always use corporate visual identity
systems to widen the communications mix
Factor 6 - aligned with Station 5 of the 6-station model The Human Factor
v70_s5e3. The importance of stakeholders to corporate identity is evident in the model
v71_s5e3. The model shows that company employees and stakeholders should interact
regularly.

References
Abratt Russel. (1989), A new Approach to the Corporate Image Management
Process, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Albers, S. (2000), Impacts of types of functional relationships, decisions, and solutions
on the applicability of marketing models, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 2/3, pp.169-175
Alessandri, Sue Wescott. (2001), Modeling corporate identity: A concept explication
and theoretical explanation, Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.173-182
Balmer, J. M. T. (1996), The nature of Corporate Identity: an explanatory study
Undertaken within BBC Scotland, Unpublished PhD. Thesis, University of
Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Balmer, John. M. T. (2001), Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate
marketing: Seeing through the fog, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No.
3/4 , pp. 248-291
Balmer, J. M. T. and Soenen, G.B. (1997), Operationalizing the Concept of Corporate
Identity: Articulating the Corporate Identity Mix and the Corporate Identity
Management Mix, International Center for Corporate Identity Studies, Working
Paper Series
Balmer, J. M. T. and Wilson, A. (1998), Corporate identity: There is more to
it than meets the eye, International Studies of Management and Organizations,
Vol. 28, Issue 3, pp. 12-31

Barich, H. and Kotler, P. (1991), A framework for marketing image

management, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32, Issue 2,
Winter, pp. 94-105.
Bartkus, B., Glassman, M. and MacAfee, R. B. (2000), Mission Statements:
Are they Smoke and Mirrors?, Business Horizons, Vol. 43,
Issue 6, pp. 23-29
Begley, T. M. and Boyd, D. P. (2000), Articulating Corporate Values through
Human Resources Policies, Business Horizons, Vol. 43, Issue 4,
pp. 53-73
Bernstein, D. (1984), Company Image and Reality: A critique of Corporate
Communication, London: Cassel Ltd.
Birkigt, K. and Stadler, M. M. (1988), Corporate identity, Grundlagen,
Funktionen. Fallspiellen, Verlag Moderne Industrie, Landberg am Lech
Blauw, E . (1995), Het Corporate Image, vierde geheel herziene druk, De Viergang,
msterdam. In C.B.M. van Riel (ed.), Principles of Corporate
Communication. London: Prentice Hall
Bromley, D. B. (2001), Relationships between personal and corporate reputation,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 3/4, pp. 316-334
Churchill, Jr., G.A. (1979), A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, XVI: 64-73

Cornelissen, J. and Elving, w. J. L. (2003), Managing corporate identity:

an integrativeframework of dimensions and determinants,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, vol. 8 no. 2, pp. 114-20
de Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M. (2000), 2nd ed. Creating Powerful
Brands in consumer, service and industrial Markets. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann
de Chernatony, L. (1999), Brand management through narrowing the gap
between brand identity and brand reputation, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 15, No. 1-3, pp. 157-79
Dowling, G. R. (1986), Managing your Corporate Images Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 15, Issue 2, pp.109 115
Dowling, G. R. (1994), Corporate Reputations: Strategies for Developing the Corporate
Brand. London: Kogan Page.
Erikson, E. H. (1960), The Problem of Ego Identity, In Identity and Anxiety.
Eds. Maurice M. Stein, Arthur J. Vidich, and David Manning White.
London: Free Press, Collier-Macmillan, pp. 37-87
Fombrun, C. J. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Gable, G., (1994), Integrating Case Study and Survey Research Methods: An example in
information Systems, European Journal of Information
Systems, Vo.3, No. 2, pp. 112-126
Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The discovery of grounded theory.
Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company

Gray, E.R. and Smeltzer, L.R. (1985), SMR Forum corporate image an
integral part of strategy, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 26, Issue 4
pp. 73-78
Greyser, A. S. (1999), Advancing and enhancing corporate reputation
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4,
pp. 177-181
Hatch, Mary Jo. and Schultz, Majken. (1997), Relations between organizational
culture, identity and image., European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31,
No. 5/6, pp. 356-365
Ind, N. (1990), The Corporate Image. Strategies for Effective identity Programmes.
London: Kogan Page
Ind, N. (1992), Corporate Image, (Revised ed.). London: Kogan Page
Kaplan, B., and Duchon, D. (1988), Combining qualitative methods in information
research systems: A case study, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12, Issue 4, pp. 571-588
Kennedy, S. H. (1977), Nurturing Corporate Images, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.120 164
Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology.
Newbury Park, CD: Sage
Kunde, J. (1999), Corporate Religion, Pearson Education: Harlow
Lee, A. S. (1991), Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to
Organizational Research, Organizational Science, Vol. 2, pp. 342-365

Lucas, J. (1998), Anatomy of a vision statement Management Review,

Vol. 87, Issue 2, pp22-27
Markus, M.L. (1997), The Qualitative Difference in Information Systems
Research and Practice. In information Systems and Qualitative Research. A.S.
Lee, J. Liebenau and J.I. DeGross (eds). London: Chapman and
Hall pp. 11-27
Markwick, Nigel and Fill, Chris. (1997), Towards a framework for managing
corporate identity, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, Issue 5/6,
pp. 396-410.
Melewar T.C. and Jenkins E. (2002), Defining the Corporate Identity Construct,
Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 76-90
Melewar, T.C. (2001), Measuring visual identity: a multi-construct study,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1,
pp. 36-41
Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J. (1998), Global corporate visual identity systems
Standardization, control and benefits, International Marketing Review,
Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 291-308
Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An
Expanded Sourcebook, Sage Publications, London
Minger, J. (2001), Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist
Methodology, Information Systems Research, Vol. 12, Issue 3, pp. 244-259
Mitchell, A. (1994), Marketings new model army, Management Today,
March 43-9

Nunally, Jum C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill

Otubajo, O. B. and Melewar T.C. (2007). Understanding the meaning of corporate
identity: a conceptual and semiological approach. Corporate Communications:
An International journal vol. 12. No. 4 . pp. 414-432
Patton, M. Q. (1990), Quantitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed.,
Newberry Park: Sage Publication
Olins, W. (1989), Corporate Identity: Making Business Strategy Visible Through
Design.

London: Thames and Hudson

Sabiote-Fernandez, E. and Romam, S. (2005), Organizational citizenship

behavior, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 47,
Issue 3, pp. 163-83
Schmidt, K. (1995), The quest for identity: Corporate identity, strategies, methods
and examples, Cassell, London
Simoes, C.; Dibb, S.; Fisk, P.R (2005), Managing Corporate Identity: An Internal
Perspective, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33, No. 2,
pp. 153-168
Smidts, A., van Riel, C. B. H., and Pruyn, H. (1998), The Impact of Employee
Communication and External Prestige on Organizational Identification,
working paper, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Stuart, H. (1994), Exploring the Corporate Identity / Corporate Identity
Management Paper presented at the Department of marketings first
Symposium on corporate identity management, University of
Strathclyde

Stuart, Helen. (1998), Exploring the Corporate Identity / Corporate Image

Interface: An empirical study of accountancy firm, Journal of
Communication Management, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.357-373
Stuart, H. (1999), Towards a definitive model of the corporate identity
management Process, Corporate Communications : An International Journal
Vol. 4, Issue 4, pp. 200-207
Swift, T. (2001), Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders,
Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp.16-27
Urde, M. (1999), Brand orientation: a mindset of building brands into strategic
resources, Journal of Marketing Management , Vol. 15, pp. 117-133
van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication Prentice-Hall
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
van Riel, Cees B.M and Balmer, John M.T. (1997), Corporate identity: The concept
its measurement and management, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31,
Issue 5/6, pp. 340-356
van Rekom, Johan. (1997), Deriving a operational measure of corporate identity,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, Issue 5/6, pp. 410-421
Yukl, G. A. (1989), Leadership in Organizations, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall
Zinkhan, G. M., Jaiskankur, Anumpam Jaju and Linda Hayes (2001), Corporate
Image: A Conceptual Framework for Strategic Planning. In Enhancing
Knowledge Development in Marketing, Vol. 12, Eds. Greg Marshall and
Stephen Grove. Chicago: American Marketing Association

Figures and Tables

Figure 1
Six-Station Corporate Identity Model

Table 1.

Variables
v80_s6e2
v81_s6e2
v75_s6e1
v82_s6e2
v84_s6e3
v85_s6e3

v35_s2e1
v37_s2e1
v34_s2e1
v36_s2e1
v46_s2e3
v20_s1e1
v41_s2e2
v22_s1e1
v14_s1e1

v62_s4e3
v63_s4e3

Table 1. Rotated Factor Matrix: Sorted Form of Variables Loadings

Factor 1
The model shows that corporate image is the result of an aggregate process by which
the public evaluates a firm
The model emphasizes that corporate image is the overall impression made on the
public about the firm
The model includes the consideration of outside forces affecting reputation
The model emphasizes the importance of the entire companys work force in the
creation of corporate image
The model includes a consideration of the importance of corporate personality
The interaction between corporate personality and other corporate identity variables
is clear in the model
Factor 2
The model emphasizes the relevance of developing a branding strategy as part of a
corporate strategy.
Relationship between corporate strategy and marketing product/services is clearly
represented in the model.
The model shows that brands should be linked to vision, values and companys
corporate culture.
The model shows that brands contribute to the perception of a companys identity.
The model points out that marketing strategy is part of corporate strategy
Factor 3
The model emphasizes that the vision of a company should be evaluated regularly.
The model highlights that a firms values should be fundamental to corporate
success
The model emphasizes the relationship between corporate identity and leadership
The model reflects all variables, which are relevant for the mission of a
corporation.
Factor 4

The model is aware that the internet may be important for the business to
develop their corporate identity.
The model shows the relations between digital and other forms of
communication.

0.881
0.799
0.752
0.731
0.688
0.611

0.743
0.738
0.693
0.664
0.598
0.748
0.743
0.742
0.625

0.861
0.856

Factor 5
v50_s3e2
v51_s3e2

That a firm should effectively use the aspect of Corporate Visual Identity
Systems standardization to project its identity is evident in the model
The model stresses that a firm must always use corporate visual identity
systems to widen the communications mix

0.842
0.807

Factor 6
v70_s5e3
v71_s5e3

The importance of stakeholders to corporate identity is evident in the model

The model shows that company employees and stakeholders should interact
regularly.

0.851
0.609

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a) Rotation converged in 6 iterations

Table 2

Factor
Eigenvalue
1
2
3
4
5
6

6.756
2.082
1.841
1.410
1.187
1.039

Table 2. Total Variance Explained

Initial Eigenvalues
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
% of Variance
Cumulative %
Total
% of Variance
Cumulative %
32.169
9.912
8.768
6.713
5.651
4.946

32.169
42.081
50.849
57.562
63.213
68.159

Total number of variables: 21

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

3.962
2.825
2.386
1.839
1.745
1.556

18.865
13.453
11.361
8.759
8.310
7.411

18.865
32.318
43.679
52.439
60.748
68.159

Table 3
Table 3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Factor /
Variable
Critical Triplet
v80_s6e2
v81_s6e2
v75_s6e1
v82_s6e2
v84_s6e3
v85_s6e3

Factor Description

The model shows that corporate image is the result of an aggregate process by
which the public evaluates a firm
The model emphasizes that corporate image is the overall impression made
on the public about the firm
The model includes the consideration of outside forces affecting reputation
The model emphasizes the importance of the entire companys work force
in the creation of corporate image
The model includes a consideration of the importance of corporate
personality
The interaction between corporate personality and other corporate identity
variables is clear in the model

Factor
Loadings

0.835
0.849
0.697
0.792
0.690
0.682

Strategy
v35_s2e1
v37_s2e1
v34_s2e1
v36_s2e1
v46_s2e3
Head
v20_s1e1
v41_s2e2
v22_s1e1
v14_s1e1
Communication
v62_s4e3
v63_s4e3
Creativity
v50_s3e2
v51_s3e2
Human

The model emphasizes the relevance of developing a branding strategy as

part of a corporate strategy.
Relationship between corporate strategy and marketing product/services is
clearly represented in the model.
The model shows that brands should be linked to vision, values and
companys corporate culture.
The model shows that brands contribute to the perception of a companys
identity.
The model points out that marketing strategy is part of corporate strategy
The model emphasizes that the vision of a company should be evaluated
regularly.
The model highlights that a firms values should be fundamental to
corporate success
The model emphasizes the relationship between corporate identity and
leadership
The model reflects all variables, which are relevant for the mission of a
corporation.
The model is aware that the internet may be important for the business to
develop their corporate identity.
The model shows the relations between digital and other forms of
communication.
That a firm should effectively use the aspect of Corporate Visual Identity
Systems standardization to project its identity is evident in the model
The model stresses that a firm must always use corporate visual identity
systems to widen the communications mix

The importance of stakeholders to corporate identity is evident in the

model
The model shows that company employees and stakeholders should
v71_s5e3
interact regularly.
Model Summary Statistics: X2(174) = 192.731, p = 0.157, TLI = 0.97,
CFI = 0.98, IFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.03. All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.05
v70_s5e3

0.717
0.682
0.624
0.631
0.679

0.718
0.545
0.827
0.405

0.734
0.901

0.834
0.783

0.576
0.780