LIT REVIEW

Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 165–171

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Building bank brands: How leadership behavior influences employee commitment☆

Elaine Wallace a,⁎, Leslie de Chernatony b,c,1, Isabel Buil d,2

a National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland b Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland c Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK d Department of Marketing Management, University of Zaragoza, Spain

☆ The authors acknowledge the financial support of t tiative, Strand 2 (Ref: RCS 258) from the Irish Researc and Social Sciences, the I+D+I project (Ref: ECO2009 of Spain and the project “GENERES” (Ref: S-09) from t the European Social Fund. The authors would also like viewers, the participants of the 7th Thought Leaders in B and in particular Eva Martinez for their helpful commen ⁎ Corresponding author at: J. E. Cairnes School of Bu

University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland. Tel.: +353 91 49 E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E. W

[email protected] (L. de Chernatony), ibuil 1 Fax: +44 121 204 4917. 2 Tel.: +34 976761000; fax: +34 976761767.

0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.07.009

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 1 May 2011 Received in revised form 1 October 2011 Accepted 1 December 2011 Available online 24 August 2012

Keywords: Banking Brands Employees Leadership behavior Commitment

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 em- ployee commitment and brand supporting behaviors. This study examines the nature of employee commit- ment 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.

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

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 ser- vice 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”.

he Research Development Ini- h Council for the Humanities -08283) from the Government he Government of Aragon and to thank the anonymous re-

rand Management Conference, ts on this paper. siness & Economics, National 2603; fax: +353 91 494560. allace), @unizar.es (I. Buil).

rights reserved.

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 ser- vice 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 consti- tutes 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

166 E. Wallace et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 165–171

commitment in retail banking, adopting the three-component concep- tualization 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 distin- guishes 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.

2. Conceptual framework

2.1. Employee commitment and successful bank brands

Morgan and Hunt (1994) explore the concept of employee com- mitment within their conceptualization of commitment–trust. Com- mitted employees are less likely to leave, are more motivated and they are more likely to engage in organizational citizenship behaviors (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Such behaviors are critical to achieving successful services brands and restoring consumer trust. Hansen et al. (2003) find that service customers attribute their experience to employees as well as to firms. They find that the relationship between the employee–customer bond and sustaining customer loyalty is greater than when managers increase switching costs. Committed employees are likely to live the brand and that sense of belonging is something employees buy into, reinforcing the brand message (Boyd & Sutherland, 2006).

Early studies about employee commitment (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974) define the concept as a uni-dimensional construct that describes employee identification with an organization. However, not all forms of employee commitment are alike (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). This study adopts Meyer and Allen's (1991) three-component model of employee commitment. Extant studies among front line services employees adopt the three-component model and argue for its use in studies of service employee attitudes (Clark, Hartline, & Jones, 2009; Malhotra & Mukherjee, 2004; Somers, 2009).

The three-component model of commitment comprises affective commitment (ACS), continuance commitment (CCS) and normative commitment (NCS) (Meyer & Allen, 1991). ACS is “an emotional attach- ment to, identification with and involvement in the organization” (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p. 67); CCS is “an awareness of the costs associat- ed with leaving the organization” (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p. 67), and NCS is “a feeling of obligation to continue employment” (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p. 67).

Each of the three components of commitment has different behav- ioral outcomes (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Positive outcomes, including citizenship and performance, arise from ACS and NCS (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2001; Somers, 2009; Strauss, Griffin, & Rafferty, 2009). Employees with high ACS are more likely to be spontaneous, proactive, and engage in behavior that will benefit the organization (Strauss et al., 2009). High levels of ACS also posi- tively relate with service quality and service recovery performance (Malhotra & Mukherjee, 2004). In banking, committed employees are more likely to accept a brand-supporting change such as the introduction of CRM (Shum, Bove, & Aug, 2008).

Extant literature calls for an avoidance of research considering only the influence of ACS on service employees' brand supporting be- havior (Benkhoff, 1997). For example, ACS and CCS are clearly distin- guished within the marketing literature: ACS “has its base in shared values, trust, benevolence and rationalism”, while CCS “is rooted in switching costs, sacrifice, lack of choice and dependence” (Fullerton, 2004, p. 1375). Of the three components of commitment, high levels of CCS are least likely to correlate with high levels of performance (Meyer & Allen, 1991). CCS associates with anti-brand behaviors or brand sabotage in retail banking (Wallace & de Chernatony, 2009).

Findings from these studies suggest that high levels of CCS would result in behavior that is counter to the service brand.

The literature suggests that the relationship between NCS and employee performance is positive, but more modest than ACS (Allen & Grisaffe, 2001). Employees with high NCS will perform more grudg- ingly than employees with high ACS, doing what they are obliged to do in their service roles, but no more (Allen & Grisaffe, 2001). Results from other studies are inconclusive; higher NCS has increased service performance in some studies (Meyer et al., 1993), yet had no effect on service performance in others (Caruana & Calleya, 1998). Therefore this research considers CCS and NCS as separate constructs to ACS.

2.2. Leadership behavior and employee commitment

Managers set a tone that influences the way employees feel about their employer, and consequently, the way they perform for and inter- act with customers (Allen & Grisaffe, 2001). The service-profit chain suggests that different leader behaviors will support or detract from brand-supporting service performance (Heskett, Jones, Loveman, Sasser, & Schlesinger, 1994). Heskett et al. (1994) advocate behavior that listens rather than manages, that is energetic rather than stately and that is participatory rather than removed. Vallaster and de Chernatony (2006) assert that brand-building leaders should be inte- grating forces mediating between corporate identity structures and scripts, and energizing brand building through employees. To encour- age brand adoption and emotional attachment with the organization, “employees need to see and ‘feel’ leadership's support of the brand… the human touch cannot be overemphasised” (Vallaster & de Chernatony, 2006, p. 776). Thus communicative leadership behavior harnesses commitment, and cultivates brand ambassadors.

Supporting the concept of human touch leadership, Ellinger, Ellinger, Hamlin, and Beattie (2009) specify the leadership behavior needed to fos- ter employee–organization relationships. They extol employee care over orders and blueprints (Ellinger et al., 2009). Mitchell (2002, p. 8) explains “employees deride internal marketing campaigns… (because) they are usually developed from on-high and seem out of touch with day-to-day business realities or, even worse, patronizing”.

Research by Taly, Kass, and Sahamir (2004) explores the relation- ship between leadership behavior and commitment. Examining the bond between leaders and followers, they distinguish between emotional commitment or ACS and cognitive commitment or CCS. They find that vision formulation supports ACS but does not relate to CCS, in the high-tech sector. Strauss et al. (2009) also find that sup- portive team leader behavior positively associates with employees' ACS, supporting greater employee proactivity.

This paper seeks to offer a contribution to the extant literature that highlights leaders as critical instruments in brand building by exploring the relationship between leadership behavior and the three-component model of employee commitment within the banking sector.

This study adopts the initiating structure and consideration leader- ship behaviors proposed by the Ohio State studies (Stogdill, 1963, 1969; Stogdill & Coons, 1957). Initiating structure (IS) is “the degree to which a leader defines and organises his role and the role of his followers, is oriented toward goal attainment and establishes well- established patterns and channels of communication” (Judge, Piccolo, & Iles, 2004, p. 36). Consideration is “the degree to which a leader shows concern and respect for followers, looks out for their welfare and expresses appreciation and support” (Judge et al., 2004, p. 36). Research has typically considered these dimensions as independent of each other (Reddin, 1970). Consideration may be a more appropriate leadership behavior to encourage ACS and NCS among front line employees within the service sector. Perceived leader support reduces employee conflict as employees perceive that they are empowered to accomplish their responsibilities (Coelho, Augusto, Coelho, & Sà, 2010). Consideration “lends congeniality to the work environment” (Dale & Fox, 2008, p. 112), enhancing social involvement and

167E. Wallace et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 165–171

strengthening a social bond among employees, which could facilitate adoption of the brand across teams. Caldwell and Dixon (2010) advo- cate leadership behaviors that encourage the heart and explain that leaders who treat others with dignity are more likely to see a pay-off in improved performance. Leaders who exude concern for employees engender commitment and encourage followers to emulate behaviors and adopt congruent values (Hoffman, Bynum, Piccolo, & Sutton, 2011). When leaders seek to foster brand support, considerate leader behavior supports the brand message through encouraging employee adoption of values and brand-supporting performance or brand cham- pionship where employees actively work to bring the brand message to life through their service encounter performance (Ind, 2004).

The following hypotheses synthesize the above arguments.

H1. A positive relationship exists between employee perceptions of leader consideration and affective commitment.

H2. A negative relationship exists between employee perceptions of leader consideration and continuance commitment.

H3. A positive relationship exists between employee perceptions of leader consideration and normative commitment.

The direction of the relationship between IS and commitment has conflicting findings in the literature. Dale and Fox (2008) find a posi- tive relationship between IS and considerate leadership behaviors and ACS. However, their study was in manufacturing. Other studies with salespersons (Agarwal & Ramaswami, 1993) find that the work required autonomy and independence and in that context IS does not foster ACS. Extant literature exploring the relationship between leadership and brand building in the services sector cautions against controlling, regimental leadership (Ellinger, Bas, Ellinger, Wang, & Bachrach, 2011; Mitchell, 2005; Vallaster & de Chernatony, 2006). Hence, IS leader behavior may reduce employee commitment to the organization, and consequently to living the brand.

H4. A negative relationship exists between employee perceptions of leader initiating structure and affective commitment.

H5. A positive relationship exists between employee perceptions of leader initiating structure and continuance commitment.

H6. A negative relationship exists between employee perceptions of leader initiating structure and normative commitment.

An exploration of the influence of leadership behavior on commit- ment needs to consider the managerial level of employees. Levels of seniority impact on the effect of leader behaviors on followers (Cole, Bruch, & Shamir, 2009), on the buffer provided by self-esteem levels during role conflict (Mossholder, Bedeian, & Armenakis, 1981) and on the relationship between organizational structure and perceived fairness (Schminke, Cropanzano, & Rupp, 2002). In addi- tion, employees' career stage influences their level of commitment (Kaur, Sandhu, & Kaur, 2010). Managers who have vested interest in the success of their team exhibit greater staying power (Tasa, Sears, & Schat, 2011). Employees who achieve seniority in banking are more likely to have higher ACS (Kaur et al., 2010). Similarly, CCS in- creases with promotion as employees gain benefits that they would lose if they left the organization (Kaur et al., 2010). NCS develops over time due to socialization effects (Kaur et al., 2010).

Therefore, this study explores whether employees' management level moderates the relationship between leader behavior and commitment.

3. Method

Gabbott and Jevons (2009) advocate exploring the interpretation of brands within a series of contexts. This study explores employee

attitudes within the banking context. Retail banking has notable economic significance in Ireland. Six percent of all those employed in Ireland work in financial services (CSO, 2010), and the Irish Financial Services Sector (IFSC) accounts for €22 billion or 35% of Irish service exports (Enterprise Trade & Employment, 2009). The economic crisis has damaged the financial services sector, and the literature has empha- sized the criticality of rebuilding or a recalibration of customers' trust and a revision of banks' brand identity (Colton & Oliveira, 2009; Kuehner-Herbert, 2009; Silverstein, 2009).

Recent literature suggests that employee–customer interaction enhances employee commitment, further augmented by employees' perceptions of customers' similarity to them and their likeability (Yi, Nataraajan, & Gong, 2011). Employees have greater versus less com- mitment when they can elect to deal with customers they like (Yi et al., 2011). Banking is a mass-market phenomenon and therefore this study provides additional insights into a sector where employees do not have a choice about the customers they serve.

This research focuses on employees in customer-facing roles, as these employees potentially champion the brand promise through their behavior (Barrow & Mosley, 2005; Fram & McCarthy, 2003; Gad, 2000; Ind, 2004; Ind & Bjerke, 2007; Morhart, Herzog, & Tomczac, 2009; Pringle & Gordon, 2001). Researchers typically con- sider the front line employee as subordinate to management. Howev- er, in branch banking, many front line employees are also managers. As such, this paper also considers whether the management level of the employees moderates the relationship between leadership and commitment.

The data to test the hypotheses come from a large-scale survey conducted among branch employees of one of Ireland's leading banks. The bank launched its brand to its employees and invests in a large-scale national advertising campaign to communicate its brand to customers. In advance of the study, the bank's HR director provided a profile of the bank's branch employees. The bank does not distinguish between large or small branches, nor between urban or rural branches. Therefore, this study considered all bank branch employees as front line employees. The sample consisted of 750 em- ployees, randomly selected from the bank's employee list. Employees were contacted through the bank's internal post. 438 usable ques- tionnaires were returned, a response rate of 58%. Table 1 presents a demographic profile of respondents.

Well-established scales were employed to measure the constructs in this study (see Appendix A). This paper explores the three-component model of commitment proposed by Meyer and Allen (1991) and presented in Lee, Allen, Meyer, and Rhee (2001). Respondents indicated on a seven-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree) their level of agreement to eighteen statements. Items 1–6 measured ACS, items 7–12 measured CCS and items 13–18 measured NCS.

Consistent with recent research (Clark et al., 2009), this study uses the leader-behavior description questionnaire (Stogdill, 1963, 1969; Stogdill & Coons, 1957). Employees were also asked to provide their views about their direct line manager. If an employee works for a number of managers, they were asked to provide answers in relation to the manager with whom they work most frequently. Ten items (1–10) measured IS and ten items (11–20) measured consideration. Respondents indicated on a seven-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree) their level of agreement with the leader behavior descriptors.

Prior to testing the hypotheses, exploratory and confirmatory techniques served to assess the reliability, dimensionality and validity of the multi-item scales. First, exploratory factor analyses were performed using principal components analysis with Varimax rota- tion. The three-component commitment measure (Meyer & Allen, 1991) provided a three-factor structure. These analyses suggested deleting items ACS2, CCS11 and NCS13 due to low communalities and cross-loadings (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Consistent with the literature (Stogdill & Coons, 1957), the leadership

Table 1 Demographic profile of respondents.

Number of responses/total issued 438/750 (58%) Gender 67.7% female Median age 36–45 years What is their job? 4.7% support staff

.2% graduate trainee 55.1% cashier/bank assistant 2% section specialist/manager 3.2% senior team (HRM/CSM) 22.3% deputy manager 7.4% manager 5.1% other

Level of permanency 14% perm. part-time 77% perm. full-time

How long with their company? 16% 2–5 years 19% 6–10 years 7% 11–15 years 11% 16–20 years 40% >20 years

How often do they work directly with customers? 95% daily 3% occasionally 2% rarely

Have they received brand training? 94.5% yes

Note: percentages do not add to 100 as the table shows only the main categories.

Table 2 Confirmatory factor analysis.

λ t CR AVE

Initiating structure IS1. .74a – .90 .53 IS2. .74 13.67 IS3. .68 13.39 IS4. .81 16.24 IS5. .66 11.91 IS7. .78 16.48 IS9. .70 13.88 IS10. .71 15.35

Consideration C11. .74a – .92 .56 C13. .66 13.98 C14. .71 15.26 C15. .76 17.27 C16. .70 13.19 C17. .77 15.60 C18. .77 15.21 C19. .78 15.16 C20. .83 20.03

Affective Commitment ACS3. .74a – .82 .60 ACS4. .74 12.47 ACS5. .83 13.24

Continuance Commitment CCS8. .87a – .82 .60 CCS9. .78 13.70 CCS10. .67 12.21

Normative Commitment NCS16. .83a – .83 .61 NCS17. .76 14.28 NCS18. .78 15.39

Note: λ=standardized factor loading; t=t-value; CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted.

a Item set to 1 to fix the scale.

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and correlations.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Initiating structure 4.1 .68 .53 2. Consideration 3.6 .81 .48 .56 3. Affective commitment 4.8 1.59 .20 .09 .60 4. Continuance commitment 4.9 1.72 .01 .00 .05 .60 5. Normative commitment 3.9 1.65 .26 .14 .26 .00 .61

Note: means and standard deviations based on summated scale averages. Items deleted in the validation process are not included. Values on the diagonal are the AVE. Off-diagonal elements are the squared pairwise correlations between factors.

168 E. Wallace et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 165–171

behavior description questionnaire provided a two-factor structure. Item C12 was problematic (Hair et al., 2006) and was removed. The explained variance exceeded 60% in each case.

Confirmatory factor analysis was performed using EQS 6.1. Results suggested the deletion of items ACS1, ACS6, CCS7, CCS12, NCS14 and NCS15 from the commitment scale and items IS6 and IS8 from the lead- ership scale because of low factor loadings. The model provided a good fit (Satorra–Bentler (S–B) χ2 (289)=575.62, pb.001; non-normed fit index (NNFI)=.93; comparative fit index (CFI)=.93; incremental fit index (IFI)=.93; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=.05). All factor loadings were above .5 and were statisti- cally significant, suggesting the convergent validity of the factors (see Table 2). Composite reliability (CR) indices exceeded the recommended minimum standard of .7 and the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct exceeded the minimum of .5. Results also supported the discriminant validity of the scales. First, none of the confidence intervals around the correlation estimate be- tween any two factors included one (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Further, the variance extracted for any two constructs was always greater than the squared correlation estimate (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) (see Table 3).

4. Results

The next stage was to test the hypotheses, using the 438 cases from the sample. The model yielded a good overall fit (S–Bχ2 (325)= 4656.47, pb.001; NNFI=.93; CFI=.93; IFI=.93; RMSEA=.05). Table 4 presents the results.

When employees perceive considerate leadership behavior, such perceived behavior is more likely to foster affective commitment (ACS). This result supports H1 (β=.47, t=5.66). Considerate leader- ship therefore increases employees' emotional attachment to the organization. Considerate leadership also reduces employees' contin- uance commitment (CCS), as predicted in H2 (β=−.18, t=−2.20). Finally, when employees perceive higher levels of considerate leader- ship, normative commitment (NCS) increases, which supports H3 (β=.49, t=5.90). Therefore, considerate managers are likely to instill a sense of obligation to remain with the organization.

Initiating structure (IS) has a negative but non-significant rela- tionship with affective commitment (ACS) (β=−.03, t=−.40). This finding fails to support H4. Results for H5 indicate that the rela- tionship between IS and continuance commitment (CCS) is positive and significant (β=.17, t=1.92), which suggests that IS leader

behaviors instill a feeling of a lack of perceived alternatives among employees. Contrary to expectation, the relationship between IS and normative commitment (NCS) is not significant (β=.03, t=.34), failing to support H6.

A multi-group analysis, included in EQS 6.1, explored whether employees' management level moderates the relationship between leader behavior and employee commitment. Employees' reported job titles served to split the employee sample. The bank's HR director supplied titles and confirmed the applicability of titles across all branch employees. Non-managers are employees who describe them- selves as support staff, graduate trainee, or cashier/bank assistant. Man- agers are employees who describe themselves as section specialist/ manager, senior team (HRM/CSM), deputy manager or manager.

Interestingly, the results show that level of seniority moderates the relationship between IS and ACS (LM test: χ2=8.21, pb .01). IS has a significant positive effect on ACS among managers (non-standardized β=.33, t=2.00). Front line employees, who have achieved promotion

Table 4 Structural model results.

Hypotheses Standardized β (t)

Hypothesis verification

H1 Consideration→affective commitment .47 (5.66)b Supported H2 Consideration→continuance commitment −.18 (−2.20)b Supported H3 Consideration→normative commitment .49 (5.90)b Supported H4 Initiating Structure→affective commitment −.03 (−.40) Rejected H5 Initiating Structure→continuance

commitment .17 (1.92)a Supported

H6 Initiating Structure→normative commitment

.03 (0.34) Rejected

a pb.1. b pb.05.

169E. Wallace et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 165–171

to management level, are more likely to have higher levels of ACS when their leaders adopt structured behaviors. Promotion to management typically occurs from within the bank. Directive leaders clarify the re- quirements of the job, allowing employees to meet expectations and achieve promotion to senior posts. Conversely, for non-managers, higher levels of IS reduce ACS (non-standardized β=−.28, t=−2.04). Findings suggest that the managerial level of the employee does not moderate the other relationships proposed. The next section discusses the implications of these results.

5. Discussion

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 perfor- mance (Ind, 2004). This research adds to the literature exploring the relationship between leader behavior and employee commit- ment, 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 behav- ior 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 responsibili- ties. 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 obliga- tion 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 obliga- tion 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 sabo- tage behaviors (Coelho et al., 2010; Harris & Ogbonna, 2006; Skarlicki, Van Jaarsveld, & Walker, 2008; Wallace & de Chernatony, 2009). If employees believe that they are stuck within the organization, their perceptions that managers display high levels of IS leader behavior aug- ments 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 relation- ship 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 manage- ment 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 promo- tion to management level. For example, employees promoted to man- agement could have a vested interest in the success of the organization to retain pay and benefits (CCS), but could also be emo- tionally attached with the organization (ACS). As such, job specific factors influence brand identification and brand loyalty among em- ployees (Punjaisri & Wilson, 2011).

The research findings have several managerial implications. Man- agers wishing to develop a strong bank brand among junior employees will encourage greater commitment by adopting considerate leader

(continued)

Commitment

Normative commitment (NCS) NCS13. I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer (r). NCS14. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now.

NCS15. I would feel guilty if I left my organization now. NCS16. This organization deserves my loyalty. NCS17. I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it.

NCS18. I owe a great deal to my organization.

Leadership

Initiating structure (IS) IS1. They make their attitudes clear to the team. IS2. They assign team members to particular tasks. IS3. They schedule the work to be done. IS4. They maintain definite standards of performance. IS5. They encourage the use of uniform procedures. IS6. They ask that team members follow standard rules and regulations. IS7. They let team members know what is expected of them. IS8. They decide what shall be done and how it shall be done. IS9. They make sure that their part in the team is understood by the team members.

IS10. They try out their ideas with the team.

Consideration (C) C11. They do little things to make it pleasant to be a member of the team. C12. They keep to themselves (r). C13. They refuse to explain their actions (r). C14. They act without consulting the team (r). C15. They treat all team members as their equal. C16. They are willing to make changes. C17. They are friendly and approachable. C18. They put suggestions made by the team into operation. C19. They give advance notice of changes. C20. They look out for the personal welfare of team members.

Note: r = reverse item.

Appendix A (continued)

170 E. Wallace et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 165–171

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 sup- port 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 communica- tion, and clarifying associated rewards for brand adoption. Although IS enhances ACS among managers, middle managers must adopt a consid- erate 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 indus- try 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 leader- ship, and draw comparisons between perceptions of leadership style across groups of front line employees.

The study did not distinguish between employees in terms of ten- ure. For example, Hoffman et al. (2011) identify the moderating role of tenure on the relationship between leader behavior and value con- gruence. Although most employees in this study had tenure or per- manent 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. Consequent- ly, the time sequence of the relationships between leadership and commitment is unknown. A longitudinal framework would provide more insight into probable causation.

Appendix A. Measures

Commitment

Affective commitment (ACS) ACS1. I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization. ACS2. I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own. ACS3. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization (r). ACS4. I do not feel emotionally attached to this organization (r). ACS5. I do not feel like part of the family at my organization (r). ACS6. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.

Continuance commitment (CCS) CCS7. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire.

CCS8. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to.

CCS9. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization now.

CCS10. I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization. CCS11. If I had not already put so much of myself into this organization, I might consider working elsewhere.

CCS12. One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives.

References

Agarwal, S., & Ramaswami, S. (1993). Affective organizational commitment of sales- people: An expanded model. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, XIII, 40–68.

Allen, N. J., & Grisaffe, D. B. (2001). Employee commitment to the organization and customer reactions. Mapping the linkages. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 209–236.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate market- ing: Seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 248–291.

Barrow, S., & Mosley, R. (2005). The employer brand: Bringing the best of brand management to people at work. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Benkhoff, B. (1997). Disentangling organizational commitment: The dangers of the OCQ for research policy. Personnel Review, 26(2), 114–131.

Boyd, G., & Sutherland, M. (2006). Obtaining employee commitment to living the brand of the organization. South African journal of business management, 37(1), 9–20.

Burmann, C., Zeplin, S., & Riley, N. (2009). Key determinants of internal brand manage- ment success: An exploratory empirical analysis. Brand Management, 16(4), 264–284.

Caldwell, C., & Dixon, R. D. (2010). Love, forgiveness and trust: Critical values of the modern leader. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 91–101.

Caruana, A., & Calleya, P. (1998). The effect of internal marketing on organizational commitment among retail bank managers. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 16(3), 108–116.

Clark, R. C., Hartline, M. D., & Jones, K. C. (2009). The effects of leadership style on hotel employees' commitment to service quality. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 50(2), 209–231.

Coelho, F. J., Augusto, M. G., Coelho, A. F., & Sà, P. M. (2010). Climate perceptions and the customer orientation of frontline employees. Service Industries Journal, 30(8), 1343–1357.

Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Shamir, B. (2009). Social distance as a moderator of the effects of transformational leadership: Both neutralizer and enhancer. Human Relations, 62(11), 1697–1733.

Colton, S., & Oliveira, P. (2009). Banking on it: the role of the corporate brand in re- building trust, interbrand: Creating and managing brand value. URL http://www. interbrand.com

171E. Wallace et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 165–171

CSO (2010). Labour market: Employment and unemployment. URL http://www.cso.ie/ statistics/empandunempilo.htm

Dale, K., & Fox, M. L. (2008). Leadership style and organizational commitment: Mediating effect of role stress. Journal of Managerial Issues, XX(1), 109–130.

de Chernatony, L., & Cottam, S. (2009). Interacting contributions of different depart- ments to brand success. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 297–304.

Ellinger, A., Bas, A. B. E., Ellinger, A. D., Wang, Y. -L., & Bachrach, D. G. (2011). Measurements of organizational investments in social capital: The service employee perspective. Journal of Business Research, 64(6), 572–578.

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A., Hamlin, R. G., & Beattie, R. S. (2009). Achieving improved performance through managerial coaching. In Ryan Watkins, & Doug Leigh (Eds.), Handbook of improving performance in the workplace volume 2: Selecting and implementing performance interventions (pp. 275–298). San Fransisco, CA: Willey.

Enterprise Trade and Employment, D (D, 2009). Government highlights importance of Ireland's financial services sector with investment in strategic five-year industry/ academic research project. .

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

Fram, E. H., & McCarthy, M. S. (2003). From employee to brand champion. Marketing Management, 12(1), 24–29.

Fullerton, G. (2004). How commitment both enables and undermines marketing rela- tionships. European Journal of Marketing, 39(11/12), 1372–1388.

Gabbott, M., & Jevons, C. (2009). Brand community in search of a theory. Marketing Theory, 9(1), 119–122.

Gad, T. (2000). 4-D Branding: Cracking the code of the network economy. London: Financial Times Prentice-Hall.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Hansen, H., Sandvik, K., & Seines, F. (2003). Direct and indirect effects of commitment to a service employee on the intention to stay. Journal of Service Research, 5(4), 356–368.

Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2006). Service sabotage: A study of antecedents and conse- quences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 543–558.

Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser, W. E., Jr., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1994). Putting the service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 164–174.

Hoffman, B. J., Bynum, B. H., Piccolo, R. F., & Sutton, A. W. (2011). Person-organization value congruence: How transformational leaders influence work group effective- ness. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 770–796.

Ind, N. (2004). Living the brand: How to transform every member of your organization into a brand ambassador (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.

Ind, N., & Bjerke, R. (2007). Branding governance: A participatory approach to the brand building process. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., & Iles, R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 36–51.

Kaur, K., Sandhu, H. S., & Kaur, K. (2010). Career stage in organizational commitment: Empirical evidence from Indian banking industry. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 141–152.

King, C., & Grace, D. (2008). Internal branding: Exploring the employees' perspective. Brand Management, 15(5), 358–372.

Kuehner-Herbert, K. A. (2009). Growing defection: More clients ready to switch as trust wanes. : American Banker: The Financial Services Daily.

Lee, K., Allen, N. J., Meyer, J. P., & Rhee, K. -Y. (2001). The three-component model of organizational commitment: An application to South Korea. Applied Psychology An International Review, 50(4), 596–614.

Malhotra, N., & Mukherjee, A. (2004). The relative influence of organizational commit- ment and job satisfaction on service quality of customer-contact employees in banking call centres. Journal of Services Marketing, 18(3), 162–174.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualisation of organization- al commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupa- tions: extension of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 538–551.

Meyer, J. P., & Maltin, E. R. (2010). Employee commitment and well-being: A critical re- view, theoretical framework and research agenda. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 323–337.

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2001). Affective, continu- ance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of anteced- ents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52.

Mitchell, A. (2005). Back to basics as loyalty marketing comes full circle. Marketing Week, 28(30), 28–29.

Mitchell, C. (2002). Selling the brand inside. Harvard Business Review, 5–11. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship mar-

keting. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38. Morhart, F. M., Herzog, W., & Tomczac, T. (2009). Brand-specific leadership: Turning

employees into brand champions. Journal of Marketing, 73, 122–142. Mossholder, K. W., Bedeian, A. G., & Armenakis, A. A. (1981). Role perceptions, satisfac-

tion and performance: Moderating effects of self-esteem and organizational level. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28(2), 224–234.

Park, S. M., & Rainey, H. G. (2007). Antecedents, mediators and consequences of affective, normative and continuance commitment: Empirical tests of commitment effects in Federal Agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3), 197–226.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. (1974). Organizational commit- ment, job satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603–609.

Pringle, H., & Gordon, W. (2001). Brand manners: How to create the self-confident organization to live the brand. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Punjaisri, K., & Wilson, A. (2011). Internal branding process: Key mechanisms, outcomes and moderating factors. European Journal of Marketing, 45(9/10), 1521–1537.

Rafiq, M., & Ahmed, P. K. (2000). Advances in the internal marketing concept: Definition, synthesis and extension. Journal of Services Marketing, 14(6), 449–462.

Reddin, W. J. (1970). Managerial effectiveness. New York: Mc-Graw Hill. Schminke, M., Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. (2002). Organization structure and fairness

perceptions: The moderating effects of organizational level. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Process, 89(1), 881–905.

Shum, P., Bove, L., & Aug, S. (2008). Employees' affective commitment to change: The key to successful CRM implementation. European Journal of Marketing, 42(11/12), 1346–1371.

Silverstein, B. (2009). What now for the money brands? URL http://www.brandchannel. com/start.asp?fa_id=484

Skarlicki, D. P., Van Jaarsveld, D. D., & Walker, D. D. (2008). Getting even for customer mistreatment: The role of moral identity in the relationship between customer in- terpersonal justice and employee sabotage. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1335–1347.

Somers, M. J. (2009). The combined influence of affective, continuance and normative commitment on employee withdrawal. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), 75–81.

Stogdill, R. M. (1963). Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire form XII: An experimental revision. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.

Stogdill, R. M. (1969). Validity of leader behavior descriptions. Personnel Psychology, 22(2), 153–158.

Stogdill, R. M., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus: Ohio State University.

Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. (2009). Proactivity directed toward the team and organization: the role of leadership, commitment and role-breadth self-efficacy. British Journal of Management, 20, 279–291.

Taly, D., Kass, N., & Sahamir, B. (2004). The emotional bond: vision and organizational com- mitment among high-tech employees. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2), 126–143.

Tasa, K., Sears, G. J., & Schat, A. C. H. (2011). Personality and teamwork behavior in con- text: The cross-level moderating role of collective efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 65–85.

Thomson, K., de Chernatony, L., Arganbright, L., & Khan, S. (1999). The buy-in bench- mark: How staff understanding and commitment impact brand and business per- formance. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(8), 819–835.

Vallaster, C., & de Chernatony, L. (2006). Internal brand building and structuration: The role of leadership. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 761–784.

Wallace, E., & de Chernatony, L. (2009). Exploring brand sabotage in retail banking. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18(3), 198–211.

Wieseke, J., Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., & van Dick, R. (2009). The role of leaders in internal marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73, 123–145.

Yi, Y., Nataraajan, R., & Gong, T. (2011). Customer participation and citizenship behav- ioral influences on employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intention. Journal of Business Research, 64, 87–95.