Internal brand management in the public sector: the effects of internal communication, organizational practices, and PSM on employees’ brand perceptions

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

Table 1. Sample demographics

Demographic characteristic	Category	Number of respondents	Percentage of respondents
Gender	Women Men	170 41	80.6% 19.4%
Age	Younger than 30 years old 30–39 years old 40–49 years old 50–59 years old 60 years old and older	36 54 39 60 22	17.1% 25.6% 18.5% 28.4% 10.4%
Work experience at the organization	Less than 1 year 1–4 years 5–10 years More than 10 years	14 43 44 110	6.6% 20.4% 20.9% 52.1%
Role	Manager Employee	7 204	3.3% 96.7%
Frequency of contact with patients during a week	Often Sometimes Very rarely Never	170 27 6 8	80.6% 12.8% 2.8% 3.8%

Table 2. Measurement model: standardized loadings and fit indices

Constructs	Scale items	Standardized loadings*
Brand identification (α = 0.90; AVE = 0.65; CR = 0.90)	BI1. BI2. BI3. BI4. BI5.	0.69 0.78 0.90 0.74 0.89
Brand pride (α = 0.91; AVE = 0.69; CR = 0.92)	BP1. BP2. BP3. BP4. BP5.	0.84 0.79 0.73 0.88 0.89
Brand commitment (α = 0.77; AVE = 0.47; CR = 0.78)	BC1. BC2. BC3. BC4.	0.78 0.68 0.70 0.57
Value congruence (α = 0.91; AVE = 0.77; CR = 0.91)	VC1. VC2. VC3.	0.85 0.88 0.90
Positive organizational practices (α = 0.94; AVE = 0.72; CR = 0.94)	POP1. POP2. POP3. POP4. POP5. POP6.	0.91 0.91 0.94 0.58 0.89 0.81
Public service motivation (α = 0.75; AVE = 0.65; CR = 0.79)	PSM1. PSM2.	0.68 0.92

Fit indices: χ2 = 627.99, df = 260, χ 2/df = 2.42, RMSEA = 0.08, GFI = 0.82, CFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.91.

* p < 0.01; α – Cronbach’s alpha; AVE – average variance extracted; CR – construct reliability.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations

Constructs	Mean (SD)	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
(1) Public service motivation	4.66 (0.56)	(0.65)	0.08	0.10	0.04	0.05	0.09
(2) Value congruence	3.24 (0.89)	0.28*	(0.77)	0.12	0.15	0.35	0.37
(3) Positive organizational practices	3.93 (0.88)	0.32*	0.35*	(0.72)	0.08	0.20	0.15
(4) Brand identification	2.21 (0.97)	0.21*	0.39*	0.28*	(0.65)	0.36	0.23
(5) Brand pride	2.86 (0.95)	0.22*	0.59*	0.45*	0.60*	(0.69)	0.45
(6) Brand commitment	3.74 (0.78)	0.30*	0.61*	0.39*	0.48*	0.67*	(0.47)

*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Values on the diagonal – AVE (average variance extracted); values below the diagonal – correlations; values above the diagonal – squared correlations.

Table 4. Structural model: standardized loadings and fit indices

Constructs	Scale items	Standardized loadings*
Brand identification (α = 0.90; AVE = 0.65; CR = 0.90)	BI1. BI2. BI3. BI4. BI5.	0.69 0.78 0.90 0.74 0.89
Brand pride (α = 0.91; AVE = 0.69; CR = 0.92)	BP1. BP2. BP3. BP4. BP5.	0.84 0.79 0.73 0.88 0.89
Brand commitment (α = 0.77; AVE = 0.48; CR = 0.78)	BC1. BC2. BC3. BC4.	0.78 0.69 0.70 0.57
Value congruence (α = 0.91; AVE = 0.76; CR = 0.91)	VC1. VC2. VC3.	0.85 0.87 0.90
Positive organizational practices (α = 0.94; AVE = 0.72; CR = 0.94)	POP1. POP2. POP3. POP4. POP5. POP6.	0.91 0.91 0.94 0.58 0.89 0.81
Public service motivation (α = 0.75; AVE = 0.65; CR = 0.78)	PSM1. PSM2.	0.71 0.89

Fit indices: χ2 = 633.77, df = 264, χ 2/df = 2.40, RMSEA = 0.08, GFI = 0.82, CFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.91.

*p < 0.01; α – Cronbach’s alpha; AVE – average variance extracted; CR – construct reliability.

Table 5. Structural model estimates

Hypothesized effects	Standardized estimates	Conclusion
H1: Brand identification – › Brand pride H2: Brand pride – › Brand commitment H3a: Value congruence – › Brand identification H3b: Value congruence – › Brand pride H3c: Value congruence – › Brand commitment H4: Value congruence – › Positive organizational practices H5a: Positive organizational practices – › Brand identification H5b: Positive organizational practices – › Brand pride H5c: Positive organizational practices – › Brand commitment H6a: Public service motivation – › Value congruence H6b: Public service motivation – › Positive organizational practices	0.42 (p < 0.01) 0.53 (p < 0.01) 0.35 (p < 0.01) 0.38 (p < 0.01) 0.39 (p < 0.01) 0.26 (p < 0.01) 0.17 (p < 0.05) 0.23 (p < 0.01) 0.02 (p = 0.81) 0.32 (p < 0.01) 0.26 (p < 0.01)	Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported No support Supported Supported

Table

Constructs	Scale items*
Brand identification	BI1. Successes of XX feel like my successes. BI2. When someone criticizes XX, it feels like a personal insult. BI3. When someone praises XX, it feels like a personal compliment. BI4. When XX is criticized in the news media, it hurts me personally. BI5. When XX is praised in the news media, it feels like a personal compliment.
Brand pride	BP1. I feel proud when others notice that I work for XX. BP2. I am proud of what XX stands for. BP3. I am proud of how XX is perceived by the public. BP4. When I tell others what XX stands for, I do it with a sense of pride. BP5. I am proud to be a part of XX.
Brand commitment	BC1. I really care about the fate of XX. BC2. I have similar values as XX. BC3. I am willing to put in extra effort beyond what is expected for XX to be successful. BC4. I really fit to work for XX.
Value congruence	VC1. I am proud of the values of XX, which are expressed on the Intranet. VC2. The values, which XX emphasize on the Intranet, are the values that should be highlighted. VC3. The values of XX, which are communicated on the Intranet, are similar to my own values.
Positive organizational practices	POP1. We treat each other with respect. POP2. We provide emotional support to each other. POP3. We really care about each other. POP4. We feel that our job is really meaningful. POP5. We inspire each other at work. POP6. We forgive each other’s mistakes.
Public service motivation	PSM1. The opportunity to help others is important for me in my job. PSM2. The opportunity to contribute to society is important for me in my job.

*Scale: 1-strongly disagree … 5-strongly agree.