KURUMSAL İTİBAR BİLEŞENLERİNİN ALGILANAN ÖNEMİ DEMOGRAFİK ÖZELLİKLERDEN ETKİLENMEKTE MİDİR?

Yıl 2010, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 23, 93 - 114, 01.06.2010

Esra Alnıaçık Ümit Alnıaçık Nurullah Genç

Öz

Problem Durumu: Kurumsal itibarı oluşturan temel bileşenlerin algılanan önem derecelerinin ve bu algılamaları etkileyen olası faktörlerin belirlenmesi, daha iyi bir kurumsal itibar elde etmeyi amaçlayan işletme yöneticilerine önemli katkılar sunabilir. Araştırmanın Amacı: Bu araştırmanın amacı, kurumsal itibarın temel bileşenlerinin algılanan önem derecelerinin neler olduğu ve bu önem derecelerinin, cevaplayıcıların demografik özelliklerine bağlı olarak değişip değişmediğini belirlemektir. Yöntem: Kocaeli Üniversitesi ve Balıkesir Üniversitesi öğrencileri arasından kolayda örnekleme yöntemiyle belirlenen 972 kişi üzerinde keşifsel bir saha araştırması gerçekleştirilmiştir. Anket yöntemiyle toplanan veriler üzerinde, ölçek geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik analizleri yapılmış; kurumsal itibarın temel bileşenlerinin algılanan önem derecelerinin, cevaplayıcıların demografik özelliklerine bağlı olarak farklılaşıp farklılaşmadığı, varyans analizleri ile test edilmiştir. Bulgular ve Sonuçlar: Kurumsal itibar bileşenleri arasında algılanan önem derecesi en yüksek olan, “İşyeri Çevresi” dir. Bunu sırasıyla “Ürün ve Hizmet Kalitesi”, “Vizyon Liderlik”, “Duygusal Çekim”, “Sosyal ve Çevresel Sorumluluk” ve en sonda da “Finansal Performans” bileşenleri izlemektedir. Kurumsal itibarın bileşenlerinin algılanan önem derecesi, cevaplayıcıların yaş, cinsiyet, eğitim durumuna bağlı olarak anlamlı düzeylerde farklılaşmaktadır. Cevaplayıcıların medeni durumu ve ailelerinin gelir düzeyine göre ise anlamlı bir farklılık söz konusu değildir. Öneriler: İyi bir kurumsal itibar oluşturmak için, algılamaları iyi yönetmek gerekmektedir. Üniversite öğrencileri potansiyel müşteriler ve/veya çalışanlar olarak çok önemli bir paydaş grubunun içindedirler. Bu kişilerin, bir işletmeye yönelik itibar değerlendirmelerinde işyeri çevresi ve ürün/hizmet kalitesini öncelikli olarak göz önüne aldıkları görülmektedir. Bu nedenle, işletme yöneticilerinin de, özellikle gençlerden oluşan hedef gruplara yönelirken bu hususlara dikkat etmeleri, iletişim ve pazarlama faaliyetlerini buna uygun şekilde oluşturmaları yerinde olacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kurumsal İtibar, İtibar Katsayısı, Sosyal Sorumluluk, Demografik Özellikler

Are Perceived Importance Levels of Corporate Reputation Components Affected by Demographic Factors?

Öz

Problem Statement: Determining the perceived importance levels of the components of corporate reputation, and defining the possible factors that may affect such perceptions can be a valuable tool for managers who are willing to build up a better reputation for their companies. Research Objectives: The objective of this study is to find out the principal components of corporate reputation, to determine perceived importance levels of each component and to test whether the perceived importance levels are affected by respondents’ demographic factors. Methodology: An exploratory field research is conducted on university students studying at Kocaeli University and Balıkesir University. Data is obtained from a convenience sample of 972 students, by using a questionnaire. After testing scale validity and reliability, analysis of variance is used to test whether the perceived importance levels of the components of corporate reputation vary according to basic demographic factors of the respondents. Findings and Results: “Workplace Environment” is found to be the perceived as the most important component of corporate reputation. Successively, “Quality of Products and Services”, “Vision and Leadership”, “Emotional Appeal” and “Social and Environmental Responsibility” comes in order. “Financial Performance” is found to be perceived as the least important component. It is found that, the perceived importance levels of these components are significantly affected by the respondents’ age groups, genders and education levels. However, marital status and family income level exert no significant effect on the perceived importance levels of corporate reputation components. Recommendations: Managing the perceptions is vital to acquire a good corporate reputation. University students are important not only because they are potential customers of the products and services of a firm, but also because they are prospective employees of the company in the near future. It is understood that university students consider workplace environment and product/service quality as the most important constituents of a good corporate reputation. Business administrators should take these findings into account to develop better communication & marketing strategies

Anahtar Kelimeler

Corporate Reputation, Reputational Quotient, Social Responsibility, Demographic Factors

Kaynakça

• Anderson, E. and Sullivan, M., (1993). The antecedents and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing Science, 12: 125- 43.
• Andreassen, T.W., (1994). Satisfaction, loyalty and reputation as indicators of customer orientation in the public sector. Journal of Public Sector Management, 7(2): 16-34.
• Aqueveque, C. and Ravasi, D. (2006). Corporate reputation, affect, and trustworthiness an explanation for the reputation-performance relationship’. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Corporate Reputation Institute Conference, New York.
• Barich, H., and P. Kotler, (1991). A framework for marketing image management. Sloan Management Review, 32(2): 94–109.
• Barnett, Michael L, John M. Jermier, Barbara A. Lafferty, (2006). Corporate Reputation: The Definitional Landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(1): 30-32.
• Bowen, D.E., S.W. Gilliland and R. Folger, (1999). HRM and service fairness How being fair with employees spills over to customers. Organizational Dynamics, 28(Winter): 7–23.
• Brown T.J., (1998). Corporate associations in marketing: antecedents and consequences. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(3): 215-233.
• Caminiti, S., (1992). The payoff from a good reputation. Fortune, 125(3): 49-53.
• Carmeli, A., A., Tishler, (2005). Perceived Organizational Reputation and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Investigation of Industrial Enterprises. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1): 13-30.
• Caruana, A., Ramasashan, B., Krentler, K. A., (2004). Corporate reputation, customer satisfaction, & customer loyalty: What is the relationship? in H. E. Spotts (Ed.). Proceeding Developments in marketing science, 27: 301-321.
• Caruana, A., and Chircop, S., (2000). Measuring corporate reputation: a case example. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(1): 43-57.
• Chun, Rosa, (2005). Corporate Reputation: Meaning and Measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2): 91-109.
• Clive, Chajet, (1997). Corporate Reputation as a Strategic Asset: Corporate Reputation and the Bottom Line. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(1): 19- 23.
• Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R. V., Roper, S. (2002). Corporate reputation and competitiveness. Routledge, London.
• Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R. (2001). The personification metaphor as a measurement approach for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(2): 113-27.
• Dentchev, Nikolay A. ve Aime Heene, (2004). Managing the reputation of restructuring corporations: Send the right signal to the right stakeholder. Journal of Public Affairs, 4(1): 56-70.
• Dolphin, R.R. (2004). Corporate Reputation: A Value Creating Strategy. Corporate Governance, 4(3): 77-92.
• Doney, P.M., Cannon, J.P., (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer– seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2): 35–51.
• Dowling, G., (2001). Creating corporate reputation identity, image and performance. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Dörtok, A., (2004). Kurumsal İtibarınızdan Kaç Sıfır Atabilirsiniz?. Rota Yayınları, İstanbul.
• Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V., (1994). Organization images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239-63.
• Figlewicz, R. E., Szwajkowski, E., (2002). Systematic risk volatility and corporate reputation: A longitudinal and cross-sectional analysis. Organization Science Electronic Letters, 2(1): 1-55.
• Flanagan, David J., K. C. O'Shaughnessy, (2005). The Effect of Layoffs on Firm Reputation. Journal of Management, 31(3): 445-463.
• Fombrun, C.J., (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
• Fombrun, C.J., (2007). List of List A Compilation of International Corporate Reputation Ratings. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2): 144–153 2007
• Fombrun, C.J., Gardberg, N. A., Sever, J. W. (2000). The reputation quotient: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. The Journal of Brand Management, 7(4): 241–255.
• Fombrun, C., Shanley, M., (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2): 233-58.
• Fombrun, C.J., vanRiel, C.B. (1997). The reputational landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(2): 5-13
• Fombrun C.J., van Riel C.B. (2004). Fame and fortune. How successful companies build winning reputations. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
• Fryxell, G.E. and Wang, J., (1994). The fortune corporate 'reputation' index: reputation for what?. Journal of Management, 20(1): 1-14.
• Gardberg, N.A., Fombrun, C.J., (2002). The global reputation quotient project: First steps towards a cross-nationally valid measure of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(4): 303–307.
• Gardberg, N.A., (2006). Reputatie, Reputation, Réputation, Reputazione, Ruf: A Cross-Cultural Qualitative Analysis of Construct and Instrument Equivalence. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(1): 39-61.
• Goldberg, M.E., J., Hartwick, (1990). The effect of advertiser reputation and extremity of advertising claim on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2): 172-179.
• Gotsi, M. and Wilson, A.M., (2001). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition. Corporate Communications, 6(1): 24-30.
• Greyser, S. (1999). Advancing and enhancing corporate reputation. Corporate Communications, 4(4): 177–181.
• Groenland, E.A.G., (2002). Qualitative research to validate the RQ-dimensions. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(4): 309–315.
• Gümüş, Murat, Burcu Öksüz, (2009). Turizm işletmelerinde kurumsal itibar yönetimi. Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
• Hair, J.F., W.C., Black, B.J., Babin, R.E., Anderson, R.L., Tatham, (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. 6.Ed., Prentice Hall.
• Hall, R.,(1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2): 135–144.
• Hall, R., (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8): 607-618.
• Hanby, Terry, (1999). Brands - Dead or Alive?. Journal of Marketing Research Society, 41(1): 7-18.
• Harrison, K., (2009). Why a good corporate reputation is important to your organization, , 29.04.2009.
• Helm, Sabrina, (2007). The Role of Corporate Reputation in Determining Investor Satisfaction and Loyalty. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(1): 22-37.
• Kay, J. (1993). Foundations of corporate success. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Kreps, D. M., Wilson, R., (1982). Reputation and imperfect information. Journal of Economic Theory, 27(2): 253–279.
• Macmillan, K., Money, K., Downing, S., (2002). Best and Worst Corporate Reputation Nominations by the General Public. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(4): 374-384.
• Nakra, P. (2000). Corporate reputation management: CRM with a strategic twist?. Public Relations Quarterly, 45(2): 35-42.
• Neville, B.A., S.J., Bell, B., Mengüç, (2005). Corporate Reputation, Stakeholders and The Social Performance-Financial Performance Relationship. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10): 1184-1198.
• Nguyen, N. and Leblanc, G., (2001). Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers' retention decision in services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8(4): 227-236.
• Oliver, R. L., DeSarbo, W., (1988). Response determinants in satisfaction judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, (March): 495–507.
• Roberts, P.W. and G.R. Dowling, (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12): 1077-1093.
• Rose, C., Thomsen, S., (2004). The impact of corporate reputation on performance: Some Danish evidence. European Management Journal, 22(2): 201–210.
• Saxton, M. K., (1998). Where Do Corporate Reputations Come From?. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(4): 393-399.
• Schultz, M; Nielsen, K.U., Boege, S., (2002) Denmark: Nominations for the Most Visible Companies for the Danish RQ. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(4): 327-336.
• Schwaiger, M., (2004). Components and Parameters of Corporate Reputation–An Empirical Study. Schmalenbach Business Review, 56(January): 46–71.
• Shapiro, C., (1983). Premiums for high-quality products as returns to reputations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(4): 659-681.
• Stuart, H., (2002) Employee identification with the corporate identity. International Studies of Management and Organization, 32(3): 28-44.
• Thevissen, F., (2002). Belgium: Corporate Reputation in the Eye of the Beholder. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(4): 318-326.
• Tolbert, Sylvia Long, (2000). A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Test of The Antecedents and Consequences of Corporate Reputation,. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.
• Turban, Daniel B. and Daniel W. Greening, (1997). Corporate Social Performance and Organizational Attractiveness to Prospective Employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3): 658-763.
• Walsh, G . and Wiedmann , K.P., (2004). A conceptualization of corporate reputation in Germany: An evaluation and extension of the RQ. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(4): 304-312 .
• Walsh, G., Dinnie, K., Wiedmann, K.P., (2006). How do corporate reputation and customer satisfaction impact customer defection? A study of private energy customers in Germany. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(6): 412–420.
• Walsh, G., S.E., Beatty, (2007). Customer-based corporate reputation of a service firm: scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1): 127–143.
• Yoon, E., Guffey, H.J. and Kijewski, V., (1993). The effects of information and company reputation on intentions to buy a business service. Journal of Business Research, 27(3): 215-28.