Journals / Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 23

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

KURUMSAL İTİBAR BİLEŞENLERİNİN ALGILANAN ÖNEMİ DEMOGRAFİK ÖZELLİKLERDEN ETKİLENMEKTE MİDİR?

Pages
93–114
Publication Date
2010-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Business administrators should take these findings into account to develop better communication & marketing strategies

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis: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.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Business administrators should take these findings into account to develop better communication & marketing strategies
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kurumsal İtibar · İtibar Katsayısı · Sosyal Sorumluluk

Abstract

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

Özet

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALNIAÇIK, E., ALNIAÇIK, Ü., GENÇ, N. (2010). Are Perceived Importance Levels of Corporate Reputation Components Affected by Demographic Factors?. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 23, 93–114. https://ajindex.com/articles/57631

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Barnett, Michael L, John M. Jermier, Barbara A. Lafferty, (2006). Corporate Reputation: The Definitional Landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(1): 30-32.
  4. 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.
  5. Caminiti, S., (1992). The payoff from a good reputation. Fortune, 125(3): 49-53.
  6. Carmeli, A., A., Tishler, (2005). Perceived Organizational Reputation and Organizational Performance: An Empirical Investigation of Industrial Enterprises. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1): 13-30.
  7. 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.
  8. Caruana, A., and Chircop, S., (2000). Measuring corporate reputation: a case example. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(1): 43-57.
  9. Chun, Rosa, (2005). Corporate Reputation: Meaning and Measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2): 91-109.
  10. 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.
  11. 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