|
Ali Sajadipour PhD Student Department of Management Islamic Azad University of Roodehen Roodehen, Iran |
Organizational brand which is defined as a distinct concept from common concepts of brand includes features such as intangibility, complexity and responsibility and when the organization improves and excels this concept in its internal markets, in fact the company is branding. Intra-organizational branding is considered as one of the means by which the adaption intra-organizational activity and company culture to organization branding is done. If the values of brand are known for employees or in the other words the employees realize, understand and are justified about them, surly they will be more successful in presenting brand concept and promise to beneficiaries of company. Therefore making intra-organizational brand requires an integrated framework which is made of organization management concepts, organization marketing and human resource management. As it was pointed out human resource management, as one of the fundamental bases of intra-organizational branding, has importance and specific place. Science of human resource management, as management science of the most important resource of organizations of today, has improved and some of its branches have got special importance. Branches such as knowledge management, intellectual investment management, and efficient attraction of human source and effective performance evaluation can be considered as such. In this research, it is attempted to study the effects of each branch on powerful branding. The population of this research is all of the International Development commercial corporation personnel with four hundred and seventy-five men. To analyze the sample, Cochran test is used for a determinate population. Contemplating error rate of five percent and normal distribution, the sample population was computed to 170 persons. Finally by referring to mentioned concepts in literature and use of statistical tests and gathering results, the effect of each mentioned element on
Intra-organizational branding has been justified. According to acquired results the most important mentioned element is intellectual investment management and the least important one is efficient attraction.
Key Words: branding, knowledge management, intellectual capital management, efficient attraction, effective performance evaluation
At the current complicated and competitive world of business, strategic instruments providing conditions for commitment and repetition of consumption, increase in economic value for stockholders and expansion of range of economic activities beyond geographical, cultural and political borers for the organizations are very rare and important. It could be claimed that the only instrument that can gather all of the mentioned features together and enhance economic value of the organization as an asset is brand. For many years, managers of all large economic firms across the world have had specific attitude to branding issue along with all solutions and factors affecting organizational development and prosperity and have focused an important part of their development plans on this field.
Brands are usually the most valuable assets of companies (Keller and Lehmann, 2003) and are in fact same business logo on products with functional and emotional values (Kapferer, 2001). The functional and emotional values of brands could be interpreted in frame of a treaty of future satisfaction (Berry, 2000). Hence, it could be mentioned that brand has a strong potential in field of differentiation of a product from similar products and changing it to a unique product (Salzer-morling & strannegard, 2004).
Organizational brand defined as an independent concept from common concepts of brand includes features such as being intangible, complexity and responsibility (IND, 1997). When the organization considers development of the concept in internal markets, it is in fact involved in intra-organizational branding. Internal markets are in fact those people employed at the organizations including senior director, managers, supervisors and support and operational workforce.
In fact, intra-organizational branding needs an integrated framework formed of marketing concepts of organization, organizational management, human resource management and organizational brand management. Human resource management has important position as one of the main basics of intra-organizational branding. Science of human resource management has been increasingly developed as the most important organizational resource and some branches of the science have become very important such as knowledge management, intellectual capital management, effective attraction, and effective performance evaluation. As the concept of intra-organizational branding is an almost new concept and there are a few studies in this filed, this study has attempted to achieve to a comprehensive framework of key tasks of human resource management of the organization (knowledge management, intellectual capital management, effective attraction, and effective performance evaluation) in intra-organizational branding.
Brand and branding
Brand is a part of market segmentation and product differentiation strategy used to meet needs of specific group of customers. Organizations try to adsorb customers through advertising their products or mentioning their information and features. There are many definitions of brand. It is sometimes recalled as subjectivity or a living memory. Brand could be considered as a contract. Hence, if the brand has the ability to create sensation and communicate customers, along with preservation of quality, it can provide conditions for return of customers. Through repetitive referral of customers, the brand can gain credit and this can result in more satisfaction and loyalty of customers, so that the relationships could be defined as contract between customer and brand.
The aim by branding is providing conditions to attract loyal customers. In classic classifications, the focus was only on the customers out of the organization purchasing products and services of the organization and they used to be considered as the only customers; although organizational customers are today divided to two separated groups including internal and external customers according to the developments in field of management science, especially marketing management. Intra-organization customers are in fact those people employed in the organizations including senior director, managers, supervisors and support and operational workforce. Hence, the organizations should be focused on customer loyalty to gain external brand loyalty and to meet needs of the customers. For success of a brand in out-organizational market, the brand must be firstly introduced inside the organization and its message should be observed in all daily efforts of the organization. Moreover, organizational employees are the most valuable asset of organization that can take the mentioned action. As the employees are interested in an open, flexible, responsible and cooperative environment, organizational culture is an important parameter in the recent discussions forming organizational environment.
Intra-organizational branding
Intra-organizational branding is known as an instrument to create strong organizational brands, which plays key role in adaptation of intra-organizational cultures and organizational brand with organizational brand. If brand values are understood by employees properly and the employees have known their organizational brand, they can be certainly successful to present the concept of the brand to other beneficiaries in the organization. In fact, intra-organizational brandingneeds an integrated framework formed of concepts such as corporate marketing, corporate management and corporate human resource management. If the management has the ability to perceive and coordinate marketing theories and human resources, organizational employees can accept brand equity and regulate their behaviors based on it and this can result in transfer of promise of brand to customers and corporate beneficiaries and gaining satisfaction, preference and loyalty (Punjsari and Wilson, 2007). There are a few studies in field of intra-organizational marketing; although there is generally one common attitude as follows:
Creation and development and maintenance of intra-organizational services that support the organization to achieve its goals (formen and Money, 1995)
Gronroos has also defined intra-organizational marketing as follows: "the method for integration of various functions to empower employees of different departments in working with each other, so that the teams can be in same way with goals, strategy and internal and external missions of organization" (Gronroos, 1990).
Knowledge management
Knowledge management can be simply defined as follows: motivating people to share their knowledge with others. In another definition, knowledge management is defined as a series of processes to identify, collect, publish and use the knowledge used in field of realization of goals of organization or to create more knowledge (Kont Lowden, 2005). In other words, knowledge management is the method to identify, gain, organize and process information to create knowledge, which is distributed and be provided for others to create more knowledge (Kim, Sionghi, 2002, 19). In short, knowledge management in the organizations tends to clear manner of transforming the information and individual and organizational knowledge to individual and group skills.
Knowledge management is a complicated and dynamic issue. Success of knowledge management I depended on a systemic attitude considering all factors and processes of knowledge. Any kind of negligence may cause serious challenges against success of knowledge management plans. According to attitude of scholars to knowledge management, various models are developed. Among these models, one can refer to Boisot KM model (1998), General Knowledge Model Newman& Conrad (1999), work structure-based model of Ren Johnson (2000), The SECI Model and Knowledge Conversion of Nonaka (2001), Phil Perry and Ilkatomy six-dimensional KM model (2001), knowledge processes-based Model of Steve Hales (2001). The mentioned models are the most common models in field of knowledge management. However, effectiveness of each model is depended on position of the organization.
In organizational level, the main challenge is persuading organizations in field of need to important cultural changes in the organization. The cultural changes include creating open, inclusive, relationship-based and cooperative environments that can lead to knowledge exchange among people and to provide required organizational and technological conditions to provide the exchanges (Martins et al, 2003).
Obtained results from a study on basic success factors of KM showed existence of 11 basic factors in this field as follows: Staff training, staff participation in the implementation of knowledge management and teamwork, empowering employees, accepting external leadership, excellent management, meeting organizational limitations, IT infrastructure, knowledge-based performance evaluation, knowledge-based culture, Benchmarking (leveling) of leading organizations and the knowledge structure (Chung and Choi, 2005).
Intellectual capital management
In view of human resources, intellectual capital management refers to skills, knowledge and attitude of employees. From marketing perspective, it encompasses intangible capitals such as brand and customer satisfaction; although from perspective of IT, it includes intangible capitals such as use of software and network capabilities.
For better understanding of nature of intellectual capital in the organizations, it is necessary to achieve agreement in field of suitable definition of this concept. In table 1, some definitions from perspectives of different people about intellectual capital are presented.
Table 1: different definitions of intellectual capitals
| Author | Year | Definition (intellectual capitals) | Author | Year | Definition (intellectual capital) |
| Becker | 1964 | Investment in human capitals such as attracting and training people similar to commercial investment in equipment | Stewart | 1997 | Intellectual-knowledge matters, information, spiritual ownership and experience used to create wealth |
| Itami | 1987 | Intangible assets such as information-based assets including technology, customer trust, brand image, corporate culture and skill management are the most important sources for corporate long-term success | Boisot | 1998 | A subset of arrays distributed among people or groups or objects with potential ability to raise value |
| Hall | 1989 | Intellectual capitals including ownership rights such as patent, brands, registered logos, copyright, fame, personal and corporate networks and expertise knowledge of skilled employees | Bounties et al | 1999 | A concept to classify all intangible resources and their mutual interactions |
| Klein and Prozac | 1994 | Intellectual matters formed and used to produce high value assets | Nonaka et al | 2000 | Special corporate resources essential to create value |
| Edvinson and Sullivan | 1996 | A knowledge that can be changed into value | Mer and Shiuma | 2001 | A collection of knowledge specified to an organization that is the most important factor through enhancing value of beneficiaries to improve competitive position of the organization; including human capitals, relational capitals, culture capitals, actions and procedures, spiritual and physical capitals |
| Suibi | 1997 | Associated with subject of intangible assets: internal structure, external structure and human competency | Kaplan and Norton | 2004 | Intangible assets including human capital such as skills, talent and knowledge, information capital such as databases, information systems and technological infrastructures, corporate capital such as leadership style and ability to share knowledge |
Although there are many classifications of intellectual capital, majority of scholars have agreement on 3 elements. They have divided intellectual capital to 3 elements of human capital, structural capital and relational or customer capital.
Effective attraction of human resource
Attraction of human resource is one of the main processes in human resource management, which its effective implementation can affect efficiency of other processed such as training, improvement, use, appointment and maintenance of human resources. If the attraction system is inefficient, no desirable result could be expected; although other organizational processes are developed, since human resource attraction system can pave the way for success of other corporate systems, especially intra-organizational branding field (Tabarsa, Gh, 2011).
Therefore, investment in human resource attraction system is an unavoidable requirement that if it is understood by the organizations properly, they can get positive outcomes (Tabarsa, Gh, 2011).
Effective performance evaluation
After attracting, training and socializing employees, performance evaluation is considered. It means that it should be ensured that after expansion of knowledge management and intellectual capital management that can pave the way for development, to what extent the employees have been able to perform their duties and responsibilities efficiently and to what extent they have been efficient in regard with internal structure of a powerful brand (Tabarsa, gh, 2011).
It should be mentioned that performance can be evaluated in two individual and organizational fields. The aim by individual domain is employees and managers and organizational domain refers to more expanded domain. Moreover, performance evaluation of managers is in close relationship with corporate performance evaluation and the most important common aspect of the two fields is same realization of organizational goals (Tabarsa, Gh, 2011).
Research hypotheses:
Main hypothesis:
· Key tasks of human resource management can affect intra-organizational branding.
Secondary hypotheses
· Hypothesis 1: KM can affect intra-organizational branding.
· Hypothesis 2: intellectual capital management can affect intra-organizational branding.
· Hypothesis 3: efficient attraction system can affect intra-organizational branding.
· Hypothesis 4: efficient performance evaluation system can affect intra-organizational branding.
In terms of purpose, this study is an applied, descriptive-survey and retrospective study. In theoretical terms, through referring to theoretical literature and the investigations, the research literature is codified and then, relevant variables of hypotheses are regulated based on research literature. Then, using questionnaire, data collection is performed through field method and the data has been then analyzed. Finally, the results have been provided for the users.
Statistical population of this study consists of all employees of International Development Business Company (n=475). In this study, Cochran formula is used to calculate sample size and through considering p-value of 5% and normal distribution, statistical sample is estimated to 107 people. Sample individuals were selected randomly from different administrative levels. Finally, 93 valid questionnaires were collected and used.
In this study, descriptive statistics are used to describe events and to generalize the data from sample to population, inferential statistics are used. SPSS software is used for purpose of data analysis. In this study, questionnaire and documents are used as main data collection instruments. The questionnaire in this study contains 5 demographic items and 28 items for 4 secondary hypotheses. Each item has measured effect of relevant items of key fields of human resources on intra-organizational branding in view of respondents. Questions of the questionnaire are in kind of closed questions and Likert scale is also used.
In regard with validity of the scale, opinions of assistant professors and advisors and other scholar professors in this field and ideas of experts and managers of International Development Business Co are used, after applying required changes;final questionnaire was prepared for distribution.
To test reliability of the questionnaire in this study,Cronbach alpha is used. For this purpose, firstly 10 questionnaires were distributed among sample individuals as pretest and the collected data was used to estimate Cronbach alpha. Alpha coefficient was obtained to 0.781 using SPSS software for whole instrument. As total coefficient of the questionnaire higher than 0.7 shows favorable reliability, the scale has good reliability.
Table 2: reliability and correlation coefficient of Cronbach alpha
| Indicators | Number of items | Correlation coefficient of Cronbach alpha |
| Knowledge management | 5 | 0.756 |
| Intellectual capital management | 7 | 0.773 |
| Efficient attraction | 4 | 0.734 |
| Effective performance evaluation | 12 | 0.861 |
| Total | 28 | 0.781 |
Data analysis method
In this study, descriptive statistics are used to show demographic information and the responding method of sample to the questions. As this study is aimed in estimating effect of a variable on another, one sample T-test is used that is among tests to compare mean values.
Main hypothesis of the study claims that key responsibilities of human resource management can affect intra-organizational branding. However, the hypothesis is not tested directly, but also its negative mode is tested recognized as null hypothesis (H0). It means that H0 claims that key responsibilities of human resource management can't affect intra-organizational branding. If H0 is rejected, tested hypothesis in this study is confirmed. Moreover, for purpose of comparing variables and ranking them, Friedman test is used. Freidman test is used to compare mean rank of different groups and to prioritize the items.
Data analysis
Gender distribution
According to frequency distribution table based on gender, out of 93 respondents, 16.1% (n=15) is female and 83.9% (n=78) is male.
Education level distribution
The data in table show that among the respondents in terms of education, the most frequency (57%) has been related to BA degree and the lowest frequency (1.1%) is related to PhD degree. Other ratios are as follows: 2% below diploma, 15% diploma, 10% post-diploma and 15% MA.
Organizational position distribution
The data in table shows that, in terms of organizational position, the highest ratio is related to employees to 67.7% and the lowest ratio is related to senior director to 2.3%. other values are as follows: supervisor to 18%; middle manager to 12%.
Descriptive data of research
In this section, obtained data through questionnaire would be analyzed using statistical methods and SPSS software. As this study is done using sampling method, to generalize the results of the study, it is essential to use inferential statistics. Hence, one sample t-test is used that is a test to compare mean values.
Comprehensive information of descriptive statistics are answers of questions are presented in table 3.
Table 3: summary of descriptive statistics
| Secondary hypothesis | Secondary sub-hypotheses | Items | Frequency (%) | |||||
| Very low | Low | Average | High | Very high | Mean | |||
| Knowledge management Mean=3.44 Variance=0.554 | None | Teamwork culture in organization | 0 | 0 | 31.2 | 54.8 | 14 | 3.828 |
| Focus of organization on employee training and empowerment | 0 | 0 | 46.2 | 36.6 | 17.2 | 3.710 | ||
| Support of senior director for knowledge-based thought | 0 | 7.5 | 18.3 | 53.8 | 20.4 | 3.871 | ||
| Suitable infrastructures of information systems | 0 | 12.9 | 32.3 | 41.9 | 12.9 | 3.548 | ||
| Benchmarking of top companies in field of KM | 0 | 48.4 | 31.2 | 17.2 | 3.2 | 2.753 | ||
| Intellectual capital management Mean=3.69 Variance=0.278 | Human capitals Mean=3.46 Variance=3.24 | Competency of employees | 0 | 0 | 44.1 | 49.5 | 6.4 | 3.624 |
| Organizational commitment of employees | 0 | 14 | 38.7 | 34.4 | 12.9 | 3.462 | ||
| Observance of citizenship behavior in organization | 0 | 7.5 | 58.1 | 31.2 | 3.2 | 3.301 | ||
| Structural capitals Mean=3.7 Variance=4.7 | Certain working processes | 0 | 29 | 44.1 | 17.2 | 9.7 | 3.075 | |
| Organizational innovation and creativity | 0 | 0 | 10.8 | 44 | 45.2 | 4.344 | ||
| Relational capitals Mean=3.53 Variance=0.333 | Corporate credit and fame | 0 | 0 | 33.3 | 51.6 | 15.1 | 3.817 | |
| Organic and continuous customer relationship | 0 | 17.2 | 54.8 | 12.9 | 15.1 | 3.258 | ||
| Efficient attraction Mean=3.4 Variance=0.375 | Organizational factors Mean=3.5 Variance=0.285 | Organization size | 0 | 21.5 | 40.9 | 37.6 | 0 | 3.161 |
| Organizational goals and strategies | 0 | 32.3 | 50.5 | 17.2 | 0 | 3.849 | ||
| Environmental factors Mean=3 Variance=0.416 | Considering behavior of competitors | 0 | 33.3 | 43 | 9.7 | 14 | 3.043 | |
| Organizational regulations | 0 | 30.1 | 46.2 | 20.4 | 3.3 | 2.968 | ||
| Customer satisfaction Mean=3.99 Variance=3.46 | Customer satisfaction of product or service quality | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41.9 | 58.1 | 4.581 | |
| Customer satisfaction of product or service cost | 0 | 0 | 25.8 | 54.8 | 19.4 | 3.935 | ||
| Customer satisfaction of adjustment of product with order | 0 | 8.6 | 48.4 | 26.9 | 16.1 | 3.505 | ||
| Customer satisfaction of after-sale services | 0 | 0 | 44.1 | 17.2 | 38.7 | 3.946 | ||
| Effective performance evaluation Mean=3.55 Variance=0.619 | Employee satisfaction evaluation Mean=3.49 Variance=5670 | Employee satisfaction of wage and salary | 0 | 10.8 | 47.3 | 24.7 | 17.2 | 3.484 |
| Employee satisfaction of job security | 0 | 14 | 32.3 | 38.6 | 15.1 | 3.548 | ||
| Employee satisfaction of job social respect | 0 | 16.1 | 37.6 | 37.7 | 8.6 | 3.387 | ||
| Satisfaction of suppliers Mean=2.64 Variance=0.642 | Satisfaction of suppliers by on-time collection of receivables | 0 | 30.1 | 43 | 26.9 | 0 | 2.968 | |
| Satisfaction of suppliers by orders' value | 17.2 | 30.1 | 29.8 | 7.5 | 5.4 | 2.538 | ||
| Satisfaction of suppliers by corporate loyalty | 15.1 | 54.8 | 11.8 | 8.6 | 9.7 | 2.430 | ||
| Satisfaction of stockholders by return on investment | 0 | 28 | 41.9 | 16.1 | 14 | 3.161 | ||
Table 4 presents a summary of ranking of studied factors that can refer to many important issues:
Table 4: ranking secondary hypotheses
| Rank | Secondary hypothesis | Mean responses |
| First | Intellectual capital management (H2) | 3.69 |
| Second | Efficient performance evaluation system (H4) | 3.55 |
| Third | Knowledge management (H1) | 3.44 |
| Fourth | Efficient attraction system (H3) | 3.4 |
Table 5: ranking items of research hypotheses
| Rank | Items | Rank | Items |
| 1 | Customer satisfaction by product or service quality | 15 | Employee satisfaction by wage and salary |
| 2 | Organizational innovation and creativity | 16 | Organizational commitment of employees |
| 3 | Customer satisfaction by after-sale services | 17 | Employee satisfaction by justice |
| 4 | Customer satisfaction by product or service cost | 18 | Observance of citizenship behavior in organization |
| 5 | Support of senior director for knowledge-based thought | 19 | Organic and continuous customer relationship |
| 6 | Organizational goals and strategies | 20 | Satisfaction of stockholders by return on investment |
| 7 | Team work in organization | 21 | Organization size |
| 8 | Organizational fame and credit | 22 | Certain work processes |
| 9 | Focus of organization on employee training and empowerment | 23 | Considering the competitors |
| 10 | Competency of employees | 24 | Satisfaction of suppliers by on-time collection of receivables |
| 11 | Satisfaction of employees by job social respect | 25 | Organizational regulations |
| 12 | Suitable infrastructures of information systems | 26 | Benchmarking top companies in field of KM |
| 13 | Employee satisfaction by job security | 27 | Satisfaction of suppliers by orders' value |
| 14 | Customer satisfaction by adjustment of product or service with order | 28 | Satisfaction of suppliers by organizational loyalty |
As this study is done through sampling, to generalize the results, it is necessary to use techniques of inferential statistics. Hence, this study has used one sample t-test that is a test to compare mean values.
Hypothesis 1
Table 5: one-sample statistics
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error mean | |
| Knowledge management | 93 | 3.4409 | 0.74400 | 0.07715 |
Table 6: one-sample t-test
| Test Value=3 | ||||||
| T | df | Sig (2-tailed) | Mena difference | 95% confidence interval of the difference | ||
| KM | 5.714 | 92 | 0.000 | 0.44086 | 0.2876 | 0.5941 |
H0= ū<3
H1= ū≥3
According to obtained results, one-sample t-test is equal to 5.714 and the mean difference is significant in confidence level of 99% and error of 1%. According to the table, mean value of role of KM in branding (3.4409) is higher than average level (3) and according to the significance, this factor has significant role and the hypothesis is confirmed.
Hypothesis 2
Table 7: one-sample statistics
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error mean | |
| Intellectual capital management | 93 | 3.6989 | 0.52719 | 0.05467 |
Table 8: one-sample t-test
| Test Value=3 | ||||||
| T | df | Sig (2-tailed) | Mena difference | 95% confidence interval of the difference | ||
| Intellectual capital management | 12.785 | 92 | 0.000 | 0.69892 | 0.5904 | 0.8075 |
H0= ū<3
H1= ū≥3
According to obtained results, one-sample t-test is equal to 12.785 and the mean difference is significant in confidence level of 99% and error of 1%. According to the table, mean value of role of intellectual capital management in branding (3.6989) is higher than average level (3) and according to the significance, this factor has significant role and the hypothesis is confirmed.
Hypothesis 3
Table 9: one-sample statistics
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error mean | |
| Efficient attraction | 93 | 3.4086 | 0.61213 | 0.06348 |
Table 10: one-sample t-test
| Test Value=3 | ||||||
| T | df | Sig (2-tailed) | Mena difference | 95% confidence interval of the difference | ||
| Efficient attraction | 6.437 | 92 | 0.000 | 0.40860 | 0.2825 | 0.5347 |
H0= ū<3
H1= ū≥3
According to obtained results, one-sample t-test is equal to 6.437 and the mean difference is significant in confidence level of 99% and error of 1%. According to the table, mean value of role of efficient attraction in branding (3.4086) is higher than average level (3) and according to the significance, this factor has significant role and the hypothesis is confirmed.
Hypothesis 4
Table 11: one-sample statistics
| N | Mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error mean | |
| Efficient performance evaluation | 93 | 3.5591 | 0.78660 | 0.08157 |
Table 12: one-sample t-test
| Test Value=3 | ||||||
| T | df | Sig (2-tailed) | Mena difference | 95% confidence interval of the difference | ||
| Efficient performance evaluation | 6.855 | 92 | 0.000 | 0.55914 | 0.3971 | 0.7211 |
H0= ū<3
H1= ū≥3
According to obtained results, one-sample t-test is equal to 6.855 and the mean difference is significant in confidence level of 99% and error of 1%. According to the table, mean value of role of efficient performance evaluation in branding (3.5591) is higher than average level (3) and according to the significance, this factor has significant role and the hypothesis is confirmed.
Friedman test for purpose of prioritization of research hypotheses
Table 13: ranks
| Mean rank | |
| Knowledge management | 2.33 |
| Intellectual capital management | 2.82 |
| Efficient attraction | 2.28 |
| Efficient performance evaluation | 2.56 |
Table 14: t statistics a
| N | 93 |
| Chi-square | 22.111 |
| df | 3 |
| Asymp. Sig | 0.000 |
According to the test performed by chi-square of 22.111 and confidence level of 99% and error of 1%, prioritization of effective factors in branding is significant. According to the table, intellectual capital management and efficient performance evaluation have respectively the most effect and efficient attraction and Km have lowest effects.
The same test is used to prioritize main elements of hypotheses; although because of limitation of pages, the tables are not presented and the results of the test are presented in conclusion.
According to obtained results from statistical tables,H2 "intellectual capital management" has been identified as the most effective factor of 4 studied factors in this study in field of intra-organizational branding. According to statistics, 63.4% of respondents have considered high effect of intellectual capitals and this shows that if senior director of the organization tends a powerful structure and architecture, he should prefer the discussions related to intellectual capitals and pay specific attention to them. The discussions in regard with preservation of intangible capitals such as knowledge, experiences and culture can play role and pave the way for organizational development. The main discussions in this field based on priority include management of innovation of employees, preservation of organizational credit, creating system of using competent employees and transferring their competency to alternative employees, training promised employees and intensification of their commitment to the organization and job, promotion of citizenship behavior among employees and observance of its principles in all organizational levels, creation of communicating channels with customers in such manner that the channels can stabilize the organization-customer relationship and expand the relations. Also, planning on working processes should be in such efficient manner among all members. As the field of intellectual capitals has 3 subsets (structural capital, human capital and relational capital), according to obtained statistics, structural capital including innovation management and working process planning is the most efficient part and after that, relational capital department including organizational credit and customer relationship in in next position. Next, human capital is considered including competency of employees and organizational promise and observance of citizenship behavior.
According to obtained results from statistical tables, H4 "efficient performance evaluation system" is recognized as the second factor of studied factors affecting intra-organizational branding. According to statistics, 62.4% of respondents have considered average effect of intellectual capitals and this shows that the discussions in regard with preservation of efficient performance evaluation should be second priority of senior management of the organization to make and design a powerful internal brand. According to statistical data, among the subsets of efficient performance evaluation, the most important factor is customer satisfaction and the least significant factor is satisfaction o supplier and satisfaction of employee and satisfaction of stockholders have possessed ranks 2 and 3. Hence, it could be found that in regard with making a powerful brand, satisfying customers plays key role and can be determinant. Factors such as customer satisfaction by the product or service, customer satisfaction by product cost, customer satisfaction by after-sale services and customer satisfaction by adjustment of product with the needs are the factors creating customer satisfaction, which are presented based on priority.
According to obtained results and according to the mentioned, H1 "knowledge management" is recognized as the third factor among studied factors in field of intra-organizational branding. According to statistics, 54.8% of respondents have claimed that effect of KM on intra-organizational branding is in average level. Support of senior director of the organization for knowledge-based culture and its orientation toward basic factors of KM can be the most important indicator in field of KM that can the most effect on making a powerful and creditable brand. Existence of team work in organization, training and empowerment system, up to date and appropriate infrastructures and using experiences of top organizations in field of KM are sub-factors of Km system, which can play role in field of branding based on priority in view of the respondents.
Finally, according to obtained results from statistical tables, H3 "efficient attraction system" is considered as the fourth factor affecting intra-organizational branding. According to statistics, 52.7% of respondents have claimed that effect of efficient attraction system on intra-organizational branding is in average level. Hence, the sub-factors of efficient attraction system including organizational factors (organizational goals and size) and environmental factors (competitors and regulations) have been identified as factors with least effect on intra-organizational branding.
According to this study, it could be generally found that satisfying the customers and referees of the organization in regard with making organizational brand is an important issue. As it was observed in tables, relevant items of this field such as satisfaction of quality, satisfaction of cost, satisfaction of after-sale services have been among first priorities of respondents. This can show importance of customer and type of attitude of customers to organization and its determinant role in position of brand of the organization.
A specific consideration of creativity and innovation in organization as basic element of intellectual capital management is very important in view of respondents and the reason for this issue could be high competitiveness at the current markets across the world. Innovation and creativity could be considered as driving motor of organization in way of competition. Fresh blood can enter to the vessels of organization through creativity and innovation and can gift freshness and novelty to the organizational thought. Another factor in field of intellectual capital gaining attention of respondents has been credit of organization presented as relational capital, which is a result of considering the issue of customer-orientation. Meritocracy system is also an important factor in field of intellectual capital, which has possessed special position in field of branding in view of respondents.
Existence of team work and integrated educational and empowerment plans is important in view of respondents; although provided that this kind of thought (knowledge-based thought) is supported by senior management department.
Having explicit organizational goals and explicitness of these goals for all organizational levels can be the most important issues in field of making and developing the brand of organization that should be considered by senior management and be handled.
1. Abtahi, Hasan and Salavati, Aadel, (2007), “Knowledge management in organization”, Peyvand Publication, Tehran (In Persian)
2. Akhavan, Peyman, (2007), “Rules of Knowledge management system in national surface”, first knowledge conference, Tehran (In Persian)
3. Alvani, Mahdi, (2004), “Learning pattern”, Develop management journal, No.17 (38),val .8 (In Persian).
4. Amir yusefi, Zahra, (2011), “Research for existence and desirable of intellectual capital in tosehsaderat bank”, ShahidBeheshtiuniversity, Tehran (In Persian)
5. Balt, Gant, (2004), “Knowledge management in organization: research for mutual impression of technology and human” Tehran
6. Baratikesh, Asiye, (2009), “Research for relation between intellectual in rehabilitation of managers”, ShahidBeheshtiuniversity, Tehran (In Persian)
7. Bounties, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models”, management decision, vol .36 .No 2,Pp 36 – 76
8. Danayifar, Hasan and Alvani, Mahdi, (2010), “Quantitative research in management”, Safar Publication, Tehran (In Persian)
9. Haji Ghasemi, Hanie, (2010), “Research for success important elements in accomplishment knowledge management in Pasargad Bank”, ShahidBeheshtiuniversity, Tehran (In Persian).
10. Hoseini, Khodadad. Azizi, Shahryar, (2009), “Management and strategic planning”, Safar Publication, Tehran (In Persian)
11. Ikhlasi, Amir, (2011), “Methods of branding with approach of united communication marketing”, Sciences Publication, Tehran (In Persian)
12. Lambert L., Noci G., (2010), Marketing strategy and marketing performance measurement system: Exploring the relationship. European management journal,28: 139-152
13. Lee John, Denise, (2011), What Great Brands Do: The Seven Brand-Building Principles That Separate the Best from the Rest, New York
14. Nerd rum, L, And Erikson, T. (2001) "A human capital Perspective", Journal of intellectual capital
15. Pew Tan, H, plowman, D .and Hancock, P. (2008)"The evolving- research on Intellectual capital", Journal of intellectual capital, vol 9, No 4
16. Porter M.E. (1998), On Competition, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
17. Rading, Amen, (2004), “Knowledge management”, Samt Publication, Tehran (InPersian)
18. Redman, tom, Wilkinson, Adrian, “advanced human resource management, samtPublication, Tehran (In Persian)
19. Rousta, Ahmad, (2011), “Islamic Branding”, Andishe Publication, Tehran (InPersian)
20. Rousta, Ahmad, (2011), “Unstable Brand”, Andishe Publication, Tehran (InPersian)
21. Tabarsa, Gholamali, (2010), “Management theories- behavior management and human resourse management”, Parseh Publication, Tehran (In Persian)
22. Tabarsa, Gholamali, (2010), “Management theories- principles of organization and management”, Parseh Publication, Tehran (In Persian)
