Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity Article
The Role of Brand Commitment in the Retail Sector:
The Relation with Open Innovation
Jose Ribamar Siqueira
1,
*
, Nathalie Peña-Garc½a
2
, Enrique ter Horst
3
, German Molina
4
and Monica Villamil
5





Citation:Siqueira, J.R.; Peña-García,
N.; ter Horst, E.; Molina, G.; Villamil,
M. The Role of Brand Commitment in
the Retail Sector: The Relation with
Open Innovation.J. Open Innov.
Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154.
https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc
7020154
Received: 25 April 2021
Accepted: 25 May 2021
Published: 11 June 2021
Publisher's Note:MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional afl-
iations.
Copyright:© 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1
Department of Business Administration, Ponticia Universidad Javeriana, Bogot¡110231, Colombia
2
Research Department, Colegio de Estudios Superiores de Administraciân CESA, Bogot¡110231, Colombia;
[email protected]
3
School of Management, Universidad de los Andes, Bogot¡111711, Colombia; [email protected]
4
Idalion Capital Group, London W1J 8NR, UK; [email protected]
5
Independent Researcher, Bogot¡110231, Colombia; [email protected]
*Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract:
Firm–employee relationships are a prerequisite for customer–rm relationships and, con-
sequently, to organizational success. The development of such relationships can be particularly
challenging for retailers because of the complexity of the service component inherent to the environ-
ment in which they usually operate. For this reason, organizations need to align employee behaviors
with the corporate brand promise so that they can perform a more active role as brand ambassadors.
This issue becomes even more complex for organizations with a presence in foreign markets. This
study focuses on how the adoption of in-role branding behavior by front-line employees (FLEs)
can be inuenced by the level of commitment FLEs display towards the corporate brand and how
commitment is consequently inuenced by corporate brand identity and corporate brand identity
FLES' perception of their role within the organization. The object of the study was the employees of
Falabella, a multinational retailer based in Chile with a strong presence in the Colombian market.
Results obtained demonstrate that brand commitment positively and signicantly impacts FLE brand-
oriented behavior in the retail context examined. More specically, brand identity and role clarity
positively impact brand commitment, leading to a positive impact on FLE brand behavior and job
satisfaction. The results of this study offer valuable insight for scholars and practitioners regarding
employee brand behavior's engendering process within a retail environment in an emerging market.
Keywords:branding; front-line employees; retail; brand-commitment; role clarity; job satisfaction
1. Introduction
A brand can be described as the result of social interactions that imprint a particular
value in the minds of customers and other stakeholders [1]. The direct interactions between
brands and consumers often start with a search and end with the brand's disposal [2].
During this process, the front-line employee (FLE) plays the critical role of guiding cus-
tomers through the nal stages of their journey with the brand [3]. The direct and indirect
dyadic interaction between customers and employees can help strengthen the brand image
in consumers' minds at any point of contact [4]. From a strategic standpoint, employees
can be used as operant resources and active brand value co-creators to help support the
corporate brand and lead to a competitive advantage [5]. The delivery of a brand's promise
in service organizations requires a high level of understanding of the brand on the part of
FLEs and what it means for them in the execution of their roles and responsibilities [6].
The issue of corporate branding in the retail environment is complex and different
from other contexts because it deals with two category-dening variables: the extensive
interactions that occur between the staff and consumers, and the fact that the products
being sold are usually part of a broad portfolio of different brands turning retailers into
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154.

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 2 of 23
hybrid organizations [7]. A branding strategy executed within this context must rely on a
brand's capability to build relationships for the service organization. These relationships
can be developed with customers and employees and can help transmit the brand's identity
and values to customers and employees through different channels. This is particularly true
with FLEs, who act as intermediaries between retailers and customers. The brand-oriented
behavior displayed by FLEs during interactions with customers has become extremely
important for organizations because of the impact it has on rm-customer relationships,
customer experiences [8], and brand loyalty [9]. The behavior of FLEs attuned adequately to
the brand promise can more effectively support its delivery to customers and help retailers
gain a much-valued competitive advantage in the form of a superior retail experience [10].
The relationship between FLEs and customers can be analyzed from either an external
or internal perspective. Externally, companies worry about customers' perception of the
behavior displayed by their FLEs. From an internal perspective, rms have grasped the
need to direct this behavior by determining a specic set of brand-oriented employee
behaviors that can lead to the development of brand citizenship behavior (BCB) [11]. FLEs
can express BCB in two ways: (1) through in-role brand-building behavior (IRBBB), strictly
guided by internal brand management norms designed to align employee behavior to the
corporate brand resulting in more consistent delivery of the brand promise; and (2) through
extra-role brand-building behavior (ERBBB), consisting of branding behaviors that are
entirely voluntary (not part of a job description) and help support the brand [12].
Employee brand-oriented behavior in the retail context should be aligned with the
corporate brand, making the brand the central point for strategy development across
all areas. This alignment should be a consequence of the organization's level of brand
orientation [13] and its effects on branding behaviors [14]. The organizational vision of
properly aligning FLE brand-oriented behavior with the retailer's corporate brand and
turning FLEs into brand ambassadors has been attracting much attention lately [15,16],
but how can retailers leverage internal resources to help support its development? We
argue that the adoption of branding behavior by FLEs can be inuenced by the level of
commitment FLEs display towards the corporate brand and that this commitment is, in
turn, inuenced by both the corporate brand identity and FLEs' perception of their role
within the organization. The ability of FLEs to deliver appropriate services and congruent
brand messages is critical in the retail environment and can be affected by factors such as
role conict and ambiguity that are more prevalent in this sector than others [7]. These
issues can be resolved by providing FLEs with a clear understanding of their roles, which
can improve employee brand commitment and ultimately IRBBB and satisfaction with
their current jobs.
With the idea of exploring the impact of a retailer's corporate brand on how its
employees represent it, this study will contribute to the marketing literature in four ways.
First, it explores the impact of brand identity and role clarity on FLE brand commitment.
Second, it examines how brand commitment inuences FLE brand-oriented behavior,
operationalized as IRBBB. IRBBB was included to account for both brand and human
resources characteristics that can help explain how FLE's commitment towards the brand
can support it. Third, to our knowledge, the retail sector's employee branding behavior
has never been explored in South American countries. This study provides a unique
opportunity to explore how concepts developed in the employee branding literature can
be applied to an emerging economy context. Lastly, the novel approach of applying a
Bayesian framework was employed to test the proposed model. The application of Bayesian
modeling presents numerous advantages over other traditional approaches because of
the way it handles sample size limitations and homogeneity, potential missing data, and
model specication.
This research article is structured in the following manner: Section
literature review of the variables that comprise the study model and respective proposed
hypotheses. Section
methodology used for the study and describes the data collection and analysis procedures.

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 3 of 23
Section
implications of the ndings, limitations, and potential avenues for further research. Lastly,
Section
that can be explored for future research.
2. Theoretical Model and Hypotheses Development
2.1. Brand Commitment
The literature on brand commitment was primarily developed with consumers in
mind. It posits that consumers who display high brand commitment can exhibit a high
active interest in product or brand information, which can result from a need to conrm
their brand preference [17]. When applying the concept to employees, ref. [18] (p. 266)
dened brand commitment as “the extent of employees' psychological attachment to the
brand, which inuences their willingness to exert extra effort towards reaching the brand's
goals”. The brand commitment concept originated from the organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB) literature, and, as a consequence, it has been used interchangeably with the
term organizational commitment [19]. More specically, the brand commitment construct is
synonymous with organizational commitment and accounts for the organization-employee
psychological bond [20]. Organizational commitment has been dened as “the relative
strength of an individual's identication with and involvement in an organization” [21].
Various models have been developed to explain the link of employee commitment with
OCBs. For example, Scholl's model represents commitment as “a stabilizing force that acts
to maintain behavioral direction when expectancy/equity conditions are not met and do
not function” [22] (p. 593).
In contrast, Wiener's model characterizes commitment as the entirety of employee
internalized beliefs and as an antecedent for behaviors that: (a) reects employees' personal
sacrice for the organization; (b) is independent of reinforcements or punishments, and
(c) expresses personal concerns for the organization [23]. Ref. [18] suggested that brand
commitment consists of three constructs similar to organizational commitment: obedience,
identication, and internalization. Obedience reects the degree of exibility on the
employee's part to mold beliefs or actions to those of a brand; identication represents
employee feelings of brand belongingness, and internalization measures the degree of
inuence a brand has over employees' beliefs and actions. Ref. [24] (p. 381) supported
the idea of a single construct measure of commitment treating brand commitment as “the
degree employees identify themselves with the brand and are willing to exert additional
effort to achieve the goals of the brand (affective commitment) and are interested in
remaining with the service organization (continuance commitment)”.
The brand internalization process and the resulting understanding of the brand de-
pend on employees' comprehension of brand-related information. According to [25], brand
understanding consists of three dimensions developed from [26] job characteristics the-
ory. The three dimensions are: (1) employee brand knowledge perception (employee
comprehension of the importance of the brand promise and its fulllment); (2) employee
perceived brand importance (employee comprehension of how brand success can help
the organization achieve its goals); and (3) perceived brand role relevance (employee
comprehension of their role to achieve brand success). Therefore, internalizing the brand
and its promise is crucial for delivering the brand promise to the customer [27]. This can
only occur when well-dened organizational brand values, practices, and behaviors are
appropriately aligned with organizational efforts. Lack of clarity can disrupt the brand
behavior process leading to inconsistent service delivery.
Ref. [28] examined the dimensions of commitment to the organization as antecedents
of employee behavior and suggested that organizational commitment also impacts indi-
viduals' psychological attachment to organizations. Brand commitment can help instill a
sense of personal competence in employees, but beyond that, it can also kindle the desire
to deliver the brand promise. The degree of employee brand commitment can also serve as
an indication of employee brand knowledge. Brand knowledge can help them thrive in

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 4 of 23
their roles, and when combined with a clear understanding of organizational expectations,
it can result in increased employee commitment to the organization [29]. Therefore, the
diffusion of brand-related information can improve employee role clarity and identication
with organizational values, which can lead to improved employee performance.
2.2. Antecedents of Brand Commitment
2.2.1. Brand Identity
Brand identity is a complex construct representing a brand both visually and verbally,
which communicates to customers its qualities and characteristics [30]. Brand identity
is a concept better understood when examined holistically, as it is developed from the
resulting interaction between brands and consumers across many different points [31].
Ref. [32] characterized brand identity as a blend of core and extended components. The
core identity represents the brand's essence that remains constant regardless of market
or product changes, and the extended identity deals with the personality, relationships,
and symbol associations of the brand. Ref. [33] described it as a six-sided prism consist-
ing of: physical facet, relationship, reected customer, consumer mentalization, culture
(values), and personality. Ref. [34] later segmented brand identity theory into ve critical
schools of thought: “corporate identity (the identity of the organization), communicated
corporate identication (identication from the organization), stakeholder corporate iden-
tication (an individual, or stakeholder group's, identication with the organization),
stakeholder cultural identication (an individual, or stakeholder group's, identication to
a corporate culture), and envisioned identities and identications (how an organization, or
group, envisions how another corporation or group characterizes their identity or mode of
identication)” (p. 879).
FLEs must correctly represent corporate brands in a service environment to be effective.
FLEs represent the corporate brand when communicating with both internal and external
stakeholders. The reception and processing of corporate identity cues empower FLEs to act
as decoders of corporate identity signals to the customer. By doing so, FLEs can determine
the strength and inuence of the corporate brand identity and help build, support, and
inuence the brand identity by providing feedback to the organization [35]. The brand's
identity is fundamental within this context, as it enables FLEs to develop a better under-
standing of the rm. This can also occur through its visual identity represented by symbols
and logos [36], allowing this understanding to shape their behavior when interacting with
customers. Ref. [37] argued that beyond transmitting information to its employees, an
organization's visual identity system also indirectly sends out information about itself to
the exterior world through its employees. The literature on corporate branding acknowl-
edges how FLEs can inuence customers' brand perceptions through service development
and delivery [5], posits corporate branding as means to achieve differentiation [38] that
can contribute to the development of a positive corporate reputation [39], and as a tool
that can help align the organization around a core brand identity [40]. Brand alignment
is particularly challenging because brand knowledge tends to be asymmetrical among
brand stakeholders (marketers, consumers, and channel members) [41]. When examining
FLEs from the perspective of an organization's corporate identity audience, a signicant
portion of the organizational knowledge results from physical and behavioral cues that
spontaneously occur within the organization [42] and formal internal branding programs.
Employees can also transmit psychological signals that represent attitudes and be-
haviors characteristic of their organization during a service encounter [43]. The intensity
of these signals can be as strong or weak as the degree to which the customer identies
with the core characteristics of the organization [44]. Employees committed to a company
display a higher self-appreciation and appreciation of their work, and as a consequence, the
satisfaction and motivation to perform their work increases [45]. Due to the need for em-
ployees to emotionally internalize brand values in order to deliver the brand promise [46],
it is hypothesized that:

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 5 of 23
Hypothesis 1 (H1).Brand identity positively impacts FLE brand commitment.
2.2.2. Role Clarity
Role clarity is dened as “the level of clarity an employee has of their role as a result of
having brand knowledge” [47] (p. 946). Role clarity represents the employee's understand-
ing of the brand's expectations and their responsibilities. In order to behave according to
a company's brand standards, employees must clearly understand their roles, as lack of
clarity can result in wasted efforts and underperformance. Role clarity can be supported by
a supervisor's feedback and can ultimately inuence employee job performance. The main
objective of role clarity is to stimulate a type of goal-oriented behavior in employees that
can be aligned with the company's brand expectations [48]. A transparent communication
process designed to apprise employees about service offerings, needs and wants of clients,
product features, service benets, and corporate goals can further understand their roles
within the organization [49]. Ref. [50] argued that this type of information is required
to properly align employees' attitudes and behaviors with organizational goals because
of how it can impact individual behavior. Additionally, there is a need on the part of
employees for psychological safety within the work environment connected to fear of
negative consequences to self-image, status, or career [51]. Psychological safety can be
affected by organizational processes and norms, and the existence of a supportive and
trusting management team can help employees feel psychologically safe and satised with
their jobs [51]. The relationship between employees' understandings of role requirements
and their satisfaction is supported in the role clarity literature [52].
The successful implementation of internal brand management practices requires the
organization to acknowledge the fact that “employment represents an exchange process
whereby the provision of material and socio-emotional benets by the organization is ex-
changed for employee effort and loyalty” [47] (p. 942). It is also essential for management
to better understand employees' needs and wants regarding their roles and responsibil-
ities because it offers management the opportunity to better align the dissemination of
knowledge according to what they learn. Ref. [53] showed that by encouraging employees
to agree on an appropriate style of brand supporting behavior, an organizational leader
could play a crucial role in developing a shared service brand. This can help eliminate
role ambiguity and build stronger working relationships between group members through
knowledge dissemination. In turn, knowledge dissemination can help employees better
understand the overall brand strategy and management's rationale regarding employees,
customers, and service [54]. Consequently, it can help reduce employee role conict [55]
and increase role clarity [56]. Thus, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).Role clarity positively impacts FLE brand commitment.
2.3. Consequences of Brand Commitment
2.3.1. In-Role Brand Building Behavior (IRBBB)
Ref. [57] was among the rst to point out that employee performance affects customer
satisfaction and retention, and brand image. The existing research on employee branding
is mainly directed at behavioral effects or its management. The research line examining
behavioral effects of employee branding focuses on its relationship with customers and
brand image. It seeks to understand how customers perceive FLE in terms of brand
image and brand-building performance. Conversely, the line that focuses on employee
branding management is procedural and focuses on requirements necessary to implement
a predetermined brand personality into the building behavior exhibited by employees [58],
which is the theme examined in this study.
Ref. [59] (p. 68) dene employee branding as “the process by which employees inter-
nalize the desired brand image and are motivated to project the image to customers and
other organizational constituents”. It was not until recently that the study of the benets of
internal marketing, strategy formulation, and management started to attract attention [6,60].

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 6 of 23
There is ample agreement that internal marketing is an instrumental component that can be
used to help guide employee behavior through a better understanding of brands. Ref. [12]
proposed a model that specically examined the development of employee branding be-
havior in the telecommunications sector. The model is based on the two forms of service
behaviors that employees can exhibit: in-role and extra-role behaviors. IRBBB is dened as
“front-line employees' meeting the standards prescribed by their organizational roles as
brand representatives (either written in behavioral codices, manuals, display rules, and so
forth or unwritten)” [12] (p. 123). Conversely, extra-role behaviors are optional and should
not be included in a formal job description [61].
IRBBB can be engendered, supported, and managed internally by the rm and should
be cultivated among employees to improve its relationship with customers and differentiate
itself from the competition. Nevertheless, the management of IRBBB presents its own set
of challenges. One of the biggest challenges has to do with the nature of the construct
and its reliance on processes clearly dened internally by organizations that are, for the
most part, performance-oriented. This subjects FLEs to performance reviews based on
clear sets of role expectations grounded on a reward and punishment system that can
impact FLEs' job satisfaction. For this reason, some authors have highlighted the need to
coordinate the efforts of marketers and HR managers to support branding programs [62,63].
This combined internal organizational effort can help organizations improve the extent to
which employees buy into the proposed values and norms and fully live the brand [20].
The act of living the brand is vital because by belonging to an organization FLEs gain
specic understandings that help them navigate the organizational structure [64]. This
act also indicates the existence of a psychological relationship between the FLE and the
rm expressed by informed decisions made by the FLE that ultimately can inuence
organizational representation and brand commitment of FLEs [65]. Due to the role brand
commitment plays in the will of FLEs to represent the brand, we propose that:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).Brand commitment has a positive impact on IRBBB.
2.3.2. Job Satisfaction
In order to be successful at employee branding, organizations must develop a clear
understanding of the employer-employee relationship [59], which starts with the devel-
opment of a psychological contract. A psychological contract is established when a new
employee joins an organization [66]. This contract is based on expectations established
between the two parties and is highly dependent on messages employees receive about the
organization from the moment they are recruited through their tenure with the company.
If there is a breach of contract, employees might start displaying diminished loyalty, nega-
tive word-of-mouth, decreased productivity, and ultimately termination of employment
with the organization [67]. The psychological contract is one of the foundations of the
successful implementation of employee brand image [59]. Employees have also been
considered internal customers, with employee satisfaction perceived as vital to satisfying
customers [68]. Job satisfaction is an expression of an individual's total evaluation of a
rm according to his/her personal experiences over time [69]. Some authors argue that
besides the obvious benets gained by companies that prioritize employee job satisfaction
(organizational commitment and loyalty, lower turnover), job satisfaction can also impact
customer satisfaction [70]. Job satisfaction has been shown to affect customer engagement
and the exchanges between customers and FLEs [70], causing companies to prioritize and
invest signicant resources in FLE job satisfaction. The positive relationship between these
two constructs has been well-documented in various studies [71,72].
Ref. [73] suggested that one of the benets of job satisfaction is fostering individ-
ual cooperation and contribution sentiments in an employee when performing in a team
environment. Nevertheless, a direct positive relationship between job satisfaction and
traditional job performance measures has still not been unanimously supported by em-
pirical research [74]. However, it has been argued that there is a positive relationship

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 7 of 23
between satisfaction and other more formal performance measures in the form of in- and
extra-role behaviors [75]. Through social exchange theory [76] suggested that this might be
due to employees' desire to reciprocate when satised with their jobs. This reciprocation
can take the form of intention to stay with the organization and other behaviors such
as organizational citizenship. The more traditional job performance measures present in
job descriptions and standard operating procedures increase the likelihood of employee
reciprocity occurring as citizenship behaviors [77]. Job satisfaction is the most frequently
examined correlate in organizational citizenship behavior studies [78]. Due to the positive
relationship documented between brand citizenship behaviors and job satisfaction in the
marketing literature, we posit that:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).Brand commitment has a positive impact on FLE job satisfaction.
2.4. Conceptual Framework
Employee brand engagement is considered as one of the main levers of organizational
brand equity [47]. Nonetheless, not much research examining the effect of cognitive,
affective, and behavioral aspects of internal branding in the enhancement of employee
performance is available. Front line employees have become so crucial to the corporate
branding effort that some authors acknowledge them as the service brand itself because of
their role in turning corporate identities into reputations [79]. The role of brand identity
is therefore critical in the IRBBB engendering process. According to Social Exchange
Theory [80], when an organization takes up an active role to satisfy its employees' brand
knowledge needs and adequately explain their roles as brand ambassadors, FLEs are
able to perform their in-role brand duties more effectively. Therefore, the development
of employee brand-oriented behavior should be aligned with the corporate brand, and
the brand should be treated as the central point for strategy development across all areas.
This should be determined according to the level of brand orientation both desired and
displayed by the organization [13] and how it currently affects the implementation of
branding behaviors [14]. Within this context, corporate brand management determines
how the brand should be positioned to support the delivery of the corporate brand's
promise and the resulting consistency required for communications and decisions across
the organization [81].
Ref. [82] argue that the brand-oriented approach can guide and manage other critical
brand strategy components, such as brand commitment. The delivery of the brand promise
relies on FLEs commitment to the brand to support product/services performance and
the delivery of the brand promise [83], and according to [84], total brand commitment is
required from all employees in order for an organization to differentiate itself based on
its corporate brand. Organizations that manage brands as strategic assets tend to display
high levels of brand orientation, resulting in the development of strategy, culture, and
organizational performance aligned with the corporate brand [85]. Therefore, internal
branding is required for an organization to properly align employee behavior with its
brand identity [86].
Ref. [87] suggested that brand commitment should be treated as a key attitudinal
outcome of internal branding. This was based on the idea that cognition can lead to
emotional responses and subsequently lead to coping activities [88], introducing an in-
teresting avenue for the exploration of the cognitive antecedents of affective behaviors,
such as FLE brand commitment [88]. Given the role that brand commitment plays in the
engendering of employee branding behavior, this research investigates the nature of the
relationship of some of its antecedents at the FLE level and how it is supported within the
retail environment. The proposed relationship between brand commitment and IRBBB is
supported by recent ndings presented by [60], who argued that a deep-level bond to a
rm's brand might lead to higher levels of brand identication among its employees and
greater engagement in brand behavior. The development and management of employee
IRBBB pose challenges for retailers. The search for a model examining the impact internal

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 8 of 23
variables can exert on the development of IRBBB has become an important topic lately for
companies seeking to provide customers with a more manageable and consistent customer
experience aligned to the brand promise [89–92]. Such a model is of particular importance
to organizations because besides the need to know if their employees are behaving accord-
ing to the organization's branding norms, they need to understand and quantify what is
currently driving such behavior. The proposed model shows that FLE brand commitment
within a retail environment is inuenced by the rm's brand identity, which should be
the starting point for any branding effort. It goes beyond the traditional boundaries of the
branding literature and, from a human resources perspective, also examines the impact role
clarity has on the development of brand commitment. This is important because a thorough
understanding of the brand's identity and clarity regarding their roles in delivering the
brand's promise can signicantly impact brand commitment. Role clarity was argued to be
positively related to in-role behavior [93] and more recently examined by [94], who found
that it may help explain the effect of internal branding on in-role brand behavior. A rmly
committed FLE who fully understands the brand's identity and his/her role in delivering
the brand promise will be more willing to perform the norms of behavior prescribed by the
brand and be more satised with the job. Figure
proposed by the authors, and Table
in the literature section in terms of antecedent behaviors (Sections) and
consequences of brand commitment (Sections).J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 24

Ref. [87] suggested that brand commitment should be treated as a key attitudinal
outcome of internal branding. This was based on the idea that cognition can lead to emo-
tional responses and subsequently lead to coping activities [88], introducing an interesting
avenue for the exploration of the cognitive antecedents of affective behaviors, such as FLE
brand commitment [88]. Given the role that brand commitment plays in the engendering
of employee branding behavior, this research investigates the nature of the relationship
of some of its antecedents at the FLE level and how it is supported within the retail envi-
ronment. The proposed relationship between brand commitment and IRBBB is supported
by recent findings presented by [60], who argued that a deep-level bond to a firm′s brand
might lead to higher levels of brand identification among its employees and greater en-
gagement in brand behavior. The development and management of employee IRBBB pose
challenges for retailers. The search for a model examining the impact internal variables
can exert on the development of IRBBB has become an important topic lately for compa-
nies seeking to provide customers with a more manageable and consistent customer ex-
perience aligned to the brand promise [89–92]. Such a model is of particular importance
to organizations because besides the need to know if their employees are behaving ac-
cording to the organization′s branding norms, they need to understand and quantify what
is currently driving such behavior. The proposed model shows that FLE brand commit-
ment within a retail environment is influenced by the firm′s brand identity, which should
be the starting point for any branding effort. It goes beyond the traditional boundaries of
the branding literature and, from a human resources perspective, also examines the im-
pact role clarity has on the development of brand commitment. This is important because
a thorough understanding of the brand′s identity and clarity regarding their roles in de-
livering the brand′s promise can significantly impact brand commitment. Role clarity was
argued to be positively related to in-role behavior [93] and more recently examined by
[94], who found that it may help explain the effect of internal branding on in-role brand
behavior. A firmly committed FLE who fully understands the brand′s identity and his/her
role in delivering the brand promise will be more willing to perform the norms of behav-
ior prescribed by the brand and be more satisfied with the job. Figure 1 summarizes the
conceptual framework proposed by the authors, and Table 1 describes each proposed re-
lationship as discussed in the literature section in terms of antecedent behaviors (Sections
2.2.1 and 2.2.2) and consequences of brand commitment (Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2).

Figure 1. Antecedents and consequences of brand commitment of front-line employees proposed
theoretical model.
Table 1. Proposed hypothesis.
Hypothesis Description
H1 Brand identity positively impacts FLE brand commitment
H2 Role clarity positively impacts FLE brand commitment
H3
Brand commitment has a positive impact on in-role brand building behav-
ior
H4 Brand commitment has a positive impact on FLE job satisfaction.
Figure 1.
Antecedents and consequences of brand commitment of front-line employees proposed
theoretical model.
Table 1.Proposed hypothesis.
Hypothesis Description
H1 Brand identity positively impacts FLE brand commitment
H2 Role clarity positively impacts FLE brand commitment
H3 Brand commitment has a positive impact on in-role brand building behavior
H4 Brand commitment has a positive impact on FLE job satisfaction.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Context
3.1.1. The Role of FLEs in the Retail Sector
One of the main reasons behind the increased importance attributed to brand experi-
ence in the literature lately has to do with the existing inseparability of service-oriented
deliveries and the physical retail setting [95]. Branding can play an active role in shaping
customers' perceptions of a product or service, but beyond that, it can also shape equivalent
perceptions in employees [57]. This can happen because a brand is a representation of the
relationship between an organization and its customers and employees [96]. Therefore, the
need to align FLEs' behavior with the brand values has become more evident lately [97].
This can be attributed to existing discrepancies identied in the performance of employee
brand-oriented behavior in service contexts that can prevent the successful management of
performances and brand experiences to which customers are subjected [98]. This is easily
observable within the retail environment, where FLEs facilitate the interaction between the

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 9 of 23
brand and the customer through its service. In this particular context, FLEs are directly
responsible for delivering services and goods to customers [99].
FLEs have displayed a tendency to adopt one of three existing service encounter
models [100] in a retail context: (1) to provide customers with what they request in an
efcient and courteous manner; (2) to strive for immediate objectives accomplishment
(such as sales goals); and (3) to establish a relationship with customers that can be mutually
benecial. The co-creation of the experience during the sales encounter can signicantly
impact service quality and ensure customer satisfaction and loyalty [101]. Service encoun-
ters can go beyond shaping a customer's perception of the service delivered [102] and
help shape the customer's quality level [103]. In this particular context, the manner in
which FLEs behave can signicantly impact how a customer perceives the quality of a
service [104], its value, and the resulting customer satisfaction [105]. FLEs transmit psy-
chological signals during the service encounter, which are expressions of attitudes and
behaviors attributed to their corporate brand [43]. The force of these signals is proportional
to the degree to which a customer identies with the core characteristics of an organiza-
tion [44]. Therefore, it can be argued that service encounters with customers in a retail
context are critical for the performance of an FLE because of the direct impact they can
have on the organization's protability.
Even though the role performed by FLEs in a service environment can also have a
signicant impact on the experience provided to a customer [99,106], it is still difcult
for service organizations to accurately predict all appropriate behaviors that an employee
should display to support organizational success. This might occur because many of these
behaviors cannot be entirely controlled by the organization [12,107]. Consequently, the
development of a method designed to fully engage employees in a brand-building process
has been a challenging proposition. Many references to terms that t the description
of employee branding behavior exist in the literature (i.e., brand ambassadors, brand
champions, etc.), but a widely agreed conceptualization past ensuring high-quality service
delivery has not been developed yet [12].
3.1.2. Retail in Emerging Markets
An unsaturated market's appeal remains one of the main reasons behind interna-
tional expansion [108]. For this reason, studies conducted in emerging markets can help
researchers better understand how existing marketing practices and perspectives prevalent
in these markets differ from those implemented in developed economies. Some widely ac-
cepted concepts developed in developed economies, such as branding, customer centricity,
brand equity, and product positioning, for example, cannot be fully implemented in the
existing retail context of emerging economies [109]. This might be due to existing differ-
ences between emerging and developed markets that can hinder the prescribed application
of marketing theory, strategy, policy, and practice designed with developed economies in
mind. According to [109], these differences can be grouped into the following ve market
dimensions: existing heterogeneity in the market, sociopolitical governance, unbranded
competition represented by local market players, a persistent shortage of resources, and
the presence of inadequate infrastructure to support businesses [109].
Latin American markets present unique sets of intricacies. In some cases, apparent
consumer behavior irrationality can challenge the growth of the formal retailing sector in
specic markets. In other cases, the majority of sales of the retail sector can originate from
small-scale retailers. Some of these behaviors can be explained by certain advantages that
make smaller retailers attractive in local consumers' eyes, such as the perception of a more
personalized retail experience [10].
3.1.3. Study Unit: Falabella in Colombia
Falabella is a Chilean retail holding company founded in 1889 that operates depart-
ment stores, home improvement home centers, supermarkets, and hypermarkets, employ-
ing over 105,500 people across markets. It has a strong presence in Colombia, where it has

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 10 of 23
been operating since 2006. Colombia is an emerging market that shares many similarities
in retail structure and consumer behavior with other Latin American emerging markets.
Consequently, many of the country's main cities started to witness the arrival of modern
retailers such as supermarkets, hypermarkets, and department stores, among other formats.
Colombia's retail reality is still quite different from the one observed in more developed
economies such as Europe and the United States, where between 10 to 20 percent of the
mass consumption market occurs through small retailers.
Falabella is also active in the nancial, insurance, and real estate sectors. All of its
different operations are present in Chile, Argentina, Peru, and Colombia. Its rst interna-
tional store was opened in Mendoza, Argentina, in 1993. In 1995, it entered the Peruvian
market by acquiring the local chain Saga. Falabella currently owns and operates 33 stores in
Chile, 7 in Argentina (Mendoza, Rosario, Cârdoba, San Juan, Buenos Aires, and 15 in Peru
(Lima, Arequipa, Trujillo, Chiclayo, Piura, Cajamarca, and Ica). It opened its rst store in
Colombia in November 2006 at Centro Comercial Santa Fe de Bogota. As of 2017, Falabella
operates 25 stores in Colombia (12 in Bogota, 1 in Barranquilla, 4 in Cali, 2 in Medellin, 1 in
Cartagena, 1 in Pereira, 1 in Villavicencio, 1 in Ibague, and 2 in Bucaramanga) [110].
Falabella's strategic focus revolves around female consumers. Its vision is to be
women's favorite retail brand [110]. For that reason, most marketing campaigns are
developed with women in mind, even though all stores also have sections dedicated
to men, shoes, beauty, children, appliances, and home decoration. In order to support
its positioning, Falabella employs a differentiation strategy based on safety and quality.
Human resources (HR) play a very active role in the company through employee training.
It works closely with its internal communications department to ensure all employees are
always aware of new brand initiatives and promotions. According to the ranking published
by Great Place To Work [111], Falabella was ranked as the 21st best company for employees
in South America.
3.2. Sample
Data collection was conducted among Falabella's associates in Bogota, Colombia. The
chain employs over 7000 people in Colombia. For logistical reasons, the survey was con-
ducted only in Bogota stores. In order to avoid operations disruption, the HR department
of the company opted to request employees' voluntary participation either before or after
their work shifts.
Respondents were asked to anonymously express their agreement or disagreement
with several statements on a ve-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree. The nal sample description is presented in Table. Answers were later
evaluated according to completion and engagement. Responses submitted with incomplete
answers and with a standard deviation lower than 0.3 were eliminated. The survey
produced 400 completed forms and resulted in 392 usable responses.
3.3. Research Instrument
The survey instrument was developed as a composite of existing scales that demon-
strated reliability and validity. It was then translated into Spanish by native speakers and
back into English by native speakers within the framework of collaborative and iterative
translation [112]. The nal survey instrument reects a comprehensive literature review,
and academic colleagues also assessed its items for content and face validity. Market
characteristics were taken into consideration by testing the instrument with 20 consumers
to ensure the response format and that the clarity of the instructions t the local market
context. All items were rated on 5-point Likert scales and are presented in Table
with references.

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 11 of 23
Table 2.Sample description.
Gender Type of Employment
Male 40% Full Time 83%
Female 60% Part-Time 15%
Weekend 2%
Age
16–24 13% Position
25–31 51% Supervisor 45%
32–47 34% Employee 55%
48 and over 2%
Seniority
Average Daily Interactions with Clients Less than 1 yr 24%
1–5 times 25% 1–4 yrs 32%
6–10 times 21% 5–7 yrs 27%
10–20 times 17% 8–14 yrs 17%
All-day long 37%
Table 3.Measurement Items.
Latent Variables Measurement Items Item References
Brand Identity
I know the core components of the (company name withheld) brand. BID1
[35,113]
The description of our mission statement is understandable. BID2
The description of our mission statement is easy to memorize. BID3
The description of our mission statement is convincing. BID4
There is total agreement of our mission across all levels and business areas. BID5
Our company transmits a consistent visual presentation through facilities,
equipment, personnel, and communications material.
BID6
Our consumables (e.g., e-mails, letters) are designed to match the overall
visual elements/image of our company.
BID7
The company's values and mission are regularly communicated to employees.BID8
Role Clarity
I knew what was expected of me on my team. RCLTY1
[114–117]
I felt that I had sufcient time to perform. RCLTY2
I know what my responsibilities are. RCLTY3
I feel certain about how much authority I have. RCLTY4
Clear, planned goals and objectives exist for my job. RCLTY5
My work objectives are always well dened. RCLTY6
I know exactly what is expected of me on my job. RCLTY7
Explanations are clear about what has to be done. RCLTY8
Brand
Commitment
I will work harder than I am expected in order to make Falabella successful. BCOMMIT1
[18,118]
I am proud to work for Falabella. BCOMMIT2
I feel very loyal to Falabella. BCOMMIT3
I talk about Falabella to my friends as a great company to work for. BCOMMIT4
I really care about the future of Falabella. BCOMMIT5
My values are similar to those of Falabella. BCOMMIT6
I feel like I really t in at Falabella. BCOMMIT7
In-Role Brand
Behavior
In customer-contact situations, I pay attention that my personal appearance is
in line with our corporate brand's appearance.
IRBBB1
[12]
I see that my actions in customer contact are not at odds with our standards for
brand-adequate behavior.
IRBBB2
I adhere to our standards for brand-congruent behavior. IRBBB3

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 12 of 23
Table 3.Cont.
Latent Variables Measurement Items Item References
Job Satisfaction
Please select how satised you are about job security working for Falabella. JSAT1
[119,120]
Please select how satised you are about physical conditions (e.g., safety, break
rooms, etc.) of this company.
JSAT2
Please select how satised you are about fringe benets working for Falabella.JSAT3
Please select how satised you are about the pay you receive for your job
working for Falabella.
JSAT4
Please select how satised you are about the recognition that you get when
you do a good job working for Falabella.
JSAT5
Please select how satised you are about the freedom you have to do the best
you can at job working for Falabella.
JSAT6
Please select how satised you are about opportunities for career advancement
working for Falabella.
JSAT7
Please select how satised you are about the type of work you do for Falabella.JSAT8
3.4. Method of Analysis and Measurement Model Analysis
Each construct can be seen as a latent random variable built from the information avail-
able from the items presented in Table. Consequently, we propose a Bayesian hierarchical
multinomial ordered probit latent variable approach to address the associations between
the latent constructs [121]. This approach, described in more detail in the Appendix, has
been explored successfully in similar scenarios [122,123].
The hypothesized associations (Figure) between the constructs are assessed as part
of the model estimation, which is performed using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)
methods [124]. The Bayesian approach does not rely on the central limit theorem for
estimation, and it is, therefore, robust for low sample sizes [125]. It also aligns with
the American Statistical Association's recent recommendations regarding summaries of
evidence, moving away from p-hacking risks and traditionalp-value-based interpretations
that may lead to inappropriate assessments of evidence [126,127].
Each item constitutes a random, independent, and identically distributed realization
from the constructs' distribution (across both constructs and individuals). Under the
Bayesian paradigm, the hypotheses linking the constructs are random variables, with
distributions reecting uncertainty. The associations are, therefore, probabilistic in nature.
Each individual response is a conditionally independent realization of the underlying
latent theme represented by the individual-specic construct, with those linked through
also latent associations.
The proposed Bayesian approach allows for joint inference of constructs and latent
associations, where the output is their joint posterior distribution (and the multivariate,
correlated uncertainty about those). Evidence of associations is assessed based on whether
the majority of the posterior mass for the corresponding latent association parameter
is situated away from zero. Credible intervals are frequently formulated similarly to
frequentist condence intervals but have different interpretations [128]. A posterior 95%
credible interval for a parameter of, for example, (0.383, 0.669) would indicate that a
substantial amount of our knowledge about the parameter, given the information available
in the data and any prior knowledge about the parameters, aligns with positive associations
between the latent constructs.
3.5. Results
We summarize their results through traditional measures, including the posterior
mean, 95% credible intervals, and a conclusion based on the strength of evidence about the
latent associations. This is reported in Table. There is strong evidence of
positive associations for all hypothesized relationships, with the majority of the posterior
mass lying in positive territory in all cases. Full multivariate posterior distributions are
obtained as part of the MCMC output, which shows good mixing as portrayed in Figure.

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 13 of 23J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 24

situated away from zero. Credible intervals are frequently formulated similarly to fre-
quentist confidence intervals but have different interpretations [128]. A posterior 95%
credible interval for a parameter of, for example, (0.383, 0.669) would indicate that a sub-
stantial amount of our knowledge about the parameter, given the information available
in the data and any prior knowledge about the parameters, aligns with positive associa-
tions between the latent constructs.
3.5. Results
We summarize their results through traditional measures, including the posterior
mean, 95% credible intervals, and a conclusion based on the strength of evidence about
the latent associations. This is reported in Table 4 and in Figure 2. There is strong evidence
of positive associations for all hypothesized relationships, with the majority of the poste-
rior mass lying in positive territory in all cases. Full multivariate posterior distributions
are obtained as part of the MCMC output, which shows good mixing as portrayed in Fig-
ure 3.
Table 4. Results from the MCMC regarding the four hypothesized latent associations.
Hypotheses
Posterior Mean (Standard
Deviation)
95% Credible
Interval
Evidence
H1 Brand Identity → Brand Commitment 0.340 (0.067) 0.211–0.339 Strong +
H2 Role Clarity → Brand Commitment 0.524 (0.072) 0.383–0.669 Strong +
H3 Brand Commitment → IRBBB 0.557 (0.068) 0.425–0.691 Strong +
H4 Brand Commitment → Job Satisfaction 0.337 (0.048) 0.244–0.433 Strong +

Figure 2. Research model results.
0.0 0.5 1.0

Figure 2.Research model results.J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 24

situated away from zero. Credible intervals are frequently formulated similarly to fre-
quentist confidence intervals but have different interpretations [128]. A posterior 95%
credible interval for a parameter of, for example, (0.383, 0.669) would indicate that a sub-
stantial amount of our knowledge about the parameter, given the information available
in the data and any prior knowledge about the parameters, aligns with positive associa-
tions between the latent constructs.
3.5. Results
We summarize their results through traditional measures, including the posterior
mean, 95% credible intervals, and a conclusion based on the strength of evidence about
the latent associations. This is reported in Table 4 and in Figure 2. There is strong evidence
of positive associations for all hypothesized relationships, with the majority of the poste-
rior mass lying in positive territory in all cases. Full multivariate posterior distributions
are obtained as part of the MCMC output, which shows good mixing as portrayed in Fig-
ure 3.
Table 4. Results from the MCMC regarding the four hypothesized latent associations.
Hypotheses
Posterior Mean (Standard
Deviation)
95% Credible
Interval
Evidence
H1 Brand Identity → Brand Commitment 0.340 (0.067) 0.211–0.339 Strong +
H2 Role Clarity → Brand Commitment 0.524 (0.072) 0.383–0.669 Strong +
H3 Brand Commitment → IRBBB 0.557 (0.068) 0.425–0.691 Strong +
H4 Brand Commitment → Job Satisfaction 0.337 (0.048) 0.244–0.433 Strong +

Figure 2. Research model results.
0.0 0.5 1.0
J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 24

0.0 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0

Figure 3. MCMC marginal posterior densities (left) and traceplots before thinning (right) for the parameters driving the
hypothesized latent associations (beta1 = H1 in the top row through beta4 = H4 in the bottom row).
4. Discussion
4.1. The Role of Brand Commitment for the Behavior of the Front-Lines Employees
Interestingly, role clarity had a much more substantial impact on brand commitment
than brand identity. Brand identity clearly is a requirement for the development of brand
commitment, but the results seem to indicate that FLEs place higher importance on un-
derstanding role expectations more clearly. This makes sense considering the existence of
a close relationship between performance measurement and expectations in a job descrip-
tion that can impact employee compensation. The general assumption behind the pro-
posed model proposed lies in the premise that other motivation methods might be avail-
able to organizations to mitigate the impact of this type of system. We proposed that the
internalization of the brand′s identity (H1) and a clear understanding of their role (H2)
can cause FLEs to become more committed to the brand. These hypotheses were sup-
ported by substantial evidence from the results (posterior means of 0.340 and 0.524, re-
spectively, with most of the posterior mass largely positive). These relationships should
be leveraged by marketers working alongside HR to ensure the development of job de-
scriptions fully aligned with branding expectations. These two findings are essential be-
cause they are variables that fall entirely under the control of organizations and can sup-
port the achievement of high levels of brand commitment.
Figure 3.
MCMC marginal posterior densities (left) and traceplots before thinning (right) for the parameters driving the
hypothesized latent associations (beta1 = H1 in the top row through beta4 = H4 in the bottom row).

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 14 of 23
Table 4.Results from the MCMC regarding the four hypothesized latent associations.
Hypotheses Posterior Mean (Standard Deviation) 95% Credible Interval Evidence
H1 Brand Identity!Brand Commitment 0.340 (0.067) 0.211–0.339 Strong +
H2 Role Clarity !Brand Commitment 0.524 (0.072) 0.383–0.669 Strong +
H3 Brand Commitment !IRBBB 0.557 (0.068) 0.425–0.691 Strong +
H4 Brand Commitment !Job Satisfaction 0.337 (0.048) 0.244–0.433 Strong +
4. Discussion
4.1. The Role of Brand Commitment for the Behavior of the Front-Lines Employees
Interestingly, role clarity had a much more substantial impact on brand commitment
than brand identity. Brand identity clearly is a requirement for the development of brand
commitment, but the results seem to indicate that FLEs place higher importance on under-
standing role expectations more clearly. This makes sense considering the existence of a
close relationship between performance measurement and expectations in a job description
that can impact employee compensation. The general assumption behind the proposed
model proposed lies in the premise that other motivation methods might be available to
organizations to mitigate the impact of this type of system. We proposed that the inter-
nalization of the brand's identity (H1) and a clear understanding of their role (H2) can
cause FLEs to become more committed to the brand. These hypotheses were supported
by substantial evidence from the results (posterior means of 0.340 and 0.524, respectively,
with most of the posterior mass largely positive). These relationships should be leveraged
by marketers working alongside HR to ensure the development of job descriptions fully
aligned with branding expectations. These two ndings are essential because they are vari-
ables that fall entirely under the control of organizations and can support the achievement
of high levels of brand commitment.
Second, this study also examines how brand commitment inuences FLE brand-
oriented behavior and job satisfaction. Brand commitment is essential for organizations
because a committed employee will be more likely to conform to behavioral expectations.
Employee branding is examined from a normative perspective in the form of in-role be-
havior instead of the more frequently researched extra-role behavior. In-role behaviors are
usually presented to employees through a job description document. These are presented
as minimum requirements to employees by an organization against which employee per-
formance is measured. In-role brand behavior existence is linked to a more transactional
environment instead of extra-role brand behavior, which thrives in a more transformational
environment [12]. A transactional environment is characterized by a system designed
around metrics used to assess employee performance according to a set of key performance
indicators typically found in an employee job description. This usually operates as a reward
or punishment system, with employees being rewarded for doing the job as described or
punished for the failure of doing so. In order to assess these relationships, we suggested
that brand commitment had a positive impact on IRBBB (H3) and FLE job satisfaction (H4).
Both hypotheses were supported (posterior means of 0.557 and 0.337, respectively).
4.2. The Relation between Brand Commitment and Open Innovation
Consumers understand brand innovation as the rms' ability to solve their problems
in a new and valuable way. The extent that customers are likely to consider the interests of
brands that focus on providing new and relevant solutions to customer needs under their
own, the more likely customers are to engage with them in a positive way [129].
Relationship marketing has been sought as its ultimate goal: creating long-term
relationships between client and company. However, service-dominant logic SDL has
understood that this relationship can only be maintained as long as the company knows in
depth the need and motivation of the client to co-create with them custom solutions [130].
In fact, using SDL and customer orientation has proved to be an essential tool to enhance

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 15 of 23
the volume and radicalness of rms' innovation, especially when involving FLE in the
open innovation process [131].
The most direct and straightforward way for any company to contact its client is
through the FLE. According to [132], the rm must become the principal actor who leads
and “shake” the stakeholders. That is why this research has emphasized how to create
brand commitment on the FLE, understanding that they are the canal to obtain information
about the solutions sought by customers so that they can be transmitted as faithfully as
possible to the company. This communication then becomes the central insight of the
company to generate open innovation.
5. Conclusions
5.1. Theoretical Contribution
From an academic standpoint, this study provides additional empirical support for
relationships discussed in the branding literature but have not been empirically tested in
the retail sector in South America. It contributes to the marketing literature in many ways.
It explores the impact of brand identity and role clarity on FLE brand commitment. Brand
identity is described in the marketing literature as an internal organizational construct
that can serve as a stable reference for both consumers and employees [133]. Associations
linked to the brand start to form in people's minds once the brand identity is disseminated
through communication mechanisms [134]. We argue that the same process occurs with
FLEs, which explains the strong relationship observed between brand identity and brand
commitment in this study, fully supporting H1. This relationship is meaningful because
understanding a brand's identity is required to fully develop employee brand commitment.
In addition to the aforementioned contributions, this study presents a Bayesian frame-
work for assessment of the relationships which has multiple advantages: (1) the hierarchical
approach allows for exploration of latent relationships in a coherent, self-contained model
where information borrowing is feasible across latent constructs; (2) the Bayesian paradigm
is not reliant on large sample sizes, accounting for the natural uncertainty embedded in low
samples; (3) although we used non-informative priors, if information was available about
the parameters of interest, that information could be seamlessly incorporated in the analy-
sis through informative priors; (4) it provides parameter-centered interpretability, where
posterior distributions relate to the uncertainty of the parameters upon observing the data,
as opposed to intermediate constructs/estimators; and (5) the outcomes of the Bayesian
approach are full posterior distribution outcomes, which allow for better framing of the
(joint) uncertainty around the hypotheses. This aligns with recent recommendations by
the American Statistical Association to provide a more comprehensive depiction of results,
rather than solely binary conclusions such as those traditionally built onp-values [126,127].
5.2. Practical Contribution
An employee branding program has the potential to contribute to the development
of an environment where brand ambassadors can thrive and live the brand, thus posi-
tively impacting the customer experience. This is a challenging proposition that can be
better supported through a better understanding of how FLE brand internalization occurs.
This manuscript examines three factors that have relevance in this process and provides
managers with a unique understanding of factors other than traditional tools and metrics
employed by most companies to manage employee performance (i.e., job descriptions,
scorecards, and key performance indicators (KPI)) in an emerging economy.
Although substantial recent literature focuses on employee brand-building pro-
cess[ ,its practical application still presents its own set of challenges. To start,
brand identity requires a strong emotional appeal to connect with FLEs and generate
internal brand commitment. For that to happen, the concept of brand identity must be
managed through the organization's internal communications channels. Brand communi-
cation can help bridge the gap between the brand identity concept and employees' tasks.
Therefore, we recommend that in order to address this gap, marketers must improve brand

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 16 of 23
knowledge by continually communicating the company-dened brand values and its
vision of the brand image to FLEs. This can be accomplished by working together with the
HR department and leveraging the organizational message systems controlled by it. HR
departments can also further support the employee branding effort by incorporating brand
elements in their processes, such as recruitment, compensation, training and development,
and performance management systems. This step becomes critical to the development
of job descriptions that incorporate branding guidelines determined by the marketing
department that can improve employee role clarity. The marketing and HR departments
must become partners in this process to avoid leaving programs that could support brand-
orientated practices isolated under HR. Organizations can also improve employee role
clarity and improve brand understanding by executing a hierarchical mapping of brand
signals within the organization [138].
The prescription of in-role brand-building performance standards presents a signi-
cant challenge to managers [139]. The natural rst step of this process would be developing
brand identity guidelines for FLEs. These guidelines should be supported through in-
ternal training sessions alongside the human resources department in order to properly
align brand requirements with other existing requirements in job descriptions [58]. Prop-
erly developed guidelines supported by FLE training can serve as a support pillar to the
performance of prescribed brand behaviors that can impact how customers perceive the
brand during a sales encounter. A real-world execution of these concepts was presented
in a study of customers test-driving different Audi automobiles in the Netherlands and
Denmark [58]. The authors selected Audi for this research project because of a strong
belief of its senior leadership in the benecial correlation between service experience and
sales. A robust organizational belief existed in the organization that this correlation was an
important step to help with their brand identity differentiation process. This belief led to
the development of an internal concept named “The Audi Way” [58] (p. 168), aiming to
develop a brand-building attitude shared by all members of the organization and explicitly
focusing on FLEs. Ref. [58] reported results that showed that the investment in the FLE
brand-building had a positive impact on both brand perception and customer satisfaction.
We argue that the same premise can be applied to retailers.
In order to have satised customers, organizations must rst have satised employ-
ees [140]. Job satisfaction is affected by job ambiguity and can be mediated by supervisor
support, which should monitor the extrinsic and intrinsic sources of job satisfaction to
which employees are subjected [119]. The main consequence of job dissatisfaction is em-
ployee turnover. Managers have widely acknowledged this issue since employee abandon-
ment, and lack of organizational stability can signicantly increase the costs associated
with the orientation and training of new hires. Therefore, turnover can also impact orga-
nizational productivity. It is not surprising, then, that there has been a joint effort from
organizational psychologists and researchers to identify clear antecedent factors that can
lead to employee turnover. This knowledge can lead managers to institute more specic
measures designed to prevent turnover [120]. Our ndings point to the improvement of
brand commitment as a possible way to improve job satisfaction. We argue that FLEs who
can develop a strong association with the identity of their organization can also develop
a more positive attitude towards their job. This can lead to increased recognition of the
company's efforts directed at its employees. Consequently, FLEs may become more en-
thusiastic about providing additional effort than what is required beyond their current
job description [141]. Additionally, employees that express satisfaction with their current
jobs are more prone to fully accept and embody organizational brand values [142], leading
them to engage in brand-oriented behaviors in exchange for organizational actions that
improve their satisfaction with the job [143].
5.3. Limitations and Future Research
First, due to the cross-sectional nature of this study, it is essential to highlight that
there is no statistical evidence of causality. Even though a theoretical rationale was pro-

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 17 of 23
vided to support the relationships examined and their direction, future research should
attempt to replicate and extend this study by using longitudinal data to examine the causal
relationships among focal constructs in the proposed model. Another signicant limitation
of this research was the use of a single retailer in one geographic location. This was mainly
due to the difculty involved in soliciting the participation of large retail organizations
in research studies of this nature. There is always a level of reluctance to participate due
to the investment required from them in terms of time away from front-line employees'
sales oor. As is the case in such scenarios, further studies should be conducted in other
retail formats and in different countries to generalize ndings. Also, the data was col-
lected through voluntary participation, hence potentially biasing the results if there are
substantial differences between those volunteering and those who chose not to participate.
Another signicant limitation of this study is that it was restricted to a single country in
South America, raising the question about the geographical generalizability of its ndings.
Therefore, being the rst study of this kind in South America, it would be advantageous
to conduct future research to establish whether the results presented here are inherent
to the retail organization's format or if similar results could be generated in other retail
formats. Another interesting avenue of future research is the comparison of these results
with results from similar retailers in other South American markets. Finally, it would also
be valuable to explore whether retail rms can distinguish in-role from extra-role behavior.
This research article explored the impact of brand identity and role clarity on FLE
brand commitment in the retail sector and how brand commitment can support the engen-
dering of brand-oriented behavior and lead to increased job satisfaction among front-line
employees, as proposed in Figure. The ndings presented here can provide managers
with ideas to help develop an employee branding program that can produce more cable
brand ambassadors. Furthermore, the proposed lines of research discussed above provide
compelling ideas to explore further the relationships examined in this paper in different
contexts.
Author Contributions:
Data curation, E.t.H. and G.M.; formal analysis, E.t.H. and G.M.; writing—
original draft, J.R.S.; writing—review and editing, N.P.-G. and M.V. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted according to the guidelines of
the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of CESA—Colegio de Estudios
Superiores de Administraciân, project number 32004.
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement:The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conicts of Interest:The authors declare no conict of interest.
Appendix A
Letidenote each of the individuals, and j denote each of the Likert-based items across
all constructsk(j= 1, . . . ,J(k)). Index s denotes the ve Likert categories (s= 1, . . . , 5). Each
item is represented asY, with sub-indices for the construct, item, and respondent.
The latent array p denotes the latent Likert scale probabilities, with latent factors
denoted asZ, and corresponding latent meansm. Latent association parameters linking
the constructs are denoted by the parameter vectorsa(levels) andb(linear associations
representing the hypotheses in this study). The latent threshold matrix in the multinomial
ordered representation is denoted ast. For a complete description of these types of models
from a Bayesian standpoint, see [144].
The functionjdenotes the standard Gaussian cumulative density function, while
MN(p) denotes the multinomial probability mass function with probability vectorp.N(m,s)

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 18 of 23
denotes the Gaussian probability density function with mean m and standard deviation s,
andGa(a,b) denotes the Gamma probability density function with parametersaandb.
Following the notation and approach in [122,123], the different hierarchies of the
model have the following form:
Y
i,j,kMN(p
i,k)
p
i,k,1=F(Z
i,k)
p
i,k,s=F(t
k,sZ
i,k)F(t
k,s1Z
i,k)s=2, 3, 4
p
i,k,5=1
4
å
s=1
p
i,k,s
Z
i,k=N(m
i,k, 1)
m
i,k=a
kk=1, 2
m
i,3=a3+b1Z
i,1+b2Z
i,2
m
i,4=a4+b3Z
i,3
m
i,5=a5+b4Z
i,3
b
k,a
kN(0, 0.001)
t
i,10
t
i,k=
k
å
s=2
g
i,sk=2, . . . , 4
g
i,sGa(0.001, 0, 0.001)
The model interpretation can be described through the model hierarchies:
1.
The observed Likert responses are realizations of multinomial distributions with
individual- and construct-specic probability vectors. This allows for both intra- and
inter-respondent heterogeneity while accounting for intra-construct correlations;
2.
The aforementioned probability vectors are mapped through a probit model into
areas in the real line. While the true opinions are latent and unknown (Z), they are
observed (Y) with some error;
3.
The model hypotheses provide the associations between latent constructs rather than
at the observed level. Associations will be observed with noise;
4.
The nal hierarchical level is composed by the prior densities, which are non-informative.
If prior information is available, it can be incorporated into those prior densities. The
results were not sensitive to the choice of hyperparameters for these priors.
The model was run for 100,000 iterations using OpenBUGS [145], with a burn-in
of 10,000 iterations and a thinning of every 5 iterations. The results shown in Table
summarize the posterior distribution for the key parameters beta. Figure
graphical details of the MCMC output for the key parameters of interest.
References
1.
Beverland, M.; Lindgreen, A.; Napoli, J.; Ballantyne, D.; Aitken, R. Branding in B2B Markets: Insights from the Service-Dominant
Logic of Marketing.J. Bus. Ind. Mark.2007,22, 363–371.
2. Mark. Manag.1994,3, 8–19.
3. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev.2002,43, 85–89.
4.
Cho, E.; Fiore, A.M. Conceptualization of a Holistic Brand Image Measure for Fashion-Related Brands.J. Consum. Mark.2015,32,
245–255. [CrossRef]
5.
De Chernatony, L.; Segal-Horn, S. Building on Services' Characteristics to Develop Successful Services Brands.J. Mark. Manag.
2001,17, 645–669. [CrossRef]

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 19 of 23
6.
Murillo, E.; King, C. Examining the Drivers of Employee Brand Understanding: A Longitudinal Study.J. Prod. Brand Manag.
2019,28. [CrossRef]
7.
Burt, S.L.; Sparks, L. Corporate Branding, Retailing, and Retail Internationalization.Corp. Reput. Rev.2002,5, 194–212. [CrossRef]
8.Lemon, K.N.; Verhoef, P.C. Understanding Customer Experience throughout the Customer Journey.J. Mark.2016,80, 69–96.
[CrossRef]
9. Building Strong Brands; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-1-4711-0438-1.
10.
D'Andrea, G.; Lopez-Aleman, B.; Stengel, A. Why Small Retailers Endure in Latin America.Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag.2006,34,
661–673. [CrossRef]
11.
Porricelli, M.S.; Yurova, Y.; Abratt, R.; Bendixen, M. Antecedents of Brand Citizenship Behavior in Retailing.J. Retail. Consum.
Serv.2014,21, 745–752. [CrossRef]
12.
Morhart, F.M.; Herzog, W.; Tomczak, T. Brand-Specic Leadership: Turning Employees into Brand Champions.J. Mark.2009,73,
122–142. [CrossRef]
13.
Laukkanen, T.; Tuominen, S.; Reijonen, H.; Hirvonen, S. Does Market Orientation Pay off without Brand Orientation? A Study of
Small Business Entrepreneurs.J. Mark. Manag.2016,32, 673–694. [CrossRef]
14.
Bridson, K.; Evans, J. The Secret to a Fashion Advantage Is Brand Orientation.Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag.2004,32, 403–411.
[CrossRef]
15.
Park, J.H.; Tran, T.B.H. Internal Marketing, Employee Customer-Oriented Behaviors, and Customer Behavioral Responses.
Psychol. Mark.2018,35, 412–426. [CrossRef]
16.
Sarker, M.A.R.; Ashra, D.M. The Relationship between Internal Marketing and Employee Job Satisfaction: A Study from Retail
Shops in Bangladesh.J. Bus. Retail Manag. Res.2018,12. [CrossRef]
17.
Warrington, P.; Shim, S. An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship between Product Involvement and Brand Commitment.
Psychol. Mark.2000,17, 761–782. [CrossRef]
18.
Burmann, C.; Zeplin, S.; Riley, N. Key Determinants of Internal Brand Management Success: An Exploratory Empirical Analysis.
J. Brand Manag.2009,16, 264–284. [CrossRef]
19. Behav. Sci.1964,9, 131–146. [CrossRef]
20.
Burmann, C.; Zeplin, S. Building Brand Commitment: A Behavioural Approach to Internal Brand Management.J. Brand Manag.
2005,12, 279–300. [CrossRef]
21.
Mowday, R.T.; Porter, L.W.; Steers, R.Organizational Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover; Academic
Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1982.
22.
Scholl, R.W. Differentiating Organizational Commitment from Expectancy as a Motivating Force.Acad. Manag. Rev.1981,6,
589–599. [CrossRef]
23. Acad. Manag. Rev.1982,7, 418–428. [CrossRef]
24.
Kimpakorn, N.; Tocquer, G. Service Brand Equity and Employee Brand Commitment.J. Serv. Mark.2010,24, 378–388. [CrossRef]
25.Xiong, L.; King, C.; Piehler, R. “That's Not My Job”: Exploring the Employee Perspective in the Development of Brand
Ambassadors.Int. J. Hosp. Manag.2013,35, 348–359. [CrossRef]
26. J. Appl. Psychol.1975,60, 159. [CrossRef]
27.
Piehler, R.; King, C.; Burmann, C.; Xiong, L. The Importance of Employee Brand Understanding, Brand Identication, and Brand
Commitment in Realizing Brand Citizenship Behaviour.Eur. J. Mark.2016,50, 1575–1601. [CrossRef]
28.
O'Reilly, C.A.; Chatman, J. Organizational Commitment and Psychological Attachment: The Effects of Compliance, Identication,
and Internalization on Prosocial Behavior.J. Appl. Psychol.1986,71, 492. [CrossRef]
29.
Siguaw, J.A.; Brown, G.; Widing, R.E. The Inuence of the Market Orientation of the Firm on Sales Force Behavior and Attitudes.
J. Mark. Res.1994,31, 106–116. [CrossRef]
30.
Wheeler, A.R.; Richey, R.G.; Tokkman, M.; Sablynski, C.J. Retaining Employees for Service Competency: The Role of Corporate
Brand Identity.J. Brand Manag.2006,14, 96–113. [CrossRef]
31. J. Appl. Bus. Econ.2010,10, 52.
32.
Ghodeswar, B.M. Building Brand Identity in Competitive Markets: A Conceptual Model.J. Prod. Brand Manag.2008,17, 4–12.
[CrossRef]
33.
Azoulay, A.; Kapferer, J.-N. Do Brand Personality Scales Really Measure Brand Personality?J. Brand Manag.2003,11, 143–155.
[CrossRef]
34.
Balmer, J. Identity Based Views of the Corporation: Insights from Corporate Identity, Organisational Identity, Social Identity,
Visual Identity, Corporate Brand Identity and Corporate Image.Eur. J. Mark.2008,42, 879–906. [CrossRef]
35.
Glaneld, K.; Saunders, J.; Evanschitzky, H.; Rudd, J.M. Corporate Identity at the Stakeholder Group Level.Int. Stud. Manag.
Organ.2017,47, 135–158. [CrossRef]
36.
Gioia, D.A.; Schultz, M.; Corley, K.G. Organizational Identity, Image, and Adaptive Instability.Acad. Manag. Rev.2000,25, 63–81.
[CrossRef]
37.
Suvatjis, J.Y.; de Chernatony, L. Corporate Identity Modelling: A Review and Presentation of a New Multi-Dimensional Model.
J. Mark. Manag.2005,21, 809–834. [CrossRef]
38.
Bick, G.; Jacobson, M.C.; Abratt, R. The Corporate Identity Management Process Revisited.J. Mark. Manag.2003,19, 835–855.
[CrossRef]

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 20 of 23
39.
Einwiller, S.; Will, M. Towards an Integrated Approach to Corporate Branding-Findings from an Empirical Study. InKommunika-
tionsmanagement im Wandel; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2008; pp. 231–247.
40.
Harris, F.; De Chernatony, L. Corporate Branding and Corporate Brand Performance.Eur. J. Mark.2001,35, 441–456. [CrossRef]
41.Roy, D.; Banerjee, S. Identication and Measurement of Brand Identity and Image Gap: A Quantitative Approach.J. Prod. Brand
Manag.2014,23, 207–219. [CrossRef]
42.
Shee, P.S.B.; Abratt, R. A New Approach to the Corporate Image Management Process.J. Mark. Manag.1989,5, 63–76. [CrossRef]
43.Van Knippenberg, D. Work Motivation and Performance: A Social Identity Perspective.Appl. Psychol.2000,49, 357–371.
[CrossRef]
44.
Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Consumer–Company Identication: A Framework for Understanding Consumers' Relationships with
Companies.J. Mark.2003,67, 76–88. [CrossRef]
45.
Buil, I.; Catal¡n, S.; Mart½nez, E. The Importance of Corporate Brand Identity in Business Management: An Application to the UK
Banking Sector.BRQ Bus. Res. Q.2016,19, 3–12. [CrossRef]
46.
Thomson, K.; De Chernatony, L.; Arganbright, L.; Khan, S. The Buy-in Benchmark: How Staff Understanding and Commitment
Impact Brand and Business Performance.J. Mark. Manag.1999,15, 819–835. [CrossRef]
47. Eur. J. Mark.2010,44, 938–971. [CrossRef]
48.
Gong, Y.; Wang, M.; Huang, J.-C.; Cheung, S.Y. Toward a Goal Orientation–Based Feedback-Seeking Typology: Implications for
Employee Performance Outcomes.J. Manag.2017,43, 1234–1260. [CrossRef]
49. J. Serv. Res.2005,7, 290–305. [CrossRef]
50.
Guest, D.E.; Conway, N. Communicating the Psychological Contract: An Employer Perspective.Hum. Resour. Manag. J.2002,12,
22–38. [CrossRef]
51. Acad. Manag. J.1990,33, 692–724.
52.
Boselie, P.; van der Wiele, T. Employee Perceptions of HRM and TQM, and the Effects on Satisfaction and Intention to Leave.
Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J.2002,12, 165–172. [CrossRef]
53.
Vallaster, C.; De Chernatony, L. Internationalisation of Services Brands: The Role of Leadership during the Internal Brand Building
Process.J. Mark. Manag.2005,21, 181–203. [CrossRef]
54. J. Brand Manag.2008,15, 358–372. [CrossRef]
55.
Jones, E.; Busch, P.; Dacin, P. Firm Market Orientation and Salesperson Customer Orientation: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal
Inuences on Customer Service and Retention in Business-to-Business Buyer–Seller Relationships.J. Bus. Res.2003,56, 323–340.
[CrossRef]
56.
Performance and Job Satisfaction.J. Retail.1996,72, 57–75. [CrossRef]
57. J. Acad. Mark. Sci.2000,28, 128–137. [CrossRef]
58.
Fichtel, S.; Blankenberg, N.; Ammler, S. Impact of Front-line Employee Performance on Brand Perception—A Case from AUDI
AG. InServiceorientierung im Unternehmen; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2010; pp. 163–179.
59. J. Relatsh. Mark.2004,3, 65–87. [CrossRef]
60.
Ngo, L.V.; Nguyen, N.P.; Huynh, K.T.; Gregory, G.; Cuong, P.H. Converting Internal Brand Knowledge into Employee Performance.
J. Prod. Brand Manag.2019,29, 273–287. [CrossRef]
61.
Ackfeldt, A.-L.; Coote, L.V. A Study of Organizational Citizenship Behaviours in a Retail Setting.J. Bus. Res.2005,58, 151–159.
[CrossRef]
62. J. Prod. Brand Manag.2004,13, 84–93. [CrossRef]
63.
Punjaisri, K.; Wilson, A. The Role of Internal Branding in the Delivery of Employee Brand Promise. InAdvances in Corporate
Branding; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 91–108.
64.
Melewar, T.C.; Gotsi, M.; Andriopoulos, C. Shaping the Research Agenda for Corporate Branding: Avenues for Future Research.
Eur. J. Mark.2012,46, 600–608. [CrossRef]
65.
TM
.J. Mark. Manag.1999,15, 69–92. [CrossRef]
66.
Rousseau, D.Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements; Sage Publications: Thousand
Oaks, CA, USA, 1995.
67.
Robinson, S.L.; Rousseau, D.M. Violating the Psychological Contract: Not the Exception but the Norm.J. Organ. Behav.1994,15,
245–259. [CrossRef]
68. J. Retail Bank.1981,3, 33–40.
69.
Voss, G.B.; Godfrey, A.; Seiders, K. How Complementarity and Substitution Alter the Customer Satisfaction–Repurchase Link.
J. Mark.2010,74, 111–127. [CrossRef]
70.
Zablah, A.R.; Carlson, B.D.; Donavan, D.T.; Maxham, J.G., III; Brown, T.J. A Cross-Lagged Test of the Association between
Customer Satisfaction and Employee Job Satisfaction in a Relational Context.J. Appl. Psychol.2016,101, 743. [CrossRef]
71.
Netemeyer, R.G.; Maxham, J.G., III; Lichtenstein, D.R. Store Manager Performance and Satisfaction: Effects on Store Employee
Performance and Satisfaction, Store Customer Satisfaction, and Store Customer Spending Growth.J. Appl. Psychol.2010,95, 530.
[CrossRef]
72.
Evanschitzky, H.; Groening, C.; Mittal, V.; Wunderlich, M. How Employer and Employee Satisfaction Affect Customer Satisfaction:
An Application to Franchise Services.J. Serv. Res.2011,14, 136–148. [CrossRef]

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 21 of 23
73.
Barnard, C.I.The Functions of the Executive: Thirtieth Anniversary Edition; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1968;
ISBN 978-0-674-32803-7.
74.
Iaffaldano, M.T.; Muchinsky, P.M. Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis.Psychol. Bull.1985,97, 251. [CrossRef]
75.Organ, D.W. A Reappraisal and Reinterpretation of the Satisfaction-Causes-Performance Hypothesis.Acad. Manag. Rev.1977,2,
46–53. [CrossRef]
76.
Currall, S.C. Review of Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome.Adm. Sci. Q.1988,33, 331–333.
[CrossRef]
77.
Pearce, J.L.; Gregersen, H.B. Task Interdependence and Extrarole Behavior: A Test of the Mediating Effects of Felt Responsibility.
J. Appl. Psychol.1991,76, 838. [CrossRef]
78.
Williams, L.J.; Anderson, S.E. Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and
In-Role Behaviors.J. Manag.1991,17, 601–617. [CrossRef]
79.
Balmer, J.M. Corporate Brand Orientation: What is it? What of it? InAdvances in Corporate Branding; Springer: Berlin, Germany,
2017; pp. 175–202.
80. Exchange and Power in Social Life; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-1-351-52120-8.
81.
Foster, C.; Punjaisri, K.; Cheng, R. Exploring the Relationship between Corporate, Internal and Employer Branding.J. Prod. Brand
Manag.2010,19, 401–409. [CrossRef]
82.
Anees-ur-Rehman, M.; Wong, H.Y.; Hossain, M. The Progression of Brand Orientation Literature in Twenty Years: A Systematic
Literature Review.J. Brand Manag.2016,23, 612–630. [CrossRef]
83.
Balmer, J. Explicating Corporate Brands and Their Management: Reections and Directions from 1995.J. Brand Manag.2010,18,
180–196. [CrossRef]
84.
Balmer, J.M. Corporate Identity, Corporate Branding and Corporate Marketing-Seeing through the Fog.Eur. J. Mark.2001,35,
248–291. [CrossRef]
85.
Urde, M.; Baumgarth, C.; Merrilees, B. Brand Orientation and Market Orientation—From Alternatives to Synergy.J. Bus. Res.
2013,66, 13–20. [CrossRef]
86.
Baumgarth, C.; Schmidt, M. How Strong Is the Business-to-Business Brand in the Workforce? An Empirically-Tested Model of
`Internal Brand Equity' in a Business-to-Business Setting.Ind. Mark. Manag.2010,39, 1250–1260. [CrossRef]
87.
Saleem, F.Z.; Iglesias, O. Mapping the Domain of the Fragmented Field of Internal Branding.J. Prod. Brand Manag.2016,25, 43–57.
[CrossRef]
88. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.2008,3, 94–101. [CrossRef]
89.
Huang, Y.-T. Internal Marketing and Internal Customer: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension.J. Relatsh. Mark.2020,19,
165–181. [CrossRef]
90.
Kadic-Maglajlic, S.; Boso, N.; Micevski, M. How Internal Marketing Drive Customer Satisfaction in Matured and Maturing
European Markets?J. Bus. Res.2018,86, 291–299. [CrossRef]
91.
Mainardes, E.W.; Rodrigues, L.S.; Teixeira, A. Effects of Internal Marketing on Job Satisfaction in the Banking Sector.Int. J. Bank
Mark.2019,37, 1313–1333. [CrossRef]
92. J. Mark. Manag.2020,8, 23–36.
93.
Mukherjee, A.; Malhotra, N. Does Role Clarity Explain Employee-Perceived Service Quality?Int. J. Serv. Ind. Manag.2006,17,
444–473. [CrossRef]
94.
Garas, S.R.R.; Mahran, A.F.A.; Mohamed, H.M.H. Internal Corporate Branding Impact on Employees' Brand Supporting
Behaviour.J. Prod. Brand Manag.2018,27, 79–95. [CrossRef]
95.
Khan, I.; Rahman, Z. Retail Brand Experience: Scale Development and Validation.J. Prod. Brand Manag.2016,25, 435–451.
[CrossRef]
96. ABA Bank Mark.2003,35, 22.
97.
Schultz, D.E.; Schultz, H.IMC, the next Generation: Five Steps for Delivering Value and Measuring Returns Using Marketing
Communication; McGraw Hill Professional: New York, NY, USA, 2003.
98.
Clemes, M.; Mollenkopf, D.; Burn, D. An Investigation of Marketing Problems across Service Typologies.J. Serv. Mark.2000,14,
573–594. [CrossRef]
99.
Bettencourt, L.A.; Brown, S.W.; MacKenzie, S.B. Customer-Oriented Boundary-Spanning Behaviors: Test of a Social Exchange
Model of Antecedents.J. Retail.2005,81, 141–157. [CrossRef]
100. J. Mark.2010,74, 63–80. [CrossRef]
101. J. Mark.2004,68, 1–17. [CrossRef]
102.
Lytle, R.S.; Hom, P.W.; Mokwa, M.P. SERVOR: A Managerial Measure of Organizational Service-Orientation.J. Retail.1998,74,
455–489. [CrossRef]
103. Eur. J. Mark.2000,34, 399–417. [CrossRef]
104.
Farrell, A.M.; Souchon, A.L.; Durden, G.R. Service Encounter Conceptualisation: Employees' Service Behaviours and Customers'
Service Quality Perceptions.J. Mark. Manag.2001,17, 577–593. [CrossRef]
105.
Brady, M.K.; Cronin, J.J., Jr. Customer Orientation: Effects on Customer Service Perceptions and Outcome Behaviors.J. Serv. Res.
2001,3, 241–251. [CrossRef]

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 22 of 23
106.
Parasuraman, A.; Zeithaml, V.A.; Berry, L.L. A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research.
J. Mark.1985,49, 41–50. [CrossRef]
107.
Deluga, R.J. Supervisor Trust Building, Leader-Member Exchange and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.J. Occup. Organ.
Psychol.1994,67, 315–326. [CrossRef]
108.
Welsh, D.H.; Alon, I.; Falbe, C.M. An Examination of International Retail Franchising in Emerging Markets.J. Small Bus. Manag.
2006,44, 130–149. [CrossRef]
109.
Sheth, J.N. Impact of Emerging Markets on Marketing: Rethinking Existing Perspectives and Practices.J. Mark.2011,75, 166–182.
[CrossRef]
110.
Falabella Annual Report 2016. 2017. Available online:
on 30 May 2021).
111.
GPTW Great Place to Work Nombra a Falabella Como Una de Los Mejores Lugares Multinacionales Para Trabajar En 2016 a Nivel
Global 2017. Available online:
multinacionales-para-trabajar/
112.
Douglas, S.P.; Craig, C.S. Collaborative and Iterative Translation: An Alternative Approach to Back Translation.J. Int. Mark.2007,
15, 30–43. [CrossRef]
113.
Burmann, C.; Schaefer, K.; Maloney, P. Industry Image: Its Impact on the Brand Image of Potential Employees.J. Brand Manag.
2008,15, 157–176. [CrossRef]
114.
Rizzo, J.R.; House, R.J.; Lirtzman, S.I. Role Conict and Ambiguity in Complex Organizations.Adm. Sci. Q.1970,15, 150–163.
[CrossRef]
115.
Cammann, C. Assessing the Attitudes and Perceptions of Organizational Members. InAssessing Organizational Change: A Guide to
Methods, Measures & Practices; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1983; pp. 71–138.
116.
Fritz, M.B.W.; Narasimhan, S.; Rhee, H.-S. Communication and Coordination in the Virtual Ofce.J. Manag. Inf. Syst.1998,14,
7–28. [CrossRef]
117.
Hart, P.M.; Wearing, A.J.; Conn, M.; Carter, N.L.; Dingle, K.R. Development of the School Organisational Health Questionnaire: A
Measure for Assessing Teacher Morale and School Organisational Climate.Br. J. Educ. Psychol.2000,70, 211–228. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
118.
King, C.; Grace, D. Examining the Antecedents of Positive Employee Brand-Related Attitudes and Behaviours.Eur. J. Mark.2012,
46, 469–488. [CrossRef]
119.
Firth, L.; Mellor, D.J.; Moore, K.A.; Loquet, C. How Can Managers Reduce Employee Intention to Quit?J. Manag. Psychol.2004,
19, 170–187. [CrossRef]
120.
Siong, Z.M.B.; Mellor, D.; Moore, K.A.; Firth, L. Predicting Intention to Quit in the Call Centre Industry: Does the Retail Model
Fit?J. Manag. Psychol.2006,21, 231–243. [CrossRef]
121. Bayesian Methods: A Social and Behavioral Sciences Approach; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2014; Volume 20.
122.
Siqueira, J.R., Jr.; Peña, N.G.; ter Horst, E.; Molina, G. Spreading the Word: How Customer Experience in a Traditional Retail
Setting Inuences Consumer Traditional and Electronic Word-of-Mouth Intention.Electron. Commer. Res. Appl.2019,37, 100870.
[CrossRef]
123.
Siqueira, J.R.; ter Horst, E.; Molina, G.; Losada, M.; Mateus, M.A. A Bayesian Examination of the Relationship of Internal and
External Touchpoints in the Customer Experience Process across Various Service Environments.J. Retail. Consum. Serv.2020,
53, 102009. [CrossRef]
124.
Gilks, W.; Richardson, S.; Spiegelhalter, D. Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice. Available online:
Markov-Chain-Monte-Carlo-in-Practice/Gilks-Richardson-Spiegelhalter/p/book/9780412055515
125.
Berger, J.O.Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2013; ISBN 978-
1-4757-4286-2.
126.
Sellke, T.; Bayarri, M.J.; Berger, J.O. Calibration ofValues for Testing Precise Null Hypotheses.Am. Stat.2001,55, 62–71.
[CrossRef]
127.
Wasserstein, R.L.; Lazar, N.A.The ASA Statement on P-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose; Taylor & Francis: Oxfordshire,
UK, 2016.
128.
Samaniego, F.J.A Comparison of the Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches to Estimation; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin,
Germany, 2010.
129.
Eisingerich, A.B.; Rubera, G. Drivers of Brand Commitment: A Cross-National Investigation.J. Int. Mark.2010,18, 64–79.
[CrossRef]
130.
Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F.; Akaka, M.A.; He, Y. Service-Dominant Logic: A Review and Assessment.Rev. Mark. Res.2017, 125–167.
131.Ordanini, A.; Parasuraman, A. Service Innovation Viewed Through a Service-Dominant Logic Lens: A Conceptual Framework
and Empirical Analysis.J. Serv. Res.2011,14, 3–23. [CrossRef]
132.
Sulkowski, A.J.; Edwards, M.; Freeman, R.E. Shake Your Stakeholder: Firms Leading Engagement to Cocreate Sustainable Value.
Organ. Environ.2018,31, 223–241. [CrossRef]
133.
Kapferer, J.-N.The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term; Kogan Page Publishers:
London, UK, 2008.
134. J. Brand Manag.1997,4, 251–259. [CrossRef]

J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex.2021,7, 154 23 of 23
135.
Du Preez, R.; Bendixen, M.; Abratt, R. The Behavioral Consequences of Internal Brand Management among Frontline Employees.
J. Prod. Brand Manag.2017,26, 251–261. [CrossRef]
136.
Iyer, P.; Davari, A.; Paswan, A. Determinants of Brand Performance: The Role of Internal Branding.J. Brand Manag.2018,25,
202–216. [CrossRef]
137. J. Bus. Res.2017,79, 1–11. [CrossRef]
138.
Karanges, E.; Johnston, K.A.; Lings, I.; Beatson, A.T. Brand Signalling: An Antecedent of Employee Brand Understanding.J. Brand
Manag.2018,25, 235–249. [CrossRef]
139.
Motowidlo, S.J.; Van Scotter, J.R. Evidence That Task Performance Should Be Distinguished from Contextual Performance.J. Appl.
Psychol.1994,79, 475. [CrossRef]
140.
Heskett, J.L.; Jones, T.O.; Loveman, G.W.; Sasser, W.E.; Schlesinger, L.A. Putting the Service-Prot Chain to Work.Harv. Bus. Rev.
1994,72, 164–174.
141. Res. Organ. Behav.1991,13, 1–53.
142.
Wu, C.; McMullen, J.S.; Neubert, M.J.; Yi, X. The Inuence of Leader Regulatory Focus on Employee Creativity.J. Bus. Ventur.
2008,23, 587–602. [CrossRef]
143.
Riketta, M. The Causal Relation between Job Attitudes and Performance: A Meta-Analysis of Panel Studies.J. Appl. Psychol.2008,
93, 472. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
144. Ordinal Data Modeling; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2006.
145.
Lunn, D.; Jackson, C.; Best, N.; Thomas, A.; Spiegelhalter, D. The BUGS Book. InA Practical Introduction to Bayesian Analysis;
Chapman Hall: London, UK, 2013.