This section will sum up the findings in section “II” and aims by this to provide an in-depth understanding of the misalignment found in section “I” of the findings. Moreover, it aims at answering how such a misalignment might affect the corporate brand of Sparebank 1, and thus, its position in the market. Hence, answering the research question; “How can misalignments between various types of images affect Sparebank 1’s position in the market?”
Findings in section “I” indicated that what employees perceive as Sparebank 1’s strengths are contrary seen as Sparebank 1’s weaknesses by stakeholders. By shedding light on these perceptions, this section answered sub-question 1 and 2, respectively “How are the employees of Sparebank 1 viewing the organization?” and “How are the stakeholders in the Norwegian banking market viewing Sparebank 1?”. Hence, indicating a misalignment between the images of Sparebank 1 and answering sub-question 3: “Is there a misalignment between how stakeholders and employees of Sparebank 1 perceive the company?”. The VCI framework was applied by the researchers in order to understand the stakeholders’ image of Sparebank 1, and further, to understand if stakeholders were able to see the addressed strengths of the bank, and how it would affect the company if they did not.
99 Consequently, it was used to shed light on the corporate brand of Sparebank 1. The findings in section
“II” showed a misalignment between two out of three possible gaps, namely the Image-Culture and Vision-Image part of the bank, thus answering sub-question 4: “Where is the misalignment between the perspectives?”. It was also discovered a possible cause for the misalignment by shedding light on how Sparebank 1 should communicate the culture and identity to a larger extent, and also to take actual stakeholders’ expectations into account and not just what the believed image, in the identity dynamics.
Moreover, findings “II” indicated that the misalignments are weakening the company’s position in the market as such misalignments indicate an underperforming corporate brand, implying that Sparebank 1 does not deliver on its promises for stakeholders. Hence, this answers sub-question 5:
“How are these misalignments affecting the corporate brand and the bank’s position in the market?”.
Additionally, an underperforming brand may influence corporate reputation negatively (Hatch &
Schultz, 2008). The findings also show that the corporate brand of Sparebank 1 is not successful as stakeholders do not have preferences for the bank’s services or products, over other banks. Rather the opposite, as stakeholders seem to choose other banks as they are seen as more “innovative”, “modern”
having better conditions, and not as “boring”. This confirms the VCI Alignment Model by Hatch and Schultz (2008), as Sparebank 1 have misalignments in Image-Culture and Vision-Image which seem to be part of the cause why the bank has a less successful corporate brand. The brand seems to be less attractive to stakeholders, and thus the bank’s position in the market is weakened.
However, in addition to answering the given research question, the findings shed light on other aspects that need to be considered when evaluating a company’s corporate brand, and how this is affecting the given company’s position in the market. This aspect is stakeholders’ market expectations. Whilst Hatch and Schultz (2008) argue that the corporate brand is strong if the VCI alignments are fulfilled and if the organizational identity dynamic is healthy, the findings of this thesis indicate that this is not enough to determine the strength of a corporate brand. Moreover, the findings also indicate that a corporate brand is not necessarily successful if the company’s products and services are uninteresting to stakeholders. As a result of the findings, the researchers want to go one step further and suggest adding the factor of stakeholders’ perception of the specific market, and more precisely what expectations the stakeholders have to players in this particular market. Moreover, in order to have a healthy identity, it is suggested, based on the findings, that Sparebank 1 should
100 consider the factor of stakeholders’ actual perception of the bank. Hence, the corporate brand of Sparebank 1 has been evaluated based on the presented model below.
One of the main discoveries in the findings is how the core competencies perceived by employees as the greatest strength of Sparebank 1, is exactly what stakeholders see as the bank’s largest weaknesses.
Additionally, based on the interviews, this seems to be the reason why stakeholders choose to be customers at other banks in Norway, such as DNB and Nordea. The strength of being modern, innovative and digital is strongly embedded in everything the organizational members of the bank think of themselves. Moreover, as the culture is such a large part of the organizational identity, and as Sparebank 1 is argued to have a somewhat narcissistic organizational identity, it can be questioned how it is possible that stakeholders do not see these strengths. It seems like the exact factors, which employees perceive to be a strength for the organization, are what stakeholders perceive as weaknesses. It can be questioned how such a large organization as Sparebank 1 has managed to not communicate its strength to the public. In terms of Sparebank 1, the findings in section “I” and “II” show that unknown strengths are weakening the bank’s corporate brand, and thus its position in the market. This is because the addressed strengths of the bank are exactly what stakeholders want. From stakeholders’ perspective, as they want a modern, innovative and digital bank, they will naturally want to establish a customer relationship with a bank they believe is precisely this. As Sparebank 1 is seen as a boring bank, and neither as modern nor digital, having unknown strengths can be seen as weakening for the bank's corporate brand, and thus its position in the market.
Figure 36 - VCI & Identity Dynamics & Stakeholders' Market Expectations (Researchers' Own Creation, 2019)
101
8 Discussion
As seen in the findings, it might not be sufficient to only look into the three factors of the VCI in order to evaluate the strength or success of a corporate brand. Moreover, as a company’s identity conversation is directly influencing the coherence between the company’s culture and image it is suggested that one should consider the actual stakeholder image, and not just the suggested “us” by Hatch and Schultz (2008). In this section, the researchers will discuss suggestions for additional aspects to be considered for an evaluation of a corporate brand. First, the section will discuss the initial model and why an addition is seen necessary, and also how this can contribute to the existing theory. Lastly, a suggestion for a new and refined model is presented. This model is believed to be of value when investigating the success of a company's corporate brand and the brand’s attractiveness and position in the market.