Step 1: Generating items

Following Churchill (1979), this study adopted both literature-based and research expertise-based approaches to create an item pool for each theoretical construct. Specifically, following the deductive approach, items were generated on the basis of a review of the extant literature to identify established measures. However, in the absence of established measures, research expertise was used as the secondary means to generate items. In doing so, items were generated directly from the conceptual definition of the focal construct, such that they captured the specific domain of interest as specified in the conceptual definition. Critically, the literature review presented in Chapter Two was drawn upon as the backdrop

Phase One Item generation

Phase Two Item refinement

against which measurement items were developed for this study to capture the theoretical constructs of interest. As such, the following discussion of measures is segregated into two sections – one for measures newly developed specifically for this study where existing measures are either unavailable or inappropriate, while the other for readily available measures adopted from previous studies.

4.6.3.1.1.1 Measure development

In picking up on the conceptual and operational issues identified and discussed in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.3 for brand orientation and brand management capability respectively, new measures for these constructs were developed to overcome the weaknesses of existing measures found in the literature. In doing so and following the recommendations of Vorhies et al. (2011) and O’Cass et al. (2014), relevant bodies of literature were reviewed in depth to generate an initial pool of items that fitted the conceptual definition of these constructs as presented in Chapter Three. Discussion of these measures is presented in the following sections.

Brand orientation

As discussed in Section 3.2.1, brand orientation is defined as a firm’s brand-building initiative, captured by its knowledge-producing behaviours focused on the generation, dissemination and synthesis of brand-building knowledge directed at initiating the brand-building process. Building on the suggestions of Jarvis, MacKenzie and Podsakoff (2003) and Coltman, Devinney, Midgley and Venaik (2008) and following previous research (e.g., Menguc, Auh, & Shih, 2007; Story, Boso, & Cadogan, 2015), brand orientation is modelled as a

Type II second-order formative construct comprising the first-order reflective components of generation, dissemination and synthesis.

Generation

Items pertaining to the extent to which a firm generates knowledge for brand-building to maintain the relevance of the brand in the market were drawn from Kohli and Jaworski (1990), Narver and Slater (1990), Jaworski and Kohli (1993), Ewing and Napoli (2005), and Baumgarth (2010). The items sourced from these studies led to an initial development of an 8-item scale, examples of which are shown below:

When managing this brand, we have:

- Developed knowledge about consumers’ needs.

- Evaluated if the profile of the brand is different from those of competitors.

Dissemination

Items pertaining to the extent to which a firm disseminates knowledge pertaining to the brand to develop an organisation-wide understanding of what the brand stands for and the values it represents were drawn from Kohli and Jaworski (1990), Jaworski and Kohli (1993), Ewing and Napoli (2005), Baumgarth (2010), and Hankinson (2012). The items sourced from these studies led to an initial development of an 8-item scale, examples of which are shown below:

Across all business levels (e.g., senior, middle management) and departments (e.g., marketing, accounting) involved in the management of this brand:

- Information related to the brand has been shared and disseminated.

- There has been a consistently similar level of understanding of the brand.

Synthesis

Items pertaining to the extent to which a firm synthesises knowledge for brand-building to identify opportunities that align with and fit in the brand’s core

identity framework were drawn from Moorman (1995) and Vorhies et al. (2011). The items sourced from these studies led to an initial development of a 5-item scale, examples of which are shown below:

When managing this brand, we have:

- Integrated information from a variety of sources (e.g., consumer reports, brand profile) when developing marketing strategies for the brand.

- Ensured that all information sources (e.g., brand profile, market reports) are thoroughly considered when making decisions for the brand.

Brand management capability

As discussed in Section 3.2.1, brand management capability is viewed in this study as the inter-related processes and routines that firms have in place to reflect and reinforce the brand’s image in the marketplace. Items that reflect the extent to which the firm engages in these activities were sourced and built on the reflective measures drawn from Urde (2003), Ewing and Napoli (2005), Keller (2008), Morgan et al. (2009a), O’Cass and Ngo (2011b), Orr et al. (2011), Vorhies et al. (2011), and O’Cass and Heirati (2015). The items sourced from these studies led to an initial development of a 9-item scale, examples of which are shown below:

When managing this brand, we have:

- Portrayed the brand with an appealing personality that reflects the brand’s image.

- Identified potential extension opportunities that consolidate the brand’s image.

4.6.3.1.1.2. Measure adoption

As discussed in Section 2.2.2 and detailed throughout Section 2.4, there is general consensus in the literature concerning the underlying concepts of formalisation, centralisation, departmentalisation, brand-specific TRL, and brand equity. Therefore, measures for these constructs were adopted from previous studies. Discussion of these measures is presented in the sections that follow.

Formalisation

Following prior literature as discussed in Section 2.4.2 and focusing on its conceptualisation as the specification of rules and procedures that guide employee on how to perform work tasks, the reflective 4-item measure of formalisation was adopted from the work of Vorhies and Morgan (2003), Auh and Menguc (2007), and Kabadayi et al. (2007). Some example items of this scale include:

In relation to the staff involved in the management of this brand:

- How things are done has never been left up to the person doing the work.

- They have had to conform to standard procedures and formal guidelines.

Centralisation

Following prior literature as discussed in Section 2.4.3 and focusing on its conceptualisation as the concentration of decision-making authority within higher level management positions, the reflective 4-item measure of centralisation was adopted from the work of Vorhies and Morgan (2003) and Auh and Menguc (2007). Some example items of this scale include:

In relation to the staff involved in the management of this brand:

- They have not been allowed to take an action before someone with authority makes a decision.

- They have had to refer even small matters to someone with more authority for a final decision.

Departmentalisation

Following prior literature as discussed in Section 2.4.4 and focusing on its conceptualisation as the lack of formal and informal contact among employees across different departments, the reflective 4-item measure of departmentalisation was adopted from the work of Matsuno et al., (2002). Some example items of this scale include:

Across all business levels (e.g., senior, middle management) and departments (e.g., marketing, accounting) involved in the management of this brand:

- Protecting one’s departmental turf has been considered to be a way of life.

- There has been strong interdepartmental conflict.

Brand-specific transactional leadership (TRL)

Following prior literature as discussed in Sections 2.4.5 and 3.2.2, brand- specific TRL is viewed in this study as a leadership style that focuses on rewarding brand representatives for meeting role expectations and punishing them for not being in compliance with brand standards. Therefore, following the suggestions of Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Lee (2003b), brand-specific TRL is modelled as a Type II second-order formative construct comprising the reflective components of management-by-exception and contingent reward.

Management-by-exception

Following prior research and in line with its focus on closely monitoring employees for deviances, mistakes, and errors and then taking corrective actions when they occur, management-by-exception was measured by a 6-item scale adopted from the work of Morhart et al. (2009). Some example items of this scale include:

When managing this brand, have you consistently or always:

- Focused attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations from what is expected of your staff as representatives of the brand?

- Monitored your staff’s performance as brand representatives for errors needing correction?

Contingent reward

Following prior research and in line with its focus on specifying performance standards and rewarding brand representatives on the basis of meeting role expectations, contingent reward was measured by a 4-item scale

adopted from the work of Morhart et al. (2009). Some example items of this scale include:

When managing this brand, have you consistently or always:

- Pointed out what your staff will receive if they do what is required from a brand representative?

- Talked to your staff about special rewards for exemplary behaviour as a brand representative?

Brand equity

As discussed in Section 2.2.2, while there is consensus in the literature concerning the underlying concept of brand equity as the additional value endowed by the brand to the product, the dimensions by which it is underpinned are however context-specific in that they are argued to relate specifically to the context in which brand equity is measured (Christodoulides & de Chernatony, 2010). Thus, following the work of Keller (1993), brand equity is viewed in this study as a multidimensional construct comprising the dimensions of brand awareness and brand image.

However, recent studies in the brand equity literature argue that brand image is often constituted by a set of associations (Keller & Lehmann, 2006; Keller, 2008; Godey et al., 2012). As such, given this study’s primary focus on examining brand management practices employed by businesses operating within the context of consumer goods with symbolic properties, the dimensions of perceived quality, social signalling value and uniqueness were drawn upon as the key brand associations that collectively form an image of the brand in the minds of consumers (see also Amaldoss & Jain, 2015). These dimensions were adopted because scholars in the branding literature argue that consumer goods with symbolic properties are generally perceived as superior in quality (e.g., Elliot,

1994; Vigneron & Johnson, 1999; O’Cass et al., 2013), having exceptional symbolic or social signalling value (e.g., Elliot, 1994; Eastman et al., 1999; Vigneron & Johnson, 1999) and unique (hence their ability to command a price premium in the marketplace) (Aaker, 1996; Truong et al., 2008; Truong et al., 2009). Therefore, following prior research (e.g., Yoo et al., 2000; Kim & Hyun, 2011), brand equity is conceptualised in this study as a Type II second-order formative construct comprising the reflective components of brand awareness, perceived quality, brand social signalling value and uniqueness.

Brand awareness

Building on prior literature and in line with its focus on capturing consumers’ ability to recognise or recall a brand, brand awareness was measured by a 4-item scale adopted from the work of Homburg et al. (2010). Some example items of this scale include:

Based on the most recent and up-to-date information available to us (e.g., company reports, financial reports), the information shows that:

- Consumers have seen and/or heard of this brand.

- Consumers can clearly relate this brand to a certain product category.

Perceived quality

Building on prior literature and in line with its focus on consumers’ subjective judgment about a brand’s overall excellence or superiority, perceived quality was measured by a 6-item scale adopted from the work of Yoo et al., (2000). Some example items of this scale include:

Based on the most recent and up-to-date information available to us (e.g., company reports, financial reports), the information shows that:

- Consumers consider this brand to be of high quality.

- Consumers consider the likely functionality of this brand to be very high.

Brand social signalling value

Building on prior literature and in line with its focus on the utility derived from the brand’s ability to enhance the consumer’s social self-concept, brand social signalling value was measured by a 4-item scale adopted from the work of Sweeney and Soutar (2001) and Zhou et al. (2010). Some example items of this scale include:

Based on the most recent and up-to-date information available to us (e.g., company reports, financial reports), the information shows that:

- Consumers think this brand would improve the way they are perceived.

- Consumers think this brand would make a good impression on other people.

Uniqueness

Building on prior literature and in line with its focus on the degree to which consumers feel the focal brand is different from other competing brands, uniqueness was measured by a 4-item scale adopted from the work of Netemeyer et al. (2004). Some example items of this scale include:

Based on the most recent and up-to-date information available to us (e.g., company reports, financial reports), the information shows that:

- Consumers perceive this brand as distinct from other brands in the same product category.

- Consumers perceive this brand as unique from other brands in the same product category.

Control variables

Control variables are factors that enable researchers to rule out alternative explanations for their findings (Becker, 2005). The inclusion of control variables as such enables researchers to obtain robust findings that are free from effects that may influence the interrelationships among constructs of interest in a given theoretical framework.

As respondents were required to think of the brand management practices undertaken over the past year at the time of survey response, the brand’s prior performance would need to be controlled so that effects of brand management practices as measured in the survey could be captured. As such, following Morgan et al. (2009a), Vorhies et al. (2011), and Xu, Wu and Cavusgil (2013), the brand’s base-year performance 12 months prior to the period covered by the survey was measured by the following item:

Please check the number that best reflects your response the following statement:

- Prior to the last 12 months, the overall performance of this brand was …

Likewise, since the brand management practices employed by brand units might have been overseen or controlled by upper-level offices (e.g., headquarters, regional offices), their branding autonomy thus required regulation. To this end, following Zhou, Li, Sheng and Shao (2014), a two-item scale was included to control the degree to which the brand unit was able to autonomously develop and implement its own branding strategies:

Please check the number that best indicates your response to the following statements:

- We are free to develop our own branding strategies for this brand.

- We are free to implement our own branding strategies for this brand.