National Treasury plays a significant role in the country’s branding, and its employees are responsible for carrying out its functions. Internal branding empowers management to appropriately manage employee performance. The study aimed to determine whether internal branding practices are appropriately applied at the National Treasury, provide a non-technical reference to internal branding, and determine whether it is a predictor of employee performance.
A quantitative approach was followed wherein two questionnaires were administered to all employees of the National Treasury (
Internal branding practices are somewhat appropriately applied (
Literature suggests that there exists very little research on internal branding with a particular focus on the public sector when compared to that relating to the private sector. This study aimed to create awareness of the concept and highlight its importance to National Treasury’s management team for managing employee performance.
The importance of internal branding, which has been alternatively termed first- and second-order internal brand identity, to employee performance has been established, thereby making a case of the development and implementation of an internal branding policy at the National Treasury.
This study rests on the suggestions of the Department of National Treasury (
[
The National Treasury is, thus, mandated to provide a financial management consultancy service to broader government including the control over the implementation of the national budget in accordance with
Given that the National Treasury is service oriented (Department of National Treasury,
[
Internal branding is proposed to be one of the most comprehensive ways to improve employee performance (Allada & Rajyalakshmi,
[
Moreover, what makes this concept of particular interest to the industry is that researchers have proven that it assists in getting employees to live the brand that, in turn, results in good employee performance (MaClaverty et al.,
Based on the discussions above, it is clear that National Treasury, a service organisation, relies heavily on its employees to ensure that its key functions which include providing support to the government to achieve clean audit outcomes, curbing corruption and ensuring suitably high investor appetite in domestic ventures. Poor performance in these areas has been seen suggesting the need for intervention. As internal branding is suggested as an appropriate mechanism to improve employee performance, this article aims to increase management’s awareness of the concept so that it may be appropriately applied as part of the intervention. There is also very little published research on internal branding, particularly in the context of the South African public sector as confirmed by a Google search. The problem statement of this study is thus formulated as follows:
The performance of the National Treasury is inadequate as evidenced by poor audit outcomes, high corruption levels and dwindling investor confidence. Since its employees carry out its functions, there is a need to focus on employee performance. While internal branding is provided as means to do so, it is under-researched particularly in the context of the South African public sector.
Noting the problem statement, the main research question is whether internal branding would empower National Treasury’s management to appropriately manage employee performance. The research is guided by three main questions: Is internal branding appropriately applied at National Treasury? How do we explain what internal branding is to a non-human resource and marketing expert? Is there evidence to support the suggestion that internal branding positively relates to employee performance in the case of the National Treasury?
In order to respond to these research questions, the study aims to:
Determine the adequacy of internal branding practices applied in order to establish a baseline.
Propose a more operationally relatable and non-technical reference to the internal branding concept, using the data collected from the National Treasury on the adequacy of internal branding practices, for the benefit of line-function management teams.
Determine whether internal branding positively relates to individual work performance.
Internal branding refers to specific methods and tools employers may use to promote brand supportive behaviour (MaClaverty et al.,
Punjaisri et al. (
Living corporate value activities.
Leverage brand strategy to reaffirm the requirements of the brand internally and use this to seek potential external recruits.
A set of processes, activities and messaging are used to empower associates, and
The creation and demonstration of a good brand experience at all points of interaction.
Menon (
The premise of internal branding is that brand values are, through internal branding, communicated to employees, thereby providing parameters for appropriate workplace behaviour. It is further suggested that if such messaging is consistent, the likelihood of promoting a strong organisational culture of performance and consistency would be high (Blazevic, Agevall, & Klemets,
In summary, as explained in
Firstly, to reinforce an ideal organisational culture: if the organisational culture is deemed appropriate and in line with organisational needs and strategies, and its rationale appears to be largely understood by
Secondly, if amending the organisational culture is necessary, which is a much more complex process, this involves gradual movement between the internal brand and the culture before finally achieving the ultimate desired culture.
Suggested link between the external and internal market.
Given the novelty of the internal branding concept and that is under-researched in South Africa as mentioned earlier, the authors attempted to contextualise the concept based on data collected from the National Treasury. Factor analysis was conducted, which suggested that a two-factor solution for the questionnaire on internal branding would be appropriate. Using the distribution of items in each factor, these were labelled. Based on the discussions earlier, it would seem that internal branding can be synonymised with brand identity specifically focused in-house or simply put internal brand identity (Nirmali et al.,
Rationale for labelling of factors as proposed in this study.
Theme in items | Interpretation |
---|---|
RR, Rewards and cognition; RP, Recruitment practices; TS, Training support; IC, Internal communication; LP, Leadership practices.
The conceptual framework for the study, focusing on the association of internal branding and its various practices to the performance of employees, as graphically illustrated in
Graphic illustration of the conceptual framework.
Individual work performance has been of great interest and a focal point for research in many fields, including management, occupational health and organisational psychology. Albeit, different approaches taken to understand the concept in each respective field. For instance, whilst the focus in the management field on how to optimise employee performance, occupational health generally investigated how to limit probable losses in production because of disease or ill-health. Organisational psychology has often focused more on what it is that influences individual work performance, such as work engagement and job satisfaction. Despite these differences, it seems to be that good individual work performance is the preferred consequence in any workplace setting, because of its close relation to organisational success (Koopmans et al.,
Koopmans et al. (
Through the mere consideration of the definition of individual work performance, as a collection of behaviours and actions that are aligned towards the achievement of organisational gaols (Koopmans et al.,
Ozyilmaz et al. (
In conceptualising this hypothesis statement, the job demands and resources model were considered. The model hypothesised that employee performance results from a favourable alignment of job demands and job resources (Demerouti & Bakker,
Noting that leadership, which in fact represents the owners of the brand (Maclavery et al.,
Rewards simply refer to anything given to employees in recognition of good performance examples include commission and an additional benefit. The intentional act of manager’s expressing appreciation of employee contribution, or even encouraging employees themselves to acknowledge the contributions of their peers, is an example of recognition. The objective is to show that the effort of deserving employees is valued (Durrab, Khaliq, Nisar, Kamboh, & Ali,
Shanin (
This study followed an explanatory research approach in that the study aimed to provide an accurate description of the given situation and then used this description to determine the association between the study constructs (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill,
This study is cross-sectional as phenomena were studied at a particular point in time (Saunders et al.,
A response rate of 42.1%, 501 of 1189, was achieved in both questionnaires. Most participants, at 53.9% (
The responses obtained, as they appear in
The internal branding adequacy survey was developed to measure the common internal branding practices (
Summary of questionnaires used.
Reference code | Items |
---|---|
IC1 | Managers “walk-the-talk” by ensuring sound management of the public funds allocated to their respective cost centres. |
IC2 | I feel adequately informed by management on current external developments that impact the organisation. |
IC3 | I feel adequately informed by management on current internal developments that impact the organisation. |
IC4 | The organisation encourages internal interaction amongst employees across different units. |
TS5 | There are adequate training opportunities in place to support me to be more effective in my iob. |
TS6 | It is clear to me how my particular unit contributes to the annual budget process. |
TS7 | It is clear to me how my particular unit contributes to the budqet implementation monitorinq process. |
TS8 | The corporate services unit of the National Treasury is functioning effectively to support me in my job |
LP9 | Management is hands-on in finalising key work tasks. |
LP10 | Management explicitly endorses the values of public sector resource sustainability overall, in line with the National Treasury brand. |
RR11 | National Treasury has peer recognition programmes which specifically encourages co-workers to acknowledge each other’s qood performance |
RR12 | My manager acknowledges good individual work performance by directly informing me of this. |
RR13 | There are suitable incentives in place, such as the performance bonus system, which encourages me to continuously seek to improve my performance. |
RR14 | Management encourages and promotes living the brand “National Treasury”. |
RP15 | The right people for the job have been recruited in my unit. |
RP16 | I believe that I am a good fit for the organisation. |
RP17 | I want to remain in the employment of the National Treasury for the next 5 years. |
TP1 | I manage to plan my work so that it is done on time. |
TP2 | My planning is optimal. |
TP3 | I keep the results I have to achieve in mind. |
TP4 | I am able to separate main issues from side issues at work |
TP5 | I am able to perform my work well with minimal time and effort. |
CP6 | I take on extra responsibilities. |
CP7 | I start new tasks myself, when my old ones were finished. |
CP8 | I take on challenging work tasks, when available. |
CP9 | I work at keeping my job knowledge up to date. |
CP10 | I work at keeping my job skills up to date. |
CP11 | I come up with creative solutions to new problems |
CP12 | I keep looking for new challenges in my job. |
CP13 | I actively participate in work meetings. |
rC14 | I complain about unimportant matters at work. |
rC15 | I make problems greater than they are at work. |
rC16 | I focus on the negative aspects of a work situation, instead of on the positive aspects. |
rC17 | I speak with colleagues about the negative aspects of my work. |
rC18 | I speak with people from outside the organisation about the negative aspects of my work. |
RR, rewards and recognition; RP, recruitment practices; TS, Training support; IC, internal communication; LP, leadership practices; rC, counterproductive behaviour; CP, contextual performance; TP, task performance.
For reliability, Cronbach’s alphas of 0.865 and 0.946 were obtained for the internal branding practices and the individual work performance questionnaires, respectively, for the pilot study using 17 employees selected randomly. For the main study, values of 0.974 and 0.946 were obtained, which are above the recommendation of 0.7 by Pallant (
The data were collected using an online census survey (
SPSS, version 25 was used for descriptive and inferential statistical data analysis; frequency tables, factor analysis and Pearson’s correlation coefficient were used in accordance with the objectives of the study.
Frequency distributions for the questionnaires used in the study.
Items | Internal branding questionnaire |
Total | Mean | Std. Dev | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ||||
IC1 | ||||||||||
Count | 5 | 3 | 19 | 18 | 106 | 244 | 106 | 501 | 5.741 | 1.090 |
Row |
1.0 | 0.6 | 3.8 | 3.6 | 21.2 | 48.7 | 21.2 | 100.0 | - | - |
IC2 | ||||||||||
Count | 11 | 17 | 15 | 22 | 51 | 147 | 238 | 501 | 5.950 | 1.454 |
Row |
2.2 | 3.4 | 3.0 | 4.4 | 10.2 | 29.3 | 47.5 | 100.0 | - | - |
IC3 | ||||||||||
Count | 13 | 14 | 20 | 13 | 55 | 150 | 236 | 501 | 5.948 | 1.463 |
Row |
2.6 | 2.8 | 4.0 | 2.6 | 11.0 | 29.9 | 47.1 | 100.0 | - | - |
IC4 | ||||||||||
Count | 14 | 15 | 14 | 30 | 56 | 126 | 246 | 501 | 5.916 | 1.506 |
Row |
2.8 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 6.0 | 11.2 | 25.1 | 49.1 | 100.0 | - | - |
TS5 | ||||||||||
Count | 10 | 9 | 21 | 26 | 67 | 328 | 40 | 501 | 5.545 | 1.175 |
Row |
2.0 | 1.8 | 4.2 | 5.2 | 13.4 | 65.5 | 8.0 | 100.0 | - | - |
TS6 | ||||||||||
Count | 6 | 8 | 12 | 23 | 69 | 292 | 91 | 501 | 5.756 | 1.103 |
Row |
1.2 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 4.6 | 13.8 | 58.3 | 18.2 | 100.0 | - | - |
TS7 | ||||||||||
Count | 7 | 8 | 14 | 25 | 36 | 157 | 254 | 501 | 6.118 | 1.274 |
Row |
1.4 | 1.6 | 2.8 | 5.0 | 7.2 | 31.3 | 50.7 | 100.0 | - | - |
TS8 | ||||||||||
Count | 15 | 13 | 25 | 39 | 93 | 155 | 161 | 501 | 5.577 | 1.502 |
Row |
3.0 | 2.6 | 5.0 | 7.8 | 18.6 | 30.9 | 32.1 | 100.0 | - | - |
LP9 | ||||||||||
Count | 5 | 16 | 15 | 22 | 119 | 222 | 102 | 501 | 5.611 | 1.224 |
Row |
1.0 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 4.4 | 23.8 | 44.3 | 20.4 | 100.0 | - | - |
LP10 | ||||||||||
Count | 5 | 11 | 11 | 33 | 44 | 150 | 247 | 501 | 6.070 | 1.281 |
Row |
1.0 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 6.6 | 8.8 | 29.9 | 49.3 | 100.0 | - | - |
RR11 | ||||||||||
Count | 32 | 19 | 15 | 43 | 66 | 124 | 202 | 501 | 5.539 | 1.773 |
Row |
6.4 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 8.6 | 13.2 | 24.8 | 40.3 | 100.0 | - | - |
RR12 | ||||||||||
Count | 11 | 12 | 11 | 19 | 30 | 140 | 278 | 501 | 6.148 | 1370 |
Row |
2.2 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 3.8 | 6.0 | 27.9 | 55.5 | 100.0 | - | - |
RR13 | ||||||||||
Count | 18 | 12 | 16 | 18 | 57 | 138 | 242 | 501 | 5.926 | 1.519 |
Row |
3.6 | 2.4 | 3.2 | 3.6 | 11.4 | 27.5 | 48.3 | 100.0 | - | - |
RR14 | ||||||||||
Count | 11 | 16 | 17 | 53 | 60 | 131 | 213 | 501 | 5.754 | 1.509 |
Row |
2.2 | 3.2 | 3.4 | 10.6 | 12.0 | 26.1 | 42.5 | 100.0 | - | - |
RP15 | ||||||||||
Count | 9 | 8 | 6 | 23 | 77 | 200 | 178 | 501 | 5.920 | 1.225 |
Row |
1.8 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 4.6 | 15.4 | 39.9 | 35.5 | 100.0 | - | - |
RP16 | ||||||||||
Count | 1 | 3 | 11 | 11 | 29 | 165 | 281 | 501 | 6.359 | 0.961 |
Row |
0.2 | 0.6 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 5.8 | 32.9 | 56.1 | 100.0 | - | - |
RP17 | ||||||||||
Count | 12 | 13 | 13 | 51 | 61 | 135 | 216 | 501 | 5.804 | 1.474 |
Row |
2.4 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 10.2 | 12.2 | 26.9 | 43.1 | 100.0 | - | - |
TP1 | ||||||||||
Count | 2 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 38 | 123 | 320 | 501 | 6.453 | 0.921 |
Row |
0.4 | 0.2 | 1.4 | 2.0 | 7.6 | 24.6 | 63.9 | 100.0 | - | - |
TP2 | ||||||||||
Count | 1 | 3 | 10 | 37 | 107 | 97 | 246 | 501 | 6.036 | 1.152 |
Row |
0.2 | 0.6 | 2.0 | 7.4 | 21.4 | 19.4 | 49.1 | 100.0 | - | - |
TP3 | ||||||||||
Count | 1 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 30 | 87 | 368 | 501 | 6.593 | 0.823 |
Row |
0.2 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 2.0 | 6.0 | 17.4 | 73.5 | 100.0 | - | - |
TP4 | ||||||||||
Count | 2 | 2 | 12 | 35 | 92 | 93 | 265 | 501 | 6.098 | 1.168 |
Row |
0.4 | 0.4 | 2.4 | 7.0 | 18.4 | 18.6 | 52.9 | 100.0 | - | - |
TP5 | ||||||||||
Count | 3 | 4 | 11 | 33 | 104 | 81 | 265 | 501 | 6.062 | 1.214 |
Row |
0.6 | 0.8 | 2.2 | 6.6 | 20.8 | 16.2 | 52.9 | 100.0 | - | - |
CP6 | ||||||||||
Count | 1 | 3 | 6 | 11 | 39 | 116 | 325 | 501 | 6.457 | 0.928 |
Row n% | 0.2 | 0.6 | 1.2 | 2.2 | 7.8 | 23.2 | 64.9 | 100.0 | - | - |
CP7 | ||||||||||
Count | 2 | 1 | 6 | 15 | 29 | 114 | 334 | 501 | 6.485 | 0.922 |
Row |
0.4 | 0.2 | 1.2 | 3.0 | 5.8 | 22.8 | 66.7 | 100.0 | - | - |
CP8 | ||||||||||
Count | 1 | 3 | 7 | 14 | 31 | 137 | 306 | 501 | 6.421 | 0.940 |
Row |
0.2 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 2.8 | 6.2 | 27.3 | 61.5 | 100.0 | - | - |
CT9 | ||||||||||
Count | 0 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 36 | 127 | 318 | 501 | 6.455 | 0.901 |
Row |
0.0 | 0.6 | 1.6 | 1.8 | 7.2 | 25.3 | 63.5 | 100.0 | - | - |
CP10 | ||||||||||
Count | 2 | 2 | 8 | 14 | 35 | 130 | 310 | 501 | 6.409 | 0.971 |
Row |
0.4 | 0.4 | 1.6 | 2.8 | 7.0 | 25.9 | 61.9 | 100.0 | - | - |
CP11 | ||||||||||
Count | 3 | 1 | 11 | 15 | 50 | 160 | 261 | 501 | 6.257 | 1.027 |
Row |
0.6 | 0.2 | 2.2 | 3.0 | 10.0 | 31.9 | 52.1 | 100.0 | - | - |
CP12 | ||||||||||
Count | 2 | 3 | 9 | 20 | 52 | 159 | 256 | 501 | 6.230 | 1.040 |
Row |
0.4 | 0.6 | 1.8 | 4.0 | 10.4 | 31.7 | 51.1 | 100.0 | - | - |
CP8 13 | ||||||||||
Count | 3 | 5 | 9 | 16 | 75 | 124 | 269 | 501 | 6.200 | 1.117 |
Row |
0.6 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 3.2 | 15.0 | 24.8 | 53.7 | 100.0 | - | - |
rC14 | ||||||||||
Count | 8 | 77 | 45 | 31 | 261 | 55 | 24 | 501 | 4.439 | 1.432 |
Row |
1.6 | 15.4 | 9.0 | 6.2 | 52.1 | 11.0 | 4.8 | 100.0 | - | - |
rC15 | ||||||||||
Count | 3 | 5 | 14 | 93 | 58 | 265 | 63 | 501 | 5.485 | 1.132 |
Row |
0.6 | 1.0 | 2.8 | 18.6 | 11.6 | 52.9 | 12.6 | 100.0 | - | - |
rC16 | ||||||||||
Count | 10 | 76 | 34 | 28 | 92 | 210 | 51 | 501 | 4.896 | 1.683 |
Row |
2.0 | 15.2 | 6.8 | 5.6 | 18.4 | 41.9 | 10.2 | 100.0 | - | - |
rC17 | ||||||||||
Count | 11 | 72 | 43 | 45 | 96 | 193 | 41 | 501 | 4.768 | 1.656 |
Row |
2.2 | 14.4 | 8.6 | 9.0 | 19.2 | 38.5 | 8.2 | 100.0 | - | - |
rC18 | ||||||||||
Count | 12 | 47 | 37 | 77 | 206 | 85 | 37 | 501 | 4.639 | 1.420 |
Row |
2.4 | 9.4 | 7.4 | 15.4 | 41.1 | 17.0 | 7.4 | 100.0 | - | - |
RR, rewards and recognition; RP, recruitment practices; TS, Training support; IC, internal communication; LP, leadership practices; rC, counterproductive behaviour; CP, contextual performance; TP, task performance.
Adequacy of internal branding practices and level of individual work performance.
Eigenvalues and rotated factor matrix.
Component | Factor |
|
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
12.101 | 1.354 | |
% of variance | 71.181 | 7.963 |
% of cumulative variance | 71.181 | 79.145 |
RR14 | 0.901 | - |
RR11 | 0.872 | - |
RP17 | 0.823 | - |
RR13 | 0.795 | - |
TS8 | 0.749 | - |
IC4 | 0.736 | - |
IC2 | 0.731 | - |
IC3 | 0.699 | - |
TS6 | - | 0.893 |
TS7 | - | 0.794 |
IC1 | - | 0.758 |
LP10 | - | 0.700 |
RP15 | - | 0.678 |
LP9 | - | 0.652 |
RP16 | - | 0.649 |
TS5 | - | 0.645 |
RR12 | - | 0.606 |
RR, rewards and recognition; RP, recruitment practices; TS, Training support; IC, internal communication; LP, leadership practices.
An attempt was made to determine a more operational and non-technical reference to the internal branding using the distribution of items in each factor. Although Neill (
Pearson’s correlation coefficient measures the direction and strength of the hypothesised relationships. A negative result indicates a negative relationship between variables, with –1 indicating that this relation is perfect. The opposite applies for a positive relationship. Values exceeding 0.5 indicate a strong relationship (Gogtay & Thatte,
Confirmed conceptual framework.
A two-factor solution was proposed for the internal branding practices questionnaire. The first was labelled
[
Internal branding was shown to significantly and positively correlate with individual work performance (
The study finds that internal branding practices are adequately applied although some areas such as little encouragement for peer recognition by managers and the Corporate Services Unit needing improvement need to be noted and addressed. As shown in this study, internal branding relates notably to individual work performance and the functioning of a service organisation largely rests on its employees. The development of a dedicated internal branding policy, that one be developed that brings together all practices in a complementary manner, is thus recommended. It is further recommended that such a policy clearly distinguishes between first-order and second-order internal brand identity issues so that accountability for its application be appropriately assigned. For instance, first-order internal brand identity would primarily be the responsibility of human resources as it features elements such as recruitment. However, second-order internal brand identity issues would be best managed by line-function management with human resources playing a coordination and administrative role as technical work knowledge is needed for this.
The researcher is an employee of the National Treasury, and colleagues, perhaps not entirely convinced of anonymity, may have given slightly more positive responses. This may have led to the overestimation of both the constructs measured. The research design of the study wherein structured data collection instruments were used may have effectively silenced other views on the topic that the researcher may not have necessarily conceptualised. The study is also rather employee focused and does not take into account the views of management. It is recommended that this study be replicated in other national government departments to increase the generalisability of the findings.
We would like to extend our appreciation to all those who participated and contributed to this study.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
R.L.T. conducted the research. V.N. and H.H.H. supervised the research and co-wrote the article.
The ethics committee of the Tshwane University of Technology granted ethical clearance for the study. FCRE2019/FRApril 2019.
The research received no specific grant from any funding agency.
Data can be shared anytime for the purpose of this publication’s processes.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ own and not an official position of any particular institution or funder.