Building, developing and maintaining the fit between individual employees and the business is a very important issue to bring about the effectiveness and success of this activity and the philosophy of brand management based on identity (De Chernaton and Cottam, 2005). At the same time, based on the results of qualitative research, the author decided to add a new factor belonging to the group of individual employee factors, which is the individual's perception of the fit between individual needs and the bank's response, to the research model of King & Grace (2012) and tested it in preliminary quantitative research.
Individual needs-organizational responsiveness is a type of complementary fit that integrates various types of individual needs with organizational needs and vice versa (Kristof, 1996). This factor is understood as the individual employee's perception of the organizational system and structure in its efforts to satisfy individual needs, preferences, and desires through internal and external stimuli by providing reward opportunities, social interaction, training, development, and incentive programs (Kristof, 1996). Individual needs here include concrete needs and intangible needs. Concrete needs include physiological needs (e.g., food, shelter) and are met by the organization through pay, benefits, time off, and rewards (Cable & DeRue, 2002). Intangible needs are psychological needs such as safety needs, communication needs, social interaction, the need to develop interpersonal relationships as well as personal and professional development within the organization. The system and structure of the enterprise attempt to satisfy the needs, preferences and desires of individuals through internal and external means of stimulation by providing reward opportunities, social interaction, training and development and incentive programs. The congruence of individual needs – the enterprise’s response is achieved when each party satisfies the needs and expectations of the other party (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Kristof, 1996). The scale of this variable is quoted from Cable & DeRue (2002) including 9 items measured on the Likert scale as follows:
1. What I get in this job matches what I look for in a job
2. The job I have now is everything I want in a job.
3. I am not adequately trained to do the job effectively.
4. I appreciate the rewards I receive for doing a good job.
5. The company supports me very well when I try to do my job effectively.
6. The characteristics I look for in a job are a good fit for my current job.
7. At the moment, this job does not meet my requirements.
8. I believe that I am fairly rewarded for my contributions at work.
9. I believe that the level of give and take between me and the business is acceptable.
3.1.4.3 Evaluate how the variables of the research model are measured
Internal SMTH concept and measurement method
Basically, the survey subjects all agreed that the two elements of internal SMTH are commitment to the bank brand and action towards the bank brand. However, according to the survey subjects, the concepts need to be defined in a more understandable way in Vietnamese style, in which commitment refers to the emotional and psychological state and action expressed through the activities and behaviors of employees.
Box 3.10: Perceptions of bank brand strength among employees
Bank brand strength in employees is understood as the value of the bank brand in the minds of employees, which is easily recognizable in the minds of employees, that is, in my opinion, what employees think when mentioning the name of their bank.
Talking about the strength of a bank's brand means talking about the difference that creates value for your bank compared to other banks in your bank's employees.
Bank brand strength is something long-lasting, valuable, experienced by employees in their real work and non-work lives, built over many years.
A bank with brand power among its employees is one whose employees go out into the world proudly telling others that they work for their bank.
In my opinion, a bank with brand power in its employees is demonstrated by the fact that employees are motivated to do their jobs well, not only not damaging the bank's brand but also conveying the bank's brand value to others.
Source: Excerpted from author's focus group interviews
The concept of “bank brand commitment”
Commitment to the bank brand is understood as the fact that employees have strong beliefs, pride, care and acceptance of the goals and values of the business brand, and are willing to make efforts to contribute to make the brand more famous and become a part of their lives. Basically, the survey subjects agreed with the statements in the scale of Burman et al. (2009) used by King & Grace (2012) but disagreed with some statements in the scale of Kimparkon & Tocquer (2010) such as "I often tell my friends that I work for a big bank brand", "For me, the bank I am working for is the best brand among the banks I can work for" and "There is very little possibility that I will leave the bank I am working for", "I can accept to follow any work assignment to continue working for my bank brand" (see Appendix 3.9). The survey respondents reflected that these statements do not accurately reflect an employee’s commitment to the bank they are working for. In addition to the reasons originating from the employees themselves, there are many other reasons that can make them leave the bank that have nothing to do with their love for the bank brand they are working for, such as their relationship with their direct boss, work capacity, industry risks, etc. Therefore, according to the suggestions of the qualitative research participants, it is necessary to remove some statements and possibly use an alternative statement such as “I am really happy to work for my bank brand, not other bank brands”.
The concept of “action towards bank brand”
Actions towards the bank brand are understood as all behaviors and activities of employees that are consistent with the bank's brand value, positively influence the brand value, strengthen, increase the brand value and promote the bank's brand value to all relevant subjects.
With this scale, most of the research participants agreed with the statements of Burman and Zeplin (2009) used by King and Grace (2012). Some individuals commented that there should be statements that reflect the actions of employees and the specificity of the banking industry. For example, using KPI (key
KPI (performance index) is a target assigned to bank employees to complete tasks in a certain sales period/working period to evaluate the employee's actions towards the bank's brand. KPI includes indicators on deposit mobilization, credit attraction, number of payment accounts opened, number of credit cards issued, etc. This index has different standards between different employees (employees directly in contact with customers, employees not directly in contact with customers, transaction staff, customer management specialists, etc.) between different management levels (branch managers, department managers, department-level managers at headquarters, etc.). However, some other individuals disagreed when including the completion of KPI indicators in the scale because as reflected in the nature of the concepts belonging to SMTH internally, banking is a very specific industry with high risks, with credit officers, although having high qualifications, there are still many objective factors beyond expectations (objective to the bank's customers) that can affect the ability to complete KPI indicators and the ability to stay at the bank of the employees even though they still love, are attached to and act for the bank brand . Because there are many opinions and some opposing opinions in qualitative research, the author did not develop this idea for measuring variables and still used the entire scale of Burman et al. (2009) used by King and Grace (2012).
Assessing the measurement of factors influencing the variable “Relationship orientation in banking”
With the concept of relationship orientation in banking, the respondents emphasized that the relationship mentioned in the concept needs to be more specific between employees who directly contact customers and indirect employees in the working group, with other departments directly related to handling customer work, and the relationship with the direct boss, not just emphasizing the general relationship between the so-called "enterprise" and themselves. Regarding the measurement items, the statement about "communication in banking is very good" if not placed under the concept of "relationship orientation in banking" but only in the questionnaire, the respondents will not understand "bank communication" in a way that supports "developing relationships in the organization".
Variable “Socialization in banking”
The survey respondents basically agreed with this variable scale. However, according to some interviewees, socialization also needs to include helping employees take actions towards the brand, not just helping employees learn and identify the values of the organization. For example, banks need to organize a strong support system to convey services and brand values to customers, or employees who go to sell services need to be well supported by the back-office department in terms of procedures to maintain the "reputation" of the bank and maintain the "reputation" of individual employees with customers.
With the two-variable scale of “socialization in banking” and “relationship orientation”, the respondents did not want to use the word “very” for example “Communication in banking is very good” or “The bank has implemented training activities very well” because according to them, it would affect the individual's perception when scoring on the Likert scale.
Variable “Employee Adoption Level”
There was essentially no response to the items measuring the “employee acceptance” variable except for the first item, where many respondents suggested changing the word “voluntary” to “proactive.”
Variable “match between individual needs and bank response”
Many employees and managers reported that the negative statement “no” in items 3 and 7 would affect the perception of the survey respondents, so it would be more appropriate to change “no” to “not yet”.
Specific assessments of the scale items of the variables are shown in Appendix 3.9.
3.2 Preliminary quantitative research
3.2.1 Research objectives
The objective of the quantitative preliminary study is to evaluate the suitability of the proposed research model (with the addition of a new factor of the fit between individual needs and bank response) in the field of Vietnamese commercial banks, and to test the measurement scale.
of the variables in the research model, assessing the nature and level of influence (positive/negative, strong/weak) of the factors of relationship orientation, socialization, employee acceptance level and the suitability of personal needs - the bank's response to the commitment and action towards the bank brand of employees.
3.2.2 Proposed research model
The author's research model is formed based on the addition of a new factor "The fit between employee needs - bank response" to the research model of King & Grace (2012). The research hypotheses are formed based on the research results of King & Grace (2012) and the results of qualitative research in the context of the banking sector in Vietnam, considering the similarities and differences between the two research contexts.
H1: Employee commitment to the bank brand positively affects behavior
their impact on the bank brand
H2: Relationship orientation in banking positively affects employee commitment to the bank brand
H3: Relationship orientation in banking positively affects employees' actions towards the bank brand.
H4: Socialization in banking positively affects employee commitment to the bank brand
H5: Socialization in banking positively affects employees' actions towards the bank brand.
H6: Employee acceptance level positively affects employee commitment to the bank brand
H7: Employee acceptance level positively affects employee actions towards the bank brand
H8: The relevance of individual needs – bank responsiveness positively affects employee commitment to the bank brand
H9: The relevance of individual needs – bank responsiveness positively affects employees' actions towards the bank brand
STRENGTH | |
Commitment to the brand | |
STRONG PARTY BRAND | |
Act brand oriented | IN |
Maybe you are interested!
-
Evaluating customer satisfaction with savings deposit services at National Citizen Commercial Joint Stock Bank NCB Tan Huong Transaction Office - 3 -
Completing the personal credit rating model at Saigon Commercial Joint Stock Bank - 12 -
Building a Scale and Research Model of Factors Affecting Customers' Decision to Choose a Bank to Deposit Savings at -
Research Model and Research Methodology to Analyze the Impact of Bad Debt on Bank Efficiency -
Criteria for Evaluating the Development of Commercial Bank's Banking Services
Relationship Orientation in Banking
Socialization in banking
Employee adoption
Personalized fit –
Bank response
Figure 3.11: Author's proposed research model
3.2.3 Data collection
The study used a questionnaire survey method with employees of Vietnamese commercial banks (excluding foreign and joint venture banks). The subjects selected for the survey were those working at Vietnamese commercial banks. According to Bollen (1989) and Hair & colleagues (1998), to satisfy the data requirements of quantitative analysis, a variable needs to have 5 observations corresponding to 5 respondents. The questionnaire has 47 variables, so the minimum sample is 235 people. The survey was conducted using a simple random sampling method with a total of n = 400 ballots issued. The response rate of the surveyed subjects was 69%, with 276 ballots returned. The number of ballots used for analysis for the study accounted for 89.5%, which was 247 ballots (29 ballots were eliminated because the subjects did not answer completely, answered one option in all questions). The survey subjects were approached in three ways: (1) directly approaching employees of commercial banks who are currently studying for 2nd degree, master's, and distance learning programs at the National Economics University, (2) directly approaching employees of commercial banks at their workplaces, (3) sending the survey questionnaires through the email list of subjects working in banks that the author collected. The number of survey questionnaires corresponding to the banks where the employees work is given in Appendix 3.11. Information about the subjects answering the survey questionnaires is shown in the following table:
Table 3.4: Description of quantitative preliminary research sample N=247
Survey respondents
Quantity | % | ||
Part | Direct contact with customers | 154 | 62.35 |
No direct contact with customers | 93 | 37.65 | |
Sex | Male | 71 | 28.74 |
Female | 176 | 71.26 | |
Age | Under 30 | 107 | 43.32 |
From 31 to 40 | 120 | 48.58 | |
From 41 to 50 | 20 | 8.10 | |
From 51 to 60 | 0 | 0 | |
Years of experience working at the bank | Under 5 years | 136 | 55.06 |
From 5-10 years | 98 | 39.68 | |
From 11-20 years | 13 | 5.26 | |
Over 20 years | 0 | 0 | |
Total | 247 | 100 |
Source: Preliminary quantitative research
3.2.4 Research results
The collected data was processed and analyzed using SPSS20 software.
3.2.4.1 Evaluation of measurement methods
The study used SPSS software to evaluate the reliability of the scale using Cronbach alpha and exploratory factor analysis EFA, the results are shown in table 3.3.
The study performed the following scale evaluation:
- Eliminate observed variables with a variable-total correlation coefficient less than 0.4.
- Choose a scale with an Alpha reliability greater than 0.6 (because the concepts in the study are relatively new to the survey subjects when they participate in answering)
Table 3.5: Results of Cronbach' alpha and EFA analysis from preliminary quantitative research
Variable
Donation-total correlation coefficient | Cronbach's alpha coefficient if the variable is removed | Cronbach alpha coefficient | KMO, Eigenvalues, Sig & sum variance extract | Factor loading | |||||
CK | CK1 | 0.692 | 0.723 | 0.781 | 0.851 | 0.821 | 0.878 | KMO = | 0.823 |
CK2 | 0.652 | 0.690 | 0.787 | 0.857 | 0.856 | 0.792 | |||
CK3 | 0.609 | 0.628 | 0.793 | 0.867 | Eigenvalues | 0.740 | |||
CK4 | 0.666 | 0.670 | 0.786 | 0.860 | = 3,749 | 0.777 | |||
CK5 | 0.718 | 0.771 | 0.779 | 0.843 | Sig = 0.000 | 0.853 | |||
CK6 | 0.632 | 0.638 | 0.789 | 0.866 | Total | 0.752 | |||
variance | |||||||||
CK7 | 0.195 | 0.832 | |||||||
extract = | |||||||||
CK8 | 0.233 | 0.825 | |||||||
62.483% | |||||||||
CK9 | 0.279 | 0.824 | |||||||
CK10 | 0.205 | 0.828 | |||||||
HD | HD1 | 0.591 | 0.894 | 0.895 | KMO = | 0.692 | |||
HD2 | 0.720 | 0.877 | 0.889 | 0.797 | |||||
HD3 | 0.734 | 0.875 | Eigenvalues | 0.815 | |||||
HD4 | 0.670 | 0.883 | = 4,337 | 0.764 | |||||
HD5 | 0.698 | 0.879 | Sig = 0.000 | 0.787 | |||||
HD6 | 0.760 | 0.872 | Total | 0.840 | |||||
variance | |||||||||
HD7 | 0.718 | 0.877 | 0.806 | ||||||
extract = | |||||||||
61.955% | |||||||||
DHQH | DHQH1 | 0.763 | 0.922 | 0.931 | KMO | 0.823 | |||
DHQH2 | 0.755 | 0.922 | =0.918 | 0.817 | |||||
DHQH3 | 0.821 | 0.917 | Eigenvalues | 0.871 | |||||
DHQH4 | 0.776 | 0.921 | = 5,393 | 0.834 | |||||
DHQH5 | 0.782 | 0.920 | Sig = 0.000 | 0.839 | |||||
DHQH6 | 0.706 | 0.926 | Total | 0.774 | |||||
variance | |||||||||
DHQH7 | 0.759 | 0.922 | 0.818 | ||||||
extract = | |||||||||
DHQH8 | 0.722 | 0.924 | 0.788 | ||||||
67,409% | |||||||||
XHH | XHH1 | 0.731 | 0.914 | 0.923 | KMO | 0.801 | |||
XHH2 | 0.743 | 0.913 | =0.898 | 0.811 | |||||
XHH3 | 0.786 | 0.909 | Eigenvalues | 0.850 | |||||
XHH4 | 0.755 | 0.912 | = 4.808 | 0.824 | |||||
XHH5 | 0.764 | 0.911 | Sig = 0.000 | 0.834 | |||||
XHH6 | 0.734 | 0.914 | Total | 0.809 | |||||
Variable
Donation-total correlation coefficient | Cronbach's alpha coefficient if the variable is removed | Cronbach alpha coefficient | KMO, Eigenvalues, Sig & sum variance extract | Factor loading | |||||
XHH7 | 0.810 | 0.906 | variance extract = 68.691% | 0.870 | |||||
TN | TN1 | 0.705 | 0.890 | 0.903 | KMO =0.857 Eigenvalues = 4,052 Sig = 0.000 Total variance extract = 67,538% | 0.801 | |||
TN2 | 0777 | 0.880 | 0.856 | ||||||
TN3 | 0.764 | 0.881 | 0.847 | ||||||
TN4 | 0.701 | 0.891 | 0.796 | ||||||
TN5 | 0.754 | 0.883 | 0.830 | ||||||
TN6 | 0.710 | 0.890 | 0.799 | ||||||
NS | NS1 | 0.591 | 0.720 | 0.623 | 0.899 | 0.695 | 0.911 | KMO =0.884 Eigenvalues = 4,579 Sig = 0.000 Total variance extract = 65.415% | 0.798 |
NS2 | 0.681 | 0.778 | 0.597 | 0.893 | 0.846 | ||||
NS3 | -0.376 | 0.788 | |||||||
NS4 | 0.648 | 0.663 | 0.608 | 0.905 | 0.751 | ||||
NS5 | 0.718 | 0.753 | 0.595 | 0.896 | 0.825 | ||||
NS6 | 0.689 | 0.747 | 0.604 | 0.896 | 0.822 | ||||
NS7 | -0.597 | 0.827 | |||||||
NS8 | 0.659 | 0.714 | 0.605 | 0.900 | 0.795 | ||||
NS9 | 0.717 | 0.747 | 0.596 | 0.896 | 0.820 | ||||
Source: Data from preliminary quantitative research processed using SPSS
With the above Cronbach alpha analysis results, the observed variables CK7, CK8, CK9 and CK10 as well as NS3 and NS7 need to be eliminated when continuing to perform exploratory factor analysis.
Performing exploratory factor analysis, it can be seen that: the relatively high KMO coefficients are all greater than 0.5, so factor analysis is appropriate. Bartlett's test has Sig values less than 0.05, indicating that the observed variables are correlated with each other in the population. Eigenvalues > 1 indicate that the extracted factors have the best information summary meaning. The total extracted variance is greater than 50%, indicating that the variation in the data is explained by the extracted factors. The factor loading coefficients of the variables are all greater than 0.5, meaning that the original criteria have a significant relationship with the extracted factors.
Continuing to analyze the EFA for 28 criteria measuring the independent variables, it was shown that after eliminating the variables DHQH1, DHQH2, XHH1, XHH2 with factor loading coefficients less than 0.5 or the distance between two loading coefficients of the variable less than 0.3, 4 factors were extracted at eigenvalues >1 with a total extracted variance of 70.178% corresponding to the independent variables.
Table 3.6: Factor weights of variables affecting internal brand strength
Factor | ||||
Suitability of fish needs Bank response | Social bank | Employee adoption | Relationship orientation | |
DHQH3 DHQH4 DHQH5 DHQH6 DHQH7 DHQH8 XHH3 XHH4 XHH5 XHH6 XHH7 TN1 TN2 TN3 TN4 TN5 TN6 NS1 NS2 NS4 NS5 NS6 NS8 NS9 | 0.273 0.228 0.236 0.205 0.288 0.248 0.238 0.234 0.271 0.249 0.307 0.198 0.145 0.239 0.105 0.240 0.244 0.604 0.745 0.722 0.717 0.740 0.736 0.704 | 0.265 0.290 0.362 0.165 0.178 0.326 0.717 0.644 0.732 0.679 0.746 0.182 0.300 0.250 0.115 0.305 0.270 0.232 0.363 0.002 0.216 0.132 0.340 0.319 | 0.160 0.176 0.214 0.371 0.326 0.307 0.254 0.286 0.261 0.272 0.250 0.695 0.775 0.746 0.773 0.630 0.565 0.252 0.079 0.174 0.227 0.247 0.087 0.274 | 0.603 0.630 0.688 0.704 0.711 0.638 0.276 0.293 0.236 0.290 0.274 0.337 0.223 0.220 0.309 0.115 0.112 0.193 0.195 0.333 0.292 0.243 0.077 0.139 |
Extracted variance | 52,834 | 60,279 | 65,460 | 70,178 |
Eigen value | 12,680 | 1,787 | 1,244 | 1,132 |
Source: Data from preliminary quantitative research processed using SPSS
Performing EFA analysis for two variables constituting the concept of internal brand strength with 13 measurement criteria (Table 3.5) shows that two factors were extracted at eigenvalues >1 with a total extracted variance of 63.021% corresponding to the variables CK and HD.
Table 3.7: Factor weights Internal brand strength
Core | to sue | |
Act | Commit | |
CK1 | 0.143 | 0.855 |
CK2 | 0.162 | 0.809 |
CK3 | 0.318 | 0.612 |
CK4 | 0.335 | 0.634 |
CK5 | 0.310 | 0.799 |
CK6 | 0.317 | 0.621 |
HD1 | 0.674 | 0.201 |
HD2 | 0.739 | 0.293 |
HD3 | 0.755 | 0.290 |
HD4 | 0.736 | 0.201 |
HD5 | 0.718 | 0.302 |
HD6 | 0.779 | 0.299 |
HD7 | 0.781 | 0.220 |
Extracted variance | 52,035 | 63,021 |
Eigen value | 6,765 | 1,428 |
Source: Data from formal quantitative research processed using SPSS 20
4.2.4.2 Assessing factors affecting internal brand strength
Correlation analysis is performed between independent and dependent factors in the model to examine the linear relationship between variables. The correlation coefficient matrix shows that there is a linear relationship between independent and dependent variables, so it is possible to model a causal relationship, the correlation coefficients are all less than 0.8.
Multiple regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses of the research model.
The regression results with the dependent variable CK show that the adjusted R2 coefficient = 0.469