Identity in cultural studies

Hall and du Gay have written extensively on identity from a cultural studies perspective. Key to this is the idea that identity is not a naturally occurring aspect of a person or organisation waiting to be uncovered but is a construction, a ‘discursive practice’ (Hall and du Gay 1996: 2):

This approach is clearly of particular importance to any analysis of, and subsequent attempt at construction of, a corporate identity. Curtin and Gaither (2007) adopt a cultural studies perspective to analyse public relations practices and develop a number of ideas including those of Hall and other key thinkers in relation to the construction of identities.

Identity in organisational studies

The term ‘organisational identity’ could be argued as an attempt to distinguish conceptualisations of identity formulated within an organisational studies domain from those formulated within a marketing centric domain. Unfortunately, just as there is no firm definition of the term corporate identity, there is also lack of consensus in regard to the term ‘organisational identity’; however, one of the most enduring conceptualisations is Albert and Whetten’s (1985) definition in Whetten and Godfrey 1998: 21):

Ravsai, van Rekom and Soenen (in Lerpold et al. 2007) provide a useful distinction between organisational and marketing conceptualisations of identity, image and reputation, but do still largely represent conceptualisations of corporate identity from within a marketing domain.

These conceptualisations regard organisational identity as pertaining to the beliefs and aspirations of internal stakeholders and corporate identity to be the communication of these to external stakeholders. This runs contrary to ‘public relations centric thinking’ (Wood 2013), a perspective that views corporate identity as a communicative process that includes culture, involving both internal and external stakeholders and that therefore impacts on the formation of a particular image in the minds of both groups (see also Schultz et al. 2000; Bronn in Heath 2010; Christensen and Cornelissen 2011). This view also holds that external stakeholders will be involved with organisational members in constituting aspects of organisational identity as is illustrated in the case study at the end of this chapter.

Corporate strategy

One of the key issues of corporate identity management is its role in achieving overall organisational strategic objectives.² The aim of a corporate identity plan is to determine and communicate a corporate identity to meet these future strategic objectives. For example, the Labour Party’s introduction of a new corporate identity in the 1990s (involving the introduction of a new logo, a red rose, and a new name, New Labour) was linked to its overall strategic plan to modernise the party to make it electable. Interestingly, immediately after Tony Blair’s resignation announcement on 10 May 2007, the Labour website dropped the term ‘New’ from the party’s name and reverted to the designation ‘Labour’. It also changed the dominant colour on the web pages from red to purple. The end of the Blair era was swiftly indicated in these new visual identity signifiers. It is also worth noting that the Conservative Party abandoned the blue torch of freedom, its logo from the days of Margaret Thatcher’s premiership, replaced it with a green oak tree (meant to symbolise the embracing of environmentalism as a key policy by the party) and later replaced the green leaves with a Union Flag as more nationalist parties seemed to threaten the party’s electoral success.

However, a number of thinkers in this area would argue that the corporate identity management process should not just be designed to help implement a predetermined strategy. Instead, strategy should be formulated partly in response to stakeholders’ needs and views and should adapt their corporate strategies according to stakeholders’ opinions identified through research. Indeed, many would argue that the Labour Party’s strategic objective to modernise was formulated in response to research conducted into publics’ perceptions of the party’s image.³

Symbolism

Using cultural codes and associated meanings, designers choose particular colours, shapes and typefaces to provoke particular emotional responses or to connote particular meanings. For example, a serif typeface such as Times New Roman used in broadsheets (the ‘quality’ press) has connotations of tradition, longevity and quality. A sans serif typeface, favoured by the tabloids, is often deemed to invoke modernity.

The controversy triggered by Labour’s adoption of the red rose logo to replace the red flag illustrates the power of the symbol. The change in visuals was interpreted as symbolising a major ideological shift from hard left to centrist politics. A semiotic⁴ analysis would infer that ‘Labour abandoned the symbolism of the red flag (viewed by the leadership as a sign with negative connotations of bureaucratic, Soviet-style socialism) in favour of the red rose, a logo first successfully employed by the French socialists’ (McNair 2003b: 150).

Olins (1999: 73) suggests that:

Of course, the significance of symbols within an organisation goes beyond aspects of design, such as the logo. It includes the existence (or absence) and distribution of status symbols such as executive washrooms, plush carpets and parking spaces. This aspect will be referred to later as part of a consideration of organisational culture. The study of semiotics, where signs signify particular meanings is also of real significance here (Christensen and Askegaard 2001).

Consistency

The modern focus on transparency is seen as a new pressure for organisations to police for consistency in their corporate communication. Christensen and Cheney (2015: 81) encapsulate this well:

To ensure that a visual identity communicates the messages for which it was painstakingly designed, it must be applied consistently across all media. So ‘house style’ manuals are developed to control every aspect of application, from Pantone number (representing exact colours) to typeface.

This seems relatively straightforward, but can, and should, other aspects of identity, such as communication and behaviour, be homogenised? Markwick and Fill (1997: 402) argue that ‘it is important to establish consistent and sustainable internal images among all employees in order that this consistency is projected as a positive cue to other stakeholder groups’. Clearly, organisations should involve a range of stakeholders in determining core philosophies and values and clearly communicate the agreed goals. But different stakeholder groups often have differing needs and expectations of single organisations, so expecting uniformity seems an unrealistic goal. This demonstrates the importance of defining what is meant by the term ‘consistency’.

Van Riel (1995) overcomes the problematic notion of imposed uniformity with his concept of ‘common starting points’ (CSPs). CSPs are central values developed by communications staff from research into an organisation’s desired corporate identity and image. Examples of CSPs include reliability, innovation, quality, profit-making and synergy (ibid.). CSPs function as ‘wavelengths’ or ‘parameters’ to guide communication activity. The concept of CSPs fosters a notion of an organic process of developing and communicating organisational images rather than a top-down approach that limits staff to static, agreed perceptions. As Leitch and Motion (1999: 195) explain: ‘An organisation may present multiple images to its various publics provided that these images are consistent, not with each other, but with the organisation’s CSPs. The corporate identity task is to manage the multiplicity rather than to suppress it.’ Christensen et al. (2008a, 2008b) provide interesting insights into how approaches that seem to be about facilitating multiplicity or diversity can actually be controlling and offer alternative process rules.

The CSP approach has also been progressed in relation to developing a ‘sustainable corporate story’ (van Riel in Schultz et al. 2000).

Perhaps it is important to note that the source of these carefully constructed stories is an issue: ‘To have employees internalise corporate narratives requires a more direct involvement of them in the articulation of the organisation’s identity’ (Christensen and Cheney in Schultz et al. 2000: 256). Christensen and Cheney (ibid.) critique the creation of corporate identities on a number of levels – an important one being that over-enthusiastic CI zealots can get carried away with their mission and only pay lip service to employee involvement. Another dimension of their criticism is the level at which employees want to become involved; they argue that managers can misinterpret the importance of the intricacies of corporate identity to most employees (Christensen et al. 2008b).

Importantly though, an over-zealous approach to identity control can have a detrimental effect:

Organisational culture

Earlier in this chapter, it was argued that culture is significant in relation to corporate image and identity both in terms of the context in which these are interpreted, but also in terms of organisational cultures acting as signifiers themselves. So, organisational culture is part of an organisation’s corporate identity that is made sense of or interpreted through the lens of the broader cultural environment that we inhabit. An organisation’s behaviour reflects, or is reflected in, its culture, sometimes referred to as ‘the way we do things around here’.⁵ Changing organisational cultures to improve performance in our global economy is the subject of an entire industry of ‘culture change’ gurus. A plethora of recipes for changing organisational cultures is currently on offer. Clearly though, culture isn’t an easily manipulated variable and any recipes for manufacturing or changing cultures should be critically analysed rather than accepted at face value. In this section, it will be argued that culture is not something that is easily manipulated to project a particular or desired image, but it is a vital part of researching the current identity of an organisation and in establishing gaps between stakeholders’ interpretations of actual identity and an organisation’s desired identity.

Clearly then, it is essential to research culture as part of the ways in which organisational identity is signified, or communicated, to both internal and external stakeholders.

Johnson et al.’s (2014) cultural web is a very useful tool for mapping and understanding organisational culture (Figure 7.2). The cultural web illustrates the complexity of organisational culture and, in practical terms, the areas that should be investigated as part of any attempt to audit culture as part of corporate identity.

Figure 7.2 The cultural web

Source: Johnson et al. (2014). Used by permission of Prentice Hall/Pearson

Understanding the realities of a corporate culture, revealed through research, will influence the CI management process. Johnson et al.’s model refers to an organisation’s paradigm that can be explained as its ‘taken for granted assumptions’ (2014: 155) or the link between structure and culture (Grundy 1993).

Reflecting reality?

Our preoccupation with, and reliance on, images has important implications for the study and practice of corporate communications. The image without any clear or certain relation to ‘reality’ is perhaps becoming the dominant form in both external and internal corporate public communications (Cheney 1992: 173).

The media revelled in ridiculing the BBC for spending reputed millions to adjust its logo from a slanting to an upright typeface; they gloried in maligning the Labour Party for replacing the red flag with a red rose. The source of the criticism was the perception that highly paid ‘spin doctors’ were concentrating on style as opposed to substance – trying to gloss over the problems both institutions were experiencing by creating an illusion of sleek professionalism. Whether this perception was fair or not will be debated elsewhere. The point here is that public relations practitioners must carefully consider the motives and ethics of their practice.

As Cheney points out:

In constructing carefully planned corporate identities, the practitioner must not lose sight of whose interests are served. The practitioner truly committed to the notion of a stakeholder society (which in this context emphasises employees’ interests in particular) should strive to ensure that identity reflects, rather than conceals, reality. And if an organisation’s ‘reality’ is too undesirable to promote, an ethical practitioner would set about counselling management to change the reality rather than designing a corporate identity plan to mask it. And we must remember to be careful when seeking ‘truth’ or ‘reality’: ‘Authenticity is as much a creative construction as an inherent quality of the organization itself. We should always ask: Whose authenticity? Where do we find it? How do we know it?’ (Christensen et al. 2008b: 78).

Identifying the desired corporate image

From a public relations perspective, this is one of the controversial aspects of CI management. This is because much of the literature has emerged from a marketing paradigm and often considers an ideal identity as being determined by senior management and communicated to an audience (often of consumers). A public relations perspective may well consider that formulation of a desired identity should involve a range of stakeholders in a dialogic (or two-way) process. In other words allow key stakeholders (including employees) an influence. ‘Large organisations have become so preoccupied with carefully crafted, elaborate and univocal expressions of their mission and “essence” that they often overlook penetrating questions about stakeholder involvement’ (Christensen and Cheney in Schultz et al. 2000: 265).

In addition, public relations planning involves issues management, and therefore consideration of the environment (often encompassed in an EPISTLE analysis) informs public relations aims and objectives. It could be argued, then, that appropriate methodologies should be devised to ensure that identification of a strategically important identity is informed by an organisation’s current and projected situation within its broader environment as well as stakeholder expectations. So the first step in the corporate identity planning process is to research the existing image and the desired (strategically important) image.

So when researching what the desired corporate image should be, a range of stakeholders should be consulted (via interviews, focus groups or questionnaires) not just senior management. The actual corporate image would be researched using the same methodology.

Auditing existing corporate identity

Having determined what type of image needs to be projected, it’s time to research its corporate identity or the ‘cues’ that the organisation uses to communicate about itself in an attempt to effect a particular corporate image in the minds of its stakeholders. Van Riel’s (1995) CI mix (behaviour, communication and symbolism) provides a useful guide to the aspects of identity to be audited. Figure 7.4 details Melewar and Karaosmanoglu’s (2006) dimensions of CI and provides a useful guide to what should be investigated. For example, content or discourse analysis could

Figure 7.4 Adapted version of Melewar and Karaosmanoglu’s revised categorisation of corporate identity dimensions and their sub-items

Source: Adapted from Melewar and Karaosmanoglu (2006). Used by permission

be used to analyse corporate communication and corporate strategy, perhaps supplemented by interviews. An appropriate methodology should be devised to ensure all dimensions are investigated.

Communication and behavioural audits: behavioural audits, more commonly known as attitude surveys, measure job satisfaction, gather feedback on the effectiveness of internal policies and provide insight into the attitudes and behaviour of staff at all levels. The term ‘behaviour’ also refers to consequences for external publics, however, and implies aspects such as the manifestation of an organisation’s corporate social responsibility. As discussed elsewhere in this book, a comprehensive audit of ‘behaviour’ would include analysis of an organisation’s impact on the environment as well as a full range of stakeholders.

Communication audits survey the ‘communication climate’ including communication style and structures as well as content. Clearly communication and behaviour are ‘inextricably linked’. Communication must be defined as more than merely communication techniques or styles of delivery. Organisations must not see the introduction of a team briefing system and some presentation training for managers as the panacea for all the problems identified through a communication audit or attitudes survey. As Grunig and Hunt (1984: 248) explain:

This raises broader issues relating to organisational structure and power. For example, if an organisation professes innovation as a core value, but has a highly bureaucratic structure involving layers of decision making and centralised power, then innovation will not be fostered. A corporate identity analysis must address corporate ‘behaviour’ in its broadest sense and embrace all aspects of corporate culture discussed in the previous chapter, as well as structure and power. Johnson et al.’s cultural web (Figure 7.2) and Lewin’s (1935) force field analysis are useful for mapping a number of dimensions of corporate behaviour. Johnson et al. (2014) detail a whole range of appropriate research questions investigating areas such as the type of behaviour encouraged by particular routines; core beliefs reflected by stories; ways in which power is distributed in the organisation; and the status symbols favoured. Force field analysis can then be used to map which of these ‘enable’ or ‘constrain’ the aspirational image.

The visual or design audit:

A visual audit is not superficial and should reveal more than where a new coat of paint is needed. Baker and Balmer (1997: 378) illustrate the value of the visual audit as a research tool and its contribution to strategy formulation at Strathclyde University, for example, where ‘the visual audit revealed important characteristics of the University’s identity; i.e. the University was highly decentralised and had fragmented corporate communications’.

However, the design audit is only one aspect of the research into an organisation’s corporate identity. ‘The design audit is in a sense both complementary to, and an integral part of, the communications audit, and both are inextricably involved with the behavioural audit’ (Olins 1999: 162). Again, the visual attributes can be added to the force field analysis to help practitioners make judgements about which help or hinder the formulation of an ideal corporate identity.

So what does all this mean in practice? An example of an organisation acting on feedback from extensive research into its corporate identity is given below. The Queen Margaret University case study illustrates many of the points made in the text. It shows the value of research and how organisations can react to research findings, and provides a real insight into a comprehensive corporate identity management programme involving key stakeholders.

C@se Study

Queen Margaret University’s Corporate Identity

Queen Margaret College (QMC) was founded in Edinburgh in 1875, a time when women were excluded from most universities. At the forefront of women’s fight for access to higher education, it was originally a cookery school and then became known for health education. At that time, research was just beginning to demonstrate the link between poverty and ill health. The college worked to improve standards of health and living conditions and campaigned for the introduction of district nurses to care for women in their homes. Within a generation, infant mortality in Scotland was reduced by 50 per cent. QMC’s contribution is still a source of pride, an important aspect of its culture often emphasised in speeches (which is interesting in relation to Johnson et al.’s (2014) stories and myths and the idea of corporate storytelling (van Riel et al. in Schultz et al. 2005).

Now the much-expanded Queen Margaret University (QMU) has some 5,500 students from some 50 countries worldwide studying a wide range of subjects, from dietetics to drama, from radiography to retail business and public relations.

Despite these developments, QMU’s history still influences its corporate personality, as its mission statement makes clear:

Queen Margaret University’s mission is to enhance the well-being of individuals and the communities we serve through socially and economically relevant education and research.

This mission is enhanced by our strong commitment to economic, social and environmental sustainability.

Strategic aims and objectives

In 1999, the Privy Council awarded Queen Margaret College the title University College. The full ‘university’ title could not be conferred because the college had fewer than 4,000 students (full university status was conferred in 2007).

The addition of the word ‘university’ into Queen Margaret College’s title meant that its visual identity had to be updated. Rather than simply inserting the new word into the existing logo, however, the Principal and senior management recognised the necessity of a more fundamental and wide-ranging corporate image audit to help the University College achieve its future strategic aims. As Marketing Manager Gregor McMeechan explained: ‘We took an integrated and holistic approach and considered our identity in its fullest sense. Not just thinking about how we look, but about our culture, our values, and how we communicate an accurate image of who we are.’

Corporate identity plan

The aim of the corporate identity programme was to ensure that Queen Margaret University College’s (QMUC’s) corporate identity consistently communicated its university level status (‘universityness’) to all of its stakeholders.

The plan was also informed by a number of organisational objectives outlined in the University College’s strategic plan. Primarily:

• to extend and develop the profile and reputation of the University College locally, regionally, nationally and internationally;
• to continue to review organisational systems and structures to secure improvements in corporate policy formation and implementation, operational efficiency, flexibility and responsiveness to change and opportunity.

(QMUC Strategic Plan 1999–2000)

The corporate identity plan also underpinned objectives highlighted in the strategic plan relating to high graduate employment rates, international student recruitment and the development of strategic links.

Research

Several qualitative and quantitative research methods were employed to identify a range of stakeholders’ views on QMUC’s current and desired image:

• content analysis of documents ranging from prospectuses and strategic plans to media coverage and the internet;
• surveys and questionnaires;
• corporate personality mapping exercise with senior management;
• semi-structured interviews;
• focus groups;
• visual audit.

Purposive sampling was used to ensure sufficient disclosure from a range of key stakeholder groups. These included the following.

Internal publics

• academic staff (course leaders, admissions tutors, lecturers involved in seeking research funding and/or commercial consultancy, heads of research institutes or commercial centres);
• administrative staff from areas such as business development, commercial services, marketing, student services, students’ union;
• governors and students.

External publics

• prospective undergraduate and postgraduate students;
• professional and industrial contacts such as research sponsors and partners, placement hosts, members of advisory panels, commercial consultancy clients and the funding council.

Research questions

The problem with focusing a discussion on corporate identity is that most people associate corporate identity with design, which is often judged according to personal taste with everyone having views on what they like or dislike. The facilitator’s major task in the focus groups was to explain the concept of corporate image and the role of corporate identity and keep the discussion focused on QMUC’s corporate identity in relation to its strategic objectives. When staff considered a desired image for the University College, for example, conversations were steered towards what needed to be achieved over the next ten years and how a particular corporate positioning could contribute to success, rather than becoming stuck on favourite colours and preferred typeface.

That said, asking for views on the existing logo and the image it communicated served as a useful icebreaker. Having expounded often dearly held opinions, participants could then be led through the group processes⁷ up the conceptual ladder to a stage when valid and interesting views were proffered.

The research mapped participants’ views on current and desired corporate image in relation to other universities and against expectations of what a university should be like.

Key findings

A number of attributes were identified. Some were commonly well regarded by participants while different publics held distinctive views about some important aspects. A summary follows.

Attributes valued by all constituents

• the name ‘Queen Margaret’, with its connotations of credibility, authority and prestige often associated with the old established universities;
• QMUC’s Edinburgh location (although an overemphasis on Scottishness should not imply parochialism and obscure QMUC’s international status);
• the use of the crest in QMUC’s visual identity, with its connotations of longevity, tradition, quality and learning.

Attributes valued by staff and professional contacts

• quality teaching, research and consultancy and distinctiveness of character. Perceptions of quality include issues such as the high grading obtained in the independent quality assessment exercise, the high level of individual attention given to students and the high graduate employment rate (the highest in Scotland);
• the relatively small size of the University College as an important aspect of staff perceptions of a friendly, caring and supportive nature;
• QMUC’s strong research culture and history of academic achievement that makes staff feel more aligned with ‘old’ universities than with the ‘new’ university sector;
• the ‘applied’ nature of QMUC’s academic expertise and strong vocational links with a range of professions;
• caring and community values linked to concepts such as ‘serving society’, ‘enhancing quality of life’ (particularly for health faculties) and ‘lifelong learning’ were also highlighted.

Problematic areas identified by staff

• confusion regarding a clear strategy to manage increasingly conflicting demands (such as the need to earn income to offset government cuts, the need to meet research targets, and the need to manage increased competition while still meeting student needs);
• poor internal communication;
• the perception that QMUC’s strategy to purchase a new campus had resulted in a lack of investment in existing facilities and buildings.

Attributes valued by students and prospective students

‘Specific attributes chosen as being particularly motivational showed students are looking for: quality and up-to-date teaching provision to make the most of their abilities, relevant knowledge and skills, a degree that is well regarded by employers, a high level of individual attention and support, a pleasant environment and an exciting social life.’

Conflicting perspectives

Staff deemed concepts of ‘serving society’ and ‘lifelong learning’ as important attributes of the corporate personality, whereas students rejected this image. Students were motivated by elements that would benefit them as individuals rather than notions of universities being about enhancing public quality of life. (This is particularly interesting in relation to the discussion of consistency above.)

Recommendations

Having considered the range of views expressed, researchers System Three⁸ made the following recommendations:

• ‘The desired identity for QMUC is one that effectively communicates: the key areas of activity, product quality in terms of established and independent endorsement (heritage, Quality Assessment ratings, graduate employment rate), a caring and supportive environment, as well as excitement and dynamism.’
• ‘The desired tone of QMUC both on behalf of staff and students is a stamp of established quality and prestige, as well as modern relevance, advancement and innovation.’
• ‘The high number of pressures placed on the University College necessitates a clear strategy for prioritising demands on staff and establishing a logical way forward guided by meaningful and non-conflicting objectives.’

Implementation of the new corporate identity

Symbolism

From the sea of research findings, the designers distilled the following desired perceptions to inform the new visual identity:

• heritage and established quality;
• Queen Margaret title;
• innovation;
• modern relevance of courses;
• quality of teaching;
• individuality of the organisation;
• Edinburgh location;
• friendly, supportive approach.

The single most important message was identified as ‘established quality’. So, how could design communicate these attributes? Figure 7.5 shows the old and new logos for QMUC. Lauren Rennet, Creative Director of Graphicpartners, explains the design concept: ‘The concept of a crest was retained to communicate QMUC’s heritage but was simplified and updated to reflect the current and future offer of the University College, not that of its early years when the original crest was drawn.’ With this in mind, the symbols within the crest were adjusted to more distinctively represent the University College. The main focus, Queen Margaret’s crown, provides a memorable symbol of power, leadership and excellence.

Vibrant royal blue, futuristic silver and timeless typography complete this modern, streamlined crest without losing the valuable sense of established quality. Staff have unique access to a corporate identity manual available solely online. The new visual identity is consistently used across applications ranging from letterheads and vehicle livery to uniforms and websites. Figure 7.6 illustrates the application of the new identity at QMUC’s Corstophine campus.

The corporate identity mix

Van Riel (1995) highlights the importance of all aspects of the CI mix. Symbolism has clearly been affected by the QMUC corporate identity plan. But what about the other important aspects, behaviour and communication?

Figure 7.5A Queen Margaret University College, old logo

Source: Used by permission

Figure 7.5B Queen Margaret University College, new logo

Source: Used by permission

Figure 7.6 Queen Margaret University College, new campus

Source: Used by permission

Figure 7.7 Queen Margaret University College library, new campus

Source: Used by permission

Research conducted among QMUC staff indicated a need for improved communication and leadership in prioritising and balancing demands on lecturers. A number of initiatives were launched in response.

An improved career development and appraisal scheme provides a structure for staff to agree individual objectives within a framework that clearly connects with organisational aims and objectives. Staff are involved in determining their own criteria for success.

Dorothy Wright, Director of Human Resources, planned more far-reaching cultural developments:

The strategic plan specifies flexibility, commercial awareness, quality, innovation and creativity as key attributes of the culture we need to foster in order to achieve our corporate aims and objectives. My job is to look at the way we need to behave in order to deliver in these areas.

Her first task was to run a facilitated session with senior management, using tools such as force field analysis to identify changes that needed to be made. Then, a full attitudes survey was commissioned to determine staff views.

Part of the attitudes survey was designed to audit communication, and resources were made available to implement more effective two-way communication systems.

In 2015, QMU, now a full university, has moved to an entirely new campus. This latest development reveals other aspects of corporate identity management in practice, as architecture is commonly identified as a significant aspect of symbolism – the vision for the new building was ‘to create an attractive, distinctive campus that represents the unique characteristics of QM’ as well as sustainability – for which QMU has won a number of awards.