A. J. S.
1 INTRODUCTION
The 21st century depicts an epoch wherein technology continues to flourish. The emergence and rapid development of automation and computerization has enabled the general public to easily communicate on a global scale. This trend has run concurrently with the greatest explosion of information in human history. The internet has changed the way we look at the world, putting the entirety of mankind’s knowledge literally in the palm of our hands. Information is not just omnipresent; it’s immediately accessible at all times. The internet has so become a fundamental, but moreover an indispensible tool for its users worldwide (DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman & Robinson, 2001), making scholars, scientists, businesspeople, politicians and consumers interdependent on its many qualities. One of those qualities, if not the most prominent one, draws on ‘Social Media’, which embodies a wide range of social network sites including Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia, Twitter and Blogspot (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Contemporary research (Kaplan & Heanlein, 2010) indicates that 75% of internet users make use of social media, which makes it reasonable to state that social media represents a new trend that should be of interest to organizations operating in online space – or any space for that matter (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009). Moreover, since eight out of ten internet users employ at least one of the social network sites, the findings in this study could contribute to user’s comprehension regarding social media, its functions and its potential.
As social media is becoming more and more an indispensible tool for maintaining social relationships, corporate communication practitioners now embrace the concept as a cost-efficient solution to seek direct communication and interaction with consumers, and, thus, aim to influence the reputation of companies in a positive way (Constantinides & Fountain, 2008; Evans, 2008; Jones, Temperley & Lima, 2009; Li & Bernoff, 2008; Pfeiffer & Zinnbauer, 2010; Tuten, 2008). Moreover, social media allows users to become the key contributors on the world wide web; as they provide information, exchange experiences, and, consequently, influence their peers in making buying decisions (Booth & Matic, 2010; Bunting & Lipski, 2000; Firestein, 2006; Jones, Temperley & Lima, 2009; O’Connor & Galvin, 2001), which makes social media a very contemporary and socially relevant phenomenon.
Yet as with all phenomena that puzzle the minds of scholars and scientists, much still remains unclear about the impact of social media. The general problem is that, to date, studies on social media are scarce and the concept of corporate reputation elusive (Grützmacher, 2011). The studies that are done so far are commonly focused on one aspect of social media. ICT studies generally focus on the benefits of social media as a technological medium for internet users, PR studies might focus on promotional features of social media applications (Evans, 2008), or as a marketing tool for decision makers (Hearn, Foth & Gray, 2009), whereas management studies by and large seek ways to improve transparent communication via these social media (Mazurek, 2009). However, research of the business communication discipline has left the topic yet untouched. Hence, this study examines social media as a potential “communication channel” that might affect the image and reputation of companies. Moreover, most studies in social media seem to ignore the consumer’s perspective and users’ online behavior (McKinsey, 2009). This consumer-, or user-perspective, is taken in the present study. One reason for the lack of research might be that social media is a rather new phenomenon, which explains why much is still unclear about enduring effects of social media within an organizational context.
This study particularly aims to elucidate in what manner social media is used for organizational impression management. A variety of researchers, both in the area of the social sciences and economics and business administration, have studied either social media or impression management. Fewer studies however, have examined the relationship between the two. The present study aims to bridge the gap, merging the social- and psychological theories behind reputation- and impression management with collected data behind social media use. This study is somewhat different than most studies regarding either social media or corporate reputation for it draws on the actual activities of organizations operating in the ICT market (Perceptive Software), the government financial department (Dienst Werk & Inkomen) and the air travel industry (KLM Royal Dutch Airlines). The three companies Perceptive Software, DWI and KLM have proven to represent a reflection of the organizational realm throughout the Netherlands. Perceptive Software operates in the world of ICT whereby social media plays a vital role. DWI is an organization operating as a governmental apparatus. KLM operates on a global scale and its entire marketing structure is based on social media (KLM Privacy Policy, 2012).
The point of the present study is to elucidate the relationship between the use of social media (e. g. Facebook, LinkedIn, Twittter) on perceptions of corporate reputation. This study illuminates additional concepts such as organizational hierarchy, organizational identification, impression management and image construction and examines online behavior from social media users in an organizational context. Accordingly, the central research question throughout this study is the following: “How do managers and employees use social media for image construction and impression management in the organizational context?” that will be answered following the inquiry: “To what extent is the use of social media for organizational impression management influenced by social media affinity, organizational hierarchy, organizational identification and privacy concerns?”
The pages that follow offer a substantive theoretical framework that builds forth upon prior academic research, thereby linking the main concepts of social media use, social media affinity, organizational hierarchy- and identification, impression management, perceived external prestige and organizational reputation. The latter however, is a rather abstract notion and is thus treated as an “umbrella” concept throughout this study. The methodological section draws upon a quantitative questionnaire, as conducted by the European Association of Communication Directors (EACD) and the Institute for Media and Communication Management (IMCM) as well as eight qualitative interviews with both managers and employees. The result section provides the data – as derived from the questionnaire and the interviews, which will be discussed in the concluding section. Lastly, implications and limitations of the present study will be offered, followed by recommendations for further research.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The rise of social media: increasing social media use in the private and business context
The 21st century is witnessing an explosion of information transmitted through social media, which encompasses a wide range of online platforms including social network sites (e. g. Facebook), creativity sharing sites (e. g. YouTube), blogs (e. g. Blogger and WordPress), business network sites (e. g. LinkedIn), collaborative websites (e. g. Wikipedia), virtual worlds (e. g. World of Warcraft), commerce communities (e. g. eBay and Amazon), but also forums, discussion boards, chat rooms and other platforms containing User Generated Content (UGC) (Correa, Hinsley & Zúñiga, 2010; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009; Kiousis, Popescu & Mitrook, 2007; Mahon, 2002; Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Indeed, social media affects millions of people on a daily basis, which makes it an indispensable appliance for internet-users all over the world.
What makes social media different than other types of media -broadcasted in forms such as commercials, advertisements and campaigns-, is that it builds on the ideological and technical foundations of Web 2.0 (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009). Web 2.0 symbolizes the realm of User Generated Content and describes the various forms of media content that are publicly available and created by end-users; people like you and me. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2007), UGC i. e. social media needs to fulfill three requirements in order to be considered as such: firstly, it needs to be published on a publicly accessible website to a selected audience; secondly, it needs to demonstrate a certain amount of creative effort and finally, it needs to have been created outside of professional practices. The idea behind social media engrosses a rather modern view that focuses on participation, sharing and collaboration instead of the traditional mass media view characterized by commercialization. In the organizational sphere, the content, timing and frequency of social media-based interactions are usually outside marketing managers’ direct control. This stands in contrast to the traditional integrated marketing communications paradigm whereby a high degree of control is present (Mangold & Faulds, 2009), which makes consumers (rather than advertisers) the ones in control, given their access to information and greater command over media consumption (Vollmer & Precourt, 2008). The continual tendency of consumers to turn away from the traditional sources of advertising (i. e. television, radio, magazines and newspapers) in combination with the immediate access to information at one’s own convenience, reveals social media’s prominent role in the public as well as in the private sphere. Moreover, social media is perceived by consumers as a more trustworthy source of information regarding products and services than corporate communications sponsored by financial organizations (Lewellyn, 2002).
Business executives, decision makers, consultants and a wide range of various marketing managers try to identify ways in which firms can make profitable use of social media. The goal is usually twofold; to enhance efficient communication within and between the firm and its stakeholders and to create or maintain a favorable reputation, which has proven to facilitate a firm’s financial performance (Gray & Balmer, 1998; Kiousis, Popescu & Mitrook, 2007; Lewellyn, 2002; Mahon, 2002).
Social media facilitates information about and on behalf of organizations, thereby blurring the divides between public and private. On Facebook, viewers are able to like something via a thumps-up button. If a viewer, for example, clicks on the thumps up-button for an advertisement of whiskey brand ‘Dalmore 62’ (The Guardian, 2012), he might want to reveal his outstanding taste as an upper-class Renaissance man who can afford the € 160,000 bottle, thereby letting other viewers demonstrate his place on the societal ladder. Or, perhaps he merely wishes to express his appreciation for the fact that such priced bottles exist in the first place. As such, social media serves no purpose other than communicating with known or unknown others (Schau & Gilly, 2003). Why people choose to like a certain advertisement is because they are somehow associated or even connected to its overall identity, whether that being the visual and aesthetical aspects of the actual advertisement (Bar, Neta & Linza, 2006) or the company and the brand that represent it (Roberts & Dowling, 2002). Self-presentation via social media answers to the questions of why consumers create and uphold websites and what they may want to communicate, whether that’s in the private or organizational sphere. Writings on Goffman’s (1959) theory of self-presentation describe this phenomenon as the intentional and tangible component of identity. Users of social media engage in complex intraself negotiations to project a desired impression (Schau & Gilly, 2003). The social actions required for self-presentation depend upon the user’s displaying signs, symbols, brands, and practices to communicate the desired impression (Williams & Bendelow, 1998). Self-presentation occurs contextually, depending on the setting and the audience, hence allowing users of social media to self-present 24/7 beyond a regional setting to the virtual world (Schau & Gilly, 2003). Virtual identities in social media become more social and “real” once considered that the identity is characterized by the tension between how a person defines him/herself as an individual and how he/she connects to others and social groups in affiliative relationships.
In organizational context, identities or presentation of self’s are worth scrutinizing, because information posted by employees or other stakeholders may have an immediate effect on the organization’s reputation (Mangold & Faulds, 2009; Roberts & Dowling, 2002). LinkedIn, a social media platform characterized by its entrepreneurial character, similarly elucidates the symbiotic relationship between social media users and organizations (Davis, 2007). As a consequence, social media is seen as an agenda setter for corporate reputation and vice versa (Carroll & McCombs, 2003). Whether such companies respond passively, defensively or pro-actively, one thing must without a doubt be true: they have been given the opportunity to use and even create such attention as a tool for self-reflection, identity construction, leading to an eventual corporate reputation (Chouliaraki & Morsing, 2009).
What makes social media a contributive corporate instrument is that the output or effects far outweigh the input. Blogs, Tweets and Facebook messages can be started with very little and very inexpensive editorial content, yet are able to exert extraordinary influence (Huang, Yung & Yang, 2011). Moreover, social media software is free of charge and easy to use, which allows users to effortlessly share information with an audience of their choice.
2.2 Constructing reputation through organizational impression management
“It takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin
it.”
-Warren Buffett.
The concept of reputation, particularly corporate reputation, is top of the agenda for many business executives today. CEO’s, managers, marketing pioneers and a wide range of other decision makers believe that reputation is inherently linked to a company’s success. Accordingly, companies all over the world spend millions of euro’s, dollars, pounds and yens in the process of promoting the company’s image. The words in the official Coca Cola press statement (The Coca Cola Company, 2012) report an amount of 193 million dollars that the company had spend on promotion and advertising in 2011. The purpose of this was to create a favorable presentation of its well known brand; Coca Cola. The reason why Coca Cola is well known is because of its reputation. It’s global; the colors of the logo are visible in countries all over the world. Whether that’s morally right or wrong is of a different, more ethical debate. The notion that Coca Cola is known in the first place is because of something that already existed; its reputation. A reputation, and changes in a reputation, influences the organization’s relationships with its stakeholders. It’s why some specifically choose Pepsi over Coca Cola.
At the current stage in the study of organizational reputation, a definitive definition of the construct has yet to emerge in spite of numerous attempts to describe and integrate the definitions in use (Barnett, Jermier & Lafferty, 2006; Fischer & Reuber, 2007; Love & Kraatz, 2009; Rindova, Williamson, Petkova & Sever, 2005). The multiple definitions in use describing the phenomenon ‘corporate reputation’ can be categorized once considered how their range reflects an underlying multidimensionality that describes three different conceptualizations of organizational reputation. Firstly, being known (generalized awareness or visibility of the firm; prominence of the firm in the collective perception), secondly, being known for something (perceived predictability of organizational outcomes and behavior relevant to specific audience interest), and lastly generalized favorability (perceptions or judgments of the overall organization as good, attractive and appropriate) (Lange, Lee & Dai, 2011).
The being known principle illustrates a sense of prominence, indicating that a reputation can consist of simply being well known. Accordingly, corporate reputation is stronger if awareness of the firm is broader and if perceivers have a more distinctive perceptual representation of the firm, irrespective of judgment and evaluation (Barnett, 2006). Whetten & Mackey (2002) argue that when an organization is well known, observers have a strong sense of what is central and distinctive about its attributes, especially relative to other firms. Indeed, the extent to which a company stands out relative to competitors is an important dimension to organizational reputation (Rindova, Williamson, Petkova & Sever, 2005).
The second dimension being known for something entails the notion that a firm has a particular attribute of interest or value to the perceiver (Lange, Lee & Dai, 2011). A firm has a reputation for something, such as the ability to produce quality products or being an aggressive price predator. This componential perspective depicts corporate reputation in terms of perceived quality, pointing out the degree to which stakeholders evaluate an organization positively on a specific attribute. In this view, in contrast to the being known principle, judgment of the organization is the central feature (Love & Kraatz, 2009).
The generalized favorability conceptualization brings about the regard in which a firm is held and how attractive the firm is. In contrast to the being known for something principle, the generalized favorability dimension entails nonspecific yet evaluative impressions of the organization from stakeholders’ collective judgments based on the consideration of the financial, social and environmental impacts credited to the corporation over time (Barnett, 2006), drawing on perceiver judgments about the firm that are based on multiple organizational features rather than being dependent on stakeholders’ expectations for specific organizational outcomes (Fischer & Reuber, 2007). In this view, the firm is perceived in an overall fashion whereby a global impression of the organization is formed as more or less good and attractive. The central feature draws upon the comparison of similar organizations, or differently put, the public evaluation of a specific firm relative to other firms (Turban & Cable, 2003).
As a result, the challenge for any given organization is thus to be viewed as favorable and, desirably, as “better” than other similar organizations. Social media has proven to be a successful tool for such promotional purposes (Temmink, 2011) and often augment consumers’ perception of the organization’s reputation and innovation (Braude, 2009). Moreover, experimental studies (Cornelissen, 2004; Temmink, 2011) demonstrated that social media can save reputations in times of crises. The relationship between social media and corporate reputation is interdependent in nature. This means, according to Arvidsson (2005), that a company’s reputation represents the value of earned profits. Yet for a brand to earn profits, the organization must measure its “brand equity” – the public perception, meaning and social affiliations with the brand. To do so, the organization must associate as many experiences, emotions, attitudes, lifestyles or loyalties to the brand as possible and social media is the ideal instrument for doing precisely that (Braude, 2009).
2.3 The value of reputation building via social media
Several studies (Baron, 2000; Blackburn, Doran & Shrader, 1994; Orlitzky, Schmidt & Rynes, 2003; Roberts & Dowling, 2002) reveal that good corporate reputations have strategic and financial value for the firms that posses them. Although the performance of organizations is affected mostly by their strategies and operations in market and non-market environments (Baron, 2000), the power of a good reputation is receiving more and more attention because it may be an intangible and indispensible resource leading to sustained competitive advantage. In this view, organizations with assets (such as a good reputation) that are valuable and rare, possess a competitive advantage and may expect to earn superior returns. In addition, organizations whose assets are difficult to imitate may achieve even greater financial performance (Barney, 1991; Roberts & Dowling, 2002). A firm’s financial performance history affects its current reputation, after all, a reputation is based on something and that “something” is always rooted in the past. In financial markets characterized by high levels of uncertainty, a reputation signals the underlying quality of a firm’s products and services, enabling consumers to pay a premium for the offerings of high-reputation firms as opposed to low-reputation firms (Shapiro, 1983). At the same time, good reputations lead to lower contracting and monitoring costs, because stakeholders are less concerned about hazards when dealing with high-reputation firms, which indicates the dynamic interaction that a firm’s financial performance affects (i. e. strengthens) its reputation and its reputation affects (i. e. smoothens) its performance. In line with this view, several studies (Baron, 2000; Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley & Gilstrap, 2008; Roberts & Dowling, 2002) confirm that people generally prefer to work for high-reputation firms and often work harder, or for lower remuneration, as long as it confers a high amount of social status. As such, social media gives managers and employees a practical reason to maintain the high reputation of the firm, because it directly affects their own social status. Equivalently, the higher the social status and prestige as viewed by the outside world, the more likely the individual is to promote the organization (Bartels, Pruyn, De Jong & Joustra, 2007). Moreover, individuals may be more stimulated to actively use social media when they aspire to bridge the gap between the perceived external prestige (i. e. the current corporate reputation) and the expected, or desired, external prestige (i. e. the desired corporate reputation). As such, social media has greatly changed the way of corporate communication. Traditional media and old-style marketing are constantly losing ground as influencers of consumer behavior. As a result, reputation of companies are no longer defined by actions and accomplishments, but by how consumers perceive, share and comment on companies in social media (Grützmacher, 2011).
The rationale that social media enhances the reputation of an organization stems from the tendency that internet users are becoming the new source of consumer creativity, influence and empowerment. The majority of modern consumers feel attracted to companies that embrace innovation, openness, authenticity, participation and transparency; values that social media users, especially younger generations, find important (Booth & Matic, 2010; Grützmacher, 2011). In addition, Koeleman (2009) argues that social media has drastically changed the corporate landscape and states that companies must embrace novel approaches towards marketing and communication -including social media marketing- to ensure future sustainability. The fact that a positive corporate reputation increases the stock values of companies, provides greater competitiveness and influences the loyalty of employees (Booth & Matic, 2010; Deephouse & Carter, 2005), motivates corporations to look at social media as a means to enhance brand awareness and to consider it as a new domain of commercial strategy that contributes to a favorable corporate reputation. To accomplish this goal, actors use a variety of impression management tactics (IMTs) designed to create a desired image (Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley & Gilstrap, 2008; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984). The thought behind reputation building lies within the magnitude of its importance. In an era of social media, outsiders are able to form an impression; an opinion about an organization within seconds by the mere click of a mouse. Impression management or the packaging of information in order to lead target audiences to desired conclusions (Schlenker, 2003) entails a strategy whereby actors attempt to influence observers’ perceptions and attributions about a company (Gardner & Martinko, 1988; Rao, Schmidt & Murray, 1995; Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984; Wayne & Liden, 1995). Bolino & Turnley (2003) specify five IMTs, namely ingratiation, whereby individuals seek to be viewed as likeable by flattering others or doing favors for them; self-promotion, whereby individuals seek to be viewed as competent by advertizing their abilities and accomplishments; exemplification, whereby individuals seek to be viewed as dedicated by going above and beyond their job description; supplication, whereby individuals seek to be viewed as needy by exhibiting their limitations; and intimidation, whereby individuals seek to be viewed as intimidating by bullying others. Descriptive and obliging as these tactics might be, this study integrates the IMTs and posits two multidimensional constructs, namely the self-protection strategy and the self-promotion strategy. These strategies are especially useful in scrutinizing reputations within organizational systems (Cady & Fandt, 2001) and entail defending the ego (Ashford & Cummings, 1983), one’s personal motives (Janis & Mann, 1977) and one’s image (Morrison, 1993; Morrison & Bies, 1991).
In 2005 (Roberts), a comprehensive model was constructed, integrating social identity theory and the aforementioned IMTs to confine the impact of personal characteristics and group affiliations on professional image construction in diverse organizational settings. This model has important implications for achieving social approval, power, well-being and career success (Baumeister, 1982; Ibarra, 1999; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Rosenfeld, Giacalone & Riordan, 2001; Schlenkler, 2003). In view of that, an image serves as a powerful tool in the financial world wherein stakeholders do business. Yet the fact that an image exists in the mind of the beholder entails its susceptibility to change. In order to change an image as it exists in someone’s mind, the corresponding attitudes firstly have to be identified (Roberts, 2005). Indeed, image construction appeals to the shaping of attitudes (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). But what is an attitude besides an abstract or even vague concept coined as a term to accentuate an interaction? According to older theoretic (Freud, 1913), who explain attitudes within a psychological framework -a mental and emotional entity that inheres in, or characterizes, the person-, an attitude occupies a state of readiness that guides and steers behavior in certain predictable, though not always rational, ways. Contemporary research defines an attitude as a learned, global evaluation of an object (person, place, or issue) that influences thought and action (Perloff, 2008). An attitude has two central components: cognition (head) and affection (heart) and is expressed through thoughts, feelings, and behavior (LaRose & Eastin, 2004). The view that attitudes are not always internally consistent and often contradictory toward the same issue, makes professional image construction a crucial element of navigating interactions with stakeholders in diverse organizations (Roberts, 2005).
The underlying dynamics steering the process of professional image construction draw on social identity theory, which analyses the social psychological role of self-conception in group membership, group processes, and intergroup relations (Hogg, 2006). Social identity theory deals with phenomena such as stereotyping, conformity, normative behavior, organizational behavior, leadership, deviance and group cohesiveness (Stets, 2003) and is especially relevant in organizational context where groups and individuals compete with one another to be distinctive in evaluative positive ways; they compete over consensual status and prestige (Hogg, 2006; Tajfel, 1972).
People who construct viable professional images are perceived as being capable of meeting both the technical and social demands of their jobs (Ibarra, 1999; Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1991) by way of enacting personas with desirable identity characteristics (e. g. competence, intelligence, trustworthiness and seriousness about one’s work), which in turn elicits approval and recognition from key constituents (Goffman, 1959; Ibarra, 1999; Rafaeli, Dutton, Harquail & Mackie-Lewis, 1997; Rafaeli & Pratt, 1993). The primary focus of IMTs is to avoid action, blame or change (i. e. self-protection strategy) and to appear favorable in the eyes of others (i. e. self-promotion strategy). As such, social media might be a useful tool to put the aforementioned IMTs into practice, especially because it enables to bridge the gap between one’s perceived (current) professional image and one’s desired (ideal) professional image. Since identities are validated through public recognition (Roberts, 2005), people often anchor their desired images via social media, which in turn helps to create an image. Hence, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1: The more the individual finds impression management important, the higher the use of social media for organizational impression management.
2.4 Social media affinity: active vs. passive users, high vs. low self-monitors
While a number of people spend quite some time within the walls of Facebook (up to the point that the Oxford English Dictionary appended ‘Facebook addict’ as an official word), others perilously sheer social decline and fear for the future of social relationships. The majority of social media users however, are positioned amidst the spectrum of the two extremes. This study differentiates two types of social media users; the active users (users with a high level of affinity towards social media) and the passive users (with a low level of affinity towards social media). Affinity towards social media depends on a variety of factors, depicting on personality, social environment, peer pressure, level of expertise, the derived reward of using the medium etc. Obliging as these factors may be, several studies (Gilbert & Karahalios, 2009; Lewellyn, 2002; Perloff, 2008) reveal two particular determinants regarding social media affinity, thereby making a distinction between high self-monitors and low self-monitors. Historically, self-monitoring has been studied as a psychological construct to determine the consistency between attitudes and behavior (Snyder & Kendzierski, 1982; Snyder & Tanke, 1976). This study however, extents the constructs and states that self-monitoring determines social media affinity.
Social media users can be divided in two categories. The first group consists of those who are concerned with displaying appropriate online social behavior. They are adept at reading situational cues and figuring out the expected behavior. Accordingly, these users adjust their online behavior (i. e. what they publish and how they publish it) to fit the situation (i. e. the social circle they inhabit). These users are called high self-monitors because they monitor the public appearances of themselves and enjoy doing the “socially correct thing” (Perloff, 2008). Low self-monitors however, are less concerned and moreover less consistent in what they publish online and consult their inner feelings and attitudes without much regard of how they will be perceived by others. The central distinction lies in the fact that high self-monitors, as opposed to low self-monitors, want to impress people or are nervous about how they come across with others (DeBono & Harnish, 1988; Perloff, 2008). In support of this view, the present study builds on the approach that the level of social media affinity results from users’ level of self-monitoring. As such, high self-monitors, concerned as they are with social appearances, devote a great deal of favorable online self-presentation and are therefore more affiliated with- and display high levels of social media affinity. Low self-monitors, who persistently insist on “being themselves”, are less affiliated with social media and display low levels of social media affinity. Based on the aforementioned premise, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H2: The level of social media affinity (active users as opposed to passive users; high- as opposed to low self-monitors) influences the use (frequency and intensity) of social media for organizational impression management.
2.5 Organizational hierarchy: the world of managers and employees
Treating everyone equally means ignoring their differences, elevating the less skillful and suppressing those who excel. Organizational hierarchy draws on the corporate culture and defines specific roles to individuals (e. g. employees, employers, managers, CEO’s). The concept of organizational hierarchy is similar to the general concept of hierarchy whereby members are systematically structured or ranked in a way that their status (socially, financially or otherwise) becomes evident relative to the whole. Typically, a hierarchy is visualized as a pyramid in which the highest-ranking members are at the apex, and the lowest-ranking members -who have no subordinates- are at the base. Those nearest to the top have more power (socially, financially or otherwise) than those nearest to the bottom, and there are fewer people at the top than at the bottom.
From an organizational perspective, superiors in a hierarchy generally have higher status, command and greater rewards than their subordinates. Consequently, online publications via social media by individuals high on the organizational pyramid (i. e. managers and CEO’s) have a different -and typically a more profound- importance than online publications by individuals low on the organizational pyramid (i. e. interns and temporary employees). Indeed, managers serve as role models for the company and so their words, most likely, have a greater impact both within the organization as well as towards external parties such as stakeholders (Cornelissen, Haslan & Balmer, 2007; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Additionally, individuals high on the organizational pyramid are looked upon with a greater sense of responsibility to keep the good name of the company intact. In this view, social media is used by these organizational “leaders” to create charismatic images in which they are seen by their followers as trustworthy, moral, credible and innovative (Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley & Gilstrap, 2008).
Companies are already using social media (especially blogs and tweets) to update employees, customers and stake- and shareholders on developments they consider to be important (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2009). In light of sharing information and to improve the transparency of his company, Jonathan Schwartz (CEO of Sun Microsystems) maintains a personal blog; so does automotive giant General Motors (Ward & Ostrom, 2006). Yet blogs and other types of social media do not come without risks. When one subsists under the microscope of the media and spreads damaging information in online space, it could negatively -and even disastrously- affect the entire organization. Based on the premise that the outcome of social media use depends largely on the individual’s place within the organizational hierarchy, the following hypotheses is formulated:
H3: The higher the individual’s place in the organizational hierarchy (managers as opposed to employees), the higher the use of social media for organizational impression management.
2.6 Organizational identification: high vs. low commitment
Behavior relies on corporeal display, what Maus (1973) labels ‘body techniques’, to communicate the desired identity, or “self”. The social actions required for self-presentation depend upon individuals’ displaying signs, symbols, brands, and practices to communicate appropriate organizational behavior. Individuals self-present daily as they select clothes, hairstyles, automobiles, logos and so forth, to impress others in any given context (a shopping mall, an opera, at work) (Schau & Gilly, 2003). Goffman (1959) asserts that the presentation of self is contextual, based on a specific setting and facing a definable and anticipated audience. By contrast, personal websites allow individuals to present themselves as well as the organization they work for 24/7 beyond a regional setting to the virtual world. But how does the use of social media affects organizational behavior? Perhaps it is the behavior of the individual -and the organizational role the individual occupies- that determines how and for what purposes social media is used.
Members of an organization share a social identity when they identify and evaluate themselves in the same way and have the same definition of who they are, what attributes they have to the company, and how they relate to and differ from people who are not in their group (Hogg, 2006). Accordingly, shared goals (e. g. financial performance), group structure, interaction, interdependence and common fate are factors that make the group more grouplike and cohesive. The fact that organizations vary in size, function, longevity and distribution makes professional image construction an indispensible element in the process of positively promoting the company’s image and what the company stands for (Roberts, 2005). The effective and efficient use of social media is often seen as the pillar of image construction (Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley & Gilstrap, 2008), because social media stipulates a strong sense of community and association (Roberts, 2005), which could ultimately lead to identification with the organization. The use of social media to construct an organizational image serves three processes; namely self-enhancement, uncertainty reduction and optimal distinctiveness (Cady & Fandt, 2001; Hogg, 2006; Kiousis, Popescu & Mitrook, 2007). The concept of self-enhancement stems from the symbolical pyramid of Maslow (1943), explicating the universal hierarchy of human needs; physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem and self-actualization. In organizational context, groups go to great lengths to -consciously or unconsciously- protect or promote the belief that “they” (the in-group) are better than “them” (the out-group), suggesting a fundamental motivation for self-esteem to preserve the integrity of the self-image to reach self-enhancement (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Trepte, 2006; Turner, 1982). The idea stems from research in 1954 (Festinger) and implies that people strive to confirm aspects of their own self-definition, whereby group membership is crucial to one’s self-concept. Accordingly, organizational identification arises when the goals of the organization and those of the individual become increasingly integrated and congruent.
Uncertainty reduction entails that members of an organization strive to reduce subjective uncertainty about their social world (i. e. the company they work for) and their place within it (Hogg, 2006), providing a normative model of behavior that describes how members ought to behave and interact with one another in the working space.
Optimal distinctiveness entails that members of an organization strike a balance between two conflicting motives, for inclusion or sameness (offered by group membership) and distinctiveness or uniqueness (offered by individuality), which makes it a critical construct of organizational behavior, affecting both the satisfaction of the individual and the effectiveness of the organization (Brown, 1969; Hall, Schneider & Nygren, 1970; Lee, 1971; O’Reilly, Chatman & Caldwell, 1991; Patchen, 1970; Rotondi, 1975).
In order to understand the organization and act within it, members must therefore learn its policies, logistics, general role expectations, behavioral norms, power- and status structures (Ashford & Lee, 1990), through symbols such as traditions, myths, metaphors and other organizational rituals. Via such symbols, managers and employees are able to make their membership salient by means of providing compelling images of what they and the organization stand for (Pondy, Frost & Thomas, 1983; Roberts, 2005). Moreover, social media is an instrument particularly adept to present such symbols (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Trepte, 2006), thereby engendering member’s sense of organizational commitment and identification.
Research (George, 1996; Katz & Kahn, 1966; Organ & Konovsky, 1989) has indeed recognized the role of organizational commitment and identified the impact of extra-role behavior on the success of an organization. Extra-role behavior are member’s voluntary behaviors that goes beyond specified role requirements, and are directed towards the individual, the group, or the organization as a unit, in order to promote organizational goals (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 1999). Extra-role behavior leads to a more positive attitude towards the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), a higher degree of job satisfaction (Hall & Schneider, 1972; Love, 2009) and a lower intention to leave the company (Vollmer & Precourt, 2008). Extra-role behavior may well be positively correlated to social media use. In support of this view, Koeleman (2009) states that individuals who strongly identify with the organization they work for, are likely to use social media more frequently and more intensely as opposed to those who weakly identify themselves with the organization. The rationale stems from public relations research (Grunig, 1993; Koeleman, 2009; Van Riel & Balmer, 1997), explicating that as organizations grow larger, they turn to social media to build symbolic, rather than personal relationships with the public. Due to the explicit features -and advantages- of social media over traditional (mass) media, members who feel highly committed to the collective (organizational) goal may feel obliged to uphold and enhance their company’s reputation in online space. Social media publications (e. g. Blogs, Tweets, Facebook messages) can be started with very little and very inexpensive editorial content – and are factually limited only by user’s own imaginations and technology access (Schau & Gilly, 2003). Therefore, due to the ease of use (input), compared to the pervasive influence on a widespread audience (output), social media use increases organizational identification more than traditional forms of (mass) media. This is particularly viable for CEO’s and managers who often uphold personal blogs or tweets for purposes ranging from professional and organizational transparency to personal information about their private life. For example, the Dutch prime minister of Foreign Affairs, Maxime Verhagen, upholds a Twitter account and informs the audience of his whereabouts, both politically and privately (Koeleman, 2009). Identification may well be an important determinant for social media use, and more so for those individuals that serve as the company’s role models. It is thus assumed that organizational identification determines the level of social media use. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H4: The more the individual identifies with the organization, the higher the use of social media for organizational impression management.
2.7 Privacy concerns
Whether social media users are aware of it or not, corporations such as Apple, Windows, Facebook and Google store loads of personal user information in their databases (Luo, 2002; Zheleva & Getoor, 2009). On Facebook for example, users are able to set the privacy level of their online profiles and to disclose either some or none of the attributes in their profiles. While some users make use of these features, others are more open to sharing personal information, such as age, political affiliation, location, or actual contact information. Ultimately, most social media users utilize the social networking services for purposes of forming friendships and affiliating with groups of interest. However, although a person’s profile may remain private, the friendship links and group affiliations are often visible to the public (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010), such that third parties have access to […a surprisingly large amount of leaked information] (Zheleva & Getoor, 2009; p.531). On the one hand, social media users reveal their intimate thoughts and behaviors online, and on the other hand, government agencies and marketers are collecting personal data about those very same people (Barnes, 2006). Every time we use a shopping card, a retail store collects data about our consumer spending habits. Credit card companies can create even larger profiles of our shopping behaviors, and […many people may not be aware of the fact that their privacy has already been jeopardized and they are not taking steps to protect their personal information from being used by others] (Katz & Rice, 2002). Fact is that social media users give up personal information and are often not aware of the public nature of the Internet. This study adopts the view that trust and privacy concerns indeed affect social media usage. Social media users who are concerned about submitting personal or work-related information on the internet because of what others might do with it, or that worry about the possible theft of personal data, might be more cautious to share information in order to protect their privacy. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H5: The more the individual finds privacy concerns important, the lower the use of social media for organizational impression management.
3. METHOD
3.1 Design & Participants
141 participants from Perceptive Software (formerly known as Pallas Athena Solutions), Dienst Werk en Inkomen, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam took part in this study. These participants were approached via social media (Facebook and LinkedIn) and e-mail and were asked to complete the questionnaire ‘Identities in Social Media’, as conducted by the European Association of Communication Directors (EACD) and the Institute for Media and Communication Management (IMCM).
80 men (57%) and 61 women (43%) participated. On average, the participants were 28 years old (M = 28.37, SD = 9.74). The analysis of the respondent’s educational level revealed that 7% held a Doctorate degree, 39% a Bachelor degree, 17% a Master degree and 37% held no academic degree. On average, the participant’s highest educational level was that of Bachelor with 39% respondents reporting it, with no academic degree (37%) at the second place of the participant’s highest educational level. The majority of participants held their present job for one to five years (67%), 21% for six to 10 years and 12% held their present job for 11 years or longer.
The analysis regarding social media use revealed that 13% of participants were connected to up to 100 contacts, 17% between 100 and 200 contacts, 26% between 200 and 300 contacts, 15% between 300 and 400 contacts and 29% were connected to 400 or more contacts. Overall, Facebook was rated as the most often used social media platform (M = 3.56, SD = 1.44), followed by YouTube (M = 3.02, SD = 0.88), while Yammer was rated as the least used social media platform (M = 1.41, SD = 0.67).
The questionnaire in this study was designed with SurveyMonkey, an online provider of web-based survey solutions (www.surveymonkey.com). This questionnaire was available on the internet from mid-May till begin June 2012. The data-analysis took place after June 11, 2012.
3.2 Procedure
Participants received an invitation message (via e-mail, Facebook and LinkedIn) with the link to the online questionnaire. After the participant clicked the link, they were briefly informed about the overall premise of the study. Participants were then told that the completion of the questionnaire would take approximately 10 minutes and that all answers would remain anonymous and will be used exclusively within the scope of this study.
The questionnaire consisted out of a total of 13 multifaceted questions. After all questions on each page were answered, the participant had to click on the ‘next’-button at the bottom of the page. The first five demographic questions concerned the participant’s gender, age, degree, job occupation and social media contacts, followed by eight comprehensive questions regarding social media use, self-monitoring, reputation- and impression management. The questions were answered on a 5-point Likert scale. For example, the first question ‘How active are you on the following social media applications?’ For topic 1, ‘Blogs’, the participant could mark 1; indicating ‘not at all’ or 5; indicating ‘very much’. See appendix A for the complete list of questions.
Once participants completed the questionnaire, they were thanked for their participation and contribution.
3.3 Operationalization
Dependent variable: Social media use for organizational impression management
All items were measured on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 = never, to 5 = very often, by the following questions: ‘I use social media to highlight how dedicated I am to my work’, ‘I use social media to stress my willingness to make an extra effort in order to achieve results’ (EACD & IMCM, 2012), ‘I provide information regarding the organization to external individuals’ (Mintzberg, 1977), ‘I provide information regarding the organization’s products and services’ (Mintzberg, 1977), ‘I talk about the success of my organization’ (Bolino & Turnley, 1999), ‘The belongingness to my company is clearly evincible from my online profiles’, ‘My social media networking helps the organization’, ‘I use social media to minimize bad news involving my organization or team’ (EACD & IMCM, 2012). The scale that included these items had a Cronbach alpha of .76, which indicated an acceptable internal consistency.
Impression management: private and professional
To measure individual impression management, all items were measured on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 = never, to 5 = very often, by the following questions: ‘I would probably make a good actor’ (Synder & Gangestad, 1986), ‘My online profiles are sometimes different to the person I actually am’, ‘I want to come across as entertaining’, ‘I like to be at the centre of my online network of friends’ (Synder & Gangestad, 1986), ‘People often find me friendly, even when I do not really like them’ (EACD & IMCM, 2012). The scale that included these items had a Cronbach alpha of .73, which indicated an acceptable internal consistency.
To measure professional impression management, all items were measured on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 = never, to 5 = very often, by the following questions: ‘I communicate information to colleagues’, ‘I collect information about competitors’, ‘I share information with clients’ (EACD & IMCM, 2012), ‘I stay in contact with other organizations in my sector’ (Synder & Gangestad, 1986), ‘I strive to learn about the salience of issues among stakeholders’, ‘I stay updated with market trends’, ‘I organize appointments and meetings’. The scale that included these items had a Cronbach alpha of .71, which indicated an acceptable internal consistency.
Social media affinity
All items were measured on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 = never, to 5 = very often, by the following questions: ‘How active are you on the following social media applications?’, ‘How long have you been using social media?’, ‘How frequently do you engage in the following social media activities?’ (EACD & IMCM, 2012), ‘My expressions in social media reflect ideas in which I believe’, ‘I shape my online interactions differently, depending on who’s going to read my messages’. Participants that scored below the median were labeled as “low self-monitors” and participants that scored above the median were labeled as “high self-monitors”. As such, 42 participants (30%) were low self-monitors, as opposed to 99 participants (70%) that were high self-monitors. The scale that included these items had a Cronbach alpha of .77, which indicated an acceptable internal consistency.
Organizational identification
All items were measured on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 = never, to 5 = very often, by the following questions: ‘I feel strong ties to my company’, ‘I experience a strong sense of belonging to my company’ (Bolino & Turnley, 1999), ‘I feel proud to work with my company’, ‘I am sufficiently acknowledged within my company’ (EACD & IMCM, 2012). The scale that included these items had a Cronbach alpha of .64, which indicated a questionable internal consistency.
Organizational hierarchy
This item was constructed for this research: ‘Do you hold a managerial or a non-managerial position?’ As such, 18 participants (13%) were labeled as manager and 123 participants (87%) were labeled as employee. The scale that included this item had a Cronbach alpha of .66, which indicated a questionable internal consistency.
Privacy concerns
All items were measured on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 = never, to 5 = very often, by the following questions: ‘I am concerned that the work-related information I circulate through social media could be misused.’, ‘When using social media, I worry about the possible theft of my personal data’ (EACD & IMCM, 2012), ‘I am concerned about submitting work-related information on the internet because of what others might do with it (Dinev & Hart, 2003)’, ‘I am concerned about submitting personal information on the internet because it could be used in a way I did not foresee’. The scale that included these items had a Cronbach alpha of .73, which indicated an acceptable internal consistency.
Cronbach’s Alphas of all scales, together with the number of scale items and participants in this study are presented in the Correlation Table (see appendix).
3.4 Method - Interviews
3.4.1 Design & Participants
In addition to the quantitative questionnaire, eight qualitative in-depth interviews were held by the researcher, yours truly, in support of the main data. The purpose of the interviews was to gain supplementary information regarding the effect of social media use on corporate reputation. Three managers and five employees were interviewed. Participants were contacted by telephone to schedule an appointment. Of the managers, 2 were male and worked for Dienst Werk & Inkomen; the third manager was female, working for Perceptive Software. Of the five employees, two were male and worked for Perceptive Software; 3 were female and worked for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. All interviews took place in May 2012.
Qualitative interviewing is in many aspects different compared to interviewing in quantitative research. Generally, qualitative interviewing is much less structured (Bryman & Bell, 2007) and is seen as being highly flexible for the focal point lies solely on the respondents’ point of view. This study followed a semi-structured interview, which gives the interviewee the possibility to speak freely and in detail. Interviewees were not restricted in their responses nor limited by the margins of a Likert scale and could therefore give more open-ended answers.
3.4.2 Procedure
The interviewer, yours truly, sat down with the interviewee in a quiet setting (i. e. an office, a meeting room and a lounge area). Prior to the interview, interviewees were assured of their anonymity and that their responses would be used exclusively within the scope of this study and will not be passed on to third parties. Interviewees were then recorded on digital camera, model Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ30, and were asked the following questions:
1) Do you occupy a managerial or a non-managerial position?
2) How frequently are you on social media applications such as FB, LinkedIn and Twitter?
3) For what reasons/purposes do you use social media?
4) How important is it for you to leave a good impression about yourself, and why / why not?
5) How important is it for you to leave a good impression about the company you work for, and why / why not?
6) Can you name some specific online activities/tactics you do to create/ maintain a good impression?
7) Do you think that the use of social media is essential for corporations in today’s world, and why/ why not?
8) What do you think are the advantages for corporations that use social media, as opposed to corporations that don’t use social media?
9) Do you identify yourself with the company you work for, and why / why not?
10) How do you think others / external parties feel about the company you work for?
These questions are formulated by the researcher, based on the questionnaire developed by the European Association of Communication Directors in collaboration with the Institute for Media and Communication Management from the University of St. Gallen.
3.4.3 Measures
Responses from the interviewees were examined in relation to both the literature review (chapter 2) and the methodology (the questionnaire in chapter 3) in order to evaluate the most significant factors to explain the relation between social media use and corporate reputation. The response to each question was coded as ‘1’ when the response, or part of the response, was relevant. A non-relevant, or partly irrelevant response, was coded as ‘0’. The responses coded as ‘1’ were written down in full sentences (see appendix B). After that, all sentences that were congruent with similar responses from the questionnaire were used in support of the main findings to strengthen the theoretical and practical implications (see chapter 5). A concise overview is presented for each respondent (only responses labeled as 1), after partialing out non-relevant responses (labeled as 0). Some responses on questions have been left out, because the responses were too intangible and were therefore not used (labeled as 0). ‘I’ stands for ‘Interviewer’ and ‘R’ stands for ‘Respondent’.
4. FINDINGS
4.1 Preliminary analysis
First of all, the correlations among all measured variables were explored and were included in a correlation matrix. The results are tabulated in table 1. It was found that most of the variables were positively correlated with each other. The correlation matrix revealed a significant correlation between individual and professional impression management (r = .46, p < .01). This indicated that participants that were more likely to engage in individual impression management also had high scores on professional impression management. Social media use for organizational impression management was also significantly correlated to individual impression management (r = .61, p < .05). The correlation matrix moreover revealed that professional impression management was significantly correlated to social media affinity (r = .39, p < .05). This indicated that participants that were more likely to engage in professional impression management also had high scores on social media affinity. More specifically, participants that found professional impression management important, also used social media more frequently and intensely as opposed to participants that engaged in private, or individual impression management. Finally, social media affinity was negatively correlated to privacy concerns (r = -.13, p < .05). This indicated that participants that scored low on social media affinity, or passive users, were more concerned about trust and privacy issues.
All factors were then included in a regression analysis. The model summary explains the percentages of variance explained by all independent variables entered in the model, here ‘impression management’, ‘social media affinity’, ‘organizational hierarchy’, ‘organizational identification’, and ‘privacy concerns’ were positively correlated to social media use for organizational impression management. Table 2 presents the model that included these variables as predictors.
Overall, the model explains 69.4% of the total variance in social media use for organizational impression management (R² adj = .694). This amount is the correlation between observed values and predicted values and entails that virtually 70% of the variance in social media use for impression management is explained by these six variables. Social media use for organizational impression management was first regressed on the control factors gender and age. Impression management, social media affinity, organizational hierarchy, organizational identification and privacy concerns were then entered in a second step. Overall, the first model explained 21.7% of the total variance, whereby none of the control factors showed a significant influence. Results indicate that the addition of the variables in step 2 of the regression improved the prediction of social media use for organizational impression management; R² = .22 for step 1 and ∆R² = .69 for step 2.
4.2 Test of hypotheses
The program SPSS was used in order to analyze the acquired data. To test hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5, a linear regression analysis (method: enter) was computed. Linear regression analysis is a method used to discover the amount of causality between independent variables and a dependent (outcome) variable.
H1 argued that the more the individual finds impression management important, the higher the use of social media for organizational impression management. The hypothesis was tested in a hierarchical linear regression (method: enter) and was measured with a modified scale taken from EACD & IMCM (2012). Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement to 5 different statements on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (totally agree). These items were collapsed into a mean-index (α = .73, M = 2.68, SD = 1.09). 7 additional statements on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (totally agree) were used to measure professional impression management and were collapsed into a mean-index as well (α = .71, M = 2.25, SD = 1.88). Both predictors are significantly correlated to social media use for organizational impression management. Participants who engaged in individual impression management were more likely to engage in professional impression management as well. Individual impression management emerged as the strongest predictor (B = 2.42, SE B = .70, β = .89, p < .01). Professional impression management also had a significant, although smaller, influence (B = 2.27, SE B = .83, β = .82, p < .01). The results support the hypothesis.
H2 argued that the level of social media affinity (active users as opposed to passive users; high- as opposed to low self-monitors) influences the use (frequency and intensity) of social media for organizational impression management. The hypothesis was tested in a hierarchical linear regression (method: enter) and was measured with a modified scale taken from EACD & IMCM (2012). Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement to 4 different statements on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (totally agree). These items were collapsed into a mean-index (α = .77, M = 3.04, SD = 1.92). Social media affinity emerged as a significant predictor (B = 2.17, SE B = .61, β = .47, p < .01), with ‘Facebook’ as the most important indicator of social media affinity (M = 3.56, SD = 1.44), followed by ‘YouTube’ (M = 3.02, SD = 0.88). The results support the hypothesis.
H3 argued that the higher the individual’s place in the organizational hierarchy (managers as opposed to employees), the higher the use of social media for organizational impression management. The hypothesis was tested in a hierarchical linear regression (method: enter) and was measured with a modified scale taken from EACD & IMCM (2012). Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement to 4 different statements on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (totally agree). These items were collapsed into a mean-index (α = .66, M = 2.42, SD = 1.18). The analysis shows that organizational hierarchy does not significantly affect social media use for organizational impression management (B = -.92, SE B = .12, β = -.34, p > .05). More specifically, and contrary to expectations, this study could not prove that managers use social media more often than employees. Hence, H3 cannot be confirmed.
H4 argued that the more the individual identifies with the organization, the higher the use of social media for organizational impression management. The hypothesis was tested in a hierarchical linear regression (method: enter) and was measured with a modified scale taken from EACD & IMCM (2012). Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement to 4 different statements on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (totally agree). These items were collapsed into a mean-index (α = .66, M = 2.19, SD = 1.73). The analysis shows that organizational identification does not significantly affect social media use for organizational impression management (B = -.67, SE B = .05, β = -.83, p > .05). More specifically, and contrary to expectations, this study could not prove that belongingness to one’s company increases social media use for organizational impression management. Therefore, H4 is rejected as well.
H5 argued that the more the individual finds privacy concerns important, the lower the use of social media for organizational impression management. The hypothesis was tested in a hierarchical linear regression (method: enter) and was measured with a modified scale taken from EACD & IMCM (2012). Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement to 4 different statements on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (totally agree). These items were collapsed into a mean-index (α = .66, M = 2.19, SD = 1.73). Results show that the addition of privacy concerns did not improve the model. The B coefficient reveals a positive influence on social media use for organizational impression management, however this amount does not reach significance (B = 1.95, SE B = .24, β = .29, p > .05). More specifically, and contrary to expectations, this study could not prove that privacy concerns deter social media use for organizational impression management. H5 is therefore rejected. Regression coefficients of all variables are tabulated in table 3.
Table 4 presents the model sum of squares. The F-value tests the significance of the model and indicates the difference in the amount of explained variance divided by the amount of unexplained variance.
The model that included individual and professional impression management, social media affinity, organizational hierarchy, organizational identification and privacy concerns as predictors explains 69.4% of the variance in social media use for organizational impression management (R² adj = .694). This amount is significant; F (5,136) = 65.802; p < .01. More specifically, private impression management emerged as the strongest predictor (β = .89; p < .01) followed by professional impression management (β = .82; p < .01) and social media affinity (β = .47, p < .01). In contrast, organizational hierarchy (β = -.34, p > .01), organizational identification (β = -.83, p > .01) as well as privacy concerns (β = .29, p > .01) did not significantly affect social media use for organizational impression management.
4.3 Findings – Additional interviews
Overall, the responses from the interviews correlate quite well with the findings from the questionnaire. However, no definite generalizations should be derived from a sample of only eight interviewees.
The interviewees were all highly active social media users and reported to use social media on a daily basis. Similar to the finding from the questionnaire, Facebook was rated as the most often used social media platform. Reasons from using social media range from personal to private; to keep in touch with contacts, to stay updated, to send messages, mails, tweets, blogs and to watch and upload visual material such as photos and videos. Social media is perceived as a valuable tool for managers to send messages and to stay in touch with personnel, because it works more effectively than regular email […social media has much more advantages than older platforms, like email for example; messages are directly visible on the page.][…this increases user-friendly interactions]. Besides Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn are prominent social media platforms as well […I use LinkedIn on a daily basis][…A lot of the time it is easier to find a job via LinkedIn]. Interviewees used Twitter both privately as well as professionally […I write Tweets mostly because it’s so easy to use][…Writing Tweets to entertain and to share, I think it’s important to let others know what’s going on around me]. The majority of the interviewees indeed stated to use social media mostly for entertainment purposes; especially watching videos on YouTube, chatting with friends, posting photos and commenting on news feeds. Another major reason for using social media is downloading and streaming music. This particular finding indicates that social media is actually used more for personal reasons, rather than professional reasons or promoting the organization one works for.
The responses regarding the importance of impression management differ to a large extent; some find it very important to leave a good impression […We live in a world where impressions, or first impressions, are often the only thing people have to make judgments or evaluations about], while others didn’t find it important at all […I don’t need to impress anyone]. Interviewees who hold a high organizational position often serve as role-models and admittedly care a great deal about how they are seen by others. They use social media to provide a fitting image of themselves, both personally and professionally. Moreover, and contrary to expectations, employees cared more about impression management than the managers did. Impression management tactics that are used vary from complimenting others on achievements, being humorous and entertaining, selectively writing posts tailored to a specific type of audience, liking appropriate posts by others and posting “high value” photos and videos to construct a positive or popular image […I post photos of myself on which I look good][…usually from a particular angle]. Interviewees responded that Facebook and Twitter, as opposed to YouTube or LinkedIn, are the best social media platforms when it comes to constructing a favorable or presentable image.
Responses regarding the importance for corporations to use social media differ from “not necessary” to highly beneficial; corporations that don’t use social media stand no chance to corporations that do […If a company doesn’t have a Facebook page, then it’s probably not doing very well], corporations that use social media show that they are modern, transparent and are able to reach- and keep relations with a wider audience. Interviewees responded that modern companies should use social media if they want to get their message across. This is because social media platforms are excellent tools to create transparency between a company’s products and services and the social media user […I have a list of “liked” Facebook pages to keep me informed][…in news feed I receive updates about that company]. As such, social media enables instant information and interaction. One interviewee even stated that he cannot imagine a world without social media. Most of the interviewees similarly responded that social media is the new way of maintaining relationships, both personally […I now have more contact with my friends than ever before] and professionally. Moreover, and in line with preceding literature, companies that use social media are more favorable than companies that don’t use social media. When companies use social media, they automatically increase the ‘being known’-principle (generalized awareness or visibility of the company; prominence of the company in the collective perception). In addition, if a company effectively distinguishes itself via social media from other companies, the ‘being known for something’-principle increases as well. Finally, a company that successfully portraits a favorable image or collective evaluation via social media, reaches the ‘generalized favorability’, whereby perceptions or judgments of the overall organization are good, attractive and appropriate.
Responses regarding the organizational identification were similar; all respondents (with the exception of one) did not identify themselves with their organization. Again, this finding is congruent with the data from the questionnaire. This indicates that there is a weak relationship between social media use and organizational identification […my job is just work that I do][…my job does not reflect who I am as a person]. Additionally, the corporate reputation, or perceived external prestige, was low as well. Respondents stated that external parties might have a favorable opinion about their organization, but didn’t find this to be an important matter […it’s just a job].
These inferences are in line with the quantitative data as well. The additional interviews merely confirm that managers and employees belong to the same “class” of social media users, meaning that their place on the organizational ladder does not determine their use of social media. The interviews made clear that managers and employees use social media almost all of the time for the same purposes: to stay in touch with colleagues and friends, to send messages, writing Tweets, watching and publishing photos and videos and expanding their social network. Findings reveal that impression management is the most important factor in determining social media use. In comparison, both professional and individual impression management are significant indicators for social media use. Individual impression management is slightly regarded as more significant than professional impression management.
5. CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary of findings
The purpose of this study was to examine how social media is used for organizational impression management. More specifically, this study examined social media use for the purpose of reputation building. The main research question throughout this study was: “How do managers and employees use social media for image construction and impression management in the organizational context?” following the inquiry: “To what extent is the use of social media for organizational impression management influenced by social media affinity, organizational hierarchy, organizational identification and privacy concerns?”
In hypothesis 1 it was assumed that the more the individual finds private and professional impression management important, the higher the use of social media. The analysis reveals a significant effect. Hypothesis 1 is therefore accepted.
In hypothesis 2 it was assumed that social media affinity determines social media use and that active users and high self-monitors use social media more frequently and intense than passive users and low self-monitors. The analysis reveals a significant effect. More specifically, active users and high self-monitors use social media more often or more frequent than passive users and low self-monitors. Therefore, hypothesis 2 is accepted.
In hypothesis 3 it was assumed organizational hierarchy determines social media use and that the higher the individual’s place in the organizational hierarchy, managers as opposed to employees, the higher the use of social media. The analysis shows no significant effect. More specifically, this study could not prove that managers use social media more frequently and intensely than employees. Therefore, hypothesis 3 is rejected.
In hypothesis 4 it was assumed that organizational identification determines social media use and that the more the individual identifies with the organization, the higher the use of social media. The analysis shows no significant effect. More specifically, this study could not prove that organizational identification increases social media use. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is rejected.
In hypothesis 5 it was assumed that trust and privacy concerns moderate the use of social media. The analysis shows no significant effect. This means that social media use is not significantly affected by privacy concerns. Therefore, hypothesis 5 is rejected.
5.2 Theoretical implications
Social media has changed the human experience. Users comment on posts, share photos and videos and publish Tweets as if there is no tomorrow. Schau & Gilly (2003) already observed that social media is used primarily to communicate with known and unknown others. This observation is rooted in Goffman’s (1959) psychological explanation of the self-presentation theory, whereby individuals engage in complex intraself negotiations to project a desired impression. The social actions required for self-presentation depend upon the individual’s displaying signs, symbols, brands, and practices to communicate the desired impression (Schau & Gilly, 2003). This study is congruent with Goffman’s (1959) initial ideas and found that social media is indeed the modern equivalent for individuals to self-present 24/7 beyond a regional setting to the virtual world. From an organizational perspective, this means that individuals (i. e. managers and employees) can use social media to create, maintain and increase their image by means of posting and sharing information about their company, stress their professionalism, communicate information to colleagues and clients, and to highlight how dedicated they are to their work, which in turn increases their image as a professional.
This study also found that the corporate reputation is more of a mental construct that exists in the mind of the beholder. Findings in this study are in line with Lange, Lee & Dai’s (2011) construct of generalized favorability and reveal that individuals prefer to work for companies that hold a favorable reputation, whereby the organization is perceived as good, attractive and appropriate. As a result, the challenge for any given organization is thus to be viewed as favorable and, desirably, as “better” than other similar organizations. Social media is a tool specifically for such promotional purposes.
This study differentiated between active social media users and passive social media users, based on Perloff’s (2008) theory of self-monitoring. Perloff (2008) made a distinction between high self-monitors; individuals who monitor the public appearances of themselves and enjoy doing the “socially correct thing”, and low self-monitors; individuals who are less concerned and moreover less consistent in what they publish online and consult their inner feelings and attitudes without much regard of how they will be perceived by others. The central distinction lies in the fact that high self-monitors, as opposed to low self-monitors, want to impress people or are nervous about how they come across with others (DeBono & Harnish, 1988; Perloff, 2008). Nearly all participants in this study are high self-monitors and confirmed that they are indeed concerned with social appearances and therefore devote a great deal of favorable online self-presentation.
Professional self-presentation via social media occurs contextually. Literature on the topic of organizational hierarchy (Cornelissen, Haslan & Balmer, 2007; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001) reveals that the high-ranking members (i. e. managers) have more social power than low-ranking members (i. e. employees). Accordingly, online publications by managers typically have a more profound impact than online publications by employees. In this view, social media is used to create charismatic images in which individuals are seen by their followers as trustworthy, moral, credible and innovative (Bolino, Kacmar, Turnley & Gilstrap, 2008). Yet given the low sample of managers throughout this study, this assertion could not be verified. Regardless, both managers and employees should make use of social media if they wish to be seen as capable of meeting both the technical and social demands of their jobs (Ibarra, 1999; Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1991) by way of enacting personas with desirable identity characteristics (e. g. competence, intelligence and seriousness about one’s work), which in turn elicits approval and recognition from key constituents and peers (Goffman, 1959; Ibarra, 1999; Rafaeli, Dutton, Harquail & Mackie-Lewis, 1997; Rafaeli & Pratt, 1993).
To accomplish the aforementioned, managers and employees have a variety of impression management tactics to their disposal in order to lead target audiences to desired conclusions (Schlenker, 2003). Impression management entails an approach whereby social media users attempt to influence observers’ perceptions and attributions about their company by means of flattering others or doing favors for them (ingratiation), advertizing their abilities and accomplishments (self-promotion), going beyond their job description (exemplification), exhibiting their limitations (supplication), and lastly to be viewed as intimidating by bullying others (intimidation). These tactics ultimately entail defending the ego (Ashford & Cummings, 1983), one’s personal motives (Janis & Mann, 1977) and one’s professional image (Morrison, 1993; Morrison & Bies, 1991).
Professional image construction draws on social identity theory, which explicates the social psychological role of self-conception in group membership, group processes, and intergroup relations (Hogg, 2006). Since identities are validated through public recognition (Roberts, 2005), managers and employees can anchor their desired images via social media, which in turn helps to create a professional image.
5.3 Practical implications
Social media enables users to easily communicate, participate, share, collaborate and maintain relationships on a global scale. No longer are individuals dependent on traditional advertising and mass media; they themselves are now in command over media consumption. Accordingly, the role of self-presentation and identification in social media allows users to self-present 24/7 beyond a regional setting to the virtual world. Virtual identities are not only private, but occur in organizational context as well. As such, the present study examined how managers and employees use social media for image construction and impression management. This study found that the use (frequency and intensity) of social media positively affects the perceived external prestige. Active users, or users with a high level of social media affinity, use social media more frequently and intensely as opposed to passive users, users with a low level of social media affinity. In this study, nearly all participants were active users and used social media on a daily basis. This finding is congruent with preceding literature, stating that almost 80% of internet users use at least one of the many social media platforms. It was furthermore expected that active users have a high level of self-monitoring, but this study could not prove that. High self-monitors care about the public appearances of themselves and are nervous about how they come across with others. Yet passive users can be high self-monitors as well. This means that both active- and passive users are concerned with social appearances and devote a great deal of favorable self-presentation.
From an organizational perspective, it was expected that high-ranking members, or managers, would have a higher level of social media use, as opposed to low-ranking members, or employees, because managers serve as role models for their organization and so their publications would have a greater impact both within the organization as well as towards external parties. This study however, could not prove a significant difference between managers and employees in their use of social media. Therefore, the individual’s place in the organizational hierarchy is not a significant factor in determining the level of social media use.
Likewise, it was expected that managers and employees use social media to strengthen the organizational identification- and commitment, whereby they are able to understand and promote their organization and act within it. Through symbols such as traditions, myths, metaphors and other organizational rituals, managers and employees should be able to make their membership salient by means of providing compelling images of what the organization stands for and social media is the ideal instrument for doing so. This study however, could not prove that organizational identification is significantly related to social media use. This means that even members who are highly committed to their organization or to the collective organizational goal do not uphold or make an effort to promote their company in online space.
In an era of social media, outsiders are able to form an impression about a person or about an organization by the mere click of a mouse. Impression management, or the packaging of information in order to lead target audiences to desired conclusions, is what image construction is all about. Not surprisingly, this study found that social media is used strategically as a means of professional image construction, and that the more the individual finds impression management important, the higher the use of social media. The underlying dynamic that steers the process of professional image construction draws on social identity theory and is especially relevant in organizational context wherein both managers and employees compete with each other to be distinctive in evaluative positive ways; they compete over consensual status and prestige.
The corporate reputation, or the individual’s evaluative perception regarding the obtained esteem and social status derived from working for an organization, is significantly related to social media use. This means that the stronger the assumption that social media increases the corporate reputation, the higher the use of social media. The rationale that social media enhances the reputation of an organization stems from the tendency that internet users are the new source of consumer creativity, influence and empowerment and are attracted to companies that use social media to embrace innovation, openness, authenticity, participation and transparency.
6. DISCUSSION
The present study is one of the first studies that focused on the use of social media by managers and employees that work for Dutch organizations in the fields of ICT (Perceptive Software), the air travel industry (KLM Royal Dutch Airlines) and the governmental financial department (Dienst Werk & Inkomen) as well as arbitrary data derived from students from the Free University (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam). As such, the findings in this study are derived from a representative sample of the corporate Dutch population. Secondly, the findings in this study are supported by several interviews, which give the present study a qualitative dimension as well. Ultimately, this study found what was already evident throughout the literature, which is that a good corporate reputation has strategic value for the firms that posses them. What the present study also found, and what was not in actual fact clear from preceding studies, is that social media is used tactically for impression management and image construction as a means to increase the perceived external prestige, or the evaluative perception regarding the obtained esteem and social status.
6.1 Limitations of the present study & Implications for future research
Only 21 participants in this study were managers (18 respondents and 3 interviewees), as opposed to 128 that were employees (123 respondents and 5 interviewees). As such, differences between managers and employees are to be neglected, because a sample of 21 is too small to make generalizations for the entire population of Dutch managers. This may also explain why no significant relation between organizational hierarchy and social media use was found in this study. Future studies that focus on differences between managers and employees should ensure to use a representative hierarchical sample.
A second limitation of this study draws on the fact that social media use is not solely determined by the level of social media affinity, the organizational hierarchy- or identification. Other factors, such as online privacy concerns, might contribute to social media use as well. Users who are concerned that work-related information could be misused, or users who are concerned about submitting personal information on the internet because it could be used in an unforeseen way, may have a different view towards- and are less inclined to use social media. Future studies should therefore integrate online privacy concerns as well, in order to find out whether it positively or negatively influences social media use.
Thirdly, this study did not differentiate between different types of social media. Different social media platforms may have different effects. Future studies should therefore focus on practical differences between the various social media platforms, because it may well be possible that some social media platforms (such as Facebook) exert a greater influence on corporate reputation, as opposed to other platforms (such as YouTube).
Fourthly, the additional interviews were quite short in duration. Each interview lasted about ten minutes and interviewees were somewhat brief in their answers. Future studies that conduct interviews should ensure that interviewees give more comprehensive answers. Fifthly, due to the fact that not all scales are consistent with their range, the data as derived from the questionnaire turned out to be somewhat dubious. Some of the original questions from the European Association of Communication Directors (EACD) and the Institute for Media and Communication Management (IMCM) have been modified for this study and some questions have been left out completely. Looking at it afterwards, the results would probably have been different, or more ample, if the original questionnaire was used since it covers more aspects of social media usage.
Finally, this study described, but did not sufficiently scrutinize concrete impression management tactics such as the self-protection strategy and self-promotion strategy. Therefore, more research is needed in order to understand what individuals can do specifically to create, maintain or increase the corporate reputation via social media. Additionally, it may be wise, yet perhaps unconventional, for future studies to integrate non-scientific literature and data as well. Since social media is not necessarily a scientific phenomenon, much information could well be derived from cultural magazines, entertainment magazines, tabloids and other non-scientific sources. This is because social media is omnipresent and information should thus be derived from a wide spectrum of sources in order to give an all-encompassing outlook on the development of social media.
REFERENCES
Arvidsson, A. (2005). Brands: A critical perspective. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5, 235-258.
Ashford, S. J. & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370-398.
Ashford, B. E. & Lee, R. T. (1990). Defensive behavior in organizations: A preliminary model. Human Relations, 43, 621-648.
Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Bar, M., Neta, M. & Linz, H. (2006). Very first impressions. Emotion, 6(2), 269-278.
Barnett, M. L., Jermier, J. M. & Lafferty, B. A. (2006). Corporate reputation: The definitional landscape . Corporate Reputation Review, 9, 26-38.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 771-792.
Baron, D. P. (2000). Business and its environment. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., De Jong, M. & Joustra, I. (2007). Multiple organizational identification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 173-190.
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26.
Blackburn, V. L., Doran, M. & Shrader, C. B. (1994). Investigating the dimensions of social responsibility and the consequences for corporate financial performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 6, 195-212.
Bolino, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Turnley, W. H. & Gilstrap, J. B. (2008). A multi-level review of impression management motives and behaviors. Journal of Management, 34, 1080-1109.
Bolino, M. C. & Turnley, W. H. (1999). Measuring impression management in organizations: A scale development based on the Jones and Pittman taxonomy. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 187-206.
Bolino, M. C. & Turnley, W. H. (2003). Counternormative impression management, likeability, and performance ratings: The use of intimidation in an organizational setting. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 237-250.
Booth, N. & Matic, J. A. (2010). Mapping and leveraging influencers in social media to shape corporate perceptions. Proceedings of the Conference on Corporate Communication 2010, 16-25.
Bozeman,D. P. & Kacmar, K. M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 69(1), 9-30.
Braude, R. (2009). Social media’s effect on consumer perception of organizational reputation and innovation. Public Relations, 2008/2009, 1-63.
Brown, M. E. (1969). Identification and some conditions of organizational involvement. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, 346-355.
Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bunting, M. & Lipski, R. (2000). Drowned out? Rethinking corporate reputation management for the Internet. Journal of Communication Management, 5(2), 170-178.
Cady, S. H. & Fandt, P. M. (2001). Managing impressions with information. A field study of organizational realities. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37, 180-204.
Carroll, C. E. & McCombs, M. E. (2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on the public’s images and opinions about major corporations. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(1), 36-46.
Chouliaraki, L. & Morsing, M. (2009). Towards an understanding of the interplay between media and organizations. Media, Organizations, and Identity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Constantinides, E. & Fountain, S. J. (2008). Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and marketing issues. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3), 231-244.
Cornelissen, J. (2004). Corporate communications. Theory and practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Cornelissen, J., Haslam, A. & Balmer, J. M. T. (2007). Social identity, organizational identity and corporate identity: Towards an integrated understanding of processes, patternings and products. British Journal of Management, 18, 1-16.
Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W. & Zúñiga, H. G. (2009). Who interacts on the web? The intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 247-253.
Davis, A. (2007). The mediation of power. London: Routledge.
DeBono, K. G. & Harnish, R. J. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 541-546.
Deephouse, D. L. & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 329-360.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R. & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social implications of the internet. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 307-336.
DiMicco, J., Millen, D. R., Geyer, W., Dugan, C., Brownholtz, B. & Muller, M. (2008). Motivations for social networking at work. In Proceedings of CSCW 2008: New York.
Dinev, T. & Hart, P. (2003). Privacy concerns and internet use: A model of trade-off factors. Best Paper Proceedings of Annual Academy of Management Meeting: Seattle.
Evans, D. (2008). Social media marketing: An hour a day. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing Inc.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison process. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
Firestein, P. J. (2006). Building and protecting corporate reputation. Strategy & Leadership, 34(4), 25-31.
Fischer, E. & Reuber, R. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unfamiliar: The challenges of reputation formation facing new firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 53-75.
Freud, S. (1913). Totem und Tabu: Einige Übereinstimmungen im Seelenleben der Wilden und der Neurotiker. Leipzig: Hugo Heller & Cie.
Gardner, W. L. & Martinko, M. J. (1988). Impression management in organizations. Journal of Management, 14, 321-338.
George, J. M. (1996). Group affective tone. In M. A. West, Handbook of work group psychology. New York: Wiley.
Giacalone, R. & Rosenfeld, P. (1991). Applied impression management: How image-making affects managerial decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 57-70.
Gilbert, E. & Karahalios, K. (2009). Predicting tie strength with social media. Computer Human Interaction, 4, 211-222.
Gillian, B. & Williams, S. J. (1998). Emotions in social life: Critical themes and contemporary issues. London: Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books Doubleday.
Gotsi, M. & Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corporate reputation: Seeking a definition. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6, 24-30.
Gray, E. R. & Balmer, M. T. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long Range Planning, 31, 695-702.
Greene, R. (1998). The 48 laws of power. London: Profile Books LTD.
Grunig, J. E. (1993). Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioral relationships. Public Relations Review, 19(2), 121-139.
Grützmacher, A. (2011). Reputation 2.0: The role of social media in corporate reputation – Case Nokia. Helsinki: Aalto University School of Economics.
Haern, G., Foth, M. & Gray, H. (2009). Applications and implementations of new media in corporate communications: An action research approach. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14(1), 49-61.
Hall, D. T., Schneider, B. & Nygren, H. T. (1970). Personal factors in organizational identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 176-190.
Huang, L., Yung, C. Y. & Yang, E. (2011). How do travel agencies obtain a competitive advantage? Through a travel blog marketing channel. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 17(2), 139-149.
Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.) Contemporary social psychological theories. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaption. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764-791.
Janis, I. J. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision-making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
Jones, E. E. & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls, Psychological perspectives on the self. Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum.
Jones, B., Temperley, J. & Lima, A. (2009). Corporate reputation in the era of web 2.0: The case of Primark. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(9), 927-939.
Kaplan, A. M. & Haenlein, M. (2009). Flagship brand stores within virtual worlds: The impact of virtual store exposure on real life brand attitudes and purchase intent. Research and Applications in Marketing, 24, 563-572.
Kaplan, A. M. & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1996). The social psychology of organization. New York: Wiley.
Kiousis, S., Popescu, C. & Mitrook, M. (2007). Understanding influence on corporate reputation: An examination of public relations efforts, media coverage, public opinion, and financial performance from an agenda-building and agenda-setting perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 147-165.
Koeleman, H. (2009). Twitteren op je werk, en andere mogelijkheden van social media voor interne communicatie. Deventer: Kluwer.
Lange, D., Lee, P. M. & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37, 153-184.
LaRose, R. & Eastin, M. S. (2004). A social cognitive theory of internet uses and gratifications: Toward a new model of media attendance. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(3), 358-377.
Leary, M. R. & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.
Lee, S. M. (1971). An empirical analysis of organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 14, 213-226.
Lewellyn, P. G. (2002). Corporate reputation. Focusing the Zeitgeist. Business & Society, 41,
446-455.
Li, C. & Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell: winning in a world formed by social technologies. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Love, E. G. & Kraatz, M. S. (2009). Character, conformity, or the bottom line? How and why downsizing affected corporate reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 314-335.
Mahon, J. F. (2002). Corporate reputation. A research agenda using strategy and stakeholder literature. Business & Society, 41, 415-445.
Mangold, W. G. & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52, 357-365.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
Maus, M. (1973). Techniques of the body. Economy and Society, 2, 70-88.
Mazurek, G. (2009). Web 2.0: Implications on marketing. Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, 51, 69-82.
McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117-127.
Mintzberg, H. (1977). Policy as a field of management theory. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 88-103.
Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557-589.
Morrison, E. W. & Bies, R. J. (1991). Impression management in the feedback-seeking process: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 16, 522-541.
O’Connor, J. & Galvin, E. (2001). Marketing in the digital age. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
O’Reilly, C., Chatman, J. & Caldwell, D. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487-516.
Organ, D. W. & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 3-10.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L. & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441.
Patchen, M. (1970). Participation, achievement and involvement in the job. Englewood Clifs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Perloff, R. M. (2008). The dynamics of persuasion. Communication and attitudes in the 21st century. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Pfeiffer, M. & Zinnbauer, M. (2010). Can old media enhance new media? How traditional advertising pays off for an online social network. Journal of Advertising Research, 50(1), 42-49.
Pondy, L. R., Frost, P. J. & Thomas, M. G. D. (1983). Organizational symbolism. Greenwich: JAI Press.
Rafaeli, A., Dutton, J., Harquail, C. V. & Mackie-Lewis, S. (1997). Navigating by attire: The use of dress by female administrative employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 9-45.
Rafaeli, A. & Pratt, M. G. (1993). Tailored meanings: On the meaning and impact of organizational dress. Academy of Management Review, 18, 32-55.
Rao, A., Schmidt, S. M. & Murray, L. H. (1995). Upward impression management: Goals, influence strategies, and consequences. Human Relations, 48, 147-167.
Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P. & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1033-1049.
Roberts, L. M. (2005). Changing faces: Professional image construction in diverse organizational settings. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 685-711.
Roberts, P. W. & Dowling, G. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23, 1077-1093.
Rosenfeld, P., Giacalone, R. & Riordan, C. (2001). Impression management: Building and enhancing reputations at work. New York: International Thompson Business Press.
Rotondi, T. (1975). Organizational identification and group involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 892-897.
Schau, H. J. & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal webspace. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 385-404.
Schlenker, B. R. (2003). Self-presentation. In M. Leary & J. Tangney (Eds.) Handbook of self and identity. New York: Guilford Press.
Shapiro, C. (1983). Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98, 659-679.
Snyder, M. & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 125-139.
Snyder, M. & Kendzierski, D. (1982). Acting on one’s attitudes: Procedures for linking attitude and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 165-183.
Snyder, M. & Tanke, E. D. (1976). Behavior and attitude: Some people are more consistent than others. Journal of Personality, 44, 510-517.
Somech, A. & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000). Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: the relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 649-659.
Stets, J. E. (2003). Emotions and sentiments. In J. DeLamater (Ed.) Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Kluwer Acad./Plenum.
Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. In S. Moscovici (Ed.) Introduction à la psychologie sociale. Paris: Larousse.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In J. A Williams & S. Worchel (Eds.) The social psychology of inter-group relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Tedeschi, J. T. & Melburg, V. (1984). Impression management and influence in the organization. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 3, 31-58.
Temmink, A. M. J. (2011). Can social media save reputations? An experimental study to the differences between Twitter and newspaper in crisis communication. Behavioral Science, 2011, 1-21.
Trepte, S. (2006). Social identity theory. Institute of Social Psychology, 78, 255-271.
Turban, D. B. & Cable, D. M. (2003). Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 733-751.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Toward a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.) Social identity and inter-group relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tuten, T. L. (2008). Advertising 2.0: Social media marketing in a Web 2.0 world. Westport: Praeger.
Van Riel, C. B. M. & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and management. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5), 340-355.
Vollmer, C. & Precourt, G. (2008). Always on: Advertising, marketing, and media in an era of consumer control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ward, J. C. & Ostrom, A. L. (2006). Complaining to the masses: The role of protest framing in customer-created complaint web sites. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 220-230.
Wayne, S. J. & Liden, R. C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 232-260.
Whetten, D. A. & Mackey, A. (2002). A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation. Business & Society, 41, 393-414.
Williams, S. & Bendelow, G. (1998). The lived body. New York: Routledge.