A unidimensional instrument for measuring internal marketing concept in the higher education sector. IM-11 scale
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-02-2016-0009 |
| Date | 03 July 2017 |
| Published date | 03 July 2017 |
| Pages | 343-361 |
| Author | Suleyman Murat Yildiz,Ali Kara |
| Subject Matter | Education,Curriculum, instruction & assessment,Educational evaluation/assessment |
A unidimensional instrument for
measuring internal marketing
concept in the higher
education sector
IM-11 scale
Suleyman Murat Yildiz
Department of Sport Management, Faculty of Sport Sciences,
Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla, Turkey, and
Ali Kara
Department of Business Administration, Penn State University York Campus,
York, Pennsylvania, USA
Abstract
Purpose –Although the existing internal marketing (IM) scales include various scale items to measure
employee motivation, they fall short of incorporating the needs and expectations of service sector employees.
Hence, the purpose of this study is to present a practical instrument designed to measure the IM construct in
the higher education sector.
Design/methodology/approach –Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were used in this
empirical study. A qualitative method was used to develop the scale items to measure the IM construct and a
quantitative method was used to test the scale developed in the higher education sector. The study sample
included n⫽240 academic staff from a large university. Both exploratory (EFA) and the conrmatory factor
analyses (CFA) were used to conrm the dimensionality of the IM scale developed.
Findings –The study results showed that all items in the measurement scale were loaded on a single
dimension that represents the IM construct in the higher education sector. The psychometric properties of the
developed scale (IM-11) met and exceeded the expected criteria cited in the literature.
Research limitations/implications –The IM-11 scale presented in this study offers a practical tool for
higher education administrators in their efforts to measure the needs and expectations of their employees.
Moreover, this knowledge should provide a framework for the administration to develop strategies for
employee motivation, job satisfaction and performance and assume additional responsibilities in their efforts
to serving their external customers better. Sample size, cultural factors and the complex nature of university
academic staff limit one’s ability to generalize these results to broader populations.
Originality/value –In line with the information provided in the literature on IM, this study developed a
simple and practical instrument to measure the IM construct for an academic unit within a university.
Keywords Measurement, Internal marketing, Higher education, Scale development,
Internal customers
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
While some companies learn to survive in today’s ever-intensifying global competitive
market environment, others are forced to stop their operations because of their inability to
adapt to the new realities of global markets (Grönroos, 1990). Therefore, organizations need
to develop customer focus and effective marketing strategies to differentiate themselves for
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
Measuring
internal
marketing
concept
343
Received 28 February 2016
Revised 6 January 2017
Accepted 8 May 2017
QualityAssurance in Education
Vol.25 No. 3, 2017
pp.343-361
©Emerald Publishing Limited
0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/QAE-02-2016-0009
sustainable long-term business operations. We argue that internal marketing (IM) is an
important piece of the puzzle in their efforts to develop differentiation to achieve the
competitive advantage needed in today’s competitive market conditions. Although there are
various conceptualizations of IM provided in the literature, the main arguments for IM may
be summarized as to focus on coordination and motivation of the internal employees, who
service the external customers, to accomplish higher levels of customer orientation (Yildiz,
2014).
The IM concept has attracted signicant researcher and practitioner interests, especially
by the services organizations during the past two decades. The IM concept has emerged in
the marketing literature during the 1970s, and Berry’s (1981) notion that to have satised
customers, organizations should have the satised employees rst has started to receive
greater acceptance among the scholars. Researchers have suggested that competitive
advantage may be achieved through paying close attention to satisfying employee needs, so
that they could provide superior service to the external customers. Despite generating
increased debate among scholars until the 1990s, IM research has not been as extensive as
one would have expected. During the mid-1990s, renewed interest in the concept has been
surfaced with the introduction of an IM measurement scale by Foreman and Money (1995).
Additional scales focusing on employee motivation have also been offered to measure the IM
construct during the early years of 2000s. However, there is no consensus among scholars in
terms of the dimensionality of IM and how higher levels of employee focus would lead to
better customer focus (Ahmed et al., 2003). Some scholars viewed IM more broadly by
assuming that it included all factors to motivate and establish better relationships with the
employees (Ahmad et al., 2012;Berry, 1995;Cahill, 1995;Gummesson, 1991;Raq and
Ahmed, 2000), while others focused more the role of leaders in achieving IM (Wieseke et al.,
2009).
Although the existing IM scales include various items measuring employee retention
through motivation, the existing scale items do not incorporate information about employee
expectations, needs and motivations to fully measure IM construct. For instance, one of the
most frequently used scales to measure IM is the one developed by Foreman and Money
(1995). However, this scale mainly attempts to measure the motivation through vision,
training and rewards. We agree that these are important factors in the scope of IM, but they
do not incorporate individual employee expectations and needs. Motivation is a complex
concept, and it is known to include various economic, psycho-social, organizational and
managerial factors. For instance, Rynes et al. (2004) reported that money/pay raise is an
important motivator for most people. Similarly, psychological empowerment (Spreitzer,
1995) and equity (Adams, 1963) have been reported to be important workplace motivators.
Therefore, the objective of this study is to revisit the IM measurement and offer a revised
instrument (IM-11 Scale) for the services sector (higher educational institutions) that
captures the crucial elements of the IM construct. In general, organizations may be classied
into three broad categories according to their activities – manufacturing/production,
re-sellers and service organizations (Jansen et al., 2007). Because of the nature of their
activities, higher levels of customer contact is required in the service organizations, while
moderate and lower levels of customer interactions may take place in the re-sellers and
manufacturers, respectively (Chase and Tansik, 1983). As the fundamental philosophy of IM
is to motivate all employees to be more customer-centric, one could argue that the IM concept
is closely related to the service organizations where the highest levels of customer contact is
expected. Acknowledging the shift in marketing thought more towards the service-centered
dominant logic for all organizations (Vargo and Lusch, 2004), for the purposes of this study,
we mainly limit our focus to the services sector where the IM has the highest level
QAE
25,3
344
To continue reading
Request your trial