Sustainable Brand Management: The Role of Internal Brand Management and Intrinsic Motivation in Building Employee’s Brand Relationship Quality towards Organization’s Brand

Abstract

The current discussion about the brand is how to sustain it, and previous sustainable brand management studies consisting of an outside-in approach have been carried out. However, an inside-out approach that may help sustain the brand internally also plays a significant role towards brand sustainability, but limited studies explore it. Hence, underpinned by Social Exchange Theory, this study proposes a comprehensive model of sustainable brand management from an internal perspective, which depicts that internal brand management activities (i.e., communication, training, and leadership) and intrinsic motivation factors (i.e., job autonomy, competence, and relatedness) affect employee brand relationship quality of the organization’s brand. Data is collected from 499 staff from various Higher Education Institutions in Pakistan and assessed from structural equation modelling of Smart-PLS. The findings show that communication, training, competence, and relatedness positively affect employee brand relationship quality. At the same time, leadership and job autonomy do not affect employee brand relationship quality. Therefore, focusing on Knowledge Capital, Social Capital, and Emotional Capital is crucial in sustaining the brand from inside the organization via employees as the brand ambassador. This research also expands the Social Exchange theory by including an internal perspective on sustainable brand management.

1. Introduction

Developing sustainable brands have always been a challenging task for the organisation. For the development of sustainable brands, dynamic and holistic brand management is essential, especially in strengthening the relationship between customers and the brand [1]. Looking at the brand management discussion, most of the brand management strategies are based on an outside-in approach, i.e., branding to customers. However, an inside-out approach, or internal branding, i.e., branding to employees, is also important to consider as a holistic brand management strategy [2,3,4]. Internal branding is vital for organisations, as employees can deliver the brand promise to customers if they know and understand the brand value [5]. Hence, organisations need to ensure that employees show brand supporting behaviour and as brand ambassadors by incorporating the brand’s values in their work tasks. [6].

In 1998, Fournier [7] suggested the idea of the consumer–brand relationship, which opened a slew of new research avenues and stimulated the interest of academics. Interestingly, a relationship can be established between people and a brand [7,8]. Following Fournier’s report, several streams of research focused on various aspects of the consumer-brand relationship [9,10,11,12]. Over time, it became clear that developing concepts on the consumer–brand relationship had evolved from more attitudinal views such as commitment and loyalty to more specific constructs that qualify the brand relationship and brand sustainability [13]. But can the concept be extended to another context, such as the employee–organisation relationships and offer a parsimonious insight into brand sustainable strategies?

From a service context, an organisation tends to achieve a competitive advantage through brand management due to its intangibility nature. However, previous service organisations limit their focus to external customers for brand management. Still, now organisations are focusing on the internal customer, such as their employees too and sustaining competitive advantage by maintaining a balance between external and internal brand management. It has been argued that employees play a central role in delivering brand promises to customers [14,15]. Developing brand strength from the inside is crucial for sustaining and surviving the brand. This is because employees are the first point of contact when customers encounter a brand [16] and are at the heart of branding in brand delivery [17]. In each service sector, employees maintain the brand identity of an organisation and can present the brand image to customers [18], and they are responsible for delivering the brand promise to customers; ref. [19,20] also highlighted that a successful corporate brand relies on employees delivering brand promises. Understanding sustainable brand management in a mental stimulus type of service such as higher education is very crucial [9]. Education service is intangible and experiential. University and other service sectors strive to make employees committed to the brand, and this does not only apply to nonprofits [2], but to profit organizations, also [5]. In addition, Dennis et.al. [21] suggested that in order to highlight the organization’s brand further, universities and other organizations need to put more effort into building the elements of Brand Relationship Quality.

According to Burmann, Zeplin, and Riley [22], Internal Brand Management (IBM) is considered an effective way for organisations to succeed. However, there is still a need to explore IBM’s conceptual and operational aspects, which can contribute to the holistic view of brand management strategy. From the literature review, few researchers studied the concept of internal branding and found the impact of internal branding on employees’ behaviours in terms of brand performance, brand loyalty, and brand commitment [17,20,23,24]. However, research on its impact on employees’ intrinsic motivation, such as Employee brand relationship quality, is still scarce. Most research on the motivational factors of employees is related to extrinsic factors which motivate employees to do their tasks, which may either be a reward or a punishment. When employees are not intrinsically motivated, they are unable to put their efforts into the job, and they cannot be emotionally attached to organisational goals. Hence, intrinsic motivation is fundamental, but there is a lack of research on this aspect. Therefore, this research will investigate the role of internal brand management activities or IBM (i.e., communication, training, and leadership) and intrinsic motivational factors (i.e., job autonomy, competency, and relatedness) in increasing employee brand relationship quality towards the brand of their organisation.

1.1. The Emergence of the Employee Brand Relationship Concept

Brand love, as the underpinning theory of the customer-brand relationship, is the emotional attachment that a satisfied customer has for a brand [25,26]. And few studies explore and investigate how consumers form “like-dislike” attitudes toward brands. At the present time, though, researchers are paying attention to further exploring this concept of brand love in different contexts and magnitudes [27,28]. Brand intimacy, brand passion, and brand commitment are the three significant components of brand love, which correlate to the affective, conative, and cognitive aspects of consumer-brand relationships, respectively. Robert [29] expresses his keen interest in this field in his book Lovemarks, and also Bauer, Heinrich, and Albrecht [30], which show how the concept of brand love is widely used in advertising. Besides that, a few efforts also focus on establishing the dimensions and contents of brand love [25,26,31,32,33].

To sustain the brand’s success, an organisation must focus on both external (customer) as well as internal (employees) [34,35]. Especially in intangible service organisations, branding is successful if it is done inside out. External branding activities can manage how brands speak with their customers [36], whereas internal branding stresses employees’ vows to convey brand value through service experiences [37]. In the service sector, employees are the representative of an organisation as they give the brand message to consumers. However, little consideration is given to the employee’s point of view of brand love [38].

In addition, the employee–organisation relationship discussion, which determines the general environment under which human resource management activities are performed, has been less comprehensively studied. In every service sector, there must be a strong employee–organisation relationship which can cause employee commitment to the organisation and will result in the success of brand performance. According to [39,40], the employee–organisation relationship has consequences for the attitudes and actions of workers. Internal marketing and the theory of social exchange [41,42] offer a persuasive reason for expecting organisational citizenship behaviour to result from close relationships between workers and organisations and an independent working environment.

This study proposed outcomes based on social exchange theory to demonstrate the importance of employee brand relationship quality. Management researchers have widely applied the social exchange theory to explain employees’ positive attitudes and work performance within an organisation; moreover, it has also been used to describe reciprocity from employees’ perspectives when engaging with an organisation or contributing to efforts that do not necessarily work requirements [43,44,45].

In general, the concept of the consumer–brand relationship, which Fournier presented in 1998 [7], shows that humans can have a relationship with brands and employees in this context. In the employee–brand relationship development process, employees are the first point of contact when customers encounter a brand [16] and are at the heart of internal branding in brand delivery [17]. In line with the previous literature regarding internal branding, it is not justified if the concept of the brand relationship stays limited to external customers. Hence, there comes the emergence of the employee brand relationship concept.

1.2. Internal Brand Management Activities

Researchers [2,23,46,47] have paid increasing attention to internal brand management in recent years. Due to the rapid increase in literature on internal branding, internal branding has emerged in several ways and definitions. Although each definition has its specific focal point, several common themes have emerged from these definitions.

Firstly, internal branding is viewed as a process, a means, and a tool. For example, ref. [18,48] defines internal branding as a process in which employees build and maintain their relationships with the brand and align their job tasks with the delivery of brand promise. Researchers [22,24] argue that internal branding is a tool, or a means, through which the brand message is promoted to employees, and employees’ daily behaviour is aligned with brand values promised to external stakeholders. Secondly, internal branding is viewed from its strategic role. As such, internal branding aims to align employee behaviour with brand identity and values to deliver an organisation’s brand to its customers and other external stakeholders [24,49,50] and eventually build and sustain strong brands [18,22].

The third perspective is on the discussion of internal branding critical success programs. In general, employees’ brand knowledge, attitudes towards the brand, and behaviour related to the brand are three imperative focuses of internal branding programs [22,24,49,50,51]. Brand knowledge needs to be promoted inside the organisation first, and all employees need to be educated about the brand identity and values and what the company promises to customers so that internal and external brand messages are congruent. For the success of internal branding, brand understanding alone is not sufficient. It is necessary to ensure that the employees working in an organisation understand its brand and show commitment to it, often labelled as ‘brand buy-in’ or ‘brand identification. Moreover, internal branding programs must align employees’ understanding, dedication, and behaviour with the brand and thus consistently deliver brand promises to customers.

Fourthly, there is a discussion about the essential techniques and activities for managing the internal brand towards employee commitment [52] and employee performance [53]. Among the key techniques in managing internal brands discussed by previous scholars are internal brand communication and brand-related training [22,24] and managers’ leadership behaviours, e.g., [52,53,54]. Internal branding activities can make employees internalise brand values [55]. Activities such as advanced brand management practices and clear internal brand communication by management can increase employees’ knowledge and skills, which help them accomplish their tasks and develop internal brand bonding [56]. According to Burmann et al. [22], internal brand communication increases employees’ understanding of the brand, which can further increase their emotional attachment to the organisation. While training curriculum helps in integrating employee brand values into their jobs and affects the organisation’s branding performance [57]. In addition, Bono and Judge [58] explore the association between leadership and employee engagement through the self-concordance model. Hence, internal brand management techniques and activities, as described in the discussion, are consistent with Buil [59], which conceptualised as Internal Brand Communication, Brand Centered Training, and Transformational leadership. In a nutshell, employees are at the heart of internal branding, which aligns the employees’ behaviour with the brand values and consistently delivers brand promises to customers in an appropriate manner in their daily work as part of supporting sustaining the brand of the organisation.

1.3. Intrinsic Motivation Factors

Internalising the brand from the employees’ point of view requires intrinsically motivating human resource management activities, which can develop a sense of emotional attachment to the organisation and its brand [40,60]. Theoretically, self-determination theory claims that intrinsic motivation applies to workers doing things, and this is also important for organisations to have an opportunity for workers to acquire brand awareness to motivate and allow them to deliver the promise of the brand. The brand is reflected in the minds of employees who have close interaction with the customers and other external stakeholders [61].

While the idea behind internal branding is about aligning the attitudes, motivation, and actions of employees with the brand [17] since 1971, there has been an enormous amount of research on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors. Many studies prove that intrinsic motivation leads to better creativity, flexibility, and enhanced well-being than extrinsic motivation [62]. Previous research [63,64] found a link between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation with organisational commitment. However, there are limited studies that explore inherent motivation toward the success of internal brand management. Burmann and Zeplin [22] noted that if employees act in a conforming way, only then can brand experience be realised. For the efficient delivery of brand values and promise to customers, employees must be motivated and behave in a particular manner beyond their everyday tasks. Only after that can consumers feel the brand value and be connected with the brand [65]. According to Harris & De Chernatony [20], the positive attitude of employees towards the brand and intrinsically motivated employees can exhibit behavioural branding, and they perform their service efficiently.

This research is based on the Social Exchange Theory (SET), which anticipates that the behaviour of individuals is reciprocated in response to the rewards or the behaviour of others. Therefore, SET represents a perspective of social exchange based on the perception of reciprocal relationships [9]. Hence, the present research framework is best viewed through the SET as it assumes that towards an organisation’s brand sustainability, employees’ brand relationship quality is affected by internal brand management activities and by intrinsic motivational factors. The social exchange theory proposes that a psychological link is developed between employees and brands if they are provided with benefits [41], such as internal brand management activities and intrinsic motivation. Employee behaves in favour of a brand of the organisation if management care about the well-being of employees [66], deals well with employees, and give benefits to employees [67]. Sally et al. [68] also identified the social exchange between brand-supporting behaviour and employee affective commitment. In addition, Terglav et al. [69] also found that there are exchange and reciprocal nature of brand-oriented leadership that helps in strengthening employee brand commitment. Wang, Ryan, and Yang [43] show in their research that employees can develop a love for the brand they work for through social exchange. Similarly, Suomi et al. [70] anticipated that there is a link between employee engagement and internal branding. Hence, recent research is focused on brand love, brand supporting behaviour, employee engagement and employee brand commitment, but how employee relationship quality towards an organisation’s brand is built via a social exchange lens are still unexplored.

Self-determination theory (SDT) as a macro theory of motivation is also the supporting theory in this research framework. It indicates that the first motivation for workers to recognise and embrace the company’s brand worth from the internal environment is created by leaders [62,71]. Employees are the individuals who render service to the customers, so the first brand should be recognised by the organisation’s employees, and after that, it can be delivered to customers. Self Determination Theory has been widely used by researchers on consumer brand behaviour outcomes. Some past researchers also explore the relationship of individuals with the brand communities, e.g., [72]. These researchers extended the SDT concept of internalisation, which Deci and Ryan [73] provided in 1985 and SET, as depicted in Figure 1, to explore its prediction toward sustaining the internal brand management agenda. Thomson [74] showed in his research that a person feels more attached to the brand whenever the feeling of autonomy and relatedness is enhanced. Research by Loroz and Braig [75] showed that for brand attachment, the need for competence is more important. In line with these researchers, Hsieh and Chang [76] showed that autonomy, competence and relatedness foster brand co-creation engagement. Hence, this research use self-determination theory to explore the relationship of basic psychological needs (i.e., job autonomy, competence, and relatedness) with employee brand relationship quality.

1.4. Communication and Employee Brand Relationship Quality (H1)

Internal brand management activities involve internal brand communications through which employee knowledge about the brand promise and brand value is enhanced [4]. Till now, most of the research on branding higher education is focused on communication with external customers, i.e., students [77]. Brand values diffuse from the top down in the company from the marketing and relations-based viewpoint by formally transmitting the brand values through the use of internal communications, training, and growth programs [78]. Research by Punjaisri & Wilson [79] linked communication with brand-related outcomes such as employee brand commitment and brand loyalty. In general, communication helps in reducing ambiguity and makes the brand messages clear to employees. If internal brand communication is well managed, it helps in making employees committed to the organisation [80]. Internal brand communication also helps in rebranding strategies in the higher education sector [77]. This research also proposes that:

H1. 

Communication positively influences Employee Brand Relationship Quality.

1.5. Training and Employee Brand Relationship Quality (H2)

The well-coordinated training curriculum is aimed at helping employees integrate brand values into their jobs and provides a framework for having a tremendous effect on the organisation’s branding performance [57]. According to Zeithaml et al. [81], the company should do activities such as training, rewarding, and motivating, and providing equipment by which employees’ abilities increase to make employees able to deliver the brand promise. The previous study indicates that training stimulates employee abilities and passes mechanisms to facilitate a positive work attitude [82]. In the higher education context, Hanaysha in 2016 proved that exercise helps in increasing employee productivity. Training programs also backed employees toward brand performance [83]. Through brand-related training, employees feel connected to the brand, develop love and passion for the brand and will be committed to it. Recent research by Sujchaphong et al. [84] proclaimed that brand-centred training plays an important role in building employee brand support. Therefore, this research also claims that training influences employee brand relationship quality and proposes that:

H2. 

Training positively influences Employee Brand Relationship Quality.

1.6. Leadership and Employee Brand Relationship Quality (H3)

Leadership plays a significant role in management, and it can increase the strength of relationships with employees. Specifically, transformational leadership has been proved as an antecedent of employee brand-related outcomes. According to Epitropaki & Martin [85], a transformational leader always cares for employees’ higher order needs and always motivates them. It causes employees to perform better in jobs [86] and to behave consistently with brand identity [18]. Past researchers have linked managers’ leadership behaviours to employee motivation [54], employees’ commitment [52], and employee performance [53]. Leadership plays an important role in internal branding and in making employees emotionally attached to the brand of the organisation. Moreover, there exist many pieces of research which prove that leadership has a positive and significant impact on employee brand fit [87]. Recent research by Jung et al. [34], which is based on the social exchange theory, found that leader-member exchange affects the employee brand relationship. Hence, this research proposes that:

H3. 

Transformational Leadership positively influences Employee Brand Relationship Quality.

1.7. Job Autonomy and Employee Brand Relationship Quality (H4)

Job autonomy is an important feature of job design that strongly influences people’s psychological states, and it makes people responsible for their job outcomes [88]. Autonomy can meet the higher-order needs of teachers for the sense of obligation, self-esteem, development, and accomplishment, resulting in improved work satisfaction, organisational participation, and confidence [73,89,90]. It shows that job autonomy has a direct link with commitment which can develop the relationship between employees and the organisation. They also found that certain job features have indirect impacts on the intentions of faculty turnover (via job satisfaction and commitment). Previous studies, e.g., [91], show that job autonomy is significant in causing organisational citizenship behaviour. In the context of the higher education sector, job autonomy results in increased creativity and job satisfaction in employees. According to Thies and Serratt [92], when faculty members are provided with job autonomy, then a positive environment is developed, and the faculty members remain attached to the organisation. Hence, job autonomy causes favourable job attitudes and makes employees committed to the organisation. Recent research by Nguyen et al. [14] found that job autonomy is positively linked with employee engagement. Therefore, based on the findings of previous studies, this study proposes that:

H4. 

Job Autonomy positively influences Employee Brand Relationship Quality.

1.8. Competency and Employee Brand Relationship Quality (H5)

‘Competency’ encompasses all the traits which allow employees to perform the job tasks well [93]. It can be referred to as the ability by which employees are able to do their job well. It increases the efficiency of work done. Many researchers linked competency with organisational commitment. Lotunani et al. [94], proved that Competency positively impacts an employee’s affective commitment. It shows that when employees have all the skills to perform a job well, meaning they have the competency, then employees will be more committed to the organisation. Burman and Zeplin [22] linked organisational commitment to brand commitment. A person who has competency in a job tends to stick to the job, perform well, and be brand committed. Many researchers have linked competency with other brand-related outcomes such as brand performance and brand attachment [35]. Recent research by Gill et al. [95] proved that competency is one of the needs which can predict optimal human functioning. Loroz & Braig [75] identified competence as an essential psychological need that is needed for the development of strong brand attachment. Therefore, this study also proposes that:

H5. 

Competency positively influences Employee Brand Relationship Quality.

1.9. Relatedness and Employee Brand Relationship Quality (H6)

Self Determination Theory proposes that the three psychological needs are universal. However, some cultural relativists, e.g., [96], have raised concern that due to cultural differences, in certain societies where interpersonal harmony is more valued, the need for autonomy would be insignificant, while the need for relatedness would be of greater importance. Research has provided evidence that securely attached individuals tend to have psychological well-being [97], while insecurely attached individuals tend to have more psychological illness [98], which resembles the consequences of psychological needs dissatisfaction in the context of SDT. Morhart et al. [65], in their study using SDT, demonstrated that when employees are motivated based on role identity internalisation, they are more likely to deliver both in-role and extra-role behaviours supporting the brand. Such an internalisation mechanism is enabled through brand-specific transformational leadership, which satisfies employees’ psychological needs for relatedness to the brand community, role identity competence, and role identity autonomy. Research by Loroz & Braig [75] claimed that relatedness is one of the important psychological needs in developing strong brand attachments. Hence in line with past researchers, this research proposes that:

H6. 

Relatedness positively influences Employee Brand Relationship Quality.

2. Materials and Methods

This research maintains a positive and hypothetical-deductive paradigm stance that emphasises on to test the concept of sustainable internal brand management via investigation of the relationship between Internal Brand Management and Intrinsic Motivation towards employee brand relationship quality, focusing on Universities in Pakistan. The Higher Education context of this study is aligned with Hashim et al. [9], who claimed that education had become one of the service categories that capture the fundamental function of the service-dominant view and brand management. However, the population of the present study is quite big because it consists of employees of 214 universities in Pakistan. Considering this huge population as a challenge, the stratified proportion sampling technique (public and private) was used to maintain a balance representation of the population in the sample. Hence, a sample of 600 employees is drawn from various universities in Pakistan, including both public and private universities. This research is correlational in nature, and self-administered questionnaires will be used to collect data. Data is collected from November 2021 to March 2022 The 5-point Likert scale of the self-administered questionnaire is adapted from previous scholars as depicted in

Table 1. Questionnaire Development.

Code	Variables/Items	Source	Alpha
	Employee brand relationship quality
EBRQ 1	I am very committed to my relationship with the university.	Adopted from Hashim et al. (2012) [25]	0.961
EBRQ 2	I intend to maintain this relationship indefinitely
EBRQ 3	The relationship that I have with the university deserves my maximum effort to maintain it.
EBRQ 4	I feel a strong sense of belonging to the university.
EBRQ 5	I feel happy when I am working at the university.
EBRQ 6	I never get bored working at the university.
EBRQ 7	I find myself always thinking about visiting the university every day.
EBRQ 8	I have warm feelings about the university
EBRQ 9	I like the university
EBRQ 10	I feel close to the university
	Internal Brand Management
COM 1	The university communicates the corporate brand values to employees.	Adapted from Buil et al. (2016) [59]	0.885
COM 2	The university communicates brand values to my colleagues and me through internal mass communications, for example, newsletters, memos and brochures.
COM 3	The university communicates brand values to me via informal channels (e.g., meetings, briefings, presentations, etc.).
TRA 1	The university delivers brand values through training activities.	Adapted from Buil et al. (2016) [59]	0.937
TRA 2	The university’s employees attend workshops to learn about the objectives and characteristics of the brand.
TRA 3	The university provides training activities which are related to brand value.
LEAD 1	My supervisor communicates a clear and positive vision of the future.	Adopted from Buil et al. (2016) [59]	0.969
LEAD 2	My supervisor treats staff as individuals and supports and encourages their development.
LEAD 3	My supervisor gives encouragement and recognition to staff.
LEAD 4	My supervisor fosters trust, involvement, and cooperation among team members.
LEAD 5	My supervisor encourages thinking about problems in new ways and questions assumptions.
LEAD 6	My supervisor is clear about his/her values and practices what he/she preaches.
LEAD 7	My supervisor instils pride and respect in others and inspires me by being highly competent
	Intrinsic Motivation Factors
JA 1	The tasks I have to do at work are in line with what I really want to do.	Adopted from Van den Broeck et al., 2010 [100]	0.81
JA 2	At work, I often feel like I have to follow other people’s commands (R).
JA 3	I feel like I can be myself at my job.
JA 4	If I could choose, I would do things at work differently (R).
JA 5	In my job, I feel forced to do things I do not want to do (R).
JA 6	I feel free to do my job the way I think it could best be done
COMP 1	I really master my tasks at my job	Adopted from Van den Broeck et al., 2010 [100]	0.85
COMP 2	I don’t really feel competent in my job (R)
COMP 3	I feel competent at my job
COMP 4	I doubt whether I am able to execute my job properly (R)
COMP 5	I have the feeling that I can even accomplish the most difficult tasks at work
COMP 6	I am good at the things I do in my job
REL 1	I don’t really feel connected with other people at my job (R).	Adopted from Van den Broeck et al., 2010 [100]	0.82
REL 2	At work, I feel part of a group.
REL 3	I don’t mix with other people at my job (R).
REL 4	At work, I can talk with people about things that matter to me.
REL 5	I often feel alone when I am with my colleagues (R).
REL 6	Some people I work with are close friends of mine

Note: EBRQ (Employee Brand Relationship Quality), COM (Communication), TRA (Training), LEAD (Leadership), JA (Job autonomy), COMP (Competence), REL (Relatedness).

to establish a better identification and association in the proposed framework. The minimal interference instrument passed the content, construct and criterion-related validity suggested by Hair et al. [99].

3. Results

In total, there were 600 questionnaires given to a proportionate stratified random sampling of public and private universities across a few universities in Pakistan. However, only 499 filled questionnaires were used for analysis, so the response rate was 83.1%, as depicted in

Table 2. Sample Respondent Profile (N = 499).

Variable	Category	Frequency Distribution	Percentage
Age	Below 30	64	12.82%
	31–40	141	28.26%
	41–50	169	33.87%
	Above 50	125	25.05%
Gender	Male	325	65.13%
	Female	174	34.87%
Sector	Public	275	55.11%
	Private	224	44.89%

. Most of them were males (65.13%) aged between 41 and 50 (33.87%). In respect to the respondents’ sector, 55.11% were from Public Universities while 44.89% were from private universities.

Next, the data is analyzed through PLS-SEM techniques and have significant reliability for the measurement model. As depicted in

Table 3. Convergent Validity and Reliability results.

Constructs	Study Items	Factor Loadings	Cronbach’s Alpha	CR	AVE
Communication	Com_1 Com_2 Com_3	0.881 0.931 0.931	0.909	0.939	0.837
Competence	Comp_1 Comp_2 Comp_3 Comp_5	0.555 0.861 0.885 0.586	0.709	0.821	0.544
Employee Brand Relationship Quality	EBRQ_3 EBRQ_4 EBRQ_5 EBRQ_6 EBRQ_8 EBRQ_9 EBRQ_10	0.711 0.702 0.822 0.652 0.768 0.543 0.765	0.838	0.878	0.510
Job Autonomy	JA_1 JA_2 JA_3 JA_4 JA_5 JA_6	0.773 0.783 0.537 0.795 0.894 0.703	0.845	0.887	0.571
Leadership	Lead_1 Lead_2 Lead_3 Lead_4 Lead_5 Lead_6 Lead_7	0.898 0.940 0.960 0.953 0.952 0.938 0.919	0.977	0.981	0.879
Relatedness	Rel_1 Rel_2 Rel_3 Rel_5 Rel_6	0.947 0.365 0.952 0.892 0.650	0.839	0.887	0.631
Training	Tra_1 Tra_2 Tra_3	0.976 0.966 0.987	0.976	0.984	0.954

, the values of Cronbach alpha and CR are greater than 0.7, which shows the consistency among multiple measurements of constructs [99]. Also, the values of AVE are also exceeding the recommended value of 0.5, which indicates sufficient convergence validity of the proposed measurement items [101]. Moreover, the range of square root of the AVE values is between 0.714 to 0.976 and, higher than any correlation with the construct. On the other hand, loading values indicated that the measurement items were above the recommended value for loading > 0.5, as suggested by Hair et al. [99]. Thus, all the measurements had a satisfactory level of reliability. In addition, for Fornell and Larcker’s discriminate validity criteria, the correlations between the constructs, on the other hand, were represented as off-load diagonal elements, which signifies the fulfilment of discriminate validity (

Table 4. Discriminant Validity of constructs.

	CM	C	EBRQ	JA	L	R	T
Communication (CM)	0.915
Competence (C)	0.360	0.738
EBRQ	0.053	0.526	0.714
Job Autonomy (JA)	0.717	0.640	0.309	0.756
Leadership (L)	0.869	0.517	0.194	0.792	0.937
Relatedness (R)	0.603	0.645	0.367	0.696	0.620	0.795
Training (T)	0.894	0.355	0.126	0.780	0.837	0.538	0.976

).

To analyze the predictive capabilities of constructs and to evaluate the association between the constructs of a structural model, as shown in Figure 1, p values and t values and coefficient of determination (R²) are evaluated [102]. For the significance of path coefficient values, bootstrapping with the sample of 5000 is incorporated. Both t values and p values are evaluated, as shown in

Table 5. Results of structural Model.

H	Relationship	Path	Std Dev	t-Value	p-Value	Decision	Ad R2
H1	Communication → EBRQ	−0.577	0.216	2.718	0.003	Supported **	0.327
H2	Training → EBRQ	0.323	0.169	1.931	0.027	Supported *
H3	Leadership → EBRQ	0.086	0.128	0.687	0.246	Not supported
H4	Job Autonomy → EBRQ	−0.048	0.091	0.548	0.292	Not supported
H5	Competence → EBRQ	0.462	0.065	6.888	0.000	Supported **
H6	Relatedness → EBRQ	0.222	0.106	2.134	0.017	Supported *

Research Hypotheses Significant at ** p ≤ 0.01, * p < 0.05.

and Figure 2. The results show that H1, H2, H5, and H6 are supported by the data, whereas H3 and H4 are not significant at a 10% level of significance. The results also revealed that Competence and Relatedness as Intrinsic Motivation Factors were a stronger predictor of Employees Brand Relationship Quality (t value = 6.888; 2.134) than Internal Brand Management activities such as Communication (t = 2.718) and Training (t = 1.931). The structural model also has significant predictive accuracy (R²), which achieved 0.327 adjusted R² for the Endogenous Variable of EBRQ, suggesting that Internal Brand Management activities and Intrinsic Motivation Factors indicated the 32.7% variance in Employee’s Brand Relationship Quality of their organization/university brand.

4. Discussion

In this research, a holistic model of employee brand relationships is proposed and tested based on the assumption of the Social Exchange Theory. The present research framework suggests that employee brand relationship is positively affected by Internal Brand Management activities (communication, training, and leadership) and Intrinsic Motivation Factors (job autonomy, competence, and relatedness). The conceptualisation in this paper seeks to expand Social exchange theory from two aspects: organisational (Internal Brand management activities) and individual (Intrinsic Motivation Factors). Hence, when employees are getting positive things from the organisation through training, communication, and leadership, they will behave positively. Ultimately, their relationship quality with the brand will be strengthened. Research by Punjaisri & Wilson [79] linked communication with brand-related outcomes such as employee brand commitment and brand loyalty. This study shows that communication affects employee brand relationship quality in a negative direction. The data is collected from the employees of the Higher education institutions in Pakistan, and according to the result, the increase in communication leads to a decrease in EBRQ. Hence, Higher Education Institutions in Pakistan should have more improved ways of communication, which will be able to build employee brand relationship quality. Recent research by Sujchaphong et al. [84] proclaimed that brand-centred training and development activities play an essential role in building employee brand support. The current study results show that training positively affects brand relationship quality. Leadership plays an important role in internal branding and in making employees emotionally attached to the brand of the organisation, and there exists a significant relationship between brand leadership and employee brand fit [87]. Recent research by Jung et al. [34], which is based on the social exchange theory, found that leader-member exchange affects the employee brand relationship. At the same time, the present research does not confirm the impact of leadership on employee brand relationship quality.

The model presented in this research also proposes that when employees are intrinsically motivated in job autonomy, competence, and relatedness, their brand relationship quality will be enhanced. Previous studies, e.g., ref. [91], show that job autonomy is significant in causing organisational citizenship behaviour. Hence, job autonomy causes favourable job attitudes and makes employees committed to the organisation. Recent research by Nguyen et al. [14] found that job autonomy is positively linked with employee engagement. However, the findings from the current study do not show an impact of job autonomy on employee brand relationship quality. The result shows that in building EBRQ, other factors are more important for the employees of HEIs in Pakistan. Recent research by Gilal et al. [95] proved that competency is one of the needs to predict optimal human functioning. Loroz & Braig [75] identified competence as an important psychological need needed for developing strong brand attachment. The results of the current research prove that competence has a significant impact on employee brand relationship quality. Research by Loroz & Braig [75] claimed that relatedness is one of the important psychological needs in the development of strong brand attachment. Also, in line with past researchers, this research proves that relatedness positively impacts employee brand relationship quality. Hence, Training, Communication, Competence, and Relatedness are found to affect Brand Relationship Quality for the employees of higher education institutions in Pakistan. At the same time, this study does not find a significant effect of Leadership and Job autonomy on Employee Brand Relationship Quality.

The results also revealed that Competence and Relatedness as Intrinsic Motivation Factors were a stronger predictor of Employees Brand Relationship Quality than Internal Brand Management activities such as Communication and Training. These findings confirm that autonomous motivation is more important than controlled motivation [103]. Autonomous motivation is an employee’s own intrinsic motivation which makes them attached to a brand and hence increases brand relationship quality. In comparison, controlled motivation comes from external factors such as management behaviour with employees. The Self-determination Theory has identified a distinction between these two types of motivation [104]. Hence, the most important finding of this research is that it proves that autonomous motivation is far more important than any other type of motivation.

5. Conclusions

As conclusion, this study expands knowledge in the field of brand relationship quality by providing a framework from the employee’s perspective. Organisations need to focus on human capital for sustainable branding. Human capital causes good performance of organisations [105]. It consists of Social capital, Knowledge capital and emotional capital. Social capital refers to all the resources attached to and can be obtained from the relationships owned by a social unit or individual [106]. Emotional capital consists of employee risk-bearing ability, determination, and resilience. Employees with positive emotional capital can make the work environment positive, which helps in better performance and satisfaction [107,108,109]. Knowledge capital refers to employees’ specialised skills and knowledge, which helps them perform their jobs. Furthermore, this study presents intrinsic motivation factors as antecedents of employee brand relationship quality. Organisations should take measures to ensure that employees are intrinsically motivated.

This research has both theoretical contributions and practical implications. This research expands social exchange theory from individual perspective. Results shows that when employees are motivated intrinsically, they tend to have stronger relationship quality with the brand in exchange. Recent research also supports that intrinsic motivation accelerates employee positive behavior and helps in making strong relation with their supervisor and ultimately with the organization [110]. In organizations, employers tend to keep the employee motivated because employees maintain the brand identity of an organisation and can present brand image to customers [18] and deliver brand promise [20]. The results of the present research show that, the most important motivation for employees is intrinsic motivation. Hence, the employer needs to work on the factors that may increase employees’ intrinsic motivation.

However, this research is not free from limitations and has some directions for future research. In this research, social exchange theory is extended from two perspectives; individual (intrinsic motivation factors) and organizational (internal brand management activities); whereas the third perspective that is socio-economical needs to researched. Our findings have limitations that prevent generalization to the world context. However, looking from the Pakistan context, it provides an insight to the other countries that have similar socio-cultural context as Pakistan. Furthermore, this research is limited to the higher education sector only, hence it can be replicated to other service sectors to find out what factor is more important for employee brand relationship quality.