The Relationship Between Personal Branding And Career Success: A Case .

Ogutu & Ougo though still communicating that one is a positive fit with the company culture (Morgan, 2011). Promoting yourself and seeing yourself as a brand is the core principle of personal branding. It is not an activity which is done spontaneously or when you want to achieve something specific but is actually a way of life. According to (Wee et al., 2010), personal branding means projecting a consistently distinctive personality in all one‟s interactions and that personal branding tactics are therefore effectively promotional techniques. Jones et al. (1982) posit that care should be taken when applying impression management schemes as it also involves the danger possibility that this would be observed destructively on behalf of each anticipated outcome. Individuals engaging in the self-promotion techniques seek to create an impression of competence (Turnley et al., 2001). This strategy, allows individuals to play up their abilities and accomplishments because they want target audiences to see them as competent (Jones et al., 1982). Users of this strategy will give positive performance accounts of themselves by trying to get people to think they are capable, intelligent, or talented. This strategy however often entails significant risks to the user, as target audiences may either discount the claims or simply view such individuals as conceited and arrogant rather than as competent and accomplished (Sosik et al., 2003). The ingratiation technique on the other hand is a strategy to brand someone as more attractive and likeable to others. The goal is to get the others to like you. It is used when individuals want to construct an identity of being likeable (Jones, 1990). The idea being people tend to like those who agree with them, say good things about them, and do favors for them. It is however important to note that ingratiation can be accomplished through imitation, flattery, doing favors for others, and displaying positive personal characteristics (Jones, 1990). Indeed individuals can encourage positive feelings with their audiences through such communicative activities as agreement, flattery, compliments, compassion, and reciprocity (Gardner et al., 1998). Successful use of ingratiation helps increase feelings of familiarity by audiences, encourages reciprocity and can actually be a binding and unifying force (Rosenfeld et al. 1995). Ingratiation can backfire if it is too blatant. If the target audience knows you are trying to manipulate them, they may come to distrust or dislike you. Rosenfeld et al. (1995) warn that ingratiation is not a prescriptive solution for achieving likeability, rather it requires certain deftness on the part of the individual, or else he or she may appear manipulative and insincere. However, most people want to believe they are likable and are liked by others and are therefore disinclined to believe that a show of admiration or affection from others is inauthentic or derives from an ulterior motive (Jones et al., 1973). For this reason, ingratiation if used subtly is often a highly successful tactic. Licensed under Creative Common Page 286

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom With exemplification strategies, persons will attempt to create an identity of dedication, sacrifice, commitment, moral worthiness, reliability, selflessness, and integrity (Jones, 1990). Individuals employing this strategy try to appear as if they are willing to suffer for a cause. They attempt to create the impression that they are morally superior, virtuous, or righteous. This is usually portrayed by exaggerating the degree to which one has suffered poor treatment at the hands of others or even endured excessive hardships. Rosenfeld et al. (1995) explain that exemplifiers try to influence and control through inducing guilt or attributions of virtue. However, individuals who regularly engage in exemplification risk being perceived as hypocritical by others (Jones, 1990). Jones (1990) advises individuals keen on using this strategy to find relevant contexts where it makes sense to demonstrate exemplary actions. In supplication, individuals attempt to gain sympathy from their target by disclosing shortcomings. They undervalue themselves through modesty, they publicly exaggerate their weaknesses, deficiencies, incompetence and frailties and often behaving humbly in a bid to get what they want. Rosenfeld et al. (1995) describe it as the art of looking incompetent for the greater gain without permanently damaging one‟s reputation. According to (Jones, 1990), individuals using this tactic will call attention to their weaknesses in hopes that rules governing superior-subordinate relationships will obligate others to feel more kindly and forgiving toward them. Jones (1990) cautions that this tactic is most effective when there is some chance of reciprocity; otherwise it may discourage potential benefactors from offering support. Rosenfeld et al., (1995) add that users of this strategy run the risk of appearing incompetent. Intimidation is a strategy used to construct an identity of authority. Individuals employing this tactic want to project attributes of danger and elicit fearful respect from their audiences (Jones, 1990). Rosenfeld et al. (1995) however opine that individuals employing this strategy run the risk of believing that their actions are liked and accepted when in fact they are loathed and detested. Jones (1990) posits that while individuals employing this strategy may get their way by projecting a capacity and being viewed as tough, powerful, or ruthless, they rarely become endearing in the process. Career Success Mirvis et al. (1994) defined career success as an individual‟s experience of achieving goals that are personally meaningful. The accumulation of achievements arising from these work experiences therefore is career success (Judge et al., 1995). Career success has both objective and subjective components (Breland et al., 2007). Objective career success includes lateral factors such as increased job security, longer vacations while hierarchical factors includes components such as promotion and different job title (Nabi, 1999). According to (Judge et al., Licensed under Creative Common Page 287

Ogutu & Ougo 1995), career success results from achieving objective career success. Gattiker et al. (1986) add that it is more of an internal perspective that refers to an individual's own disposition for development in a chosen occupation or profession. According to (Hall et al., 2005)as a result of the dynamism at the work place individuals are expected to self-manage their own careers for success. Indeed an individuals‟ career progression is ultimately their responsibility (De Vos et al., 2013).There exist empirical findings to the effect that personal branding tactics can have an impact on an individual career success (Bolino et al., 2003).Career management promotes individuals‟ perceptions of control over their careers, which subsequently leads to career success (Raabe et al., 2007). Given career self-management is related to individuals‟ proactive behaviors and self-control (Raabe et al., 2007), individual‟s proactive personality and selfcontrol are the indicators of career success (Prabhu, 2013). Proactive employees therefore are likely to engage in improvement opportunities and innovative behaviors that are significantly related to career success (Owens, 2009). Conceptual Framework Personal branding entails capturing and promoting an individual‟s strengths and uniqueness to a target audience. The focus in the conceptual framework is on five dimensions which are selfpromotion, supplication, exemplification, ingratiation and intimidation This study focuses on the best practices to create and manage a professional self-image in order to achieve career success. In the conceptual framework, independent variables of self-promotion, supplication, exemplification, ingratiation and intimidation will have an effect on the dependent variable career success. Individuals will try and use these strategies for career progression. Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Personal Branding Tactics Ingratiation Self-Promotion Exemplificatio n Intimidation Career Success Supplication Licensed under Creative Common Page 288

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Design Cross sectional research design was adopted in determining personal branding dimensions that have an effect on career success among employees at Geothermal Development Company in Kenya. Population In this study the target population will be composed of all employees at Geothermal Development Company in Kenya estimated at 983 as summarized in appendix II. Sample Design In this survey, the sampling frame consisted of GDC employees. Krejcie et al., (1970) approach on determination of sample size was used to determine the number of employees who formed the sample size of 278 respondents. This method is commonly used to estimate sample size in research (Chua et. al., 2006) and is ideal for a defined finite population (Hashim, 2010). Both proportional and random sampling techniques were used to select a total of 278 respondents. Data Collection Instrument A closed ended survey questionnaire administered by research assistants was used to collect primary data. Personal branding tactics were measured by a scale taken from Bolino et al., (1999), based on the classification system proposed by Jones et al., (1982). The taxonomy in the questionnaire included self-promotion, supplication, exemplification, ingratiation and intimidation. Career success was measured using the scale adapted from Gattiker et al., (1986) 8 – item job success dimensions. All Likert scale items for variables considered were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree). Reliability Test Cronbach‟s (1951) alpha coefficient was used as a quality indicator of the scale items. The reliability coefficient for the 31 items in the data collection instrument was found to be 0.863 which is within the minimum acceptable threshold of 0.70 as recommended (Hair et al., 2006). Data Analysis Approach Testing Assumptions of Multivariate Analyses Statistical assumptions of normality were checked using the numerical approach to ensure that all variables were normally distributed (Park, 2008). Skewness and kurtosis critical ratios Licensed under Creative Common Page 289

Ogutu & Ougo (ZSkewness Skewness Statistic / Standard Errorand ZKurtosis Kurtosis Statistic / Standard Error) for each scale variable were computed (Tabachnick et al., 2007). Absolute Zscore values greater than 1.96 at p 0.05 were significant and indicated substantial departure from normality (Ghasemi, et al., 2012). Non-normal variables were transformed and critical ratios further reassessed. Inferential Analysis In determining the significance of personal branding among employees a chi square test was undertaken. A p – value 0.05 was considered significant. Multiple linear regression analysis was undertaken to determine the relationship between personal branding and career success. First, the goodness of fit results were examined with the coefficient of determination R2 representing the degree of explanation of the dependent variable by the predictors. This was followed by an assessment of the overall model by examining the F-ratio in the ANOVA results. A p – value 0.05 meant that the model was statistically significant (Haynes, 2010). Beta coefficients, t – values and p – values of each of the predictor variables were examined for their statistical significance. A predictor with a p – value 0.05 was considered statistically significant. STUDY RESULTS Descriptive Statistics Results on Study Variables This section presents results on descriptive statistics of all variables in the study. The study targeted 278 GDC employees. Of the 278 questionnaires administered, 176 were collected accounting for 63.3 percent response rate. Included are results on personal branding, selfpromotion, supplication, exemplification, ingratiation and intimidation and career success. Importance of Personal Branding In measuring this factor one likert scale item was used. Respondents rated on a 5 point likert scale their degree of agreement with the statement provided. The results are presented in Table 1 below. Table 1: Importance of Personal Branding Scale Item Personal branding is important Licensed under Creative Common SD 3.39 D 11.86 U 5.08 A 47.46 SA 32.20 Mean 3.93 Std. Deviation 1.076 Page 290

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom The overall mean response score of 3.93 was 3.00 indicating a tendency toward a favourable response. Generally, respondents viewed their context as being favourable with 79.66% of them in agreement, 15.25% of respondents did not agree while 5.08% were undecided. Self Promotion In measuring this factor four likert scale items were used to determine the influence of selfpromotion on career success. Respondents rated on a 5 point likert scale their degree of agreement with statements provided. The results are presented in Table 2below. Table 2: Self Promotion Scale Item I talk proudly about my experience or education I make people aware of my talents or qualifications I let others know that I am valuable to the organization I make people aware of your accomplishments Overall Mean SD D U A SA Mean Std. Deviation 11.86 22.03 5.93 43.22 16.95 3.31 1.312 8.47 21.19 11.86 48.31 10.17 3.31 1.166 9.32 15.25 17.80 42.37 15.25 3.39 1.191 8.47 19.49 11.86 45.76 14.41 3.38 1.198 3.35 All the likert scale items had a mean response score 3.00 indicating a tendency toward favourable responses. The highly rated item was “I let others know that I am valuable to the organization” with a mean response score of 3.39 with 57.62% of respondents in agreement. 24.57% of respondents did not agree while 17.80 were undecided. Generally, respondents viewed their context as being favourable with an overall mean response score of 3.4. Ingratiation In measuring this factor four likert scale items were used to determine the influence of ingratiation. Respondents were asked to rate on a 5 point likert scale the influence of ingratiation on career success by indicating the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements provided. Results are presented in Table 3. Licensed under Creative Common Page 291

Ogutu & Ougo Table 3: Ingratiation Scale Item I compliment my colleagues so they will see me as likeable I take an interest in my colleagues personal lives to show them that I‟m friendly I praise my colleagues for their accomplishments so that they will consider me a nice person I do personal favours for my colleagues to show them that I‟m a friendly person Overall Mean SD D U A SA Mean Std. Deviation 16.95 33.90 20.34 21.19 7.63 2.69 1.203 22.03 37.29 16.10 19.49 5.08 2.48 1.182 17.80 41.53 16.95 16.95 6.78 2.53 1.167 32.20 30.51 16.10 18.64 2.54 2.29 1.177 2.50 All the likert scale items had a mean response score 3.00 indicating a tendency toward unfavourable responses. The highly rated item was “I compliment my colleagues so they will see me as likeable” with a mean response score of 2.69 with 28.82% of respondents in agreement. 50.85% of respondents did not agree while 20.34% were undecided. Generally, respondents viewed their context as being unfavourable with a mean response score of 2.50. The implication being respondents did not favour ingratiation as a strategy to influence career success. Exemplification In measuring this factor four likert scale items were used to determine the influence of exemplification. The respondents were asked to rate on a 5 point likert scale the influence of exemplification on career success by indicating the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements provided. Results presented in Table 4 below show that all the likert scale items had a mean response score 3.00 indicating a tendency toward unfavourable responses. The highly rated item was “I arrive at work early to look dedicated” with a mean response score of 2.25 with 22.80% of respondents in agreement. 67.00% of respondents did not agree while 10.20% were undecided. Generally, respondents viewed their context as being unfavourable with a mean response score of 1.92. The implication being respondents did not favour exemplification as a tactic to influence career success. Licensed under Creative Common Page 292

International Journal of Economics, Commerce and Management, United Kingdom Table 4: Exemplification SD D U A SA Mean Std. Deviation 45.8 44.1 5.1 2.5 2.5 1.72 .876 38.1 36.4 13.6 7.6 4.2 2.03 1.101 35.6 31.4 10.2 18.6 4.2 2.25 1.240 55.1 31.4 9.3 .8 3.4 1.66 .936 Scale Item I stay late at work so people will know I‟m hard working I try to appear busy even at times when things appear slower I arrive at work early to look dedicated I come to the office at night or weekends to show that I‟m dedicated Overall Mean 1.92 Intimidation In measuring this factor four likert scale items were used to determine the influence of intimidation. The respondents were asked to rate on a 5 point likert scale the influence of intimidation on career success by indicating the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements provided. Results presented in Table 5 below show that all the likert scale items had a mean response score 3.00 indicating a tendency toward unfavourable responses. The highly rated item was “I deal strongly or aggressively with colleagues who interfere with my business” with a mean response score of 2.07 with 18.70% of respondents in agreement. 75.40% of respondents did not agree while 5.90% were undecided. Generally, respondents viewed their context as being unfavourable with a mean response score of 1.79. The implication being respondents did not favour intimidation as a strategy to influence career success. Table 5: Intimidation Scale Item I intimidate colleagues when it will help my job done I let others know I can make things difficult for them if they push me too far I deal forcefully with colleagues when they hamper my ability to get my job done I deal strongly or aggressively with colleagues who interfere with my business I use intimidation to get colleagues to behave appropriately Overall Mean Licensed under Creative Common SD D U A SA Mean Std. Deviation 61.9 23.7 9.3 3.4 1.7 1.59 .917 52.5 32.2 3.4 8.5 3.4 1.78 1.079 47.5 39.0 5.9 5.1 2.5 1.76 .958 39.0 36.4 5.9 16.1 2.5 2.07 1.153 50.0 37.3 2.5 8.5 1.7 1.75 .980 1.79 Page 293

Ogutu & Ougo Supplication In measuring this factor four likert scale items were used to determine the influence of supplication. The respondents were asked to rate on a 5 point likert scale the influence of supplication on career success by indicating the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with statements provided. Results are presented in Table 6 below. Table 6: Supplication Scale Item I act like I know less than I do so people will help me out I try to gain assistance or sympathy from people by appearing needy in some areas I pretend not to understand something to gain someone‟s help I act like I need assistance so people will help me out I pretend to know less than I do so I can avoid unpleasant assignments. SD D U A SA Mean Std. Deviation 28.8 52.5 10.2 5.1 3.4 2.02 .952 43.2 39.8 7.6 6.8 2.5 1.86 .998 44.1 40.7 4.2 8.5 2.5 1.85 1.018 47.5 39.0 9.3 2.5 1.7 1.72 .866 50.0 33.1 8.5 6.8 1.7 1.77 .982 Overall Mean 1.84 All the likert scale items had a mean response score 3.00 indicating a tendency toward unfavourable responses. The highly rated item was “I act like I know less than I do so people will help me out” with a mean response score of 2.02 with 8.50% of respondents in agreement. 81.30% of respondents did not agree while 10.20% were undecided. Generally, respondents viewed their co

Personal branding as an important tool for professionals helps define their strongest attributes and sell themselves to companies. Indeed brand identity is relevant not just for companies, but for individuals as well. This study investigates personal branding as it relates to the furtherance of career success of employees at the workplace. .