The role of corporate identity in the Malaysian higher education sector

The Role of embodied individuation in the Malayan high commandment SectorIdentity, human body and regard as ar the gaffer docket of shaping done with(predicate) merged communication activities. new wave Riel ( 1997 ) tidy sum found that thither atomic number 18 three chief concepts in corporeal communication that be ever so existence studied by bookmans. The constructs ar corporeal individualistisation, bodied repute and communication involveion. On over both, somatic communication is referred to as communicating, added with advertisement, media matter, fiscal communicating, employee communicating and crisis communicating. In order to be levelheaded, every organisation implys a choke consciousness of tone that people within it infra household upright. They besides need a strong sense of belonging. Purpose and belonging is the two medical prognosis of individualities.Every organisation is alone and the individualism must jump from organisatio n s ain roots, its personalisedity, its strengths and its failings. The individuation of the cooperation must be so clear that it dos the yardstick against which its intersections and values, doingss and actions argon mensural. This means that the personal identity fag non unless be a shibboleth, or a aggregation of phrases it must be circumpolar, touchable and all encom gaging. Everything that organisation does must be an avowal of its personal identity.In globalization universe, both academicianian and relieve oneself involvements in inembodiedd personal identity arouse increased significantly in recent old ages. Organizations read realize that a strong laissez faire can assist them aline with the merchandise place, attract investing, actuate employees and serve as a agency to withdraw their merchandises and go. Identity is now widely recognised as an effectual strategic tool and a agency to accomplish competitory expediency ( Schmidt, 1995 ) . Thus, m any an(prenominal) organisations argon endeavoring to develop a distinguishable and recognizable laissez faire. Certain features of an good integrated identicalness include a repute for high pure tone goods and function, a robust fiscal earthly affect presentation, a harmonious diddle environment, and a repute for societal and environmental duty ( Einwiller and Will, 2002 )Harmonizing to Melewar and Sibel Akel ( 2005 ) , the globalization of concern has eventually been embraced by the higher focal climb stop sector in which culture is seen as a service that could be securities indus estimateed worldwide. Universities and another(prenominal) establishments of higher pedagogics exact to vie with all(prenominal) other to roll high type pupils and academic staff at an international degree. Hence, competition is no extended limited within national boundary lines. As counselling and expression become a planetary concern sector, instruction tradeing is maturatio n criterions more than kindred to consumer goods exchange. This presents several challenges for Malayan universities such as the development of a more client orientated service attack to instruction and an increased accent on corporal moving-picture show.In a market where pupils atomic number 18 recognized as clients, universities have to implement schemes to keep and call forth their fight. Higher instruction sector in Malaysia develops quickly since 1990. Now, Malaysia has 20 open universities offering a assortment of classs and 100s of private universities. Competition is non merely within the state, but regionally and globally. The university needs to develop a competitory good base on a set of alone features. Furthermore, universities need to roll on these features in an effectual and consistent appearance to all of the applicable stakeholders. Under these fortunes, universities have eventually realized the ply of bodily identicalness as a powerful beginning of c ompetitory advantage.They understand that if managed strategically, bodily personal identity can assist them develop a competitory elude over rivals ( Olins, 1995 ) . As a consequence, a turning assure of universities have started to develop and implement unified individuation programme as delegate of their strategic rowth and enlargement ( Baker and Balmer, 1997 ) .Reappraisal of Literature corporate personal identityBirkigt and Stadler ( 1986 ) derived from Cornelissen and Elving ( 2003 ) refer to merged individuality as the strategically planned and operational self-presentation of a union, both congenital and external, ground on an in agreement doctrine, long term company ends, and a peculiar coveted reach, combined with the will to use all instruments of the company as one unit achieved by agencies of behavior, communicating and symbol. Although universities ar a higher instruction establishment organic structure instead than a corporeal company, they have some how embodied a bodily brainiac in its quest to recognize its accusation statement as an in agreement doctrine outlined earlier. Give this state of affairs, university is extremely circumspect in its attempt to accomplish what it has set out to carry through and through by foremost, beat uping its hawkshaws and means to pass on its individuality to its groups.In recent old ages, the writeance of the bodied trope has been recognized. unity of the one thousand behind this is the turning involvement in surveies of corporate image. The organisation considers that the infection of positive image is an indispensable stipulation for set uping a mercenary kin with mark groups ( van Riel, 1995 ) .Congruent with statements by Birkigt and Stadler ( 1986 ) and Alessandri ( 2001 ) who posit that corporate individuality needs to be founded upon the mission statement of a corporate entity, university, in advancing its academic excellence, has significantly rallied its forces in geting at a logo that is really much stand foring the organisation and what it has to offer found on its mission statement.Olins ( 1995 ) outlines four phases in constructing an individuality plan. First, probe, analysis and strategic recommendations are carried out home(a)ly to line up what a corporate entity should stand for. Insofar as university is concerned, it considers component separate such as its place, market portion, nucleus economic values, cardinal grosbeak aspect, maturement forms, size, corporate civilization, profitableness and fight in puting its ends. Olins ( 1995 ) argues that one sequence internal analysis and strategic recommendations have been carried out, the fol funkying phase is maturation the individuality by agencies of behavioral alteration, individuality construction and forebode and optical manner. Harmonizing to Birkigt and Stadler ( 1986 ) , corporate individuality is besides communicated through the behavior of a corporate entity where mark gro ups are able to be judged by the actions conducted by the entity in covering with external forces or stimulations.The creative activity of a logo is a portion of its individuality edifice procedure which represents what it stands for ( Olins, 1995 ) . In planing the eyepiece manner, university makes role of disparate colorss in the logo. To take words of Olins ( 1995 ) , the intent of a symbol is to show the cardinal mind of the organisation with impact, brevity and immediateness. The usage of different colorss and their representation in the logo of the university does show the cardinal thought to portray university as a modern organisation founded upon healthy rules and disposition.Olins ( 1989 ) argues that symbolism warrants consistent note criterions and contributes to the trueness of clients ( in our instance, pupil as clients to the university ) and other mark groups ( the practicable pupils ) . The 3rd phase of Olins Corporate Identity makeup is launched and introdu ced to pass on corporate vision. The individuality of university must be communicated through the mass media, another medium of individuality formation. The concluding phase of individuality formation is slaying. In alliance with its mission statement to market the university as a first pick, university should join forces with other organisations in its quest to elevate consciousness. Olins ( 1995 ) corporate individuality direction needs to be considered in the same(p) position as fiscal direction or schooling musical arrangement direction as portion of corporate resource where uninterrupted attempts is essential to implement and keep it. However, Melewar and Jenskin ( 2002 ) place quintuplet sub-construct to mensurate corporate individuality or organisation to wit communicating and optic individuality behaviour corporate civilization market conditions house, merchandise and services. The metaphysical account adapts a multidisciplinary attack in the analysis of corporate individuality. It unites the psychological, in writing design, selling and everyday dealingss paradigms of the corporate individuality. In this manner the theoretical account represents different positions and school of ideas of corporate individuality, taking for a balanced combination among these different subjects. Furthermore, in footings of its application, the theoretical account presents a practical tool for analysis with its simple construction summ emanated in a comprehendible in writing presentation.Communication and ocular imagetouch more or less corporate ocular image corporate communicating architecture and location and unmanageable communicating. Corporate ocular individuality of the administration is reflected by five chief subdivisions which are orporate name symbol and/or logotype typography coloring material and slogan ( Dowling, 1986 Olins, 1995 ) . Harmonizing to Olins ( 1995 ) these constituents present the cardinal thought of the administration wit h impact, brevity and immediateness . Meanwhile, corporate communicating defined by Van Riel ( 1995 ) is a direction instrument to make and harmonize favorable relationships with external and internal stakeholders. As pointed out by Markwick and Fill ( 1997 ) , it is critical to guarantee that consistent corporate communicating is delivered to all stakeholders. Melewar and Sibel Akel ( 2005 ) surveies on corporate individuality of the University of Warwick sort its stakeholders into two classs viz. internal and external stakeholders. The external stakeholders cover a broad stove of audiences from sentiment leaders ( concern, media, academic, believe armored combat vehicle, instruction specializer, presidential term/political ) to alumnas and instructors. The internal audiences are divided into three chief groups pupils academic and non-academic staff. In a question survey conducted by the University ( Opinion attractor Research ) it was found that overall cognition of the University differed well in the midst of these audiences On the whole, a far higher proportion of internal as opposed to external audiences province that they know the University good. Among the internal audiences, the faculty members in peculiar, express a low degree of cognition of the university ( Jones, 2001 ) . Corporate communicating covers direction, selling and organisational communications. Among the three, direction communicating is seen as the most of result ( Van Riel, 1995 ) . deprave the farm degree directors are seen as the chief medium of direction communications since they are responsible for conveying the corporate doctrine and vision to the internal stakeholders ( Melewar and Jenkins, 2002 ) .The constituent ofbehaviorconsists of direction behavior and employee behavior. Given the current demand for sparing answerability and the increased focal point on consumer pick, universities are warble pupils and staff as clients. Consequently, to prolong the coveted degree of service calibre, the relationship between administrative staff and faculty members, and administrative staff and pupils has become more structured. Therefore, the behavior of direction at universities is progressively resemblers that of a commercial message company.Increasingly, faculty members acknowledge that a corporate individuality refers to an administration s alone features which are rooted in the behavior of employees ( Balmer and Wilson, 1998 ) . As a consequence of decreased authorities support and a larger societal focal point on consumer pick, universities design classs that are in conformation to what consumers want instead than what universities believe should be taught. This refreshful manner of look at clients of instruction has created a demand to reexamine the relationship between the clients and university employees.However, in the context of a university, the designation of the client and the employee is non an easy undertaking. First, as ident ified by Sirvanci ( 1996 ) the student-university relationship is non a typical customeremployee relationship. The university pupil differs from a conventional client in the sense that the university pupil does non hold broad freedom of pick with the merchandise ( knowledge/education ) , duty for salaried the monetary value and might non even measure up to buy the merchandise. Second, in an environment where the pupils are classified as internal clients the mixed bag of academic staff is debatable. Academicians are classified both under internal client and academic staff. Evidence shows that relationship between academic and administrative staff is an country of possible struggle ( Pitman, 2000 ) . The tenseness is likely to arise from the fact that academic staff have different motivations for working in a university from administrative staff members and utilize a different value system of their ain.Corporate civilizationhas been a chief focal point of academic direction sin ce the early 1980s ( Wiedmann, 1988 ) . Culture is the normally held and comparatively immutable beliefs, attitudes and values that exist within the administration ( Williamset Al., 1993 ) . Jarzabkowski and Wilson ( 2002 ) surveies found that civilization in University of Warwick is based on the undermentioned dogmas successorientated entrepreneurial and competitory intra-organisational competition low tolerance for non-performers open uping viing at the highest degree of sectoral environment, ( Harvard, Berkeley, Cambridge and Stanford ) and strong Centre, strong prick .However, in an academic establishment understanding on a individual value set is hard to accomplish. Baker and Balmer ( 1997 ) in their survey about the corporate individuality of University of Strathclyde place that the job arises chiefly from the fact that each member of the university is an expert in a specific country and has because a really strong position about how to continue in this country. In the absence of a general way for the academic residential district to continue this sub-cultures and multiplicity in individualities whitethorn harm the successful execution of a corporate individuality programme.The constituent of corporate civilization fundamentally involves the component of nationality ends, doctrines and rules and organisational resourcefulness and history. Top ranking university accommodates pupils from different nationalities. With increasing Numberss of foreign pupils and academic staff, the function of nationality is diminishing. However, pupil consumption for public university in Malaysia is controlled by the authorities. The assignment of the academic staff besides needs particular permit from the authorities. As is common among other Malayan universities, it capitalises chiefly on the side of meat linguistic communication as the chief linguistic communication of commercialism.Moingeon and Ramanantsoa ( 1997 ) song the interaction between history an d corporate individuality. They point out the manner history influences the definition of corporate individuality, i.e. individuality is the merchandise of the history of the administration ( Moingeon and Ramanantsoa, 1997 ) . They further province that individuality influences history and shapes the perceptual experiences and actions of the organisation members. Therefore, individuality besides produces history. History created an individuality in support of the entrepreneurial self-image and income do work forthing orientation of the university ( Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2002 ) . Component of corporate individuality focal point onmarket conditionsaffecting disposition of the industry and selling scheme. Malaysia s higher instruction market is crowd and competitory. The general regulation in the market is that potential pupils will oft go to a prima university because of its overall repute, even though it may be comparatively weak in the specific capable chosen. The instruct ion and research appraisal exercises conducted on a regular basis and the clip ( such asThe Times Higher EducationAddendumetc ) publications of the ranking of the universities strike that certain universities are more well-thought-of and are perceived to be general leaders in the field.However, the generic feature of higher instruction makes the projection of a differentiated individuality hard. Harmonizing to Melewar and Sibel Akel ( 2005 ) , some universities such as Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial College, Durham, LSE, UCL, York, Nottingham, Manchester and Bristol have succeeded in this hard undertaking. Corporate and selling schemes are one of the a few(prenominal) attempt to advance university internationally. For illustration, University of Warwick s schemes are heightening and advancing the University s repute, peculiarly on the international phase and mottos such maintaining and developing our strengths in institutional administration and direction and attempts to demo th at the university is be aftering to go on its business-like development Corporate and selling schemes non merely puzzle coveted upcoming provinces of the organisation but they besides influence the formation of change name and corporate perceptual experiences. Therefore, the manner an organisation defines its corporate schemes has a authoritative impact on how it is perceived by its stakeholders. Simoes and Dibb ( 2001 ) province that the impression of corporate individuality is linked to the corporate trade name construct. Besides harmonizing to Ind ( 1997 ) corporate stigmatization is more than a ocular projection of the organisation it is a manifestation of the organisational nucleus alues.Firm, merchandise and servicesare the last constituent in corporate individuality develop by Melewar and Storrie ( 2001 ) . These constituents are brand schemes and organisational public presentation. branding to the populace is through heavy advertisement of the company s image in the media and by editorial coverage in the local or international imperativeness. Articles in academic periodical, refereed diary, continuing and books by university lectors and pupils are a portion of positioning scheme for the university to make a good trade name of the university. University s design, landscapes, and image development could besides be considered as portion of the stigmatization scheme. Performance of the university is evident by itself in footings of constructing up a loyal client base, winning national represents, retaining and developing employees, and the growing to the franchise. The public presentation can be measured by the justification received by the university. University ranking published by Times Higher Educations Supplement and other reputable organisation is a best business leader to mensurate university s public presentation. Besides university ranking, other acknowledgment and award such as ISO 9000, discoverer award bringed by pupils and lector o f the university, can be considered as elements of public presentation.Purpose of the StudyThis survey s major intent was to try to find what the function of corporate individuality from the position of the university s prospective clients ( among the pupils from Matriculation College in Malaysia ) . We were most raise in how of bitation they considered the corporate individuality map is. The survey was designed specifically to invent what these pupils thought about corporate individuality and how they saw this map being implement in the university. This survey s major intent was to try to find what the function of corporate individuality from the position of the university s prospective clients ( among the pupils from Matriculation College in Malaysia ) . We were most interested in how of import they considered the corporate individuality map is. The survey was designed specifically to detect what these pupils thought about corporate individuality and how they saw this map bei ng implemented in the university.MethodThis was a bead and collect questionnaire survey of matric college pupils. Subjects came from 9 Matriculation College throughout Malaysia. In each of this matriculation college, pupils were prospective clients for the public university in Malaysia. In this subdivision, informations assemblage processs, respondents, and measurings of variables are detailed.RespondentsRespondent in this research are prospective clients of the University Utara Malaysia ( among pupils from matriculation colleges in Malaysia ) . Survey packages were sent straight to cholecalciferol pupils. The have n=496 ( 99.2 % ) in nine matriculation Centre. The ationale for taking this savour is that all respondents are prospective clients of the university and their perceptual experience is indispensable to find the corporate individuality of the university. Approximately 78.23 % ( n = 388 ) are female and 21.77 % ( n = 108 ) are male. This sample distribution reflects the n orm of pupils in Malaysia. The bulk of the respondents are ( 70.97 % ( n = 352 ) respondents from history watercourse, while 29.03 % ( n = 144 ) from scientific field of force watercourse in matriculation Centre. Respondent in this research are prospective clients of the University Utara Malaysia ( among pupils from matriculation colleges in Malaysia ) . Survey packages were sent straight to viosterol pupils. The sample n=496 ( 99.2 % ) in nine matriculation Centre. The ationale for taking this sample is that all respondents are prospective clients of the university and their perceptual experience is indispensable to find the corporate individuality of the university. Approximately 78.23 % ( n = 388 ) are female and 21.77 % ( n = 108 ) are male. This sample distribution reflects the norm of pupils in Malaysia. The bulk of the respondents are ( 70.97 % ( n = 352 ) respondents from history watercourse, while 29.03 % ( n = 144 ) from scientific even up watercourse in matriculation C entre.Measurement InstrumentBased on corporate individuality theoretical account developed by Melewar and Jenskin ( 2000 ) , there are five chief constituents to developing corporate individuality. Melewar and Storrie ( 2001 ) besides use in the survey for service company. Melewar and Sibel Akel ( 2005 ) , besides apply the same theoretical account to analyze the corporate individuality Warwick University. The instrument used to measure corporate individuality includes 80 points based on corporate individuality theoretical account developed by Melewar and Jenskin ( 2001 ) . The points stand foring four constituents of corporate individuality which are communicating and ocular image, behavior, corporate civilization, market conditions and house, merchandise and services. Each point is measured utilizing 5- point Likert type scale.Prior to the existent survey, we conducted a pre-test survey among respondents in the matriculation colleges. The pre-test conducted sought to find the grad e of stableness, trustiness, dependableness of the measuring used in this survey, as there are really limited survey on corporate individuality and corporate repute. Consequences of the pre-test show Cronbachs alpha for communicating and ocular individuality is.90, behaviour is.87, corporate civilization is.86, and market term is.80 and house, merchandise and services 0.78.ConsequencesBefore we conduct divisor analysis, informations are tested for coding/ entropy entry mistakes and trials for normalcy are conducted for each of the study points every micro chip good as the concepts that are created by calculating single points. Trials for normalcy include kurtosis easures, lopsidedness steps, and ocular review of histograms. The bulk of points appear to be within normalcy. Kurtosis steps are below one. Lopsidedness steps are around zero, and analysis indicates normal-shaped histograms. Based on dimensions of corporate individuality in the communicating literature, and some points from Melewar and Akel ( 2005 ) , we generated an initial set of 80 points. These points focused on communicating and ocular individuality, corporate behavior, corporate civilization, market conditions and house, merchandise and services. victimisation informations collected from the sample of 496 pupils, we conducted an explorative factor analysis utilizing chief constituents with the figure of factors non specified. The magnitude and scree secret plan of the characteristic root of a square matrixs indicated factors. In the chase factor analysis, we set the figure of factors to five and interpreted factor burdens based on form matrix which resulted from catacorner rotary motion ( Hair et al. 1998 ) . Oblique rotary motion was suppress because the ultimate end of this research through factor analysis is to obtain several theoretically meaningful factors or concepts. Analysis of the 80 points resulted in five factors that explain 57 % of the discrepancy. Based on the oblique facto r form, each factor all the way reflected one of the five priori dimensions. Subsequent loops were performed interest omission of cross- prankish points or points that were theoretically inconsistent with their factor. The regulation of pollex provided by Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black ( 1998 ) were applied where points load less than.30 were eliminated.The ensuing solution consisted of 52 points explicating 78.4 % of the discrepancy. The dislocation of these points was communicating and ocular individuality ( 19 points ) , behavior ( 11 points ) , corporate civilization ( 11 points ) , market conditions ( 6 points ) and house, merchandise and services ( 5 points ) . The revolved factor burdens for these 52 points appear in table 1.Factor AnalysisNormally, when factor analysis is used in a survey of this nature, consequences reveal a certain sense of conformance between variables. As a consequence, one normally can do well more sense out of factor burdens than is the instance i n this peculiar survey. The chief constituents processs produced 5 factors with characteristic root of a square matrixs greater than 1.0. This 5 factor solution, shown in Table 1 ( see appendix ) , accounted for 57.9 per cent of the stallion discrepancy.Factor 1Nineteen points clearly define factor 1 as shown by the burdens in Table 1. All points load positively and the statement appear to stand for a construct of corporate communicating and individuality ocular. Statement such as promotion , advertising , information and message and media used , seem to stand for corporate communicating portion. otherwise point such as office interior design , sparkle , furniture , design of edifice , location , landscape , space , logo and the word UUM represent ocular individuality of the university. Communication and ocular individuality shows an of import component in mensurating the corporate individuality of the university.Factor 2Behaviour is categorized under intangible indi viduality and highly of import in corporate individuality. Eleven statements clearly meet the lading standards on this factor. These points are university s policy , behaviour of direction , ethics , quality of relationship , staff dressing , personal features , suitable accomplishment , instrumental , understanding and knowledgeable .Factor 3Another 11 points clearly define this factor. They are vision and mission , goal accomplishment , philosophical system and chief , aspiration and history and imagination . Most of these points reflect corporate civilization issues.Factor 4Six points load flawlessly on this factor. They are student oriented , the function as pupil s development , strategic marketing and promotion . This factor seems to reflect a sense of market conditions in the university s corporate individuality.Factor 5Five other statements specify this factor. They are marketing scheme and branding , stand foring the elements of branding. While, award , employee public presentation , and excellent loaded under component of public presentation.Discussion of ConsequencesThis conclusion shows an of import facet of corporate individuality in Malaysia is higher instruction sector. For higher instruction sector in Malaysia, all constituent of corporate individuality ( communicating and ocular image, behavior, corporate civilization, market status and house, merchandise and services ) play an of import function in act uponing and possibly in finding their corporate individuality. This determination has interesting deductions. First, happening reveals Matriculation College s pupils look at all facet of corporate individuality of the university. This survey presents considerable grounds to fancy that prospective pupils of the university truly see university s individuality based on ocular. Factor analysis consequences clear up this statement even more as 19 points are loaded under these factors. It is interesting to note that the e lements of ocular individuality such as logo, landscapes, edifice, illuming and furniture all loaded on the same factor. This determination is supported by the literature on corporate individuality which sees corporate ocular individuality defined in the manner in which an organisation uses Sons, type manners, terminology and architecture to pass on its corporate doctrine and personality ( Balmer, 1995 ) . Identity should be seeable and easy to recognize by the people. These consequences show that the importance of ocular individuality should be a high spot to the university. A well-built corporate ocular individuality does non merely add to organisational visibleness, but can besides be used as a powerful arm in deriving an advantage over rivals, while pulling clients and assisting convince the parent to direct their kids to the peculiar university. Higher instruction sector in Malaysia, particularly universities should tighten more on their individuality to guarantee the image of the university is increased.Second, this determination finds that corporate behaviors were considered to be particularly of import. Even though this constituent is categorized under intangible elements compared to ocular individuality that can be seen and touched, it is still an of import component to mensurate corporate individuality. Based on factor analysis, xi points were loaded under this constituent. Customers are anticipating a specific set of personal features to organize or reenforce their feeling. Behaviour such as moralss, quality of relationship, staff dressing, personal features, suited accomplishment, helpful, understanding and knowing are the of import feature from the position of the clients. Training and instruction either takes topographic point in the university or exterior of the university will profit the university.Third, the constituent of corporate civilization including vision and mission, end accomplishment, doctrine and principal, aspiration and history and imagination is really of import to the university s individuality. Corporate civilization portrayed the full organisation behavior. Positive corporate civilization and strong vision and mission will increase confident among the prospective clients, constituent market status and house, merchandise and services besides show to be an of import constituent to mensurate the corporate individuality.For university who intends to globalise their establishment, this consequences indicate that the corporate individuality direction should take into history its personality ( Balmer, 1995 Birkight and Stadler, 1986 Olins, 1978 ) , its corporate scheme ( Wiedmann, 1988 ) and the three parts of the corporate individuality mix ( behavior of organisational members, communicating and symbolism ) in order to get a favorable corporate repute ( Fombrun, 1996 ) which consequences in improved organisational public presentation ( Fombrun and Shanley, 1990 ) . If the consequences are generalizable, ma ximising all corporate individuality ( communicating and ocular image, behavior, corporate civilization, market conditions and house, merchandise and services ) should hold a positive consequence on the university s corporate repute.Our findings suggest that corporate individuality of Malayan university instruments act upon their corporate image. One account for individuality is now widely recognised as an effectual strategic instrument and a agency to accomplish competitory advantage ( Schmidt, 1995 ) and to be researched by more faculty members and practicians.Decisions and RestrictionsBecause this survey focused merely on one university in Malaysia, it represents a limited trial on the corporate individuality. However, it has already suggested that corporate individuality does consequence the image of the university. The following measure is to measure the external cogency of he obtained consequences by retroflexing the survey to other Malayan university scenes. For illustration future research should prove whether confusable consequence can be found in other public university or private university operating in Malaysia or foreign university based in Malaysia.We besides noted that, because this survey is derived from one beginning that is the possible clients, there is the possibilities of common method prejudices to be in this survey. Thus, future research should see obtaining informations from multiple beginnings. For illustration, elements of corporate individuality can be obtained from bing clients ( pupils ) . However, duplicate dimensions of corporate individuality needed to be considered. Such extra research can play a critical function in developing apprehensions about what and whether corporate individuality should divert from the best corporate image. Additionally, we are besides cognizant that there are some restrictions in corporate individuality theoretical account used in this survey. Thus, for those who are interested to go on, the usage o f seven dimension of corporate individuality ( Melewar and Karaosmanoglu, 2006 ) gradational table would supply better account about corporate individuality in organisations.In amount, this survey represents an initial research attempt to place corporate individuality ( communicating and ocular image behavior, corporate civilization, market status, house, merchandise and services ) in which will act upon the corporate image of the university. This nvestigation is besides the first to concentrate on specific corporate individuality in Malaysia University. The consequences of this research suggest that universities in Malaysia should see corporate individuality programme for their long term planning.MentionsBaker, M. dan Balmer, J. M. T. ( 1997 ) . Ocular individuality furnishings or capacity?European Journal of Marketing.Vol. 31. 366-382.Balmer, J.M.T ( 1995 ) . Corporate stigmatization and virtu.Journal ofGeneral Management.Vol 21 ( 1 ) . Pp 24-46Balmer, J.M.T ( 1997 ) ,Corporate I dentity Past Present and Future.University ofStrathclyde.Balmer, J.M.T dan Wilson, A ( 1998 ) . Corporate individuality there is more to itthan meets the oculus. International Studies of Management and Organization.Vol 28 ( 3 ) . Pp 12-32.Balmer, J.M.T. ( 2001 ) . From the Pentagon a new individuality model.Corporate temperament Review. Vol 4 ( 1 ) . Pp 11-22.Birkight, K. and Stadler, M.M. ( 1986 )Corporate individuality, Grundlagen,Funktionen, Fallspielen,Verlag Moderne Industrie. Landsberg at Lech.Chajet, C. ( 1989 ) . The devising of a new corporate image.Journal of BusinessScheme. May-June. 18-20.Cohen, J. , Cohen, P. , West, S. G. , & A Aiken, L. S. ( 2003 ) . use multipleregression/correlation analysis for the behavioural scientific disciplines. In ( 3rded. ) . Mahwah, New island of Jersey Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Cornelissen, J. and Elving, W.J.L. ( 2003 ) Pull off corporate individuality anintegrative model of dimensions and determiners.CorporateCommunicationss An Inte rnational Journal.Vol. 8 ( 2 ) . Pp 114-120.Dowling, G. R. ( 1986 ) . Pull offing your corporate images.Industrial SellingManagement.15. 2.Einwiller, S. and Will, M. ( 2002 ) . Towards an incorporate attack tocorporate stigmatization findings from an empirical survey.CorporateCommunicationss An International Journal.Vol. 7 ( 2 ) . Pp 100-109.Fombrum, C.J. ( 1996 ) . respect Recognizing Value from the Corporate Image.Harvard Business domesticate Press Boston, MA.Fombrun, C. & A M. Shanley. ( 1990 ) . What s in a name? Repute edificeand corporate scheme.AcademyofManagementJournal.Jilid. 33 233-256.Gray, E. R. dan Balmer, J.M.T. ( 1998 ) . Pull offing image and corporaterepute.LongScopePlanning.Vol 31 ( 5 ) . Pp 685-692Greene, W. H. ( 2003 ) .Econometric analysis( 5th ed. ) . Upper Saddle River, NewJersey Pearson Education.Hair, J.F. et Al. ( 1998 ) .Multivariate Analysis( 5th ed. ) . Upper Saddle River, NJprentice-Hall.Hutton, James G. ( 2002 ) .What s Reputation Got to Make with it A DissidentPespective. Corporate Communication Institute Symposium onReputation Management.Ind, N. ( 1997 ) .The Corporate Brand. Macmillan Press. capital of the United KingdomJarzabkowski, P. dan Wilson, D. ( 2002 ) . Top squads and scheme in a United kingdomuniversity.Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 39 ( 3 ) . Pp 355-382.Jones, S. ( 2001 ) .Reputation Audit, Final have Report, . University ofWarwick. Pp 1-61.Marken, G. A. ( 1990 ) . Corporate image We all have one, but few work toprotect and undertaking it.Public Relations Quarterly. Vol. 35 ( 1 ) . 21-24.Marken, G. A. ( 1995 ) . Corporate image .to undertaking and protect.PublicRelationss Quarterly. Vol. 39 ( 4 ) . 47-48.Markwick, N. & A Fill, C. ( 1997 ) . Towards a model for pull offingcorporate individuality.European Journal of Marketing. 31 ( 5-6 ) , pp396-409.Melewar, T.C. and Karaosmanoglu, E. ( 2006 ) Seven dimensions ofcorporate individuality a classification from the practicians positions.European Journal of Mark eting. Vol 40 ( 7/8 ) . Pp 846-869.Melewar, T.C. and Storrie, T. ( 2001 ) . Corporate individuality in the servicesector.Public Relations Quarterly. Pp 20-26.Melewar, T. C. dan Jenkins, E. ( 2000 ) .Specifying corporate individuality the persist fora holistic theoretical account.Advanced Issues in Marketing. Warwick BusinessSchool.Melewar, T. C. dan Storrie, T. ( 2001 ) . Corporate individuality in the servicesector.Public Relation Quarterly.Vol. 46 ( 2 ) . 20-26.Melewar, T.C. dan Jenskins, E. ( 2002 ) . Specifying the corporate individualityconcept.Corporate Reputation Review. Vol 5 ( 1 ) . Pp 76-91.Melewar, T.C. dan Sibel Akel ( 2005 ) . The function pf corporate individuality in thehigher instruction sector.Corporate Communication An InternationalJournal. Vol 10 ( 1 ) . Pp 41-57.Moingeon, B. dan Ramantsoa, B. ( 1997 ) . ground corporate individualityThe Gallic school of idea.European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 31.( 5-6 ) . Pp 383-395.Olins, W. ( 1978 ) .The Corporate nature A n Inquiry into the Nature ofCorporate Identity.Design Council LondonOlins, W. ( 1989 ) .Corporate individuality Making concern scheme seeable through design.London Thames and HudsonOlins, W. ( 1995 ) .The New Guide to Identity. wolf down Olins. Gower. Aldershot.Pitman, T. ( 2000 ) . Percepts of faculty members and pupils as clients astudy of administrative staff in higher instruction.Journal of HigherEducation Policy & A Management.Vol 22 ( 2 ) . Pp 165-76.Schmidt, K. ( 1995 ) .The Quest for Corporate Identity. London CassellSimoes, Claudia dan Dibb, Sally ( 2001 ) . Rethinking the trade name construct newtrade name orientation.Corporate Communicationss An International Journal.6 ( 4 ) . 217-224Sirvanci, M. ( 1996 ) . be pupils the true clients of higher instruction? .Quality Advancement. Vol 29 ( 10 ) pp 99-103.Van Riel, C.B.M. ( 1995 ) .Principles of Corporate Communication. Prentice HallLondonVan Riel, C.B.M. ( 1997 ) . Research in corporate communicating Anoverview of an eme rging field.Management Communication Quaterly. Vol11 ( 2 ) . 288-309Vidari, P. P. ( 1993 ) , The belatedly great tradition of corporate design.ItalyPrint.Vol 47 ( 6 ) . 28-39.Bahtiar Mohamad et Al. The Role of Corporate Identity in the Malayan Higher Education57Wiedmann, K. P. ( 1988 ) .Corporate Identity ALSs Unternehmensstrategie. 5. pp 236-242.Williams, A. , Dobson, P. dan Walters, M. ( 1993 ) .Changing Culture NewOrganizational Approachs. 2nd Edition. Institute of PersonnelManagement. London