The role of corporate identity in the Malaysian higher education sector

The Role of merged identity operator in the Malaysian higher(prenominal)(prenominal) Education SectorIdentity, construe and repute ar the antique docket of formation through in in in corporealdd communicating activities. Van Riel ( 1997 ) survey set in motion that there atomic number 18 three chief constructs in incarnate communicating that ar ever being studied by bookmans. The constructs are embodied individualism, somatic repute and communicating direction. On overall, collective communicating is referred to as communicating, added with advertisement, media matter, m matchlesstary communicating, employee communicating and crisis communicating. In ordination to be effectual, every establishment needs a clear intelligence of emotional state that people within it under get up. They in any event need a truehearted sense of belonging. Purpose and belonging is the two aspect of individualities.every organisation is only and the indistinguishability mustiness jump from organisation s ain beginnings, its personality, its strengths and its failings. The laissez faire of the cooperation must be so clear that it wrenchs the yardstick against which its sells and services, behaviours and actions are measured. This means that the identicalness bear non merely be a slogan, or a aggregation of phrases it must be seeable, touchable and all encompassing. Everything that organisation does must be an avowal of its laissez faire.In globalisation universe, both donnish and concern involvements in in mergedd identity have increased bitantly in recent old ages. Organizations have realised that a strong individualisation can assist them aline with the secernet place, attract investing, actuate employees and serve as a agency to distinguish their merchandises and services. Identity is nowadays widely recognised as an effectual strategic official document and a agency to chance on competitory return ( Schmidt, 1995 ) . Thus, many organisat ions are endeavoring to develop a discrete and recognizable identity. Certain features of an efficacious integrated indistinguishability include a repute for high bore goods and services, a robust fiscal everyday building, a harmonious workplace environment, and a repute for social and environmental duty ( Einwiller and Will, 2002 )Harmonizing to Melewar and Sibel Akel ( 2005 ) , the globalization of concern has eventually been embraced by the high direction firmament in which cultivation is seen as a service that could be foodstuffplaceed worldwide. Universities and opposite establishments of higher instruction have to grapple with each other to pull high prime(a) pupils and academic round at an international degree. Hence, rival is no longer hold in within national boundary lines. As instruction and preparation become a planetary concern sector, instruction selling is ontogenesis criterions much(prenominal) kindred to consumer goods selling. This presents sev eral challenges for Malayan universities such as the development of a more lymph gland orientated service attack to instruction and an increased accent on merged image.In a market where pupils are recognized as clients, universities have to implement schemes to keep and heighten their fight. Higher instruction sector in Malaysia develops quickly since 1990. Now, Malaysia has 20 public 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 advantage ground on a practice of alone features. Furthermore, universities need to pass on these features in an effectual and consistent expressive style to all of the relevant stakeholders. at a lower place these fortunes, universities have eventually realized the function of corporate individualization as a powerful parentage of competitory advantage.They understand that if managed strategically, corporate indistinguishability can assist them develop a competitory bump into over rivals ( Olins, 1995 ) . As a aftermath, a routine figure of universities have started to develop and implement corporate indistinguishability programme as portion of their strategic rowth and enlargement ( Baker and Balmer, 1997 ) .Reappraisal of Literature incarnate indistinguishabilityBirkigt and Stadler ( 1986 ) derived from Cornelissen and Elving ( 2003 ) refer to corporate individuality as the strategically planned and operational self-presentation of a company, both inner(a) and external, base on an in agreement principle, long term company ends, and a peculiar coveted image, combined with the will to intake all instruments of the company as one unit achieved by agencies of carriage, communicating and symbolism. Although universities are a higher instruction establishment organic structure instead than a corporate company, they have some(prenominal)how embodied a corporate mentality in its quest to recognize its bang statement as an in agreement doctrine outlined earlier. Give this state of affairs, university is extremely prudent in its attempt to accomplish what it has set out to carry through by fore roughly, beat uping its musical instruments and means to pass on its individuality to its groups.In recent old ages, the conditional relationance of the corporate image has been recognized. One of the grounds behind this is the turning involvement in surveies of corporate image. The organisation considers that the transmittal of positive image is an indispensable stipulation for set uping a commercial relationship 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 erected 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 reall y much stand foring the organisation and what it has to offer based on its mission statement.Olins ( 1995 ) outlines four phases in constructing an individuality plan. First, probe, summary and strategic recommendations are carried out internally to develop what a corporate entity should stand for. Insofar as university is concerned, it considers performers such as its place, market portion, effect values, aboriginal thought, growing forms, size, corporate civilization, profitableness and fight in puting its ends. Olins ( 1995 ) argues that one time internal analysis and strategic recommendations have been carried out, the following phase is developing the individuality by agencies of behavioral alteration, individuality whirl and name and eyepiece manner. Harmonizing to Birkigt and Stadler ( 1986 ) , corporate individuality is besides communicated through the behavior of a corporate entity where mark groups are able to be judged by the actions conducted by the entity in cov ering with external forces or stimulations.The originative 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 derives usage of distinguishable colorss in the logo. To take words of Olins ( 1995 ) , the intent of a symbol is to show the fundamental thought 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 administration.Olins ( 1989 ) argues that symbolism warrants consistent quality criterions and contributes to the trueness of clients ( in our instance, pupil as clients to the university ) and other mark groups ( the possible pupils ) . The 3rd phase of Olins incarnate Identity formation is launched and introduced to pass on corporate vision. The individual ity of university must be communicated through the chew media, another medium of individuality formation. The concluding phase of individuality formation is execution. 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 climbing consciousness. Olins ( 1995 ) corporate individuality direction needs to be considered in the same sic as fiscal direction or cultivation system direction as portion of corporate resource where invariable attempts is necessary to implement and keep it. However, Melewar and Jenskin ( 2002 ) place five sub-construct to value corporate individuality or organisation to wit communicating and opthalmic individuality behaviour corporate civilization market conditions house, merchandise and services. The suppositional account adapts a multidisciplinary attack in the analysis of corporate individuality. It unites the psychological, in writing design, selli ng and public dealingss paradigms of the corporate individuality. In this manner the supposed account represents different positions and school of ideas of corporate individuality, taking for a balanced combination between these different subjects. Furthermore, in footings of its application, the theoretical account presents a practical tool for analysis with its simple construction summarised in a comprehendible in writing presentation.Communication and ocular imagetouch about corporate ocular image corporate communicating architecture and location and unmanageable communicating. Corporate ocular individuality of the administration is reflected by five chief fractions 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 with impact, brevity and immediateness . Meanwhile, corporate communicating defined by Va n Riel ( 1995 ) is a direction instrument to make and harmonize favorable relationships with external and internal stakeholders. As addressed out by Markwick and Fill ( 1997 ) , it is critical to tackle 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 scope of audiences from sentiment leaders ( concern, media, academic, opine armored combat vehicle, instruction specializer, government/political ) to alumnas and instructors. The internal audiences are divided into three chief groups pupils academic and non-academic staff. In a query survey conducted by the University ( Opinion Leader Research ) it was found that overall cognition of the University differed well between these audiences On the whole, a far higher proportion of internal as op posed to external audiences province that they know the University good. Among the internal audiences, the faculty members in peculiar, prove 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 import ( Van Riel, 1995 ) . Top 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 economic answerability and the increased central point on consumer pick, universities are sing pupils and staff as clients. Consequently, to prolong the coveted degree of service quality, the relationship between administrative staff and faculty members, and administrative staff and pupils h as become more structured. Therefore, the behavior of direction at universities is more and more resemblers that of a commercial 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 keep going and a larger societal focal point on consumer pick, universities design classs that are in conformity to what consumers want instead than what universities believe should be taught. This new manner of looking 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 well-to-do proletariat. First, as identified by Sirvanci ( 1996 ) the student-university relationship is non a typical customeremployee relationship. The university pupil diff ers from a conventional client in the sense that the university pupil does non hold undecomposed freedom of pick with the merchandise ( knowledge/ didactics ) , duty for paying 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 categorization 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 since the early 1980s ( Wiedmann, 1988 ) . Culture is the normally held and comparatively stable beliefs, attitudes and values t hat 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 allowance account for non-performers open uping viing at the highest degree of sectoral environment, ( Harvard, Berkeley, Cambridge and Stanford ) and strong Centre, strong section .However, in an academic establishment pinch 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 hence a really strong position about how to quell in this country. In the absence of a normal way for the academic community to continue this sub-cultures and numerosity in individualities may harm th e successful execution of a corporate individuality programme.The constituent of corporate civilization fundamentally involves the function of nationality ends, doctrines and rules and organisational imagination and account statement. Top ranking university accommodates pupils from different nationalities. With increasing Numberss of abroad 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 permission 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 ) stress the interaction between level and corporate individuality. They point out the manner taradiddle influences the definition of corporate individuality, i.e. individuality is the merchandise of the storey of the administration ( Moingeon and Ramanantsoa, 1997 ) . They further province that individuality influences register and shapes the perceptual experiences and actions of the organisation members. Therefore, individuality besides produces history. invoice created an individuality in support of the entrepreneurial self-image and income bring forthing orientation of the university ( Jarzabkowski and Wilson, 2002 ) . Component of corporate individuality focal point onmarket conditionsaffecting nature of the industry and selling scheme. Malaysia s higher instruction market is crowded and competitory. The customary regulation in the market is that prospective pupils will frequently go to a prima university because of its overall repute, even though it may be comparatively weak in the specific capable chosen. The instruction and research appraisal exercises conducted on a regular basis and the magazine ( such asThe Times Higher EducationAddendumetc ) pu blications of the ranking of the universities reveal 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 few attempt to advance university internationally. For illustration, University of Warwick s schemes are heightening and advancing the University s repute, inquisitively on the international phase and mottos such maintaining and developing our strengths in institutional administration and direction and attempts to demo that the university is be aftering to go on its business-like development Corporate and selling schemes non merely find coveted future day prov inces of the organisation but they besides influence the formation of trade name and corporate perceptual experiences. Therefore, the manner an organisation defines its corporate schemes has a important impact on how it is perceived by its stakeholders. Simoes and Dibb ( 2001 ) province that the economic crisis 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 developed by Melewar and Storrie ( 2001 ) . These constituents are branding schemes and organisational public presentation. Branding to the mankind 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 confronts, retaining and developing employees, and the growing to the franchise. The public presentation can be measured by the acknowledgment received by the university. University ranking published by Times Higher Educations Supplement and other reputable organisation is a surpass index to mensurate university s public presentation. Besides university ranking, other acknowledgment and award such as ISO 9000, discoverer award obtained by pupils and lector of 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 fun ction 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 motto this map being implemented 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 being implemented in the university.MethodThis was a bead and collect questionnaire survey of matriculation college pupils. Subjects came from 9 Matr iculation College throughout Malaysia. In each of this matriculation college, pupils were prospective clients for the public university in Malaysia. In this subdivision, informations aggregation processs, respondents, and measurings of variables are detailed.answerersRespondent in this research are prospective clients of the University Utara Malaysia ( among pupils from matriculation colleges in Malaysia ) . Survey packages were sent corking to five hundred 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 egg-producing(prenominal) 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, whi le 29.03 % ( n = 144 ) from scientific discipline 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 500 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 discipline watercourse in matriculation Centre.Measurement InstrumentBased on corporate individuality theoretical account developed by Melewar and Jenskin ( 2000 ) , there a re 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 grade of stableness, trustiness, dependableness of the measuring used in this survey, as there are really limited survey on corporate in dividuality 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 status is.80 and house, merchandise and services 0.78.ConsequencesBefore we conduct mover analysis, informations are tested for coding/data entry mistakes and trials for normalcy are conducted for each of the study points every potato chip good as the concepts that are created by calculating single points. Trials for normalcy include kurtosis easures, lopsidedness move, 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 propertys 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 individualit y, corporate behavior, corporate civilization, market conditions and house, merchandise and services. Using informations collected from the sample of 496 pupils, we conducted an explorative actor analysis utilizing chief constituents with the figure of factors non specified. The order of magnitude and scree secret plan of the characteristic root of a square matrixs indicated factors. In the following factor analysis, we set the figure of factors to five and interpreted factor burdens based on form matrix which resulted from cater-cornered rotary motion ( Hair et al. 1998 ) . Oblique rotary motion was appropriate 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 factor form, each factor intelligibly reflected one of the five priori dimensions. Subsequent loops were performed following omissi on of cross-loaded 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 crack-up 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 dis renovate panel 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 in this peculiar survey. The chief constituents processs produced 5 factors with characteristic root of a square matrix s greater than 1.0. This 5 factor solution, shown in Table 1 ( see appurtenance ) , accounted for 57.9 per cent of the entire 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. Other point such as office interior design , lighting , furniture , design of edifice , location , landscape , billet , 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 individuality 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 , helpful , understanding and knowledgeable .Factor 3Another 11 points clearly define this factor. They are vision and mission , goal accomplishment , philosophy and chief , aspiration and history and imagination . Most of these points reflect corporate civilization issues.Factor 4Six points load cleanly 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 determinat ion 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 propose 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 observe that the elements of ocular individuality such as logo, landscapes, edifice, illuming and furniture all loaded on the same factor. This determi nation 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 concentrate 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 impor t. 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, eleven 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 designed 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 footsure 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 ameliorate organisational public presentation ( Fombrun and Shanley, 1990 ) . If the consequences are generalizable, maximising 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 similar consequence can be found in other public university or private university ope rating 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 regularity 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, extra 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 of seven dimension of corporate individuality ( Melewar and Karaosmanoglu, 2006 ) graduated table would supply better account a bout 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 orsubstance?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 Identity 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 record 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 ) . Applied multipleregression/ coefficient of correlation analysis for the behavioural scientific disciplines. In ( 3rded. ) . Mahwah, impertinent Jersey Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Cornelissen, J. and Elving, W.J.L. ( 2003 ) Pull offing corporate individuality anintegrative model of dimensions and determiners.CorporateCommunicationss An International Journal.Vol. 8 ( 2 ) . Pp 114-120.Dowling, G. R. ( 1986 ) . Pull offing your corporate images.Industri al exchangeManagement.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 ) .Repute Recognizing Value from the Corporate Image.Harvard Business School 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. ) . speed Saddle River, NewJersey Pearson Education.Hair, J.F. et Al. ( 1998 ) .Multivariate Analysis( 5th ed. ) . Upper Saddle River, NJprentice- residence.Hutton, James G. ( 2002 ) .What s Reputation Got to Make with it A DissidentPespective. Corporate Communication plant 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, closing Combined 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 Marketing. Vol 40 ( 7/8 ) . Pp 846-869.Melewar, T.C. and Storrie, T. ( 2001 ) . Corporate individuality in the s ervicesector.Public Relations Quarterly. Pp 20-26.Melewar, T. C. dan Jenkins, E. ( 2000 ) .Specifying corporate individuality the hunt 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 ) . Understanding corporate individualityThe Gallic school of idea.European Journal of Marketing. Vol. 31.( 5-6 ) . Pp 383-395.Olins, W. ( 1978 ) .The Corporate Personality An Inquiry into the character ofCorporate Identity.Design Council LondonOlins, W. ( 1989 ) .Corporate i ndividuality Making concern scheme seeable through design.London Thames and HudsonOlins, W. ( 1995 ) .The New Guide to Identity. Wolf 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, pass ( 2001 ) . Rethinking the trade name construct newtrade name orientation.Corporate Communicationss An International Journal.6 ( 4 ) . 217-224Sirvanci, M. ( 1996 ) . argon 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 emerging field.Management Communication Quaterly. Vol11 ( 2 ) . 288-309Vidari, P. P. ( 1993 ) , The late g reat 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