Submitted to the 25th EGOS Colloquium Barcelona 2009 Passion for creativity and innovation - Energizing the study of organizations and organizing July 2–4, 2009, ESADE Business School, Barcelona, Spain. Sub-theme 15: Making brands come alive: How organizations, stakeholders and customers mobilize their identity

BRANDING PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN SWEDEN On legitimacy, values & identity

Bengt-Åke Gustafsson Ph.D. ([email protected],

& Dan Porsfelt Ph.D ([email protected]) School of Social Science VÄXJÖ UNIVERSITY SWEDEN

Background The Swedish public school system has undergone radical changes during the last years. Once strongly and directly controlled by the state a reform was launched 1990 when the public school system at primary and secondary levels was decentralized to a local political level (Löwstedt et al 2007). However, the state kept an overall monitoring role albeit more indirectly via mandatory curricula standards, norms and audits. In1992 this decentralization process was extended further when a system with free schools i.e. schools managed and owned by private companies, were allowed. Like institutional entrepreneurs1 (DiMaggio 1988, Greenwood & Suddaby 2006) these “Institutional entrepreneurs are organized actors who envision new institutions as a means of advancing interests they value highly yet that are suppressed by extant logics” (DiMaggio 1988). DiMaggio also says that “institutional change arise when actors with sufficient resources (institutional entrepreneurs) see in them an opportunity to realize an interest they value highly” (DiMaggio 1988:14). Thus, institutional entrepreneurs “are interest-driven, aware, and calculative” (Greenwood-Suddaby 2006:29) Institutional 1

1

new free schools successively “jolted” the traditional institutional logic (Suddaby & Greenwood 2006). Values, beliefs and norms institutionalized along with the development of the welfare state have, through New Public Management ideals (cf. Christensen and Laegreid 2001, 2008) been challenged and transformed. The increased fierce competition that public schools in Sweden now have faced has caused severe problems. For example, as the new free schools have increasingly attracted students, public schools have been forced into substantial budget cuts. To cope with this situation public schools have, rather slowly, begun to adopt ideas from marketing and (organizational) branding. Embarking such an endeavour leads to some rather profound challenges - and opportunities- some of which we intend to scrutinize in this paper. The main reason for our specific focus on public schools and the way they approach marketing and (organizational) branding in this paper depends firstly on the fact that this is an almost virgin research field in Sweden.2 Generally research on branding in and of public sector organizations is still rather uncommon (cf. Waeraas 2008). A second reason is that we see a need for critical reflection on why public schools, especially in some areas (in the big cities) have been “left behind” the free schools. Could there be a risk that public schools, mainly because of their unfamiliarity and also to some extent, unwillingness to deal with “business” logic and marketing concepts, have been trapped in their public service “self-image”, obscuring some, as we suggest, important and also attractive values and offerings3? Thirdly, still another aspect, at least worth mentioning made explicit when a public school (The Tibble Gymnasium, in Täby, outside Stockholm) during 2007 was sold to the principle and some teachers. In media and in an ensuing political dispute it was claimed that the school was sold far below the “proper” market price. One argument was that the brand value or brand equity (Keller 1993) was not included in the price. This demonstrated clearly the character of the situation and problematic touched upon in this paper, viz. the lack of knowledge in this field. Again we have

entrepreneurs can be persons (Czarniawska 2009) but also an organization or a collective of organizations/actors. The authors have launched a research project on this topic in January 2009. The project is planned for three years and financed by The Swedish Council For Working Life and Social Research (FAS). 2

The concept “offering” has been developed by Richard Normann (2001). He defines the concept as: “Offerings are artefacts designed to more effectively enable and organize value co-production” (2001:114). An offering is a combination of “the place” where action is taking place, “the time” of doing things, including the “customer” as co-producer of value. An offering should be seen as a system of generating value for and together with customers. 3

2

entered relatively virgin fields. Albeit we do not intend to solve this problem here, the character of the problem is worth mentioning, not at least for future research. Instead we have organized our discussion accordingly: After the first part where some background information was given the marketized situation within the Swedish school system is discussed. Then some aspects and challenges of branding in and of public organizations generally are presented. One main such challenge is the very notion of being a “complete organization”. Public sector organizations lack some of the main prerequisites, at least so it is argued. This leads to some problems when approaching the field of organizational branding. In the third section the focus is turned towards the branding situation for public schools in Sweden. Some specific challenges but also opportunities are identified. In a fourth part the concept of organizational branding is approached. Our ambition in this part is to identify a way to bypass or transcend the sometimes almost demonizing stance held amongst many public service professionals against concepts like concepts as “marketing” and “corporate” or “organizational branding”. In the fifth section some key aspects worth specific attention when embarking a branding route. These aspect concerns, paying specific attention to issues related to legitimacy, values and identity and how these concepts interplay. In the final section a conclusive reflection is presented.

The Swedish School system marketized With the introduction of a free school system in Sweden the entire educational field (DiMaggio 1988) at primary and secondary levels has been challenged; a challenge intensified since the number of free schools has risen significantly every year after the reform in 1992. Today, in some of the larger cities in Sweden almost 50% of the students are studying at a free school. And there are no real signs of a decreased interest in opening new free schools. Public schools increasingly lose students causing radical budget cuts. These problems are enlarged as public schools are trapped into heavy cost structures (e.g. buildings, equipment etc). Free schools on the other hand, often try to apply a kind of in-sourcing strategy. Instead of investing in firm resources like gyms and libraries, free schools tend to rent facilities and other resources needed. With each student in Sweden follows a “price tag” when entering the educational system. The amount is the same no matter if the school is public or free. This has lead to a situation where free schools, because of their in-sourcing Public schools, at the same time, have generally reacted rather passively thereby forced into a rather troublesome situation. As a part of this problematique the character of the student body within these two types of schools should be considered. It would be no exaggeration to claim that while many free schools attract the most motivated and talented 3

students4, the public schools are “left with the rest”. This situation of course creates some specific problems and challenges for the public schools. One such challenge is the almost adverse attitude towards business concepts and “rhetoric” demonstrated by public schools (and their employees). This obstacle is here labelled the “conceptual obstacle”. If concepts like “branding”, “corporate branding” and “marketing” could be transcended or better, translated, some problems would be solved, also some interesting opportunities would be made visible. Beyond this, there are also other obstacles of general significance that public schools share with public sector organizations, some of which are dealt with in the next section of this paper. Branding public organizations The advantages of applying (corporate) branding strategies in private corporations seem to be beyond any dispute.5 As Csaba (2005:128) states, “Many business leaders have come to see brands as their company‟s primary asset, and to see brand management as a main priority”. But why should public service organizations even bother about branding? Public service organizations generally do not operate on a competitive market notwithstanding some quasiattempts arranged within the wake of New Public Management trends (Christensen & Laegreid 2008). Public service organizations are generally just parts and parcels of a public bureaucratic system, a standardized apparatus with no ambitions what so ever to reach a branded position and by that “making a difference”. Such a stance seems however to be a bit narrow minded as it has been found that lately organizations within the public sector increasingly have adopted ideas from marketing and (corporate) branding areas (Csaba 2005). One reason, it is claimed, is that the relationship between the private and the public sector has changed during the last years. A tendency towards “marketization has affected nonprofits (...)” (Csaba 2005:132). Another reason would that public organizations increasingly have lost support from governments. Such a development force the public sector organizations to unleash proactive strategies and policies. Or when Csaba (2005:133) summarizes the situation accordingly:” the restructuring between the three sectors” (government, public service organizations and private corporations) has put pressure on nonprofits to become more visible, efficient and accountable”. Based upon such in insight one 4

Free schools have denied students with different types of handicaps to enroll. The Swedish Government just recently proclaimed to take a decision that such a policy should not be acceptable. Think about the market value of Coke compared to its “substantial” value. The former is far higher which is explained by some as an outcome of the specific brand value attached to this company. 5

4

now understand why organizational branding is gaining increased attractiveness also within this sector. Waeraas (2008:205) argues in the same direction when claiming that “increasingly public organizations like hospitals (...) universities (...) and various government and regulatory agencies (...) “seek to express their identities and their values through vision and mission statements, core values, slogans and logos”. Placing this development within a wider context one could refer to ideas launched by for example Davenport and Beck (2001) when they once talked of the coming of the “attention economy”. Today, this is more relevant than ever but the research within this field is as Waeraas (2008) argues rather meagre. Waeraas (2008:206) says that “Little is known about the way in which public organizations use corporate branding by capturing audience attention to their name, identity and values”. Even though public sector organizations do not normally compete on a market (public schools are as shown here the main exemption) brand aspects become increasingly relevant also for this type of organization. After all, they, like all other organizations compete on what may be described as an “image-“ or “attention-market”. It is a matter of accessing different types of resources, financially as well as highly qualified co-workers, where “employer branding” (Lievens, Van Hoye & Anseel 2007) is somewhat of the catch phrase of the day. Maybe there may be some relevance in why for example even such an organization as the Swedish Prison and Probation Service, certainly not acting on a market and competing for “customers”, currently works with “its brand”. It may be a way of rediscovering who “they are” – a quest for identity thus. But it may also be a question of market competition. The competition in the “attention market” is not about competing with organisations producing the same or similar products or services. Rather, The Prison and Probation Service competes for attention with schools, hospitals, the military, and other publicly financed organisations and institutions. Foremost, this competition is of a pecuniary sort – about funding, but sometimes also regarding (professional) boundaries (cf. Abbott 1988). Csaba (2005:133-134) gives us further arguments for branding of public service organizations: “Nonprofits increasingly need to recruit members, raise their public profile and document high standards, even to simply retain government subsidies. To do this they need to attract media coverage and public attention in competition with a growing number of other nonprofits and highly professional, commercial enterprises. Csaba (2005) says that “being in the public eye, in turn, makes nonprofits subject to media and public scrutiny, which places heavy demands on the ability of the organization to justify its causes and deliver on its promises”, (p 133). Csaba further argues that “Branding as a management technique is arguably particularly appealing for the 5

nonprofit sector” (ibid). It has even been claimed by the chairman of Interbrand Foundation that branding is “more critical for nonprofits than for corporate clients” because: They‘re competing for the attention of the public; they need to have their missions understood, to attract volunteers, to motivate staff, to get contributions. Sometimes it is hard to focus and remember who they are.[Branding] will portray their reason for being in an arresting way‖ van Ham (2008) have also presented some arguments for “why branding is both necessary and beneficial for commercial and political actors alike: 1) Products, services and locations have become so alike that they can no longer differentiate themselves by their quality, reliability and other basic traits. Branding adds emotion and trust to these ‗products‘ thereby offering clues that make consumer‘s choice somewhat easier. 2) This emotional relationship between brand and consumer ensures loyalty to the brand. 3) By creating an aspiration lifestyle, branding offers a kind of ersatz for ideologies and political programs that are losing their relevance and 4) The combination of emotions, relationships, and lifestyle (values) allows a brand to charge a price premium for their products, services and locations, which would otherwise hardly be distinguishable from generics. So far, there should be doubts that also public organizations would gain by approaching the field of corporate or organizational branding. However still one may find some problems and challenges in such an endeavour. Csaba (2005:149) has also identified some obvious “barriers to successful corporate branding”. He claims that within public sector organizations there is generally a “lack of competencies and economic resources for branding”. Furthermore, one often have problems finding “adequate commercial partners or sufficient branding expertise” really understanding the very nature of the public sector operations. Csaba (2005:149) also emphasizes the importance to “preserve the integrity and legitimacy vis-a-vis stakeholders”. Csaba has also identified the problem we earlier called “the conceptual obstacle”. There is, Csaba argues, a kind of hostility towards “brandspeak” or business rhetoric within public sector organizations. This attitude could, we claim, be referred to a natural distinction between the “two logics” but also subscribed to some foundational or ideological attitudes emanating from a rather distinctly formed cleavage between the “private” and the “public” (sectors): a cleavage especially emphasized and enacted in Sweden. However, last but not least, one central obstacle to handle when considering approaching organizational branding concerns the very issue of actually “being an organization”. The statement may sound peculiar to some, but leaning towards arguments presented by Brunsson 6

and Sahlin-Andersson (2000) when the problems and challenges on “construction organizations” are discussed, will throw some light on what is aimed at here. Brunsson and Sahlin-Andersson (2000) viz. argue that public service organizations generally are merely “agents” not really “complete organizations”.

In order to gain such completeness organizations, according to

Brunsson and Sahlin-Andersson (2000), must meet with three main requirements: a) having developed a distinct identity (p 732), b) have/be an identifiable hierarchy on its own and c) be operated according to a specific rationality i.e. having some clear and specified achievable, measurable and not contradictory goals. The identity issue – an issue we return to later on in this paper - is of definite central interest and relevance when it comes to organizational branding (cf Hatch and Schultz 2008). The main reference within this area is of course Albert and Whetten (1985) and their argument on that organizational identity is i.e. ”that which is central, distinctive and enduring”(Hatch & Schultz 2004:3). Identity is about answers to questions like “who are we?”, “What business are we in?” or “What do we want to be?” (ibid). Brunsson and Sahlin-Andersson (2000) argue that identity builds from autonomy, collective resources and boundaries. By autonomy (2000:723) it is meant “that it can own, or at any rate control, resources, as well as controlling its own boundaries, by commanding the opportunities for entering or exiting (...)”.

Requirements of this character however, raise

problems when it comes to the public service organization. As Brunsson and Sahlin-Andersson (2000) argue, such “organizations” are merely agents and as such not considered especially autonomous. Neither do such “agents” necessarily have distinct boundaries. When it comes to collective resources these could be of three main types: budgetary resources, human resources and symbolic resources6 (reputation, status etc) (Ahrne 1990). The budgets are to some extent beyond control of the specific agent. Budgets are instead decided on at a political level. If there ever would appear a “positive residue” within a specific public sector “organization” this has to be returned to the overall administrative system. By such an arrangement, there are no incitements to be more efficient than the standards set. On the human resource side, meritocracy is the main principle. According to Weberian standards personality or “character” issues should be disregarded. Concerning the symbolic dimension, i.e. reputation or status/image, there are, or should we say, has – until recently - been no reasons to invest any energy (or money) into this matter. So, now when organizational branding is on the agenda we

6

This third resource, we argue, is about the same as “brand value”. 7

understand that the situation contains some interesting challenges; challenges we also of course find when trying to brand public schools. Branding public schools With the advent of free schools in Sweden public schools increasingly have - more or less – been forced into an engagement with organizational branding. There seems to be no point of return. Unless public schools, albeit hesitantly sometimes, are beginning to apply some “business rhetoric” and “logic” the present loss of students causes dramatic budget cuts and public schools to be closed down. One main problem however is that public schools, as merely being part of a public service bureaucracy, have never been forced to substantially and critically reflect on the foundation for their legitimacy, neither on the values underlying the “operation” nor on their specific identity as a school. Neither has public school management been actively and systematically involved in strategic organizational, communicative and marketing processes. Thus, one could claim that public schools have recruited students not by actively or strategically “making themselves attractive” but by merely “being there”. With a history of a compulsory public school system introduced more than 160 years ago, the institution is deeply embedded in Swedish culture. As a monopoly, there were no alternatives 7 to chose from. Students were recruited according to plans following the cohort sizes, geographical proximity to the school, etc. However, as stated earlier with the advent of free schools the entire system was jolted. The planning processes are now much more complicated and complex. Today it is for many school principals very hard to know, in advance, the number of students that will attend the school the following semester. Furthermore, in order to survive (in some areas in Sweden, where local or regional education markets have de facto developed) public schools - for the first time of their existence - have to reflect on their reputation and/or legitimacy. This is demanding as stated earlier, there is no real experience in reflecting on values (beyond those formally decided by the state and supposedly shared throughout the school system) neither on the very identity of the specific school and its relation to both other schools and the surrounding social structures. These problems relate of course to the discussion presented earlier referring to Brunsson and SahlinAndersson (2000) where the requirements for being a complete organization were presented. One such requirement was the importance of distinct boundaries. Secondly, collective resources were according to Brunsson and Sahlin-Andersson (2000) needed. Depending on the contents of Actually, there are since many years in Sweden a few small private schools often for students from specially economically privileged groups in Sweden, for example Lundsberg where the Swedish King and relatives studied. However, this does not at all change the picture presented in the main text. 7

8

and the very mixture of such resources a school would increase its chances to “be (perceived as) different”, acquiring and manifesting a unique profile, etc. In the case of public schools one important such collective resource would be the professional teachers. However, this is a very sensitive “collective resource” with a very specific “mindset”, especially when it comes to branding issues. Here the difference between a private corporation and a public school gains substantial visibility. Hiring professional teachers within the Swedish School system is, as also counts for all public sector organizations, supposed to follow the meritocratic and Weberian bureaucratic principles. In this sense public schools managers have had limited possibilities in impacting who will be the next teacher in her/his school. Painted somewhat, perhaps too, broadly, personality, character and “social competence” is therefore given no real or at least not a decisive value.

As a result

no “personal attachment” is created leading to a situation where teachers become weakly committed to a specific school. The chances of building a kind of “we-feeling” within a schools is thereby reduced somewhat.

Teachers like most professionals, tend instead to be more

committed to their own professionalism, than to the organization as such (Brunsson and SahlinAndersson 2000, Dent and Whitehead 2002, Löwstedt et al 2007). Added to this, professional teachers are normally rather hesitant to market and business “talk”. The teachers professional identity, in the sense we understand the concept here (cf. Abott 1988, Dent and Whitehead 2002) builds upon ideals from bildung not business. As a Swedish teacher puts it in an interview: The possibility to share ideas and discuss pedagogic matters is diminishing. My experience is that teachers work isolated from one another more and more. There is basically no room to discuss subjects and teaching, instead a very large portion of teachers‘ work outside the class room is about marketing, ―how are we going to profile our school‖?, ―how can we reach out?‖, ―how can we get enough pupils?‖ and a lot of organising and administration around those matters. But the subjects, the teaching is left out. (Teacher from Umeå, interviewed on Swedish Radio ―Studio Ett‖ 24/5 2009.) Such an attitude amongst the employees within the organization naturally causes some specific challenges when public schools think of entertaining marketing and branding ideas and ideals. Comparing with the new free schools in Sweden, their situation is different. For example when hiring teachers, personality, attitudes and values are given primary or at least a very important, status. It is also far from uncommon that free schools recruit teachers lacking formal professional grades/education. Personal attractiveness seems, in some cases, to be more important than professional training and experience. Recent statistics from Skolverket (The Swedish National 9

Agency for Education) show that in 2008/2009 84% of public secondary school teachers have a university degree in pedagogy compared with 59% of the teachers in the free secondary schools. In public primary schools, 91% had such a degree, compared with 71% of the employed teachers in free schools. These figures have been relatively stabile over a period of eight years measured. (Skolverket 2009, p127, 221). Certainly this gives free schools some specific advantages when it comes to the issue of branding and specifically “making a difference”. However, this does not of course grant that the quality of the teaching and the entire school exceeds that of the more bureaucratic run public school. When it comes to hierarchy Brunsson and Sahlin-Andersson (200:721) argue that there should be some kind of “authoritative centre”, a “leadership” with the power of impacting the local identity and the direction of the operation. However, as being an agent this “authoritative freedom” is heavily reduced. In public schools the management (principle) is not even expected or allowed to try to develop a specific identity and unique operative methods for and within the schools. Also, the entire issue of leadership and management has been deemphasized within public schools. These are issues not really considered that important as public schools merely are part of the bureaucratic system, governed by rules and regulations, less by leadership spirit. Often public school principles complain that they are not given any chance to work with pedagogical issues. Instead they are trapped into immense “paper-work” and bureaucratic assignments of different types. Free schools on the other hand strongly emphasize the leadership issue and the importance of “managing the spiritual processes” within the school. A third aspect of being a complete organization according to Brunsson and Sahlin-Andersson (2000) concerns issues on rationality. Discretionary issues should be handled according to rational norms and specified goals. But as has realized in many instances public organizations do have general problems when setting and follow up on goals. While private corporations can formulate rather consistent goals (ROI; profit on ...), public organizations may be forced to work with sometimes even contradicting goals (for example efficient health care could compete with human/ethical values/goals). Or as Brunsson and Sahlin-Andersson (2000:728) put it: ”A recurrent complaint in recent reviews of public-sector services is that they embrace several tasks and objectives, which to some extent contradict one another”. In other words, public schools do have, as also other public sector organizations have, problems also when it comes to the third requirement for being a complete organization .

10

Summarizing this so far, one finds that the very foundation for organizational branding within and of public schools appear rather weak, lacking resources, skills and commitment within all three key areas: organization, leadership/management and employees. Still, in spite of this, one has to realize that there seems to be no way back to a previous condition. So when public schools are trying to embark on a trajectory into organizational branding there are some specific areas or issues that should be dealt with carefully. Some issues can never be really or definitely solved. We have as for example Waeraas (2008) nicely argues “to accept the restrictions” and act from there on. One challenge that should be dealt with concerns what we here name “the conceptual obstacle” i.e. the idea of perhaps gaining a higher degree of acceptance for corporate branding ideas by conducting some kind of conceptual transcendence. Transcending business talk In what follows we refrain from a traditional conceptual review on corporate or, as we prefer it, organizational branding. Such reviews and discussions are already numerous (se for example de Chernatony – Riley 1999, Ind 1977, Balmer 2001, Schultz et al 2005, Schultz et al 2006, Hatch & Schultz 2008) and also rapidly growing. Instead, we intend to find a way to reformulate the corporate or organizational branding concept into something wider and a more general concept, thereby hopefully increasing the chances of bypassing obstacles and hesitance held by actors not normally used to work within this field. The cleavage between bildung versus “business” mentioned earlier may lead to a demonizing stance against some ideas and concepts that, we argue here, could be of critical importance also to public schools. In order to transcend such a risk we suggest a kind of “translation” of some concepts thereby finding a vocabulary disconnected from “business” or “marketing” language. Even though we will not manage to develop such a specific language here, we can at least try to identify some dimensions that would function as a very first step in such a direction. That branding could be understood as something much wider than being merely a marketing concept is of course a well known insight within this field (see for example Schultz et al 2005, Kärreman & Rylander 2008, Waeraas & Solbakk 2008). Such a position is strengthened further when talking of “organizational branding”. By this the brand concept is transformed from being merely a market concept into the field of “organizational management and strategy” (also cf Kärreman & Rylander 2008, Hatch & Schultz 2008). And in search for an even broader interpretation of the concept of branding we lean towards the notion of seeing banding as a

11

rhetorical8, communicative and symbolic (cf. Schultz et al 2000) endeavour. Along with such a stance the very idea of “meaning making” gains specific centrality. Kärreman & Rylander (2008:105) suggest that brands function as “vehicles of meaning that may deeply affect interpretive communities”. They also argue that “corporate branding can be conceptualized as an element in an overarching system of persuasion that, among other things, attempts to influence the way organizational members enact a socially constructed reality” (2008:107). Such a stance takes us a far beyond mere marketing. Instead we are close to “organizational meaning making”, and thereby not too far from Weick‟s (1995) organizational sensemaking. Extending this even a bit further we approach what in another context has been named “worldmaking” (Goodman 1978). Another way to put this is to claim that branding is a symbolic endeavour (cf Hatch & Schultz 2008). By taking the symbolic dimension and stance seriously, accepting its “real-ness” and “substantiality”9, there is an opening up for transcendence of the character depicted by for example Kärreman & Rylander (2008). Now branding gains value beyond being merely seen as logotypes, names or trademarks as is often stated in traditional definitions as the one from the American Marketing Association (Waeraas 2008:206). From a symbolic perspective, branding becomes much wider than mere “signification”. Signification could, as we argue, generate a kind of “fixity” like the classical (AMA) definition airs. Such a fixation is of course one of the objectives with branding i.e. establishing a clear and distinct association between for example an organization and the products/services. We are here touching upon an issue Kärreman & Rylander (2008) call the “ambiguity-coping practice” (2008:118). They claim that branding has a double nature. On the one side branding is about to eliminate risk, doubts etc. This could be called the “ambiguous reducing effect” of branding. At the same time branding should also open up for new perspectives and in that sense, paradoxically, “increase ambiguity”. Brands, in this sense, open up for new insights and what is more important, new values. Kärreman & Rylander

Rhetoric is not here seen in a pejorative sense. Rhetoric is instead applied in the same way as for example R.H. Brown (1989) seeing society (or organizations) as “text”. The traditional distinction between “real” and “rhetorical” is then blurred. 8

Not too seldom one can hear a distinction made between “the real” and “the symbolic”. Such a stance degrades symbolism to a minor or less important region in our life, a position that for example the philosopher Ernst Cassirer (1944) strongly would negate. Instead, symbolism plays a central role in the way humans become humans, not merely a body, not merely living a life as a matter of “transportation” from year #1 to year #?. 9

12

(2008:119) claim that the brand in this sense becomes a “counter-force to the pressures towards the low-end of the market, such as the trend towards outsourcing and so called off-shoring (...)” By this is meant that the symbolic dimension of branding tends to take us in a more exciting direction towards the un-fixed, even the ambiguous or polyfonic dimensions (c.f. Sennett 2006). At this point it is hard to refrain from bringing on an argument by Paul Ricoeur (1992:54) when talking of “the power of language” and metaphors and especially what he calls “the poetic dimension”; a dimension (...) disclosing “unprecedented worlds, an opening into other possible worlds”. Richard Sennett (2006) is arguing in a similar vein when saying that successful brands leave a space open for imagination: Movement and incompleteness equally energize the imagination: fixity and solidity equally deaden it. The consumer participates in the act of branding and in this act it is the goldplate rather than the platform which matters. (p 149) Waernaas (2008:207) is moving the argument in a similar direction when claiming that “a [corporate] brand is a powerful symbolic creation that can act as a „replacement or supplement to religious belief” (Olins 2000:63). By referring to concepts like “imagination”, “religion” and “poetry” some would perhaps claim that we are pushing the matter a bit too far. How could such a stance be of any value to any organization, or specifically to a public school? However, this is the main point we would like to make. By such a position we maintain that it is really aspects like these that take branding from merely being a kind of “information” or “sign-ification” (ambiguity reducing) into a completely different space: the space of imaginative or poetic meaning making (ambiguity expanding). It is by adopting ideas and thoughts like these that for example the public school could make a move from being merely a verwaltung within the general public school system (ambiguity reducing) into something very different, much more exciting perhaps even add some “magic” grain to boredom (ambiguity expanding). Berg (2005) explains the character of this kind of magic: The concept of magic implies the use of a set of practices and tools, or a particular mode of rationality, that refers to invisible powers or agencies to influence events, cause changes in material conditions, or create experiences of a particular quality. The practice of magic involves a set of symbolic actions employing words (spells, incantations, etc.), artifacts (charms, totems, etc.) and particular events and procedures (rites and ceremonies) performed by a magician and/or other participants in an audience. Magic rationality is based on efficacy—the power of producing a desired effect—even though a linear, or causal, relationship between the magic performance and its effect cannot be traced. 13

Even though one may claim that this is the most dramatic and expressive form of branding we cling to the idea that brands if aspiring to be more than mere “information” and a fixed association should at least contain some grain of magic. Of course this is challenging especially within and for organizations, like public ones, that are not used to or even – at least to some extent - hesitant to talk or think in lines like these. On the power of legitimacy, values and identity When public schools enter the “marketized” world a specific attention should be directed towards legitimacy. Legitimacy is here seen from an internal and an external side or dimension. The external dimension is the main dimension emphasized by for example institutional theorists as for example Meyer and Rowan (1977) and DiMaggio (1988). From their perspective legitimacy is considered one of the most important assets: even more important than efficiency. According to the institutional school legitimacy is rendered to the organization or the actor from the outside, from the environment. The most important thing is to carefully and passively respond to the norms etc in the environment. On its most general level legitimacy is seen as “meeting and adhering to the expectations of a social system‟s norms, values, rules and meanings (Deephouse & Carter 2005:331). A more specific definition by Suchman (1995) would then be: Legitimacy is a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions. (p. 574). With the turmoil caused by the institutional entrepreneurs (free schools) the rules of the game on and within the educational field are about to change. The foundation for legitimacy within the educational field (DiMaggio 1988) has changed with some overall value-transformations in the society at large (Sennett 2006). With the advent of free schools new norms, values and beliefs has been infused into the educational system in Sweden albeit rather slowly. Obviously, public schools and their management today need to realize that they not any longer can count on gaining legitimacy by “just being there”. Or put differently, public schools cannot take themselves for granted any longer. Neither can they rely on being taken for granted by the public. Stated differently, the deep embeddeness of the (public) school institution in the national culture and local society alike is no longer a guarantee for legitimacy. The monopoly situation is gone. In fact, in the suburbs of larger cities, the local public schools may even be tainted by their connection to a generalized “government” that also gets the blame for segregation, discrimination and relative poverty affecting the every day life of its inhabitants (Bunar 2009). Choosing a free school instead of the public, local school with its legitimacy based on similarity and sameness, bureaucracy and 14

state could be at least a symbolic act of distancing oneself from the limited horizons of possibilities experienced in everyday life and attributed to the very same grounds for legitimacy. By merely adopting to the upcoming changes in the environment public schools may loose their legitimacy base. Instead we suggest they may need to move towards a more proactive stance and by that trying to gain an impact on the legitimacy issue. Suchman (1995) is actually also suggesting such a possibility by claiming a strategic approach as an alternative. The perspective used is rather close to a “resource based perspective” (cf. Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). According to such a position, organization and its management can chose different ways depending on the type of legitimacy that is wished for (depending on their collective resources available within the organization). Of course, legitimacy is always a result of specific audience‟s perceptions but there is always an option of “managing impressions” (Giacalone &Rosenfeld 1989) rhetorically and strategically. When it comes to the type of legitimacy strategy to choose from Suchman (1995) has suggested different options. Each with its own communicative and rhetorical (cf Suddaby and Greenwood 2005) character and contents. The first is called pragmatic legitimacy. Another is moral and a third cognitive legitimacy. These types are then divided into more specific interpretations which are not dealt with here. The first, the pragmatic is about “conforming to external and internal demands. The pragmatic strategy is instrumental in the sense that an organization gains legitimacy if it “delivers what is demanded”. Here the main principles would then be to react very sensitively to market demands. “Deliver what the market asks for !” Important is then to demonstrate such a “sensibility” clearly and distinctively. This could for example be done by presenting statistics on how many of the students that get high grades and thereby are given chances to gain entrance to prestigious future educational programs.

Many free schools have often adopted such a

communicative or rhetorical strategy. However, by adopting the pragmatic legitimacy route one has to pay attention also to the internal side of the organization. There must be a balance between what is done on the outside and what is accepted as legitimate on the inside (by for example professional teachers). If the outside (“big and audacious” promises and visions) and inside (lack of internal resources like commitment, trust etc) are not in balance, severe problems will occur in the future. Suchman (1995) suggests a second type of strategy for gaining legitimacy, called the “moral legitimacy”. This type of legitimacy is gained because it reflects “a positive normative evaluation of the organization and its activities (...)” (Suchman 1995:579). Moral legitimacy is according to 15

Suchman “sociotropic” i.e. “it rests not on judgments about whether a given activity benefits the evaluator, but rather on judgments about whether the activity is „the right thing to do‟. We here find a kind of “altruistic” dimension, reflecting values and beliefs about “whether the activity effectively promotes societal welfare as defined by the audience‟s socially constructed value system” (Suchman ibid). Here we could return to the reflection made above on the need for a balance between the internal and external side of the organization when it comes to strategy chosen for gaining legitimacy. Maybe a “hefty” pragmatic legitimacy preferred by the school mangement may conflict with a more “durable” moral legitimacy strategy preferred by the professional teachers. The third type of legitimacy mentioned by Suchman is “cognitive legitimacy”. This type is based on “taken-for-granted” not on evaluation or on specific interests. (Suchman 1995:582).

This

type of legitimacy has been of central relevance for public schools in Sweden. Problably its importance will be reduced as it may act as an obstacle for insights and self reflections needed within and by public schools. Reflecting more generally on the legitimacy issues one might suggest the public schools in Sweden mainly have gained their legitimacy from a blend of the moral (welfare) and cognitive (taken-for-granted) types. Of course the pragmatic type of legitimacy should not be dismissed here. Public schools have nevertheless been rather silent on the “instrumental” issue. One reason for this may be related to the fact that the very school “should not make a difference”. As stated earlier, according to the idea of a public school is that such a school should be supporting “equality” and not difference. There is a main dictum in the Swedish school system: The Swedish school should be “a school for all and everyone”. Everyone, notwithstanding social class, ethic background etc should given exactly the same preconditions for future successes. Free schools on the other hand, instead have acted more like “businesses” and applied the pragmatic legitimacy strategy by responding sensitively to current market demands. Free schools directly emphasize “making a difference”. We do not of course claim that free schools do not apply the moral dimension of legitimacy. This especially counts for free schools affiliated to religious or political ideals. The third legitimacy strategy suggested by Suchman, the cognitive legitimacy is as stated above probable less relevant for the new free schools in lack of the long tradition as the public schools. Public schools could of course gain some legitimacy by adhering to the cognitive strategy by claiming its historical background and experiences in teaching and education. However such a stance must pay due consideration to the fact the

“taken-for-granted”

dimension within the cognitive strategy may be of negative value to the public school. 16

Probably, the most relevant approach for public schools will be to consider a mixture of components in order to gain legitimacy for the future. Probably the pragmatic legitimacy strategy needs to be upgraded and developed by public schools. A more active and “sounding” communicative strategy may then be a necessity. Such an approach must however pay very close attention to how the professional teachers are reacting. Values Of course the legitimacy strategy chosen should be related to specific values dominating in an organization. Public schools may for example continue to gain legitimacy by adhering to some of the classical (moral) values central to the public educational system in Sweden where the welfare dimension is still emphasized. Some adjustments or additions, we argue, may be needed in order to cope with the increased competition. According to the general curriculum (LPO 1994) and § 1 in the Swedish School Law Swedish public schools must build on some fundamental core values: Democracy, respect for each individual and the environment. As these values are values found within all public schools in Sweden (and also free schools), they cannot function as a springboard for making difference. Not at least on a discursive level. As a next step such fundamental or core values, we suggest, should be complemented by other values that would give each school an opportunity “to make a difference”. Public schools may need to find ways to generate some kind of “surprise”, not necessarily in any “flashy” or faddish way. Such a “surprise” could very well be achieved by merely scrutinizing the value system and basic assumptions (cf. Schein 2004) actually and substantially (“theory in use”) guiding the “organization”. The public schools have earlier been demanded to “produce value” of a more standardized format, call it “bulk” products. Free schools on the other hand have often gained their attractiveness by placing focus on other types of values like “excitement, joy, development, etc”. Expressed somewhat differently and metaphorically, and also a bit provocatively, while public schools seem to be “manufacturing” on a “commodity” level, free schools “dance” in the “experience economy” (Pine and Gilmore 1999). Public schools could perhaps, through a kind of “value mining” find “customers” values that hitherto never been expressed, thereby kept rather opaque. Such findings could also contribute to place the public school “offerings” (Normann 2001) at a higher level of the “experience ladder” (Pine and Gilmore 1999). What is said here should is of course related to what was mentioned earlier in connection to the dimension within branding which could be labelled the “ambiguityexpansive” dimension (cf. Kärreman & Rylander 2008). Put differently: public schools may be 17

able to offer, by reflection on the contents of their daily operations, value of different types and dimensions never realized before. At this very point, in such a process we argue that the ideas related to organizational branding (or what will be the preferred label) may be very helpful. Identity The identity issue has discussed above as a part of the prerequisits for creating a “complete organization” (Brunsson and Sahlin-Andersson 2000). Given that identity is at the core of creating a strong organizational brand, organizations with unclear identity may run the risk of being considered “unclear” or “fuzzy” not just on the “outside”, by “customers” (current and potential students and their parents) but also on the “inside” i.e. by the professional teachers and other employees. If there is a real misfit between the identity of the employees and the identity that is supposed to count for the school as an organization, problems will occur. Before embarking on any audaciously branding adventures one should be very careful in considering if the “crew” is for or against, committed or not. This may be seen as redundant information but still we would like to repeat the argument that in many schools, the professional vocational identity of teachers is a solid ground for resistance to the introduction of organizational branding in their schools, interpreting this merely as managerialist ideals and practices superimposed on an already stressful everyday work life and much in contrast to what teaching and the teacher role is supposed to be about: A problem, as I see it, is that schools have moved away from being a learning institution, both when it comes to its own development and the pupils‘ development towards a focus on administration, economy and marketing. And the foundation for this problem is of course to a large extent that schools now are in a situation of competition, with the free schools in the arena. And this has changed the conditions. And this has consequences all the way back into the class room, as I see it. (Teacher from Umeå, interviewed on Swedish Radio ―Studio Ett‖ 24/5 2009). As explained by Karmark (2006: 109) “in the marketing and communications based perspective, the employees are, to a large extent, seen as one of the target audiences for the company‟s brand communication. According to this philosophy, management‟s primary task is to formulate the brand values to communicate them to the employees. If employees in the front-line are left to themselves to find the best way of doing things, the results will be highly variable. Some do fantastically well, others less well. It‟s not so surprising – a brand‟s values contain many possibilities, like so many different facets around the brand itself. But for a brand to become a success, its values must be communicated identically” (Csaba 2006:110). 18

And Karmark (2006) also emphasizes that “Internal branding also puts emphasis on the issue of control. Leaving the brand values open to interpretation may be considered risky”. And Kunde (2000:171) argues that “ Entrusting people with the brand is risky business – far more risky than running massive advertising campaigns, where the message – however it will be executed – is within your span of control. Carefully ensuring that people are committed, and understand and accept both the whys and the hows of brand delivery however, can turn a risk into a powerful asset.” As stated several times earlier, what has been said above raises fundamental problems and challenges when it comes to managing the branding situation within public schools. Unless there is no distinct identity that employees (professional teachers and others) can relate to and also strongly overlap with their own “self-image” the foundation for organizational branding is hurt. Conclusive discussion In sum, the discussion presented in this paper has placed the main focus on public schools when embarking on the tour towards organizational branding. Specifically the importance of gaining status as “complete organization” has been emphasized. Unless such a status is achieved the fundamental precondition for engaging in organizational branding is lacking. As a part of such endeavour public schools have to look into issues related to identity, values, and legitimacy. As of today public schools are, we claim, at the very first and rather virgin steps on this tour. We also can see some concrete experiments and attempts made within this field. A first and interesting move in such a direction has already been noticed. Through an “experiment”10 with so called public free schools a kind of “semi-free” schools have been formed. Still being a public school monitored by the local political system, these schools have been rendered a higher degree of independence. Each school has for example formed a board of members from different sectors of the community, including some from the corporate world. If there are any positive budgetary “residues” these could be kept “over the years”. This will generate incentives to be more efficient, to find new approaches in teaching etc, etc. Recently this “experiment” has been evaluated and also gained permanent status. In sum, these schools have almost fulfilled all requirements for being a complete organization according to demands stated by Brunsson and Sahlin-Andersson (2000). By this the foundation for building their own “organizational brand” is set.

Four such experiments are found in Linköping: where Folkungaskolan, Rosendalsskolan, Skäggetorpsskolan, and IS Atlas are examples of such ”public free schools”. 10

19

If these schools are to be successful in the future, they have however to seriously reflect on concepts such as legitimacy, values and identity. In order to form a specific identity some organizational distinctive core values, i.e. values beyond those formally given by the state, must be identified. Furthermore a thorough reflection on the value i.e. “the offering” “produced” by the school should be conducted. A reflection on which level – commodity and/or experience (Pine and Gilmore 1999) these “offerings” (Normann 2001) are generated should also be conducted. Finally, regarding the legitimacy issue, when public schools enter the stage of “marketing” and “branding” they also enter “foreign territory”, some perhaps would even say hostile territory. When applying organizational branding ideas this must be done in a very cautious way, balancing the marketing efforts. As has been argued here, a pragmatic form of legitimacy (Suchman 1995) (i.e. responding to market demands) combined with moral legitimacy (keeping up with ideals from the welfare state and bureaucratic ethos) may be a functioning combination for public schools in the future. On a broader level, we have argued that the whole idea of efforts put into (corporate) branding of public organizations must be seen as a phenomenon within the broader context of privatization, marketization, new public management and economism. To some, such as teachers and other staff in public schools, this may result in a genuinely felt adversity to the whole idea and a dismissal of it as just another “management fashion” or as more or less unwanted aspects of neo-liberalism and economism in general and as submission to ideology. Clearly, it is important to very critically monitor ideologically driven aspirations to change public institutions. Certainly the performativities and fabrications that characterize individual and organisational action in what may be labelled a performative society (Ball 2001) are governed by these very trends. And certainly this has had very concrete results. The market, and pretty fierce competition in it, is a reality for principals, teachers, students, parents and school politicians that cannot be referred to as merely discourse or shallow business rhetoric. Unwanted or wanted. But, against this background, without losing a critical perspective, we do see a risk of demonization here and a need to de-dramatize and un-demonize the phenomenon of school branding. Because along with this practice, possibilities to (re-)discover, create awareness of and express hidden, unreflected upon and “old” values in the public organizations such as schools, values connected with “the positive sides” of a bureaucratic ethos (du Gay 2000) and developed over long time. As far as Swedish public schools are concerned, this is a matter of several hundred years. Far from being advocates of a general principle of “return of/reconstruction of” or uncritical praise of bureaucracies in general (something for example Bauman (1989) has shown unwanted aspects of) 20

we believe that many of the principles and values characterizing the public bureaucracy in general and the public school system in general do have an appeal to many “customers in the education market” still, today. The dull but competent „products‟ from the bureau, the knowledge that (at least formal) competency exists amongst its agents, that rules and regulations guaranteeing services and decisions that are the same for all “customers”, seems to us as resonating with ideals and attitudes within a large portion of Swedish citizens. The discourse surrounding public schools today is not seldom focused around problems such as violence, bullying, lack of funding, poor results, etcetera, whereas free schools to a much less degree are tied down to that image complex, which may be a hard burden to be associated with. In no small degree, “free choice” of schools triggers processes of a segregating character, even though some de-segregating results may simultaneously show up, as shown in a recent study by Bunar (2009). But the (re-)discovery of and (re-)packaging of positive sides of a bureaucratic, and possibly also professional teacher-, ethos and central values may help public schools cope with fierce competition. So, even though in itself originally part of the “spilling over” of ideas, values and practices from the field of economy and the ideologically grounded economism, marketization and privatization dominating the new performative society – corporate branding of public institutions, such as schools, may bring back to life forgotten, unreflexively existing (?) values and practices, that may be an asset in that very surrounding.

References Abbott, A. (1988) The system of professions. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Ahrne G (1990) Agency and organization: towards an organizational theory of society. London: Sage. Albert S. D.A. Whetten (1985) Organizational Identity. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in organizational behavior (Vol 7, pp 263-295). Greenwich, CT:JAI Ball S. (2001) 'Performativities and fabrications in the education economy'. In Gleeson D. & Husbands C. (eds.) The Performing School - managing teaching and learning in a performance culture. London: RoutledgeFalmer Balmer, J.M. (2001) “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: Seeing through the fog”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 248-91. 21

Balmer, J.M. (2006) Corporate brand cultures and communities (in Schroeder J.E., M. SalzerMörling eds. 2006: Brand Culture. London: Routledge. Baumann, Z. (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust. Cambridge:Polity Press. Berg, P O (2007) "Magic in Organizing." International Encyclopedia of Organization Studies. 2007. SAGE Publications Brown, R. H. (1990) ‘Rhetoric, textuality and the postmodern turn in Sociological theory’. Sociological Theory 1990:9 Bruner, J. (1986) Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, Mass.; Harvard University Press Brunsson, N. K. Sahlin-Andersson (2000) ‘Constructing Organizations: The Example of Public Sector Reform’. Organization Studies 2000 21/4. Bunar, N. (2009) När marknaden kom till förorten – valfrihet, konkurrens och symboliskt capital i mångkulturella områdens skolor. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Cassirer, E (1944) An Essay on Man. New Haven. Conn. Chapleo, C. (2007) Barriers to brand building in UK universities? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 12: 23-32 Christensen,T. and P. Laegreid (eds) (2001) New Public Management. The Transformation of Ideas and Practice: Aldershot: Asgate Christensen, T. and P. Laegreid (eds) (2007) Transcending New Public Management. The Transformation of Public Sector Reforms. Aldershot: Asgate. Csaba F (2005) The Limits of Branding: The Application of Branding to Non-Profit Organizations and Places. (in Schultz M., Y M Antorini & F. Csaba (Eds.) Corporate Branding. Purpose/People/Processes. Towards the second wave of corporate branding.) Copenhagen Busniess School. Czarniawska, B. (2009) Emerging institutions: Pyramids or Anthills? Organization Studies Issue 4 april. 423-441. Davenport, T.H. & J.C. Beck (2001) The Attention Economy. Understanding the new currency of business. Harvard Business School Press. Boston. Mass. 22

De Chernatony, L. Dall‟Olmo Riley, (1999) „Experts‟ Views About Defining Service Brands and the Principles of Service Branding. Journal of Business Research 46(2) 181-92. Deephouse, D.L., S.M. Carter (2005) An Examination of Differences Between Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation. Journal of Management Studies 42:2 March 2005 Dent, M. S.Whitehead (eds.) (2002) Managing Professional Identities. Knowledge, performativity and the ‗new‘ professional. London: Routledge. DiMaggio, P.J (1988) “Interest and agency in institutional theory” In L.G. Zucker (ed.) Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment 3-22 Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Du Gay, P. (2000) In praise of bureaucracy. Weber. Organization.Ethics.London: Sage Publications. Giacalone, R.A & P. Rosenfeld (1989) Impression Management in the organization. Hillsdale: NJ: Erlbaum. Goodman N. (1978) Ways of Worldmaking. Hassocks; Harvester P. Goodchild J. & C Callow (eds). (2001). Brands,Visions and Values). John Wiley & Sons, LTD. Greenwood, R., R. Suddaby (2006) „Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms‟. Academy of Mangement Journal. Vol. 49. No1. 27-48. Gustafsson, O., T Busch (2008) Conctracting -out in public sector – a change of identity, rationality and legitimacy Nordiske organisasjionsstudier 10(2): 27-53. Hatch, M.J. K. Schultz (eds) (2004) Organizational Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hatch, M J., M. Schultz (2008) Taking Brand Initiative. How companies Can Align Strategy, Culture, and Identity Through Corporate Branding. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Ind, N. (1997) The Corporate Brand. London: Macmillan Business. Karmark, E. (2005) Living the Brand (in Schultz M,Y M Antorini & F F Csaba (Eds.) Corporate Branding. Purpose/People/Process. Towards the second wave of corporate branding.) Copenhagen Business School. Keller, K. L. (1993)‟Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity‟ Journal of Marketing 57: 1-25. 23

Kunde J. (2000) Corporate Religion. Edinburgh/London: Prentice Hall. Kärreman, D., A. Rylander (2008)

„Managing Meaning through Branding- The Case of a

Consulting Firm‟. Organization Studies 29(01) Lievens, F., Greet Van Hoye & Frederik Anseel (2007) ‟ Organizational Identity and Employer Image: Towards a Unifying Framework‟, British Journal of Management, Vol. 18, S45–S59 Löwstedt, J. Larsson, R. Karsten, S & Van Dick R. (2007) From intensified work to professional development. A journey through European Schools. P I E Peter Lang. Meyer, J.W. & B. Rowan (1977) Institutionalized organizations:Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83:440-463. Moilanen, T., S. Rainisto (2009) How to Brand Nations, Cities and Destinations. A planning book for Place Building. Wiltshire: Palgrave macmillan. Normann R. (2001) Reframing Business. When the map changes the landscape. Chichester: Whiley Olins W (2000) „How Brands are Taking Over the Corporation‟ (in M Schulzt, M J Hatch and M H Larsen (eds) The Expressive Organization pp 51-65). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pfeffer, J G.Salancik (1978) The external control of organizations : a resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row Pine, B J., J.H. Gilmore (1999) The experience economy : work is theatre & every business a stage. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School. Schein E. (2004) Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass Schultz, M., M.J. Hatch & M. Holten Larsen (eds.) (2000) The expressive organization : linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schultz, M., Y M Antorini & F.F. Csaba (2005) Corporate Branding Purpose/People/Process. Towards the second wave of corporate branding. Copenhagen Business School Press. Schroeder,J E., M Salzer Mörling (eds) (2006)Brand Culture. London: Routledge. Sennett, R. (2006) The Culture of the New Capitalism. New Haven Yale University Press.

24

Skolverket (2009) Barn, elever och personal – riksnivå. Rapport 331. Sveriges officiella statistik om förskoleverksamhet, skolbarnsomsorg, skola och vuxenutbildning. Del 2, 2009 Suddaby, R., R. Greenwood (2005) „Rhetorical Strategies of legitimacy‟. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 March 2005. 35-67 Suchman, M.C. (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review Vol.20, No.3 Van Ham, P. (2008) Place Branding: The state of the art. Annals AAPSS March 2008. Waeraas, A. (2008) Can public sector organizations be coherent corporate brands? Marketing Theory 8(2). Waeraas, A., Solbakk M.N. (2008) Defining the essence of a university: lessons from higher education branding. High Educ (2009) 57:449-462. Weick K E (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Wikström, C. (2005) Criterion-Referenced Measurement for Educational Evaluation and Selection. Doctorial Disseration Department of Educational Measurement nr 1 Umeå University

25