Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Create a case study analysis based on two scholarly studies that utilize metaphors to describe the functionality of organizations. After a concise but thorough analysis of the cases, summar | WriteDen

Create a case study analysis based on two scholarly studies that utilize metaphors to describe the functionality of organizations. After a concise but thorough analysis of the cases, summar

Attached is the assignment instructions and the two sources to use. No other outside sources and no plagiarism please. due by 7pm Jan. 01, 2023


Goal: Create a case study analysis based on two scholarly studies that utilize metaphors (Morgan's, or similar) to describe the functionality of organizations. After a concise but thorough analysis of the cases, summarize the benefits of using metaphorical devices in management practice. You will search for, find, and use two case studies from the APUS Library. FYI – there is an FAQ in the library with a question on how to find case studies.

Instructions: Students will write a 600-750 word case study analysis based on two case studies that use Morgan's metaphors (or similar) as a tool to understand organizations. Review the Case Study Analysis procedure attached to this assignment. Obtain your case study articles from scholarly peer-reviewed journals in the APUS online library. Use case studies that were published within the last ten years. After a concise but thorough and clear delineation and analysis of the cases, complete the paper with a summary of what you gleaned from using metaphors to understand management practice within organizations.

Write using the APA style format, including a title page and references page (no abstract is required). When you upload your paper, also upload pdfs of BOTH case studies so that the professor can check your analysis.

Use the following outline in your summary (in APA format with a Title page and References page):

1. Identify the business problems of each of the cases; describe the metaphor(s) used.

2. Evaluate the proposed solutions. Are the solutions valid? Why or why not? How/why did the use of metaphor(s) assist in the solution?

3. Submit recommendations you propose beyond what is already stated in the cases.

4. State how the solutions will be communicated in each case. Do you agree? Why or why not?

5. At the end of the paper, write a paragraph expressing the takeaways/benefits of using metaphors in management practice.


Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Public Management Review

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage:

Introducing strategic measures in public facilities management organizations: external and internal institutional work

Ingrid Svensson, Sara Brorström & Pernilla Gluch

To cite this article: Ingrid Svensson, Sara Brorström & Pernilla Gluch (2022): Introducing strategic measures in public facilities management organizations: external and internal institutional work, Public Management Review, DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2022.2097301

To link to this article:

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Published online: 07 Jul 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1240

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Introducing strategic measures in public facilities management organizations: external and internal institutional work Ingrid Svensson a,b, Sara Brorström c and Pernilla Gluch a

aDepartment of Technology Management and Economics, Service Management and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden; bDepartment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Center, Leadership in Healthcare and Academia, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; cDepartment for Business Administration, School of Business Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

ABSTRACT To increase knowledge about the consequences of introducing strategic measures in public organizations, for both intra- and interorganizational relationships, interviews in eight – and shadowing in two – public facilities management organizations were performed. Using a frame for data analysis based on institutional work, findings show that, when introducing strategic measures, public officials worked to place their organizations in a new position within the institutional field. During this process, officials engaged in both external and internal institutional work. The findings high- light how tensions between working externally and internally, influences public officials' day-to-day practices.

KEYWORDS Institutional work; public organizations; identity work; institutional change


Prompted by administrative reforms such as new public management (Hood 1991), strategic management emerged in the public sector in the 1990s as a means to meet increased demand for improved performance (Poister, Pasha, and Edwards 2013; Mitchell 2021). Consisting of both strategic planning and implementation (Bryson, Berry, and Yang 2010), strategic management emphasizes the alignment of ‘an orga- nization’s mission, mandates, strategies, and operations, along with major strategic initiatives such as new policies, programs, or projects, while also paying careful attention to stakeholders’ (Bryson et al. 2003, 496), or what Poister, Pasha, and Edwards (2013, 524) have called the ‘big perspective approach’.

Although public organizations have increasingly introduced strategic measures as a means to shape performance (Andrews et al. 2009b; Rosenberg Hansen & Ferlie 2016), knowledge about the actual work conducted when applying strategic manage- ment measures in public organizations remains limited (cf. Bryson, Edwards, and Van Slyke 2018), as does knowledge about the intra- and interorganizational consequences of introducing strategic management (Gond, Cabantous, and Krikorian 2018). In this

CONTACT Ingrid Svensson [email protected]


© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (, which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and repro- duction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

paper, we aim to narrow those gaps by investigating the work conducted by Swedish public facilities management organizations (PFMO) when introducing a new type of strategic planning measure known as strategic public facilities management (SPFM). To that end, we combine empirical insights into strategic management in public organiza- tions with the theoretical lens of institutional work (IW; Lawrence and Suddaby 2006), specifically with reference to models developed by Gawer and Phillips (2013) and Cloutier, Denis, and Langley (2016).

Most studies on strategic management in the public sector have followed a causal approach and assessed the practice according to whether its implementation has succeeded or failed (Candel and Biesbroek 2016; Tosun and Lang 2017). There are, however, exceptions to that rather static approach which instead see strategic planning as a complex process that involves thinking, acting, and learning amongst both human and non-human actors (Bryson et al. 2003). Brorström and Willems (2021), for example, have shown that middle managers often confront conflicts when introducing strategic measures by attempting to uphold the abstraction of strategic management while at once delivering concrete actions. For another, Gond, Cabantous, and Krikorian (2018) have demonstrated how introducing strategic measures can entail power struggles between different types of actors within organizations (i.e. intraorga- nizational relationships) and even between organizations (i.e. interorganizational relationships). Even so, knowledge of how more ordinary actors with less formal power engage in institutional work when introducing strategic management measures remains quite limited (Pahnke, Katila, and Eisenhardt 2015).

Against that background, the context of our study is the management of public premises in Sweden. In Sweden, PFMOs own non-residential premises that represent approximately half of all heated spaces (Eriksson and Nilsson 2017) and are respon- sible for the maintenance of all municipal premises, including schools, preschools, sports centres, home for the elderly, heritage buildings, and administrative buildings. However, as the maintenance of public buildings has been downgraded for years (Hopland and Kvamsdal 2019; Uotila, Saari, and Junnonen 2019), there has been an extensive need for expensive, large-scale renovations. In response, both practitioners and researchers have called for a strategic approach to managing public premises (Olsson, Malmqvist, and Glaumann 2015; Ramskov-Galamba and Nielsen 2016; Bröchner, Haugen, and Lindkvist 2019), or what has been named strategic public facilities management (Gluch and Svensson 2018; Svensson 2021). Practices associated with that new orientation include strategic long-term planning for both rundown buildings and other types of structures (Vermiglio 2011). There have also been calls to deepen PFMOs’ collaboration with user organizations, including municipal schools and nursing administrations (Svensson 2021). Along with those changes, IT systems to calculate current and future needs have been introduced, and traditional public practices have increasingly been combined with more business-like practices (cf. Nielsen, Sarasoja, and Galamba 2016; Steen and Schott 2019; Svensson and Löwstedt 2021). On the whole, such new SPFM practices contrast how public buildings have previously been managed – that is, when the ad hoc renovation and maintenance of one premise at a time guided operations (Svensson 2021)—and thus challenge the organizational identity of PFMOs.

Despite calls for strategic measures in PFMOs and in public organizations in general, few studies have elaborated how the actual work is carried out and what the measures taken implies for the organizations. Asking questions such as ‘What work is


conducted?’ ‘By whom?’ and ‘For what purpose?’, we rely on a theoretical framework based on institutional work (IW). The framework offers a fruitful perspective when studying processes in complex professional service organizations with novel ways of working that challenge existing practices in both the organization and the institutional field in which it is embedded (Lockett et al. 2012; Hampel, Lawrence, and Tracey 2017; Sartirana, Currie, and Noordegraaf 2019; Giacomelli 2020). We also build on previous research that has divided IW into externally and internally directed work (Gawer and Phillips 2013) and on Cloutier, Denis, and Langley (2016) framework that highlights the need for relational, conceptual, structural, and operational work during public sector reforms. Our empirical data were collected using ethnographically inspired methods that allowed examining IW in the moment. We focus on concrete actions – that is, different types of IW and how they relate, not abstract or conceptual notions of strategic management – and the work done by different actors (Smets and Jarzabkowski 2013; Gond, Cabantous, and Krikorian 2018; Cardinale 2018; Gidley and Palmer 2020). Altogether, our approach contributes to knowledge about the consequences of introducing strategic measures in public organizations for both intra- and interorganizational relationships.

Theoretical framework based on IW

Institutions are traditionally defined as ‘a relatively stable collection of rules and practices, embedded in structures of resources that make action possible’ (Lawrence, Suddaby, and Leca 2011, 53). By extension, institutional theory seeks to understand how institutions affect the actions of organizations (Scott 1995; Gestel, Waldorff, and Denis 2020). For instance, researchers using institutional theory have recognized how macro ideas depend on meaning created by actors at local levels within organizations (Lawrence, Suddaby, and Leca 2009). Nevertheless, most studies on institutions have focused on the macro level, not on the ‘inner workings of organizations’ (Gestel, Waldorff, and Denis 2020, 1741). An exception is the recent stream of literature within institutional theory called institutional work, defined as ‘the purposive actions of individuals and organizations aimed at maintaining, creating, and disrupting institu- tions’ (Lawrence and Suddaby 2006, 215). The concept of IW aims to redirect institu- tional scholars’ attention to the purposive, distributed, and agentic dimensions of institutional change (Battilana and D’Aunno 2010; Lawrence et al. 2013). In that process, applying an IW-focused lens can pinpoint factors that affect individuals’ abilities to shape institutions, as well as how, why, and when actors work to shape institutions and practices and how they experience those efforts (Lawrence et al. 2013; Hampel, Lawrence, and Tracey 2017; Cardinale 2018; Gidley and Palmer 2020). IW also directs attention to the agency of so-called ordinary workers, not heroic institu- tional entrepreneurs, meaning that agency is viewed as fragmented and distributed across multiple actors and levels (Lok 2010; Raviola and Norbäck 2014; (Hampel, Lawrence, and Tracey 2017).

A foundation for successful IW is the ability of actors to understand the underlying fabric of the rules, norms, and perspectives of institutions and the relationships between them (Battilana 2009). Thus, if the aim is to change institutionalized ways of working, then the process of becoming familiar with the context to be challenged is necessary (Cardinale 2018). For that reason, some actors can challenge institutiona- lized practices more easily than others, especially if they have been in the organization


longer and know the rules of the game. For instance, in their study on public hospitals, Liff and Andersson (2020) found that strategy experts who once had worked opera- tively were better equipped to introduce strategic measures than experts with no contextual know-how. That finding suggests that if actors want to challenge institu- tionalized orders, then they need to be able to reflect on prior experiences and positions and relate them to the current circumstances (Cardinale 2018).

Although the concept of IW aims to capture the experience and work of individual actors (Lawrence et al. 2013), much research on IW remains ‘detached from practical work in its literal meaning as actors’ everyday occupational tasks and activities’ (Smets and Jarzabkowski 2013, 4). Furthermore, how individuals engage in IW in their daily activities requires in-depth analysis (Battilana and D’Aunno 2009; Lawrence et al. 2013; Gond, Cabantous, and Krikorian 2018). In response to those trends, we next present research on institutional work conducted by actors trying to challenge insti- tutionalized practices. Such research forms the basis for our theoretical framework used in data analysis, in which we seek to capture how individuals engage in IW in their daily activities while introducing strategic measures in public organizations, specifically SPFM in PFMOs.

Externally and internally directed IW

Institutional work refers to work conducted to change not only practices within an organization but also in relation to other organizations within an institutional field (Gawer and Phillips 2013). Defined by Scott (1995, 56), an institutional field is ‘a community of organizations that partakes of a common meaning system and whose participants interact more frequently and fatefully with one another than with actors outside the field’. Members of a field share values and interests, and established ways of behaving and interacting, i.e. the nature of their interactions are all defined by one or more shared institutional logics (Gawer and Phillips 2013). Despite the institutional field’s centrality in institutional theory, its definition remains rather loose. Indeed, Zietsma et al’.s (2017) review of institutional research shows a trend in which the boundaries of an institutional field have become more dynamic and less distinct.

In their research, Gawer and Phillips (2013) conducted an in-depth case study involving archival studies and interviews on a private organization that had experi- enced a dramatic shift when transitioning from a traditional supply chain logic, dominated by computer assemblers, to a platform logic with new organizing principles and a new organizational identity as a consequence. Amongst their results, they detected a need to reconfigure the external environment and develop internal practices in order to challenge practices within the institutional field. As those findings show, external and internal IW are thus interrelated and can mutually reinforce each other. In their study, Gawer and Phillips (2013) refer to externally directed IW as work intended to engage other organizations within the institutional field, to introduce them and their members to new practices developed by the organization, and to influence the external acceptance of an organization’s new identity. Such endeavours include legitimacy work, geared towards creating and disseminating new practices to other organizations in the field to influence the organization’s position, and external practice work, geared towards creating new practices performed outside the organiza- tion that seek to engage other members in the field and reconfigure the field. Along those lines, they emphasize the importance of building trust, being persistent, and both


recognizing and managing external tensions that might arise amongst other organiza- tions in the same community or industry. By contrast, internally directed IW refers to the introduction of new practices and ways of working; it includes internal practice work, which is geared towards innovating new practices and enrolling organizational actors in them, and identity work, which entails aligning the organizational identity with individuals’ understanding of their professional identities and enabling new identity claims in light of ongoing changes.

Altogether, Gawer and Phillips (2013) found that whereas the effects of externally directed IW more obviously enabled changes sought by the organization, internally directed work made the externally directed work possible. Thus, organizations trying to change work practices and ‘challenge the rules of the game’ within their institutional field need sufficient resources and skills to manage internally and externally directed IW simultaneously. Moreover, as in past work (cf. Sartirana, Currie, and Noordegraaf 2019), Gawer and Phillips (2013) found that actors often have to negotiate their identities in relation to their institutional and organizational fields and that profes- sionals need support with working with their identities tied to their changing work roles during transitions (Sveningsson and Alvesson 2003). Thus, enacting work roles is not merely an issue in the organizational field. After all, professionals are increasingly engaged in so-called individual identity work (Doolin 2002; Sveningsson and Alvesson 2003; McGivern et al. 2015; Giacomelli 2020), meaning that the introduction of new practices oriented towards strategic management challenge not only existing work practices but also the identities of the professionals involved (Noordegraaf 2015; Shams 2021). Even then, not all employees within an organization negotiate their roles and identities in the same ways (Hemme, Bowers, and Todd 2020), since variations can stem from differences in their organizational positions and professional backgrounds.

IW and implementing public sector reforms

Whereas Gawer and Phillips (2013) conducted their study in a private setting, Cloutier, Denis, and Langley (2016) investigated the introduction of new practices due to a new reform in Canada’s publicly funded healthcare system – namely, the transformation from service-based to population-based care. Interested in what managers do when facing constraints and opportunities while introducing new work practices, Cloutier, Denis, and Langley (2016) developed a detailed understanding of the mix of activities that managers engaged in to purposefully put new arrangements in place, including navigating the ambiguities, pluralism, and contradictions associated with previously ingrained structures, incentives, ideas, and practices. They concluded that as some actors strive to disrupt previous institutionalized practices, others may reciprocally strive to maintain previous arrangements that seemingly favour them. The difference thus calls for different types of IW, categorized by Cloutier, Denis, and Langley (2016) into four forms: structural, conceptual, operational, and relational.

Structural work is a disruptive form of IW and the natural antecedent of the other types of work. Through structural work, new organizational charts are negotiated and work roles assigned. Structural work is also recursive, for new organizational charts might need to be renegotiated (Cloutier, Denis, and Langley 2016). At one of the hospitals studied by Cloutier, Denis, and Langley (2016), the CEO’s initial organiza- tional chart resulted in a highly conflictual process and thus had to be renegotiated, because doctors feared that they would lose influence due to the new organizational


structure proposed by the CEO. Conceptual work refers to efforts to establish new belief systems and norms by implementing new concepts and ideas. Such work needs to be repetitive and connected to the other forms of work, especially operational work, which entails efforts to implement concrete actions affecting the everyday behaviours of frontline employees. However, as shown by Cloutier, Denis, and Langley (2016), conceptual work tends to be detached from existing operations. They found that connecting new representations with operational activities was an ongoing challenge and that the people on the ground contrasted their daily operations with the overall aim of the new reform. Consequently, they did not understand how they could per- form the new practice given that their professions focus on personal one-to-one meetings. Last, relational work, referring to efforts to build linkages, trust, and colla- boration between people involved and affected by the introduction of new work practices, underpins the other three forms of IW and is therefore necessary to intro- duce new practices. Of all four types of work, relational work especially facilitates the other types.

Research methodology

To examine IW conducted while introducing strategic management measures in public organizations, we conducted a qualitative study designed to understand how different types of IW relate and their consequences for the organizations.

Data collection

As detailed in Table 1, the study entailed case studies in two PFMOs, an interview study involving 12 interviews with representatives from eight Swedish PFMOs, and a workshop. To strengthen the relevance of our research questions, we organized and supervised a workshop in November 2019. The workshop invited representatives from PFMOs across Sweden, as well as their collaborators and stakeholders, to discuss organizational challenges and changes related to their current introduction of new work practices in relation to SPFM in PFMOs.

The workshop also informed the design of the interview study, which along with the case studies was conducted between March and October 2020. All data were collected by the first author of the paper, hereafter referred to as ‘the researcher’. Although we initially planned to conduct the interview study prior to the case studies in order to gain an overview of the challenges at hand and better know what to look for in the in- depth case studies, the outbreak of the COVID-19 required some interviews in the interview study to be rescheduled and performed in parallel to data collection in the case studies.

Interview study Initially, an email was sent to municipalities in Sweden requesting interviews with individuals who had an overview of current challenges for PFMOs and insight into working with SPFM. Based on the responses, 12 interviews were conducted in eight PFMOs, for a sample representative of PFMOs in Swedish municipalities with 40,000 to 560,000 residents. The interviewees are described in Table 1. The interviews took approximately 1 hour and were conducted face-to-face either on-site or online; they were all semi-structured (Flick 2014) and the interviewees were encouraged to openly


Ta bl

e 1.

O ve

rv ie

w o

f d at

a co

lle ct

io n.

In te

rv ie

w s

tu dy

: P FM

O s

Ca se

S tu

dy 1

: F ac

ili ty

U ni

t Ca

se S

tu dy

2 : F

ac ili

ty D

ep W

or ks

ho p

Pa rt

ic ip

an ts

1. H

ea d

of fa

ci lit

y m

an ag

er s*


H ea

d of

fa ci

lit ie

s (i.

e. h

ea d


un it)

* 3a

. I m

pr ov

em en

t m

an ag


3b . H

ea d

of P


* 4a

. H ea

d of

t ec

hn ic


ad m

in is

tr at

io n

un it*


. H ea


Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of 

Step 1

To make an Order you only need to click ORDER NOW and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDen. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
 Deadline range from 6 hours to 30 days.

Step 2

Once done with writing your paper we will upload it to your account on our website and also forward a copy to your email.

Step 3
Upon receiving your paper, review it and if any changes are needed contact us immediately. We offer unlimited revisions at no extra cost.

Is it Safe to use our services?
We never resell papers on this site. Meaning after your purchase you will get an original copy of your assignment and you have all the rights to use the paper.


Our price ranges from $8-$14 per page. If you are short of Budget, contact our Live Support for a Discount Code. All new clients are eligible for 20% off in their first Order. Our payment method is safe and secure.

Please note we do not have prewritten answers. We need some time to prepare a perfect essay for you.