No abstract

No abstract

Branding has become an important issue within higher education. The use of core value statements and visions are expressions of this. To be a successful brand, organisations must also make sure they are different from others. However, in both the scholarly discourse and in political rhetoric, the Nordic model highlights equal access to education and opportunities for all. Values such as egalitarianism and diversity may be difficult to fit into a frame of reference where excellence is at the centre. Historically higher education has also been an important part of nation branding initiatives. This paper asks how different branding perspectives (corporate branding and nation branding) are matched and harmonised with respect to higher education in two Nordic countries. The study shows that there is a lack of harmonisation between nation branding and corporate branding, and that the discourse on excellence is not conducive to differentiation at the organisational level.

This paper seeks to draw empirical attention to the relationship between legitimacy and reputation in institutionalized fields. Norwegian hospitals find themselves in a strongly institutionalized field and do not want to differentiate from each other, despite seeking a favorable reputation. In order to acquire insights into the conditions that prompt organizations to reject differentiation, we carried out qualitative interviews with the hospitals’ communication directors. Three sets of justifications for not differentiating emerged from an inductive analysis of these interviews. Differentiation is not adapted to the universalistic needs of the hospitals, not in accordance with solidarity norms, and not a pragmatic solution. The analysis suggests that the hospitals face a trade‐off between the contradictory demands of similarity and difference and hence legitimacy and reputation: They renounce the advantage of a unique reputation (i.e. competitive advantage) in order to retain the benefits of conformity (i.e. legitimacy). Implications of these findings for our understanding of the relative salience of legitimacy and reputation and the dynamics between them are discussed.

No abstract