High Educ (2013) 65:401–415

DOI 10.1007/s10734-012-9552-1

An analytical model for university identity

and reputation strategy work

Lars Steiner • Agneta C. Sundström • Kaisu Sammalisto

Published online: 18 July 2012

 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract Universities face increasing global competition, pressuring them to restructure

and find new identities. A multidimensional model: identity, image and reputation of
strategic university identity and reputation work is developed. The model includes:
organizational identity; employee and student attitudes; symbolic identity; influence from
buildings, artefacts and reputation; and external stakeholders’ valuations. Image percep-
tions among employees, students and external stakeholders are proposed to have a tran-
sition-mediating function with respect to university identity. The model serves as an
analytical tool for both academic scholars and university administrators in the strategic
work with university identity, image and reputation, and aim to clarify the complex
relations between these concepts.

Keywords University identity
Symbolic identity
Reputation
Strategy

Image transition

Introduction

Globalization, along with increased mobility of students and employees, has raised the
pressure on universities to improve the quality of education, research and their societal
engagements, in order to be more attractive from an international standpoint.1 The greater
mobility has also meant increased competition at the national level. According to the

1
EU: Reform of the universities in the framework of the Lisbon strategy.

L. Steiner (&)
A. C. Sundström
K. Sammalisto

University of Gävle, 80176 Gävle, Sweden
e-mail: lsr@hig.se
A. C. Sundström
e-mail: awd@hig.se
K. Sammalisto
e-mail: kso@hig.se

123
402 High Educ (2013) 65:401–415

European Commission,2 universities are not realizing their full potential and need to
modernize to become more effective, by raising the quality of education, research and
innovation, and to reinforce their role in society. Such a reform also means that
accountability to society is important for universities if they want to legitimize their work
(Ramsden 2003; Kreysing 2002). The progress towards market orientation faced by uni-
versities, challenges the traditional ideals of academic integrity commonly advocated,
especially by older more established universities (Gioia and Thomas 1996).
Changing strategies in university management due to new decentralized ways used by
government to control university activities, and the widened influence on higher education
work from various third parties, e.g. in the form of evaluations, force universities to
reorganize. For newer universities in particular, it has become all the more important to
build distinct identity profiles and reputations that not only attract students, but that are also
attractive to faculty actors in order to meet universities’ urgent need to employ top
competence. In an aim to become a world-class university, Aula and Tienari (2011) show
how a Finnish university merger is used ‘‘to distinguish it from its domestic counterparts
and to construct it as an attractive and innovative global player’’ (p. 8), which requires
reputation-building activities. This is a global trend that subjects universities to increas-
ingly higher levels of external scrutiny (Yang 2004).
Knowledge on how newer universities cope, both in theory and practice, with identity
transition is limited and above all concentrated to single aspects and less about multidi-
mensional changes. Recent research on academic identity has concentrated on internal
changes in policies, staff autonomy and strategies (Henkel 2005), changing ideals and
practices of university research (Ylijoki 2003), emulation in academia, and how to balance
structure and identity (Labianca et al. 2001). Defining the essence of university branding
and identity (Waeraas and Solbakk 2009) and the need for openness to government in
relation to market efficiency requirements (Yang 2004) are other examples.
Multidimensional models used to investigate employees, students and external third-
party attitudes of strategic university change are few, however, and mainly focused on how
to consider the principles of reputation. Several studies have looked at organizational
identity (Balmer and Wilson 1998), symbolic influence (Rafaeli and Pratt 2006) and
reputational principles (Rindova et al. 2010). An analytical process model of the multiple
dimensions of identity, image and reputation in university contexts is missing. For
instance, how a campus’s teaching and research facilities and artefacts symbolically
influence identity is commonly neglected in research. Symbolic image transition needs to
be considered when analysing how universities adapt to new ways of relating to stake-
holders using physical and virtual meeting places. The internet has emerged as a new
meeting place for communicating university image since the use of devices that allow one
to access the internet is an everyday activity for young people (Briones et al. 2010). The
impact of institutionalization is commonly overlooked in identity research. Identity needs
to be analysed both as a historically defined concept and as a strategically important
consideration for university administration. For analytical use, different dimensions of
identity transition need to be identified. This requires a holistic perspective. To reveal the
organization’s current identity, its historical roots, culture, strategy and structure ought to
be analysed (van den Bosch et al. 2005). An analysis of the strategic alternatives in
academia benefits from a knowledge of university image, identity and reputation factors.

2
EU: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Brussels,
10.5.2006 COM(2006) 208 final.

123
High Educ (2013) 65:401–415 403

The identity, image and reputation model (IIR model) developed here considers dif-
ferent dimensions of identity. Organizational identity signals the values and attitudes of the
organization’s actors (Albert and Whetten 1985). These values and attitudes are envisaged
as symbolic representations of the organization (Christensen and Askegaard 2001; Gray
1986). To differentiate organizational identity from symbolic identity, we use the definition
of Berg and Kreiner (1990): the aggregation of affective perceptions of organizational
attributes. Reputation reflects the attitudes and valuations of influential and prominent
stakeholders, students and research financiers, as well as government authorities (Rindova
et al. 2005).
The aim is to develop a multidimensional model, making it possible to identify and
analyse both internal and external factors that have an influence on university identity and
reputation. There is also a practical goal in that the model could be used for strategic work
regarding university identity and reputation. The model provides knowledge upon which to
base decisions related to a university’s practical reform work. By outlining a model, the
theoretical contribution shows how different dimensions of university identity are inter-
connected. In particular, the article discusses how to understand identity, and symbolic and
reputation attributes analytically in relation to image perceptions.

Dimensions of identity

Identity is formed by social processes and determined by the specific social structure in
which it is maintained, modified and reshaped (Berger and Luckmann 1966). Identity
emerges from the dialectic between individuals and society, which means that it is shaped
in the interplay between the subject and the context. University identity is constructed by
four dimensions: organizational identity, symbolic identity, image, and reputation.

Organizational identity

The identity of a university organization is multidimensional, changing, and multifaceted

(Balmer and Wilson 1998). This contrasts with the traditional concept of identity having
central, distinctive and enduring features (Whetten and Godfrey 1998; Downey 1986;
Abratt 1989; Dowling 1994). Pratt and Rafaeli (1997) discussed how different actors can
have different opinions of identity, supporting the need for multiple identity research.
Cornelissen and Thorpe (2002) indicate that different actors of an organization may define
identity in different ways depending on their respective focus.
The strategy school (Abratt 1989; Balmer 1995) of organizational studies views orga-
nizational identity as part of the strategic process. The cultural school (Downey 1986;
Abratt 1989; Dowling 1994) highlights values and norms to understand organizational
identity. Public relations (Argenti 1998) also construct organizational identity. Identity is
not logical and intellectual in the first instance, but is dependent on aesthetical impressions
and feelings (Steiner 2003). Therefore, organizational identity is described by several
authors as mirroring an organization’s reputation outside the organization (Margulies 1977;
Olins 1989; Balmer 1995; Hatch and Schultz 1997, 2004) or as an aggregate image
(Christensen and Askegaard 2001).
According to Hatch and Schultz (2004), emerging themes in the field focus on different
aspects, which view the concept as both multiple and influenced by the need for gov-
ernmental control and stability. Identity is influenced by management and control

123
404 High Educ (2013) 65:401–415

(Czarniawska 2002), and is thus an important part of university strategy work. Gioia et al.
(2000) claimed that identity can change as well as remain stable, which shifted the research
interest to identity as context-dependent and socially constructed (Heding et al. 2009). To
recap, identity as a concept, has emerged from being seen as stable, to being multiple or
multidimensional and changeable. Organizational identity carries ‘‘a core of meaning…
and mirrors a horizon of other possibilities’’ (Luhmann 2002, p. 120). In the multidi-
mensional (IIR) model here developed, identity is presented as a strategic tool to inves-
tigate what dimensions can be analysed, and how these dimensions are interrelated and
constitute different aspects of the concept.
To understand a university’s organizational identity from a holistic perspective,
employees’ and students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward themselves and the university
where they work are to be considered. The strategic, structural and cultural levels of
organizational identity will be analysed and discussed below. The strategic level of a
university’s organizational identity emphasizes the future direction of university reform
work, while the structural level deals with the rules and regulations to be followed, and the
cultural level connotes, among other things, the working environment.

The strategic level of university organizational identity

Organizational identity plays a central role in the strategic process of a university (Abratt
1989; Balmer 1995). The change processes (implementations of strategy) of universities
are explained by several change management theories. For instance, to explain the ratio-
nality of change, the role of the manager is to shape the identity of the organization through
a vision, mission and stated values, as well as through the careful and purposeful man-
agement of key symbols (Pfeffer 1981; Albert and Whetten 1985).
The strategies of a university are based on attributes inside the organization and on
circumstances in the surrounding society. Strategies may also emanate from ideas of
certain guiding values. Such values need to be sustainable and constituted by a spectrum of
social, economic and ecological values, health, ethics, culture, and engagement in society.
The behavioural view of organizational identity sees identity strategies as something that
organizational actors regard as central and sustainable, and as distinctive attributes of the
organization. This means that the history, contextual environment and actors of the
organization are all part of and affect that strategy process (Balmer 2001).
Organizational identity strategies provide images of the organization and what it wishes
to represent (Gioia and Thomas 1996). Strategies indicate how the organization relates to
long-term plans. They also serve as a guideline for employees and external third parties
regarding the areas toward which the organization’s attention will be directed for the
future. This means that identity strategies offer insight into what Albert and Whetten
(1985) refer to as the ‘‘pursuit’’ of central identity characteristics. Strategies support and
guide university management when making long-term decisions (Labianca et al. 2001),
which affect, and are affected by, how the organization handles change management. If a
strategy is changed, this provides information for employees, students and external
stakeholders regarding what the organization wants to achieve. In order to be successful, a
strategy must be perceived as clear and meaningful for employees to follow. Strategies
should encompass all visual representations of an organization (Heding et al. 2009),
including object symbols (Olins 1978, 1989, 1995; Trice and Beyer 1993, p. 86, as cited in
Pratt and Rafaeli 1997) like artefacts and buildings.
The outcome of changed strategies could vary, according to Zucker (1977), depending
on the degree of institutionalization and cultural persistence. This means that strategies

123
High Educ (2013) 65:401–415 405

transformed into communication could fail if transparency is lacking or if it is not regarded

as meaningful to follow the strategies, or if the institutionalized environment and cultural
persistence are too rigid.

The structural level of university organizational identity

With increased autonomy and simultaneous experience of government and other external
evaluations, universities need to create new management organization structures. Changing
structures affect employees and students, as well as other stakeholders, through organiza-
tional identity and questions such as ‘‘who we are’’ as a university. Although the significance
of structural levels of identity is commonly noted as important in research, there are few
studies that pursue what is meant by ‘‘a structure’’. Hotho (2008) refers to Giddens’ (1986)
structuration theory and the dynamic duality between structure (scripts of performance) and
those who are part of it. Employees are part of the structure (plans, charts, regulations,
professional roles) and also reproduce structures through their actions. Studies of industrial
change (Sundström 2008) show that there is interconnectedness between strategic change
based on competitive pressure, and how work is structured by management and presented in
different scripts for employees to follow. According to Barley (1986), a management’s
response to change is dependent on the degree of institutionalization and how the work is
structured. These arguments suggest that external changes (competition), concepts (scripts),
management (organizational leadership) and institutional circumstances (degree of institu-
tionalization) all have an impact on how organizations respond to change.
Thus, structural factors play a significant role in strategic change and the situation of
university competition. According to Labianca et al. (2001), universities strive ‘‘to equal or
surpass a comparison organization or organizations on a set of strategic qualities or fea-
tures’’ (p. 313). University is often manifested by regulations, rules and procedures that
directly reflect the university’s desire to control for high academic quality. Government
control in Sweden forces universities to focus on aspects of their organizations in which
they have competitive advantages, whether it is in educational programs or in advanced
research. Internationalization factors like foreign students also affect education structure
and content. Faculty personnel are often also recruited from abroad, giving universities a
more international identity.

The cultural level of university organizational identity

Organizational identity includes what employees perceive, feel and think about their
organization, while organizational culture is associated with the organization’s actions
and performance as well as many other attributes that constitute human behaviour in an
organization, of which identity is one (Schein 1992; Hatch and Schultz 1997). According
to Alveson and Empson (2008), these concepts do not have distinct boundaries and may
overlap, but they differ from one another in that identity as a concept changes more easily
since people tend to change their attitudes towards different things. Identity ‘‘refers to
ideas on how people in an organization define what is distinct and unique about the
organization, culture covers broader terrain’’ (p. 1). The culture often relates to founders,
stories and critical events, and institutionalized guiding values and norms for employees
to follow (Steiner 2003). University’s culture includes buildings and artefacts, websites
and published material as well as the perceptions, thoughts and feelings that employees
and students have of their working environment and relationships with one another
(Schein 1992).

123
406 High Educ (2013) 65:401–415

According to the traditional institutional view, and as has been pointed out above,
identity is socially constructed and created through human interaction (Henkel 2005; Al-
vesson and Willmott 2002). Identity could, based on this definition, be seen as the changing
lens through which faculty label themselves either as part of the organizational culture or
as standing outside the culture. How faculty perceive themselves as part of the university
puts a label on the strengths of faculty that belong to the organization and, as part of the
organization, faculty thus affect the organizational culture.
Faculty can resist university leadership actions of identity change if the identity con-
flicts with their or, as they perceive it, the organization’s cultural values and institution-
alized beliefs about how things are or should be (Berger and Luckmann 1966). The
increased rate of change in university organizations has an influence on culture, identities
and, in the end, also university reputations.

Symbolic identity

The demands of modernization for universities need to be met in the construction of

buildings and premises with user functionality and aesthetics of artefacts. In addition to
making impressions outside the organization, organizational symbols and representations
often serve as important vehicles for identification, motivation and culture within the
organization as well. Identity, reality comprehension and meaning construction among
employees, students and external stakeholders are affected by the physical and virtual
culture communicated, and this culture is affected by university buildings, premises and
the aesthetics and function of the components of those buildings (Becker and Steele 1995).
Architecture and artefacts are part of university culture and support identity in the eyes of
employees and students.

Architecture and artefacts

In the field of corporate architecture, the concepts interior design, visual design and
corporate/product design are commonly used (Berg and Kreiner 1990). Interior design
concerns the internal look of buildings and premises, how spaces are laid out, choice of
furniture, colours, and so on. Visual design concerns all types of visual material associated
with an organization: logos, office design, sales office design, uniforms, and choice of
colours. Many of these attributes are designed over time and thus become part of the
organizational identity. Design becomes an activity that strongly affects the attractiveness
of an organization and is therefore part of the identity/reputation strategic management
activity.
Fombrun and van Riel’s (2004) reputation model consists of five dimensions: visibility,
distinctiveness, transparency, authenticity and consistency. Van den Bosch et al. (2005)
analysed how these five dimensions of reputation are symbolically supported by strategic
management of visual identity. The non-rational, symbolic aspects of organizational
identity are becoming more important as universities become more dependent on on-line
marketing.
It has also been suggested that, depending on the situation, building premises and
artefacts can enhance or obstruct teaching and learning activities, student motivation,
creativity and the ability to act. Becker and Steele (1995) developed this line of thought,
suggesting that design perceptions affect organizational health and the organizational
member’s ability to fulfil his/her work in a satisfying way.

123
High Educ (2013) 65:401–415 407

Symbols can be regarded as indicators of culture (Pratt and Rafaeli 1997; Schultz and
Hatch 2009). Material and immaterial (virtual) symbols represent the culture of the
organization. As such, artefacts affect faculty and stakeholders, making image impressions
and thus constructing symbolic identity. Artefacts also control behaviour, for example,
when signs forbid or allow certain behaviour, or where the existence of a door allows
entrance to a room, a chair invites to sit down or symbolically represents a professorship
(Gagliardi 1990). The artefacts may have a system-preserving function through the image
perceptions they evoke, which is how they affect organizational identity. The culture-
describing, behaviour-regulating and system-preserving functions of symbols can be used
to analyse artefacts, which in turn can be used when analysing organizational identity
processes. The model captures functional values, efficiency factors, control factors, and
symbolic affective factors.

Image

Image is commonly considered to be an immediate, more short-term, external stakeholder

perception founded on impressions and attitudes toward the organization (Heding et al.
2009). Both image and reputation are considered to be largely an interpretation of per-
ceptions of how an organization is seen from the outside, while identity is something
developed within the organization (Margulies 1977; Olins 1978, 1989, 1995; Balmer 1995;
Hatch and Schultz 1997, 2004). This view has been challenged by a view that acknowl-
edges that, in a globalized internet-dependent world, it is difficult to make a clear dis-
tinction between inside and outside images of an organization. University employees often
work part-time and engage in collaborative activities outside the university (Cheney and
Christensen 1999; Christensen and Askegaard 2001; Steiner 2003). Students also often
study part-time, especially when the university offers online education and/or campus-
based evening and weekend courses.
University identity strategies, for instance, via academic self-presentations and
impressions of curricula, master of science programs, web presentations, building design
and artefacts, communicate improved quality of research and education. Such activities
impact reputation and could increase attractiveness of the university.
As discussed by Gioia et al. (2000), image ‘‘provides a catalyst for actors’ reflexive
examination of their organizational self-definition’’ (p. 67). In university administration
decisions, it is important to consider image as representations of reality—not reality itself—
among faculty and students. The symbolic attributes, whether material (like buildings and
artefacts) or virtual (on the internet), affect the university’s identity, as well as affecting
management, employee and student image perceptions in different ways. Organizational
symbols as representations of the university reality become part of the university’s image, as
stakeholders have perceptions and values related to these attributes (Heding et al. 2009). A
‘‘projected image’’ might be the desired image university administrators would like to
present, which ideally also reflects and is based on identity (Gioia et al. 2000). In this way,
organizational identity translates into image by way of the organization’s communication
with the public (van Riel and Balmer 1997; Argenti 1998). Activities as well as symbolic
attributes communicate the identity of the organization in relation to the public. Transitional
image (aggregate image interpretations of reality) becomes the lens (Gioia and Thomas
1996) through which internal and external perceptions of organizational and symbolic
identities are communicated and may influence reputation.

123
408 High Educ (2013) 65:401–415

Transformational (aggregate) image interpretations of a university are symbolic rep-

resentations (Christensen and Askegaard 2001) of reality that construct organizational
identity. A symbolic interpretation is historic and therefore considered stable. Virtual
attributes like web pages are much more ambiguous, since they are constantly changed.
Management can design new ones in order to develop the identity of the organization the
way it considers relevant. Seen as a process, the image of the organization becomes an
important transitional object for management to consider when planning communication
strategies.

Reputation

Scholars tend to define reputation as referring to social cognitions that reside over time in the
minds of external stakeholders (Rindova et al. 2010). As mentioned in the Introduction
above, reputation plays a significant role as a prompter for university reform and develop-
ment work. Reputation can be studied in different ways, as in resource-based theory (Grant
1991), as a dependent variable, in strategic alliances theory (Dollinger et al. 1997), and in
game theory as suggested by Weigelt and Cammerer (1988). Although commonly seen as an
external third-party and long-term evaluation concept (Heding et al. 2009), reputation has an
impact on how universities work with internal activities. Government, research financing
institutions and labor markets, all represent important stakeholders that have an impact on
university identity and survival. Also in industry, corporations increasingly work with rep-
utation-building activities, stakeholder relations and social responsibility initiatives to look
good in the public’s eyes. These initiatives require both internal and external acceptance
from third parties to be perceived as legitimate in society (Sundström 2008).
The main reason for the interest in reputation studies in the field of business admin-
istration is that reputation can be used to measure organizational effectiveness, according
to Fombrun and Shanley (1990). Universities are increasingly exposed to external evalu-
ations and, even though these are commonly criticized for indistinct measures, they have
an impact on a university’s reputation and quality work. Positive media coverage can
improve reputation (Meijer and Kleinnijenhuis 2006; Carroll and McCombs 2003; Fo-
mbrun and Shanley 1990; Wartick 1992), while a low ranking in measures carries a risk
that the attractiveness of a university will decrease. Stakeholder reputation perceived by
employees and students in contact with external stakeholders has an impact on values and
attitudes that are external to the university. This means that reputation, i.e. either built and
institutionalized by a collective high-status third party or resulting from stakeholders’
evaluations (Rindova et al. 2005), has an impact on university employees and their per-
ceptions of reality.

An analytical model for university identity, image and reputation: the IIR model

The transition of Swedish universities from a situation of growth, built on traditions and
historically derived identity, to a situation that could be described as market-influenced,
calls for a careful analysis that takes into account how different stakeholders perceive the
university and the expectations placed on its education and research by surrounding
society. To accomplish this, we propose transparency regarding future directions of
change. The reason for this is the embedded nature of university work, where the academic
quality of university education programs is dependent on the quality of research.

123
High Educ (2013) 65:401–415 409

Transparent university identity strategies influence image and reputation. Coherence and
clarity within and between organizational identity and symbolic identity is also preferable.
The aspects of symbolic identity are often overlooked in university administration. Uni-
versity development and survival presupposes also that the external actors are open to
changes in perceptions in relation to the organization.
Figure 1 captures the characteristics of the identity/reputation dimensions previously
discussed. Following the discussion of Gioia and Thomas (1996), the management of
image as a critical strategic issue is outlined. The model below shows how image translates
identity into reputation and vice versa.
Universities’ identity and reputation strategies consist of four dimensions: organizational
identity, symbolic identity, image, and reputation. Organizational identity in the IIR model
suggests the analysis of perceptions of strategic processes, built-up structures, culture and
symbolic identity provides information about coherence between dimensions of identities,
clarity of strategies and degree of institutionalization. Studies can be done, for example, an
organization-wide survey to collect data on strategic, structural and cultural areas. Identi-
fying gaps in perceptions will provide university management directions to follow, so that a
development strategy for internal improvements and external image-building exposure can
be initiated. For instance, the analysis could show whether acceptance of strategic change is
weak or strong, or influenced by the institutionalization within the organization, which could
be interpreted as a lack of coherence within and between organizational identity and sym-
bolic identity. The symbolic dimensions of university identity can be researched with
intervention studies of how the work of students and employees is affected, for example, by
changes in décor and design when modernizing and making interior and exterior spaces more
attractive to both internal and external stakeholders.

Fig. 1 A multidimensional model of university identity, image and reputation—the IIR model

123
410 High Educ (2013) 65:401–415

Image is proposed to have identity transition mediating functions that is reflected back
to the organization, at the same time as image has influence on reputation. For image to
work both internally in the organization and externally, the model suggests the need for
identity coherence, clarity of strategies, and transparency in the communication of strat-
egies. An analysis of internal image perceptions could be carried out by collecting data
from different presentations and symbolic attributes (internet, PR, buildings, and artefacts),
i.e., data that suggests coherence (or lack thereof) within and between organizational
identity, symbolic identity and/or transparency. Reputation is constructions of third-party
perceptions of the university, institutionalized by previous experiences (Scott 1995).
Reputation also comprises valuations based on historical, stakeholder perceptions of the
organization and the believed ability of the university to create value (Rindova et al. 2005).
This aspect could be analysed by collecting data via interviews and surveys from stake-
holders, thus revealing awareness or unawareness of strategic changes, perceptions of
image attributes and sources of resistance to change.

Discussion

Scholars of new institutionalism have paid attention to various approaches in the study of
institutions, all of which have impact on and implications for identity research. Organi-
zations are not only the result of conscious design but are also influenced by individual
preferences and culture (Zucker 1983), and historical, taken-for-granted institutionalized
activities. These different approaches carry implications for the analysis of image transi-
tions, as the multi dimensions of organizational identity and reputation are influenced by:
(1) acceptance of governmental control (rules, regulations and evaluations), (2) individual
perceptions (culture), and (3) relationship to traditional academic practices. Image tran-
sition thus form and are formed by the degree or level of institutionalization of university
activities.
Higher education organizations are important parts of the society and, when their
identities are legitimized by politics and society, resources for survival could be provided.
The government’s impact on higher education follows how ‘‘political structures shape
political outcomes,’’ in which the results of government control may be seen as ‘‘ex ante
agreements about a structure of cooperation’’ (Shepsle 1986, p. 5, as cited in DiMaggio and
Powell 1991). Government treat universities by unification of rules and regulations, as if
they all have the same identity (Välimaa 1998). This constitutes an attempt to maintain
close alignment between structures and activities (Meyer and Rowan 1977). By responding
to government regulatory requirements, university managements commonly reorganize
and transform university organizational structures. Management use words like strategy,
profile, vision and goals to communicate the university’s picture of a desired future
identity. From a unification perspective, changing strategies could be seen as a way to
influence management, employees and students in ways that affect the future direction of
education, research and external collaboration. From the perspective of management,
gaining legitimacy for the university’s desired changes requires that strategies be perceived
as distinct, meaningful and transparent to ensure internal accountability before being
accepted externally. For strategies to communicate the university’s agenda, cultural
coherence may be challenged since faculty actors must be clear on which direction new
courses, study programs and research might be headed. Unlike culture, organizational
identity and symbolic identity are dimensions that university managements are able to
influence.

123
High Educ (2013) 65:401–415 411

According to Meyer and Rowan (1977), when conflicts arise there is a tendency for
activities to become formally decoupled. This is shown, for example, in how goals
become ambiguous or vacuous, integration is avoided, programs neglected and evalua-
tions ceremonialized (ibid., pp. 57–58). In decoupling processes, managers, teachers and
students all live by the truth that formal structures are working as they should, but they
are instead being ruled informally. This suggests that formal decoupling can be seen as
an inconsistency between formal structures and rules versus perceptions of these struc-
tures and rules.
The central control and unification view contrasts with identity being seen as something
that is defined inside the university organization and as a natural way of making a dif-
ference (Hall 1995). Lowrie (2007) suggest that identity is articulated and constructed in
language, whereby at the same time as all stakeholders, reference groups and significant
actors in the university communicate anything concerning academia; they are also artic-
ulating and changing identity. From this opposing perspective, different actors articulate
different identities based on their subjective image of the situation. The different identities
compete with management’s ideals of conscious design and can create what could be
called ‘‘images jangle’’.
Managing consistency is one way of coping with the dilemma of decoupling, with the
ambition of creating coherence and clarity of strategies. Consistency is enacted across all
stakeholder groups and throughout all of an organization’s communications and initiatives
(Fombrun and van Riel 2004, p. 218). Coping with opposing identities among employees,
students and institutions within the university leaves an impression on significant stake-
holders like financiers, reputation builders such as journalists, and the public at large. To
balance the need of unification while at the same time being supportive and open-minded
about new ideas in education and research, the work with profiles is probably the most
important and challenging work for university managements today.
The identity transition of universities in times of change is influenced by institution-
alized conditions derived from traditional academic practices and hence preferred by
faculty. The progress towards market orientation challenges traditional ideals of the
institutionalization of academic freedom of choice as best practice (Gioia and Thomas
1996). Applied research, for example is sometimes claimed to destroy the true self of
academic research, with a negative impact on academic freedom and the freedom to think
and write freely. Critical scientific thinking and writing is then regarded to be replaced by
market economic agendas. To cope with the above-described situation universities and the
strategies chosen inevitably involve internal and external discussions about future direc-
tions for education and research.

Conclusion

The multidimensional identity-image-reputation (IIR) model developed adds some dis-

tinctions to existing identity-reputation theory, at the same time as the model provides
insights that are important for practical university strategy work. The interconnectedness
between organizational identity, symbolic identity, image and reputation has been analysed
and show that transitional image links internal and external attitudes and valuations. Using
the model as an analytic tool enables us to gain a holistic view of university identity, ‘‘who
we are’’ and how the university is regarded by stakeholders. By identifying the central
characteristics of identity a university has an opportunity to become aware of its core

123
412 High Educ (2013) 65:401–415

values, internal and external, central and distinct. This opens up for which unique areas that
needs to be developed to improve competitiveness in relation to other universities.
An inevitable question is how to research internal image and external valuations of
university reputation empirically. We have suggested viewing image as the lens through
which the university communicates strategic activities. By doing this, we acknowledge the
central role image plays in university communications, both internally and externally,
when it comes to understanding university identity and reputation. Communication is a
continuous process that affects image, organizational identity and reputation.
We acknowledge that our study has its limitations. We have attempted to provide a
synthesis of different theories in a multidimensional model that both maintains a solid base
in theory and constitutes a useful analytical tool that can be applied to both research and
practice. The theories that are applied make up only part of the field of organizational
studies and the scope has not permitted us to go further into depth. Further analysis could,
for instance, show whether acceptance of strategic change is weak or strong, or influenced
by the level of institutionalization within an organization, which could be interpreted as a
lack of coherence in and between organizational identity and symbolic identity.
Developing an identity and a reputation strategy according to the model presented
increases management’s knowledge of the university’s transition towards increased effi-
ciency and improved reputation. IIR analysis could offer information that would: (1)
enhance decision-making data for strategic priority work in universities, (2) enhance
decision-making data for building premises and artefact design, (3) improve the working
environment for employees and students, (4) improve the quality of teachers’ work and
students’ learning, (5) provide a scientific contribution to theories about organizational
identity, especially concerning how to deal with fragmented identities in the strategic work
of new universities, and 6) add to our knowledge about the reputations of new universities
and how reputation acts in a distinctive way to strengthen organizational image, identity
and reputation.
The proposed model helps to improve the possibilities for understanding factors that
have influence on how employees and stakeholders perceive an organization’s activities.
We propose more studies using the IIR model to better understand how universities move
towards shared values and goals by taking into account political, cultural and institutional
factors that affect organizational identity. A modern university that successfully compete in
national and international markets does not simply comply with external political goals.
The strategy work of the university allows creativity and entrepreneurship within the
organization in dialogue with local and regional stakeholders as well as students in
transforming organizational identity.

References

Abratt, R. (1989). A new approach to the corporate image management process. Journal of Marketing
Management, 5(1), 63–76.
Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational Identity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 263–295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Alveson, M., & Empson, L. (2008). The construction of organizational identity: Comparative case studies of
consulting firms. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24, 1–16.
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organizational control producing the appropriate
individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 619–644.
Argenti, P. (1998). Corporate communication (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

123
High Educ (2013) 65:401–415 413

Aula, H.-M., & Tienari, J. (2011). Becoming ‘‘world-class’’? Reputation-building in a university merger.
Critical Perspectives on International Business, 7(1), 7–29.
Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). Organizational identity: The power and the paradox. Design Management Journal,
6(1), 39–44.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). From the Pentagon: A new identity framework. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(1),
11–22.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Wilson, A. (1998). Corporate identity: There is more to it than meets the eye.
International Studies of Management and Organization, 28(3), 12–31.
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31,
78–108.
Becker, F., & Steele, F. (1995). Workplace by design. Mapping the high performance workscape. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Berg, P.-O., & Kreiner, K. (1990). Corporate architecture: Turning physical settings into symbolic
resources. In P. Gagliardi (Ed.), Symbols and artefacts: Views of the corporate landscape (pp. 41–67).
New York: de Gruyter.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality—a treatise in the sociology of
knowledge. New York: Doubleday.
Briones, R. B., Kuch, B., Fisher Liu, B., & Jin, Y. (2010). Keeping up with the digital age: How the
American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 37–43.
Carroll, C. E., & McCombs, M. (2003). Agenda-setting effects of business news on the public’s images and
opinions about major corporations. Corporate Reputation Review, 16(1), 36–46.
Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. T. (1999). Identity at issue: Linkages between internal and external orga-
nizational communication. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), New handbook of organizational
communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Christensen, L. T., & Askegaard, S. (2001). Corporate identity and corporate image revisited. A semiotic
perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 292–315.
Cornelissen, J., & Thorpe, R. (2002). Measuring a business school’s reputation: Perspectives, problems and
prospects. European Management Journal, 20(2), 172–178.
Czarniawska, B. (2002). A tale of three cities: Or the glocalization of city management. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1991). Introduction. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new
institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Dollinger, M. J., Golden, P. A., & Saxton, T. (1997). The effect of reputation on the decision to joint
venture. Strategic Management Journal, 18(2), 127–140.
Dowling, G. R. (1994). Corporate reputations: Strategies for developing the corporate brand. London:
Kogan Page.
Downey, S. M. (1986). The relationship between corporate culture and organizational identity. Public
Relations Quarterly, 31(4), 7–12.
Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–258.
Fombrun, C. J., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Fame and fortune: How successful companies build winning
reputations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gagliardi, P. (1990). Symbols and artefacts: Views of the corporate landscape. New York: Walter de
Gruyter.
Giddens, A. (1986). Structuration theory, empirical research and social critique. In A. Giddens (Ed.), The
constitution of society—outline of the theory of structuration (pp. 281–354). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability.
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63–81.
Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic
change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3), 370–403.
Grant, R. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formula-
tion. California Management Review, 33(3), 114–135.
Gray, J. G. (1986). Managing the corporate image: The key to public trust. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Hall, S. (1995). Introduction: Who Needs ‘Identity’? In S. Hall & P. De Guy (Eds.), Questions of cultural
identity. London: Sage.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity, and image. European
Journal of Marketing, 31, 340–355.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2004). Scaling the Tower of Babel: Relational differences between identity,
image and culture in organizations. In M. J. Hatch, M. Schultz, & H. Larsen (Eds.), Organizational
identity—a reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

123
414 High Educ (2013) 65:401–415

Heding, T., Knudtzen, C. F., & Bjerre, M. (2009). Brand management: Research, theory and practice.
London and New York: Routledge.
Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education,
49(1/2), 155–176.
Hotho, S. (2008). Professional identity—product of structure, product of choice. Linking changing pro-
fessional identity and changing professions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(6),
721–742.
Kreysing, M. (2002). Autonomy, accountability, and organizational complexity in higher education: The
Goettingen model of university reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(6), 552–560.
Labianca, G., Fairbank, J. F., Thomas, J. B., Gioia, D. A., & Umphress, E. E. (2001). Emulation in
academia: Balancing structure and identity. Organization Science, 12(3), 312–330.
Lowrie, A. (2007). Branding higher education: Equivalence and difference in developing identity. Journal of
Business Research, 60, 990–999.
Luhmann, N. (2002). Theories of distinction: Redescribing the descriptions of modernity (edited and
introduced by William Rasch). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Margulies, W. P. (1977). Make the most of your corporate identity. Harvard Business Review, 55(4), 66–74.
Meijer, M. M., & Kleinnijenhuis, J. (2006). News and corporate reputation: Empirical findings from the
Netherlands. Public Relations Review, 32, 341–348.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony.
American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Olins, W. (1978). The corporate personality: An inquiry into the nature of corporate identity. Witton:
Kynoch Press.
Olins, W. (1989). Corporate identity: Making strategy visible through design. London: Thames & Hudson.
Olins, W. (1995). International corporate identity. London: Laurence King.
Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Pratt, M. G., & Rafaeli, A. (1997). Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered social identities.
Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 862–898.
Rafaeli, A., & Pratt, M. (Eds.). (2006). Artefacts and organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.
Rindova, V., Williamson, I., & Petkova, A. (2010). When is reputation an asset? Reflections on theory and
methods in two studies of business schools. Journal of Management, 36(3), 610–619.
Rindova, V., Williamson, I., Petkova, A., & Sever, J. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical
examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy
of Management Journal, 48(6), 1033–1049.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. (2009). Of bricks and brands: From corporate to enterprise branding. Orga-
nizational Dynamics, 38(2), 117–130.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications.
Shepsle, K. A. (1986). Institutional equilibrium and equilibrium institutions. In H. Weisberg (Ed.), Political
science: The science of politics. New York: Agathon Press.
Steiner, L. (2003). Roots of identity in real estate industry. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(2), 178–196.
Sundström, A. (2008). Local management response to corporative restructuring: A case study of a company
town. Business and Society Review, 113(3), 375–402.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Välimaa, J. (1998). Culture and identity in higher education research. Higher Education, 36(119–138), 1998.
van den Bosch, A. L. M., de Jong, M. D. T., & Elving, W. J. L. (2005). How corporate visual identity
supports reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), 108–116.
van Riel, C. B. M., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: The concept, its measurement and
management. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 340–355.
Waeraas, A., & Solbakk, M. N. (2009). Defining the essence of a university: Lessons from higher education
branding. Higher Education, 57, 449–462.
Wartick, S. L. (1992). The relationship between intense media exposure and change in corporate reputation.
Business and Society, 31, 33–49.
Weigelt, K., & Cammerer, C. (1988). Reputation and corporate strategy: A review of recent theory and
application. Strategic Management Journal, 9(5), 443–454.
Whetten, D. A., & Godfrey, P. C. (1998). Identity in Organizations: Building theory through conversation.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yang, R. (2004). Openness and reform as dynamics for development: A case study of internationalisation at
South China University of Technology. Higher Education, 47(4), 473–500.

123
High Educ (2013) 65:401–415 415

Ylijoki, O.-H. (2003). Entangled in academic capitalism? A case-study on changing ideals and practices of
university research. Higher Education, 45, 307–335.
Zucker, L. G. (1977). The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. American Sociological Review,
42, 726–743.
Zucker, L. G. (1983). Organizations as institutions. In B. Samuel & Bacharach (Eds.), Research in the
sociology of organizations (Vol. 2). Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press.

123