Brand orientation in action – A transformational learning intervention

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Brand orientation in action – A transformational learning intervention Johan Gromark School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Box 7080, 220 07 Lund, Sweden

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Brand orientation Transformational learning Multiple identities Action research

This article provides in-depth insight into the dynamics of a transformation from market orientation to brand orientation. By including a wide range of stakeholders in an action research intervention, a detailed description is provided regarding the transformation of a large Swedish public primary care organization during a turbulent marketization process. Brand management theory and practice are frequently based on uniformist and integrationist assumptions, which are questioned in this study. This is due to the fact that resistance and conflict are not only natural but necessary preconditions for transformational learning and thereby changing identities. The intervention shows how changing a strategic orientation is interwoven with identity dynamics on many levels. This study suggests that not only brand identities should be nurtured but also other social identities, such as local, professional and sector identities.

1. Introduction Research in brand management has lately been characterized by an interest in the co-creation of brand identity. Within this perspective, consumers and other external or internal stakeholders are seen as active contributors to the creation of a brand identity (von Wallpach, Voyer, Kastanakis, & Muhlbacher, 2017). This represents a major shift in brand management research, which has previously focused on how managers may unilaterally control and sustain brand identity. This managementcentric version of brand management has been labeled by Louro and Cunha (2001) as the projective brand orientation paradigm, represented with the metaphor of a monologue, whereas the emerging relational brand orientation paradigm encompasses a multilateral and thus cocreative approach, represented with the metaphor of a conversation. Recent developments also highlight the networked nature of brands residing in an ecosystem of stakeholders who simultaneously co-create the brand identity and their own identity (Gyrd-Jones & Kornum, 2013). From this perspective, brand management can no longer be thought of as dialogues between a firm and a consumer but must be approached as a “multi-log” (Vallaster & von Wallpach, 2013) held with and between multiple stakeholders (Merz, He, & Vargo, 2009). This is a shift with far-reaching consequences for both practice and research. One of these is that this shift opens up for a pluralist understanding of brand management (Gyrd-Jones, Helm, & Munk, 2013; Gyrd-Jones, Merrilees, & Miller, 2013). This perspective acknowledges that stakeholder resistance towards brand management efforts is inevitable; however, it should not only be thought of as a barrier but also a possible enabler for transformational learning (Schein, 2010). This study aims to

shed light on this type of transformational learning by studying a public primary care organization that adopts brand orientation during a dramatic change process when market orientation proves insufficient for achieving the goals of the organization. The purpose of the study is to expand our understanding of how transformational learning processes in relation to brand orientation are embedded in identity dynamics. 2. Theoretical development 2.1. The brand orientation concept and its adoption All organizations have brands and most of them involve some sort of brand management, but not all organizations are brand-oriented. Gromark and Melin (2013, p. 1105) define brand orientation as “a deliberate approach to brand building where brand equity is created through interaction between internal and external stakeholders, where brand management is perceived as a core competence, and where brand building is intimately associated with organisational development and superior performance.” From this definition, it is clear that ad-hoc brand management activities do not qualify, as brand orientation requires a deliberate approach (also see Evans, Bridson, & Rentschler, 2012; Hodge, McMullen, & Kleinschafer, 2018). Baumgarth (2010) has developed and validated a model of brand orientation showing that a brand-oriented culture is established by values that in turn influence norms that then go on to affect artefacts. Norms and artefacts both have an impact on behaviors, which then influence market performance and subsequently economic performance. While there seems to be broad acceptance in the literature that values constitute a central prerequisite

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.058 Received 30 January 2019; Received in revised form 25 October 2019; Accepted 26 October 2019 0148-2963/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Johan Gromark, Journal of Business Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.058

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Gromark

for developing brand orientation, there is an apparent lack of studies providing in-depth insights on how such values are adopted in organizations. This is underlined in the first systematic review of 20 years of brand orientation research by Anees-ur-Rehman, Wong, and Hossain (2016), who encourage researchers to conduct in-depth longitudinal studies of the implementation of brand orientation. In one of the rare studies addressing this issue, presented by Gyrd-Jones et al. (2013), functional silos within the case organization effectively act as a barrier for brand orientation despite the presence of brand-oriented values. Another multiple case study by Lee (2013) also reinforces the notion that brand orientation research cannot assume that organizations are monocultures and that it is imperative to deeply involve stakeholders with divergent identities and interests in the brand orientation process. In this case study, tensions and resistance regarding brand orientation efforts are also present in a majority of the organizations studied. These results indicate that the perspectives of multiple stakeholder identities and resistance is pivotal for understanding the process during which brand orientation is adopted.

RQ 1. What is the role of multiple identities in the transformational learning processes of brand orientation? 2.3. Perspectives of pluralism in brand orientation Critics of the mainstream brand management literature argue that the focus on creating a harmonious, often uniform and aligned organization is naïve. In this “brand utopia” of happy and docile “brand ambassadors,” there is little room for ambivalence, conflict and resistance, which are common aspects of organizational life (Gyrd-Jones, Merrilees, et al., 2013; von Wallpach & Woodside, 2009). Apart from being naïve, the unitarist ambitions might also create conservative and rigid organizations inhibiting necessary change and creativity (Brown & Starkey, 2000). If conflict and resistance are discussed in the normative literature, this is most frequently based on the horizon of top management, portraying these issues as problems residing within employees. These problems should be eliminated as efficiently as possible, not seldom with the help of various manipulation techniques. This line of thinking is thus consistent with the projective brand orientation model, where value is transmitted in tight control from management through aligned employees to consumers, whereas the relational brand orientation model focuses on the co-creative nature of value creation (Louro & Cunha, 2001). In the latter model, identity is approached from a processual perspective, which means that it is not static, but negotiable and fluid (Gromark, 2017). This type of brand orientation should thus be able to incorporate a more pluralistic approach to brand management. As of yet, however, how a relational brand orientation may be implemented in practice has only been studied to a limited degree. von Wallpach and Woodside (2009) suggest developing conflict management skills and creating a balance between intended values and enacted values. Gyrd-Jones et al. (2013) argue that a shared vision able to accommodate different subcultures is vital, as are cross-functional dialogue and knowledge sharing, managerial, organizational and financial commitment to the strategy and the development of long-term KPIs. Lee (2013) also suggests openness and transparency in internal communications, a CEO acting as a champion for the process, continuous reviews of the brand from a stakeholder perspective and using an external facilitator. In the study on two banks by Wallace, Buil, and de Chernatony (2013), they also advocate the CEO as initiator and ambassador for brand orientation. They furthermore highlight the role of values and the active implementation of these in relation to employees. Since the literature on adopting a relational brand orientation is still in its infancy, more in-depth longitudinal studies of this process are called for (Gyrd-Jones, Merrilees, et al., 2013) From this follows the second research question:

2.2. Perspectives on learning brand orientation Changing an organization’s strategic orientation might be one of the most central as well as demanding tasks for managers in any organization. This is because strategic orientations are intimately linked to organizational culture (Baumgarth, 2010) and organizational identity (Hatch & Schultz, 1997). While organizational culture and organizational identity may constrain change, so may other types of individual and social identities, such as professional identities (e.g., nurse, doctor, public servant) or sector identities (e.g., the health care sector, the public sector, primary care, etc.). A successful change of strategic orientation hence encompasses replacing central assumptions, values, norms and thus changing identity. This type of learning and change is characterized by the fact that it is transformational (Illeris, 2014; Schein, 2010). Since brand orientation is a mindset most authors argue should permeate the entire organization (Baumgarth, 2010; Gromark & Melin, 2011; Urde, 1999), developing a brand-oriented organization should consequently and ultimately revolve around learning and change intertwined in identity dynamics. Changing identity is an emotional and painstaking endeavor and represents a major reason behind what Schein (2010) refers to as learning anxiety. This constitutes a central barrier for transformational learning in his model for managed change. The other central barrier is survival anxiety, which, he argues, needs to be high in order to motivate change. This is due to the fact that the essence of survival anxiety is recognizing that if no change is undertaken, negative things will happen to the individual, group, organization, etc. However, Schein emphasizes that change initiatives often fail if managers make the mistake of increasing survival anxiety without decreasing learning anxiety. Nevertheless, learning anxiety will activate defense mechanisms and resistance, which may lead to conflicts, especially if individuals feel that their individual or social identity is threatened. These issues not only constitute a central part of several models of organizational learning, this type of learning has in fact been recognized as a necessary and even beneficial factor for transformational change since at least the 1940s (Argyris & Schön, 1995; Lewin, 1947; Schein, 2010). The fact that previously adopted orientations such as product orientation and market orientation can act as a barrier for learning brand orientation is well-documented in the literature (Evans et al., 2012; Urde, 1994, 1999). However, exactly how the key concept of brand identity is related to other social and individual identities is not discussed in detail. From research on organizational identification (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008), we know that individuals primarily identify with lower-order identities (e.g., the local health center) but can easily accommodate higher-order identities (e.g., a new corporate brand) if it is inclusive of lower-order identities. From this follows the first research question:

RQ 2. How may the brand orientation concept evolve into a more inclusive approach? 3. Learning brand orientation in action The explorative purpose of this study and the practical nature of the research questions suggest that action research can provide valuable insights in relation to these matters. Action research enables the study of complex change processes by actively attempting to influence the course of action, followed by meticulous observations and reflections on the outcomes in close collaboration with practitioners (Greenwood & Levin, 2007). While action research entails a strong focus on change and learning, it also involves an ethical commitment towards all participants in the intervention (Coghlan & Brannick, 2014). This means that the action researcher should be sensitive and receptive towards perspectives and voices other than just those of top management. As noted earlier, it is vital to acknowledge that resistance towards change is to be considered normal, healthy and fully legitimate (Schein, 2010). Confronting and addressing such resistance is also an excellent, albeit demanding, opportunity for joint learning, as captured in the adage 2

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Gromark

attributed to the founding father of action research, Kurt Lewin (Greenwood & Levin, 2007, p. 18) “The best way to understand something is to try to change it”. This is even more pertinent in interventions such as this where the researcher is confronted not only with general resistance towards change but also with very specific resistance towards branding and marketization of the public sector. This type of resistance towards branding and marketization in public sector and non-profit organizations has been reported by numerous scholars (see Chapleo, 2011; Evans et al., 2012; Lee, 2013; Miller & Merrilees, 2013). In such circumstances, action research with its interventionist, participatory and learning perspectives represents a suitable method (Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985). Studying organizations during dramatic episodes is beneficial since identity issues will come to the surface (Brown & Starkey, 2000). Public sector organizations are pluralistic in nature, they house multiple identities and do not have a long tradition of brand orientation, which will result in the effects of learning and change being more evident compared to in organizations where brand management was established a long time ago. Studying the transformational learning of brand orientation in a public sector setting thus entails good prospects for yielding interesting research findings.

and knowledge of public sector branding contributed to lowering the learning anxiety. Several participants mentioned this in relation to how a brand consultant contracted a couple of years before our intervention had discussed the public primary care sector in relation to consumer brands like Coca-Cola, which had caused irritation and reinforced people’s hostility towards branding. None of the researchers had any prior experience in publishing action research at the beginning of the intervention. For the most part of the intervention, the researchers worked jointly and shared the responsibility of leading workshops, interviewing, analyzing texts and taking fieldnotes. A sensitive and largescale intervention like this would be very hard to accomplish on your own. However, the researchers decided to write two separate papers about the case, using separate theoretical frameworks for analyzing the intervention. This is due to the fact that action research is not only intended to create knowledge and change for others, such as an organization or wider academic and practitioner audiences, it is also indeed a personal and subjective learning experience for the individual action researcher (Reason & Torbert, 2001). For the author of this paper, the co-creation of multiple identities constitutes the analytical perspective included in all three levels of learning described above. Consequently, the intervention was a part of the author’s own PhD process of becoming not only a consultant but also a researcher while merging these two identities into an action researcher identity.

3.1. The case settings The organizations in focus for this intervention are the five public primary care organizations within the Region Västra Götaland (VGR) in Sweden. At the beginning of the intervention, the public primary care sector was organized into five separate organizations responsible for five different geographical areas within the region. Together, they employed 6000 people. In 2008, the Swedish parliament passed a law making it mandatory for regional councils to introduce market models in the primary care sector in order to give patients the choice of using various private or public primary care providers. As a result of this marketization process, public and private providers started utilizing marketing techniques in order to attract and retain customers. Prior to the intervention, the public primary care organizations had engaged in various market-oriented projects, such as undertaking large-scale quantitative attitude surveys where the image of the public providers was compared to the image of the private providers. The organizations also jointly hired a consultancy firm, which carried out an organizationwide training program in service management in order to raise the level of customer service. In this project (and many other projects as well), there had been many and heated discussions concerning whether it was appropriate to refer to patients as “customers” when they were not in a treatment situation. This is one of many examples of how the marketization process had interfered with existing identities and norms within the organization and mobilized various forms of resistance. As a consequence of the poor results from the previous market orientation efforts, one of the heads of communication contacted the action researchers in order to explore whether brand management could offer an alternative approach. After some initial meetings and correspondence ranging over five months, the organization decided to launch an action research intervention with the explicit purpose of learning brand orientation. The intervention was organized with participants from the five organizations in order to include representatives from different levels, geographical locations and functions in the organization. The core participants were organized into a steering group and a working group, each of which consisted of 15 participants. All five organizations shared a similar consensus-based culture where participation was seen as a necessary prerequisite for successful strategic processes. The two action researchers were both longtime brand consultants with more than 15 years of experience in facilitating branding processes. Both had considerable experience in public sector branding and had published on this topic in managerial as well as academic outlets. Even if the reason for hiring us was primarily due to our experience as consultants, we received several indications that our link to academia

3.2. The quality of the action research intervention A core belief in action research is that the best way to generate and test new knowledge is through action (Greenwood & Levin, 2007). Generally, action research interventions are approached as active experimentation but with a limited degree of generalization since the results are always contextual (Ivankova, 2014). This is similar to Lincoln and Guba (1985) notion of transferability as a criterion for qualitative research rather than reliability, as is the case in quantitative research. However, action research is agnostic regarding methods and frequently (as in this intervention) combines both qualitative and quantitative methods. In discussions on research quality, action researchers are frequently concerned with the quality of the entire action research process and whether the research will reach its goals of informing both researchers and practitioners (Mertler, 2017). In line with this approach, this research has been inspired by Herr and Anderson (2015) and their five validity criteria, which are described in relation to this study in Table 1 below. 4. The Närhälsan transformation process In order to analyze the transformation process, the learning and change model developed by Lewin (1947) and later modified by Schein (2010) was utilized. This model particularly focuses on identity and resistance, which, for the reasons mentioned earlier, are essential in this case. The model describes change and learning in three phases: unfreezing, movement and refreezing. The first phase revolves around creating motivation for change, recognizing a dilemma or disconfirming existing practices. The second phase explores and tests new ways of addressing the problem. Imitating and identifying with role models is one way of learning in the model. The other is scanning and trial-and-error learning. In the third phase, the change process is stabilized into a new equilibrium where concepts, meanings and standards are incorporated in self-concept, identity and ongoing relationships, unless the results are unsatisfactory, which will then lead to a new change process. 4.1. Unfreezing – Do we really need a brand? By all counts, the intervention was a demanding process for the participants, since the marketization model had forced the organization to shut down units and lay off employees due to the increased 3

4

The extent to which the research undergoes peer-review

The extent to which research is carried out in collaboration with all parties with a stake in the problem under investigation

Democratic validity

Dialogic validity

The extent to which problems are framed and solved in a manner that permits ongoing learning of the individual or system

Process validity

The extent to which the research process empowers participants to transform reality

The extent to which actions occur, which leads to a resolution of the problems that led to the study

Outcome validity

Catalytical validity

Definition

Quality/Validity criteria

• •

AR goal: o Generation of new knowledge. Quality indicators: The research findings and procedures are peer-reviewed. The researcher participates in critical and reflective dialogue with other action researchers.

• •

•

•

AR goal: o Generation of results that are relevant to the local setting. Quality indicators: Multiple perspectives and material interest of all stakeholders are taken into account. The research is inclusive of all stakeholders as collaborators in the process. AR goal: o Education of both researcher and participants. Quality indicators: The research results serve as a “catalyst” for action. All individuals involved in the study get empowered for social change.

• •

AR goal: o Use of sound and appropriate research methodology. Quality indicators: The research is conducted in a “dependable” and “competent” manner. The research findings are a result of a series of reflective cycles.

• •

AR goal: o The achievement of action-oriented outcomes. Quality indicators: The action emerging from the study led to a successful resolution of the problem. The action emerging from the study forced the researcher to reframe the problem in a more complex way.

Action research goal/Quality indicator

Table 1 Validity criterias (Adapted from Herr & Anderson, 2015, p. 67–70 and Ivankova, 2014, p. 271–272).

The practitioners learned how to build a sustainable brand both internally and externally. The new brand has high recognition in comparison to competitors. The public sector ethos and heritage is still intact and a vital part of the positioning strategy. The brand strategy is sustainable since it is still in active use in 2019 with only minor changes. The organization has developed a learning and processual perspective on its brand management activities since the brand strategy is (still) utilized in their balanced scorecards. The researchers learned how multiple identities can enrich both research in brand orientation and their own action research efforts. Earlier versions of this paper have been presented at one academic conference, one practitioner conference and two academic seminars. Two brand management scholars and one action researcher have served as “critical friends” during the writing phase.

A prolonged engagement (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) lasting 54 months. The last reflection seminar initiated a new process of change. All groups were formed and meetings were designed with an inclusive and participatory perspective. Critical voices were allowed and not silenced. In addition to wide organizational input, external stakeholders, such as residents in the region, were also consulted. All major decisions in the process were ultimately made by the democratically elected regional council.

The organization developed a sustainable and distinctive brand identity. The brand also became the hub of the organization processes (Urde, 1999) via the use of balanced scorecards. The top management team and the political board considered the process a great success. The study led to a questioning of common integrationist and uniformist assumptions within brand management. This was due to a cross-fertilization of change and learning theories, which helps recognize and frame other identities and resistance not as problems per se but as resources. Triangulation of (Denzin, 1978) (a) Methods, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods: Survey with experimental design, observations, individual interviews, focus groups, workshops and document studies. (b) Inclusion of several researchers and practitioners to enrich diversity in understanding and interpretation of results. (c) Utilizing multiple theoretical perspectives.

Indicators in relation to this study

J. Gromark

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Gromark

competition. This caused survival anxiety at the highest levels of the organization. Since the organization lacked experience and expertise regarding marketing and branding, learning anxiety was also evident at all levels. This stress and anxiety were reinforced by a lack of selfconfidence and a widely held perception among both internal and external stakeholders that the public primary care organization suffered from image problems (slow, inefficient, old-fashioned, etc.). A large number of employees at all levels would also look upon these external perceptions as accurate descriptions of the organization. Embracing brand orientation in order to address these problems was far from selfevident and, as unfolds below, was viewed by many with a high level of suspicion. The required learning may thus be described as what is referred to in the organizational learning and change literature as transformational, since the assumptions, identities, norms and values held by the organization are first questioned and then changed (Illeris, 2014; Schein, 2010). The organization serving Gothenburg, which is the largest city in the region, was also the organization out of the five public primary care organizations having experienced the fiercest competition, resulting in layoffs and shutdowns. The executive director of this organization was a proponent of working with branding and had been instrumental in convincing the political boards overseeing the organizations that this was a strategic and important matter. Before the intervention started, the political boards had decided that the five public primary care organizations should increase their branding efforts. The fact that this decision was seen as sensitive and even provocative by some members in the organization is illustrated by the fact that one of the five executive directors refused to participate in the intervention by referring to his political standpoint. This director also left the organization shortly after the intervention had begun. Two other directors also questioned the length and ambition of the intervention and had a limited understanding as to why this was a strategic matter and why they had to invest both time and money in relation to this process. At this point, the communications managers, who confronted branding problems in their daily operations, were the ones actively trying to persuade the executive directors to engage in the intervention. However, even one of the communication managers participating in the intervention did so with strong reservations. During the first project meetings and workshops, the action researchers and participants engaged in a “feeling out period.” At first, the intervention was initiated in order to create a common learning process regarding brand communication. After a couple of months, the regional council decided to merge the five organizations into a single organization, which significantly extended the scope and ambition of the process. This merger became a central issue to be addressed in the intervention, which certainly added complexity but also resulted in apparent benefits since it enabled more radical change regarding the brand identity. The literature on transformational learning emphasizes the necessity of an activating event or disorienting dilemma if this type of learning is to occur (Illeris, 2014; Schein, 2010). The initial ambition of the top management team (now heavily involved in the process) was to rename the organization as Primary Care Västra Götaland. However, this ambition was not possible due to legal reasons and loud objections from a private competitor, which led to the regional council declining the request to let the category serve as the name for the organization. Since using generic and descriptive names is standard in the public sector, this decision was confusing and created worries within the management team. Using differentiated names was seen as too commercial and not in line with the public sector heritage and ethos. Due to this problem, a comprehensive naming process was initiated. A legal expert from the regional organization, a trademark lawyer, the brand manager of VGR and a couple of health care representatives from the organization formed a naming group together with the action researchers. An important decision in this group was to invite residents as co-creators of the name. For this purpose, an online web panel with residents in Västra Götaland was used for conducting an

experiment where 10 different stimuli (name and logotype) were tested on 100 residents for each stimulus, resulting in a total of 1000 respondents who answered a questionnaire including both structured and open questions. This technique allowed us to test four different names with or without the VGR corporate brand as an endorser, which provided additional information regarding the fit of these central identity elements in the brand architecture used by the regional organization. Having access to hard facts and stakeholder input proved important in order to reduce learning anxiety in the management team and give comfort to the board in their naming decision. With this input, the name Närhälsan (this is an invented word, which combines “near” + “health”) was chosen, registered and furthermore decided upon by the regional council as the new name for the organization. In addition, it was decided that all local health centers, which were all using generic names (geographical location + category), should add Närhälsan as a prefix to their existing names. 4.2. Moving – yes, we need a brand! After the name had been decided, a brand platform containing a new vision, mission, core values and a positioning strategy was developed. This platform was based on the organization’s public sector heritage and not-for-profit nature as differentiation. The mission and vision set out an ambition of not only providing care but also promoting health in the region. The new name and the brand platform thus contained inclusive elements with reference to the public sector, professional, geographical and organizational identities. Developing this part of the strategy proceeded without any major hurdles. After it was presented and approved by the organization’s political board, an intense period of planning and implementing a wide range of activities took place. At this point, the learning anxiety evident in the previous phase was replaced by confidence, energy and curiosity. During the whole intervention, role models from the public sector and health care sector were used as vehicles for learning. One example with a strong impact was a lecture presented by the communication director of the state-owned pharmacy corporation for the top 100 managers in the organization. The pharmacy market had been deregulated a couple of years before, but the state-owned pharmacy corporation had managed to defend its market shares by actively and deliberately adopting brand orientation. During this phase, it was decided that the brand strategy for Närhälsan would serve as the point of departure for developing an organization-wide business plan, which, in turn, would constitute the basis for the development of local business plans for each health center. These plans were constructed as balanced scorecards (Kaplan & Norton, 1996) with central goals for different perspectives and stakeholders, which would then be translated into local goals and activities in each health center. It was also decided that the core values should be an inspiration for the development of a reward and compensation program. Developing reward systems and measurements supporting the intended change is a vital precondition for refreezing in the model by Schein (2010). At this point, the brand de facto became the hub of the operations, which in the literature is pointed out as an essential trait of brand-oriented organizations (Gromark & Melin, 2011; Urde, 1999). The launch of the new brand went unexpectedly smoothly. The critical questions anticipated from the media, such as the necessity of investing tax money in branding when this instead could have been used for care, did not materialize. After the external launch of the brand, most of Närhälsan’s implementation of the brand strategy and development of local business plans took off at the approximately 150 units. The training material for this phase was carefully designed, albeit not with a transformational learning perspective as the point of departure. It was decided that words seen as too commercial, such as “brand,” were to be removed. One communication manager argued that “if we use the b-word, the employees will freak out and will not be able to learn.” [Own translation.] Despite these good intentions, this approach might have been 5

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Gromark

Table 2 Stakeholders participating in reflection and evaluation interviews/workshops (all sessions ranging from 1 to 2 h). Stakeholder

Method

Political board The regional executive officer The acting director for VG Primary Care The brand manager for VGR The executive management team of Närhälsan

One workshop with 10 politicians One interview One interview One interview One interview with each management team member and one workshop where all members participated together with the primary care area directors (21 participants) One reflection workshop with 15 participants and one interview Three workshops where all employees were invited. 12 employees participated at each health center

The primary care area directors of Närhälsan Local unit managers and employees at three health centers Total

70 individuals participated in interviews and workshops

benchmarking activities and really use the strength of this large organization. Furthermore, it is now much clearer for the residents in the region who the public provider is and what we stand for. [Own translation.]

counterproductive. The local employees must be able to confront their preconceptions and identity, just as management did in the previous phase (Coghlan, 1996; Schön, 1991). This also raises the question of whether adopting brand orientation is even possible at the local level without being able to use the brand terminology. Another possible interpretation is offered by Wallace et al. (2013), who suggest that brand orientation on a local level must be translated into concrete behaviors instead of values that will otherwise be seen as “brand jargon.” Nevertheless, when 12 months had passed, all units had developed local business plans.

During the workshops at the local health centers, it was clear that the interpretation of the results and impact due to the creation of Närhälsan looked very different compared to the central level. First of all, none of the three health care centers visited actually perceived any serious competition from other private providers. Survival anxiety was thus low. Overall, the understanding of branding was not surprisingly biased towards marketing to consumers. Most of the participants did not reflect upon the value of brands for other stakeholders, or for the organization as a whole, and they generally adopted a local perspective. During these sessions, several participants exhibited defense mechanisms, such as denial, scapegoating, dodging behaviors or passing the buck (Coghlan, 1996), thus clearly indicating that learning anxiety was high. Some participants mocked initiatives from the central organization; one such example being branded giveaways of inferior quality, like umbrellas that did not work properly, or the core values printed on coffee cups fading away due to low printing quality. One doctor commented on these issues after one of the workshops:

4.3. Refreezing – Some need a brand, some don’t… Six months after the launch, a brand awareness study involving 2044 residents in the region showed that Närhälsan had created strong brand awareness in a short time. 68% of the respondents recognized the brand in comparison to 64% for the closest competitor. The positioning based on heritage was also examined in the survey, where 76% of the respondents agreed that Närhälsan had a long experience with regard to primary care compared to 52% for the closest competitor. This study thus revealed that most residents had learned that Närhälsan was the public provider of primary care. Eleven months later, the action researchers initiated an extensive evaluation and reflection cycle in order to capture lessons and outcomes. This was carried out by conducting interviews, workshops and joint analyses with the stakeholders, as presented in Table 2 below. The merger had created the by far largest primary care organization in Sweden with 6000 employees. The managers of Närhälsan witnessed a great interest in the organization in the industry. As an example of the success, the executive director of Närhälsan related that she had received inquiries from public primary care organization in other regions whether they could “borrow” the brand. The director of communications related a similar story when she mentioned that she had received questions from other public primary care organizations regarding the brand:

To me, this is very symbolic of the whole creation of Närhälsan. The fading core values on the coffee cups tell us that this initiative will vanish and soon be replaced by something else. The low-quality umbrellas tell us that the top management of the organization can do very little to shield us from the short-sightedness and meddlesome initiatives of the politicians. [Own translation.] The communications department had filed a complaint regarding the coffee cups and the supplier had delivered new cups with better printing quality. Even if the communications department had encouraged the health centers to discard the low-quality cups, the health centers did not comply with this, since they, with a smile on their face, argued that this would not be in line with the organization’s commitment to sustainability. Since the coffee cups were used every day, these artefacts served as a daily reminder of de-identification with the new corporate brand and the identity initiatives from top management. Overall, the level of identification with Närhälsan was low. Instead, identification was mostly limited to the local unit, to the profession or to the public sector. In one workshop, a participating receptionist displayed an antagonistic and even hostile approach towards the new brand identity. She said that she still used the old name for the health center when calling patients, since this was well-established, and she informed us and the rest of her colleagues that she would never use the new name, as she saw no value in it whatsoever. Since the local manager of the health center participated in the same workshop, it was evident that using the new brand identity was indeed negotiable. During the last reflection workshop with the executive management team and the primary care area directors, the above findings were in focus; in other words, a great success externally and high impact internally at the central level but a low and sometimes even antagonistic

I met a couple of representatives of public primary care organizations from other regional councils when I talked about the Närhälsan story at a conference last week. These representatives were very curious about the Närhälsan brand and asked me if all public primary care organizations in Sweden would be called Närhälsan in the future. [Own translation.] These two examples add further intriguing illustrations of the communal understanding of brands and branding in the public sector. Overall, the assessment of the brand orientation process of Närhälsan was seen as a great success by the highest levels within the organization, including the politicians on the board. One politician commented on the outcomes of the process as: There is now a totally different kind of pride in being part of the organization. I think having a common identity was crucial. We now see that the health centers learn from each other and engage in 6

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Gromark

impact at the local level. In this workshop, the participants discussed the importance of developing a deep understanding of the resistance and various defense mechanisms exhibited during the implementation phase. The participants also reflected upon the need to rebalance the focus from customers and patients to employees. The focus on customers and patients had dominated the organizational discourse for several years, while employees felt stressed out and forgotten due to the high pace of change. Furthermore, the organization suffered from a pressing shortage of doctors. A conclusion made was the necessity of even further emphasizing the inclusive aspect of the corporate brand and its role in strengthening the professions within the organization. A concrete idea from this workshop was the creation of “Academy Närhälsan,” which would serve as the engine for research and professional development, while at the same time making Närhälsan more attractive as an employer. While a majority of the change efforts had undoubtedly refreezed at the central level, the local level evaluation effectively initiated a new unfreezing phase leading to new change. In order to provide the reader with an overview of the whole intervention, Table 3 below presents a timeline of the process, where each critical episode in the intervention and the activity of the different internal stakeholders during each episode is outlined. Furthermore, the table describes which learning devices were utilized, as well as the triggers for learning that either disconfirmed existing practices or confirmed or disconfirmed new practices (Schein, 2010).

process of activities aimed at reducing learning anxiety. At the local level, the persistent disorientation and learning anxiety inhibited meaningful change and new behaviors. Since the new behaviors at the local level in the study by Wallace et al. (2013) did not require revolutionary changes in identity and behaviors, a form of learning focusing on improvements rather than transformation might be sufficient. Nevertheless, this raises the question of whether the employees may be thought of as brand-oriented. The values discussed by Wallace et al. (2013) are values linked to the specific brand. As evident in Baumgarth (2010) model, brand orientation starts with values related to a general approach and appreciation of brands and brand management. These values will then affect norms and artifacts, which, in turn, will affect behaviors. A high level of brand orientation thus requires a change of mindsets (Gromark & Melin, 2011; Hodge et al., 2018; Urde, 1999) and transformational learning, which changes identity. The learning of brand orientation is situated in an ecosystem of multiple and nested stakeholder identities (Gyrd-Jones & Kornum, 2013). These identities should be identified, acknowledged and approached as resources, and they may act not only as barriers but also enablers of change. It is thus vital to acknowledge the role of unlearning for various stakeholders. This is particularly relevant in pluralistic organizations with strong multiple identities, as this intervention illustrates. Adopting a new strategic orientation where transformational learning is required inevitably means identity change involving multiple levels and types of identities. Brand orientation research has primarily focused on the adoption of brand identities. Most organizations not only need to nurture brand identities but also professional identities and other social identities.

5. Discussion and conclusions This study contributes to the growing body of literature on brand orientation. In particular, the study expands our understanding of how transformational learning of brand orientation is embedded in identity dynamics. In the following sections, the two research questions are answered and the outcomes and implications of the intervention are discussed in relation to theory, practice and future research.

5.2. Enhancing inclusiveness in brand orientation Relational brand orientation requires leaders who embrace a participatory worldview and inclusive approach towards the stakeholders of their organizations. While this intervention did use participatory methods and an inclusive approach, this was not sufficient at the local level. Hence, it is fundamental to realize that the necessary conditions of unlearning will lead to resistance, the use of defense mechanisms and conflicts. The natural instinct in many organizations is to avoid conflicts (von Wallpach & Woodside, 2009). Managers must realize that there can actually be a value in this type of resistance and conflict and instead start using it as a resource. This study thus supports the suggestion by von Wallpach and Woodside (2009) to develop conflict management skills as an integral part of brand management. This is reinforced by the view in transformational learning stressing the importance of acknowledging unlearning as a legitimate step and to realize that resistance and conflict are not only natural but may also provide value (Schein, 2010). The various micro-protests and resistance toward the brand also represent a form of participation that may result in (new) change. The top management team in this organization had a long experience handling resistance and conflict amongst multiple stakeholders in a constructive way – having leaders with this dialogical or “multi-log capability” (Vallaster & von Wallpach, 2013) was crucial for the outcome of the intervention and the continued process. This capability could be seen as an integral part of a relational brand orientation (Gromark, 2017; Louro & Cunha, 2001) due to its openness with regard to co-creation and thus changing identities. The findings from this intervention suggest that the key to a stronger corporate brand is to provide space for and embrace other identities, such as local, professional and sector identities. The reflection seminar with top management where the Academy Närhälsan was discussed as a way of supporting the professional identity development in the organization is an example of an inclusive activity supporting a relational brand orientation. A multiple identity perspective on brand orientation acknowledges tensions, ambiguities and conflicts avoided by the normative brand management literature, both from an analytical and conceptual perspective, probably due to its integrationist and uniformist approach

5.1. Transformational learning of brand orientation in relation to multiple identities The rather hesitant and sometimes antagonistic reception of the intervention at the local level may be explained by lacking a necessary survival anxiety motivating identity change (Schein, 2010). In this context, it is crucial to emphasize that these employees were not confronted with the complex and hard strategic choices the central management team was forced to make. Few of the local employees had any fear of losing their own job, since there was a shortage of staff in the whole health care sector. Furthermore, as evident in Table 3, for the local employees the amount of time devoted to learning was only a fraction compared to the participants at the central level. Consequently, the efforts to lower their learning anxiety were not sufficient. The important conditions for transformational learning were thus met within top management and other core members of the intervention coalition but not with regards to the local employees. This resistance, as noted above, was actually mirrored at the central level previously in the process. However, these participants had the vital opportunity to unlearn, which had not yet materialized at other levels. In principle, managers have the choice of either avoiding conflicts or trying to engage with and possibly resolve them. Many will prefer the first alternative ((von Wallpach & Woodside, 2009). Avoiding “brand speak” and instead framing the brand orientation concept and values in concrete behaviors, as Wallace et al. (2013) suggest in their study of banks, can be tempting and come across as both considerate and effective at first sight, certainly in situations when heavy resistance may be anticipated. However, as shown in this intervention, this approach can be counter-productive in situations where the underlying assumptions and values of the employees must change if the new behaviors are to make sense. This unfreezing took place at the central level, which may partly be explained by a higher survival anxiety but also by a long 7

8

Phase 3: Refreezing Some need a brand, some don’t.

Launch of train the trainer program

Brand platform and new name presented internally

Formal decision regarding new name and brand platform in the regional council Business plans are developed in local health centers External launch of the brand

May 2012

May 2012

June 2012

Brand equity study

Evaluation and follow-up project launched Evaluation seminar with top management

Oct. 2013

Sep. 2014 Apr. 2015

Apr. 2013

Oct. 2012

Business plan project initiated

Apr. 2012

Brand platform decided by top management

Närhälsan decided as new name by top management

Jan. 2012

Feb. 2012

Highly involved

Decision on merger from five to one organization Naming project initiated

Sep. 2011 Nov. 2011

Phase 2: Moving - Yes, we need a brand!

Highly involved

Highly involved

Startup meeting and launch of workshop series

Aug. 2011

Some highly involved, others passive

Some highly involved, others passive Highly involved

Some highly involved, others passive Some highly involved, others passive

Some highly involved, others passive Some highly involved, others passive Some highly involved, others passive Some highly involved, others passive

Highly involved

Highly involved

Highly involved

From medium to low involvement, depending on interest From medium to low involvement, depending on interest Highly involved

Highly involved

Project plan for learning brand orientation

Highly involved

Highly involved

Passive

Highly involved

Passive

Highly involved

Highly involved

Highly involved

Highly involved

Highly involved

Highly involved

None

Highly involved

First contact with AR

Oct. 2010 May 2011

Activity level steering group

Phase 1: Unfreezing - Do we really need a brand?

Activity level working group

Critical events

Time

Table 3 Process overview Närhälsan 2010–2015.

None

Highly involved

Passive

Some highly involved, others passive

Highly involved

None

Medium involvement

Highly involved

Information about the project

None

None

None

None

None

Information about the project

None

Activity level primary care area directors

Three health centers involved None

None

Some highly involved, others passive Some highly involved, others passive

Involved in local discussions led by local managers None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

Activity level local health centers

Individual interviews, focus groups, workshops Workshop

Practitioners led workshops

Practitioners led workshops developing PR-kit, Q&As, brochures, website

Practitioners led workshops, coaching

100 top managers invited to a full day conference. Newsletters, Q& As, film, instructions for managers. Writing proposal for decision

Lectures, workshops, small group sessions

Lectures, workshops, small group sessions

Workshops aimed at developing a new way forward

Workshop with trademark lawyer and investigating the legislative preparatory work of the primary care law

Drafting proposals for decisions, experimental survey with resident input on naming, workshops

Workshop, individual interviews

Written communication, meetings, drafting proposals Written communication, meetings, lecture on public sector brand management Creation of a common “learning space” in the working group

Learning devices

Joint learning, individual reflections and group reflections Both confirmation and disconfirmation leading to new change

Confirmation: Positive results from the survey reinforce the change efforts

Joint learning, safe space for learning in local setting. Development of local goals and measures Confirmation: Very limited negative PR reinforced the feeling that the change was sound and well-planned

Confirmation: Politician’s unison approval of the new name and brand platform

Inspiration from a role model (the state-owned pharmacy corporation), joint learning

Joint learning, discussion of previous experiences with balanced scorecards

Drafting an ambitious vision and mission statement. Simple and relevant core values. Clear positioning based on heritage Brand platform converted to operational goals and measures on central level

Disconfirmation: A negative decision from the regional council regarding use of the category as brand name. Experiment shows that the distinctive name Närhälsan is the best Disconfirmation: Category names should not be used from a trademark perspective. Nor was this the legislator’s intention

Disconfirmation: Local identities will change

Joint learning, discussing positive role models, individual reflections

Developing arguments for public sector branding Developing arguments for public sector branding

Triggers for learning

J. Gromark

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Gromark

(Gyrd-Jones, Helm, et al., 2013).

the action researchers who during this process learned how to use their consultant identity in conjunction with their researcher identity. In order to get access to this transformational learning case, a pure researcher identity would not have been sufficient for attracting the organization, nor would a pure consultant identity; rather, what proved decisive was the combination of multiple identities. Merging these identities and succeeding in managing an action research intervention was a humbling exercise. Indeed, it contained challenges similar to those facing the practitioners in their identity work. The dynamic nature of action research described by Herr and Anderson (2015, p. 83) as “designing the plane while flying it” creates a need for a robust framework if you do not want to crash. For this author, the goal and validity framework by Herr and Anderson presented in Table 2 was indeed helpful for developing a reflective approach and learning the craft of action research and its potential for brand orientation research. Traditional action research is often concerned with internal organizational matters, while research in marketing always favors the external environment (Perry & Gummesson, 2004). When the boundaries between what happens inside and outside an organization are increasingly blurred, these two positions seem rather limited, especially in light of the rise of new technologies, such as social media. Due to its participative nature, action research is in a very good position to connect these two domains and contribute to improved knowledge regarding brand orientation processes. A key for this is to approach the brand as an interface for interaction and as a joint ownership between internal and external stakeholders (Kornberger, 2010). The findings from this intervention support the suggestion by Gyrd-Jones et al. (2013) in terms of developing more pluralistic corporate branding strategies where both internal and external stakeholders are invited to co-create the brand as well as their own identities. Lee (2013) advocates using external facilitators in this process and the findings from this intervention illustrate that action researchers are well-suited for playing such a role. Action research seems particularly suitable in turbulent environments (Daniel & Wilson, 2004) with identity dynamics involving multiple stakeholders (Miller & Merrilees, 2013).

5.3. Theoretical and managerial implications This study adds to the body of literature emphasizing the deliberate approach of brand orientation. It supports the call for more conceptual clarity in brand orientation research by Hodge et al. (2018) and the emphasis on the deliberate approach of using brands as the strategic platform for all functions in the organization (Evans et al., 2012). This requires a mindset (Urde, 1999) and values (Baumgarth, 2010) that permeate the entire organization. However, brand orientation must be able to co-exist with other competing mindsets and multiple social and individual identities. Unitaristic organizations risk developing conservative and rigid organizations (Brown & Starkey, 2000) or narcissism (Gromark, 2017). Inclusiveness is thus at the very heart of a relational brand orientation, which requires the acceptance of a pluralistic approach to brand management and stakeholder identities (Gyrd-Jones, Helm, et al., 2013; Gyrd-Jones, Merrilees, et al., 2013). From a managerial perspective, a relational brand orientation necessitates the development of a participatory culture where the brand identity should be approached as negotiable and fluid (Gromark, 2017). However, as Hatch (2012, p. 897) reminds us, a co-creational perspective should not be equated with laissez-faire branding, “the ‘co’ in co-creation includes those formerly thought to be solely responsible for brand governance”. This research thus reiterates the view that senior management and particularly the CEO must take a very active role in the brand orientation process (Evans et al., 2012; Lee, 2013; Wallace et al., 2013). While senior managers must act as role models, this may be very challenging if brand orientation represents transformational learning for them as well. In this intervention, using other public sector organizations that had adopted brand orientation as role models was beneficial, especially in the unfreezing and moving phases. Simply imitating others, however, will not suffice. As Schein (2010) underlines, imitation can be very valuable but genuine change comes from one’s own trial-and-error learning. Even if learning can be highly individualized, this is not a solitary exercise; on the contrary, transformational learning stresses the social character of learning (Illeris, 2014; Schein, 2010). This intervention utilized cross-functional dialogue throughout the whole process, which is seen by many as a prerequisite for adopting brand orientation (Evans et al., 2012; Gyrd-Jones, Helm, et al., 2013). This was certainly instrumental for the learning and change to take place, but another crucial aspect was the inclusion of external stakeholders (Miller & Merrilees, 2013; Vallaster & von Wallpach, 2013), such as residents and even competitors. This highlights the need for including others than internal stakeholders in brand orientation processes, even stakeholders with conflictual relationships. This questions the view on brand orientation as an internally focused process. The results from this intervention show the central role of developing planning and measurement systems that support the intended change and make the brand the hub of the operations (Urde, 1999). The utilization of balanced scorecards as a way of integrating the brand orientation cross-functionally was instrumental, especially at the central level, as was the development of a reward and compensation system supporting the brand orientation. While internal measurements were crucial, so were the external measurements in terms of the attitude surveys, naming survey and the brand equity study. These studies served as important vehicles for disconfirmation and confirmation in the learning process. This result adds to Gyrd-Jones et al. (2013) report of the failure of developing relevant KPIs and measurements as a possible explanation for an unsuccessful adoption of brand orientation.

5.5. Limitations and future research This study has the limits of the single case study in that it concerns one particular large organization in a particular sector in Sweden. While all transformational learning processes are context-specific, the in-depth observations and findings from this study can be transferred to other situations of transformational learning of brand orientation. Pluralistic organizations with strong professional identities will likely find challenges similar to those discussed in this intervention. The findings suggest that the inclusive approach to brand orientation will be of special value for such organizations. These kinds of organizations will be found not only in the public and non-profit sectors but also in many private sector organizations, since many industries share these traits (e.g., professional services or pharmaceutical companies). The research opportunities with regards to brand orientation are numerous. Action research or longitudinal case studies could focus on closely following and studying leaders who utilize an inclusive approach and conflict management in their brand orientation efforts. Conversely, indepth studies of brand orientation efforts at local levels can provide more insights into employee resistance and conflict management. Furthermore, how external stakeholders interact in brand orientation adoption has so far only been studied to a limited extent, while it is a natural consequence of the stakeholder brand era (Merz et al., 2009). Moreover, the case of Närhälsan serves as an illustration of the notion that market orientation alone cannot help organizations successfully navigate a marketization process. Brand orientation adds a holistic framework necessarily for managing identity dynamics that market orientation is lacking (Gromark & Melin, 2013). This warrants further studies of the relationship between market orientation and brand orientation. Should brand orientation be seen as an alternative to or an

5.4. Reflections on the transformational learning of action research Just as the willingness of the core participants in the intervention to develop and use multiple identities proved effective, this is also true for 9

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Gromark

evolution of market orientation? Or should the focus be on hybrids between the two orientations (see Urde, Baumgarth, & Merrilees, 2013)?

Coghlan, David, & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing action research in your own organization. London: SAGE. Daniel, E., & Wilson, H. N. (2004). Action research in turbulent environments: An example in e-commerce prioritisation. European Journal of Marketing, 38(3–4), 355–377. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410518594. Evans, J., Bridson, K., & Rentschler, R. (2012). Drivers, impediments and manifestations of brand orientation An international museum study. European Journal of Marketing, 46(11–12), 1457–1475. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561211259934. Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to action research: Social research for social change. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE. Gromark, J. (2017). Stockholm: The narcissistic capital of Sweden. In M. Kavaratzis, M. Giovanardi, & M. Lichrou (Eds.). Inclusive place branding: Critical perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 148–162). Routledge. Gromark, J., & Melin, F. (2011). The underlying dimensions of brand orientation and its impact on financial performance. Journal of Brand Management, 18(6), 394–410. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.52. Gromark, J., & Melin, F. (2013). From market orientation to brand orientation in the public sector. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(9–10), 1099–1123. https://doi. org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.812134. Gyrd-Jones, R., Helm, C., & Munk, J. (2013). Exploring the impact of silos in achieving brand orientation. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(9–10), 1056–1078. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.811283. Gyrd-Jones, R., & Kornum, N. (2013). Managing the co-created brand: Value and cultural complementarity in online and offline multi-stakeholder ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1484–1493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02. 045. Gyrd-Jones, R., Merrilees, B., & Miller, D. (2013). Revisiting the complexities of corporate branding: Issues, paradoxes, solutions. Journal of Brand Management, 20(7), 571–589. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2013.1. Hatch, M. J. (2012). The pragmatics of branding: An application of Dewey’s theory of aesthetic expression. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7), 885–899. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/03090561211230043. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb060636. Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. Hodge, N. M., McMullen, C., & Kleinschafer, J. (2018). Taking a deliberate approach: The enactment of brand orientation in an SME context. Journal of Brand Management, 25(4), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-0095-3. Illeris, K. (2014). Transformative learning and identity. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Ivankova, N. V. (2014). Mixed methods applications in action research. Sage. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press. Kornberger, M. (2010). Brand society: How brands transform management and lifestyle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lee, Z. (2013). Rebranding in brand-oriented organisations: Exploring tensions in the nonprofit sector. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(9–10), 1124–1142. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.812978. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1, 5–41. https://doi. org/10.1177/001872674700100103. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. Louro, M. J., & Cunha, P. V. (2001). Brand management paradigms. Journal of Marketing Management, 17(7–8), 849–875 Retrieved from bth. Mertler, C. A. (2017). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators. Los Angeles: SAGE. Merz, M. A., He, Y., & Vargo, S. L. (2009). The evolving brand logic: A service-dominant logic perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(3), 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0143-3. Miller, D., & Merrilees, B. (2013). Rebuilding community corporate brands: A total stakeholder involvement approach. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 172–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.07.010. Perry, C., & Gummesson, E. (2004). Action research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 3/4, 310. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410518567. Reason, P., & Torbert, W. (2001). The action turn: Toward a transformational social science. Concepts and Transformation, 6(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1075/cat.6.1. 02rea. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Avebury. Urde, M. (1994). Brand orientation – A strategy for survival. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3, 18. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769410065445. Urde, M. (1999). Brand Orientation: A mindset for building brands into strategic resources. Journal of Marketing Management, 117. https://doi.org/10.1362/ 026725799784870504. Urde, M., Baumgarth, C., & Merrilees, B. (2013). Brand orientation and market orientation – From alternatives to synergy. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.018. Vallaster, C., & von Wallpach, S. (2013). An online discursive inquiry into the social dynamics of multi-stakeholder brand meaning co-creation. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1505–1515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.012. von Wallpach, S., Voyer, B., Kastanakis, M., & Muhlbacher, H. (2017). Co-creating stakeholder and brand identities: Introduction to the special section. Journal of Business Research, 70, 395–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.028. von Wallpach, S., & Woodside, A. G. (2009). Enacted internal branding: Theory, practice,

5.6. Conclusions While previous research on adopting brand orientation has indicated the existence of conflict and resistance, there has been limited discussions regarding it as a potential resource and prerequisite for transformational learning. This study also makes a contribution regarding multiple stakeholder identities and their role in learning brand orientation. Since identity issues are a primary reason for conflict and resistance, brand orientation efforts must acknowledge the role of identities other than brand identity. This study does iterate the value of participatory methods and an inclusive approach. Nevertheless, true inclusiveness means that managers should not focus on pleasing stakeholders and avoiding conflicts, but rather see the value of diverging perspectives, identities as well as the legitimate and natural role of resistance. Another contribution is to demonstrate how action research can contribute to brand orientation research and practice. In particular, the value of including both internal and external stakeholders in the intervention questions the notion of brand orientation adoption as an inward-focused process. Action researchers have a unique potential as facilitators of processes that bridge the internal and external perspective of brands and contributing to both research and practice at the same time. Funding This research was supported by Torsten Söderberg’s foundation. Grant number: E25/11. The foundation had no role in the design, analysis, write up or decision to submit for publication. Declaration of Competing Interest The researcher was contracted as an action researcher in this intervention. No financial relationship has existed with the organization during the last three years. The submitted article has not been subject to any influence from the managers in this organization to portray the organization in a more favorable light. Acknowledgement The author would like to thank Dr. Johan Anselmsson, Dr. Tony Huzzard, Dr. Eva Maria Jernsand and the three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. References Anees-ur-Rehman, M., Wong, H. Y., & Hossain, M. (2016). The progression of brand orientation literature in twenty years: A systematic literature review. Journal of Brand Management, 23(6), 612–630. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-016-0008-2. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. M. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1995). Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316059. Baumgarth, C. (2010). “Living the brand”: Brand orientation in the business-to-business sector. European Journal of Marketing, 44(5), 653–671. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 03090561011032315. Brown, A. D., & Starkey, K. (2000). Organizational identity and learning: A psychodynamic perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 102–120. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/259265. Chapleo, C. (2011). Exploring rationales for branding a university: Should we be seeking to measure branding in UK universities? Journal of Brand Management, 18(6), 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.53. Coghlan, D. (1996). Mapping the progress of change through organizational levels: The example of a religious order. In R. W. Woodman & Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 9, pp. 123–150).

10

Journal of Business Research xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

J. Gromark

the Journal of Marketing Management, while also having served as a reviewer for the European Journal of Marketing, the Journal of Brand Management, the Journal of Marketing Management and the International Journal of Hospitality Management. Since 2012, Gromark has been working on his PhD dissertation at Lund University in Sweden, where he is a member of The Lund Brand Management Group. Furthermore, Gromark also has extensive practical experience, where he has held the position of Managing Director for Label, a brand consultancy within BBDO Worldwide, ever since 2000.

and an experiential learning case study of an Austrian B2B company (M. S. Glynn & A. G. Woodside, Eds.). doi: 10.1108/S1069-0964(2009)0000015012. Wallace, E., Buil, I., & de Chernatony, L. (2013). Brand orientation and brand values in retail banking. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(9–10), 1007–1029. https://doi. org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.796323. Johan Gromark: Johan’s primary focus is brand orientation, corporate branding and place branding, and he has published articles in the Journal of Brand Management and

11