The Art of Balancing Directions
A qualitative study on how Dramaten balances its goals.
Stockholms Business School
Bachelor's Degree Thesis 15 HE Credits
Subject: Business Administration
Semester: Fall 2022
Stockholm Business School
Acknowledgement
We would like to extend our heartfelt thanks to the participants from Dramaten for their generous
willingness to participate in our study and share their experiences. Without their participation,
this thesis would not have been possible. We are grateful for the valuable insights they provided
and appreciate the time they took to contribute to our research. Additionally, we would like to
express our deepest gratitude to our thesis advisor, Anselm Schneider, for his support and
guidance throughout this journey. His expertise and insights have been invaluable for us in
completing this thesis. Finally, we would like to extend our special thanks to Staffan Furusten,
who put us in contact with Dramaten and helped facilitate our study. We are very grateful for his
support and assistance.
Thank you!
1
Abstract
Hybrid organizations, such as the Royal Dramatic Theater (Dramaten) in Sweden, face the
challenge of balancing conflicting institutional logics and their prescribed goals. Dramaten, as
the national stage for theater, is expected to uphold high artistic standards set by its sole owner,
the Swedish state. At the same time, it has efficiency goals to meet as a joint-stock company.
This study aimed to understand if the quantifiability of goals, derived from different logics,
impacts the prioritization of goals within hybrid organizations. Through a qualitative case study
of Dramaten, the findings suggest that the most influential actor, rather than the quantifiability of
goals, determine the prioritization of goals within the organization. In other words, who is giving
directions seems to influence the balancing act more than the nature of the different goals.
Additionally, the study found that efforts to make all goals equally measurable may not
necessarily affect the prioritization of goals but can help reduce internal confusion.
Keywords: Institutional logics, hybrid organizations, culture and art, balancing goals,
quantifiability
2
Index
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Problematization
1.3 Aim and Contribution
1.4 Overview
6
6
7
8
8
2. Literature Review
2.1 Institutional Theory
2.1.1 Institutional Logics
2.2 Multiple Institutional Logics in Organizations
2.2.1 Hybrid Organizations
2.2.2 Relationship Between Institutional Logics
2.3 Managing Multiple Institutional Logics
2.3.1 Incorporate Multiple Institutional Logics
2.3.2 Consequences of Hybridity
2.3.3 Overcoming Consequences of Hybridity
2.4 (Un)quantifiability
2.5 Literature Summary
9
9
9
10
10
11
12
12
13
15
16
17
3. Methodology
3.1 Empirical Context
3.2 Research Approach
3.3 Sampling Strategy
3.3.1 Interviewees
3.3.2 Archival Documents
3.4 Data Collection
3.4.1 Interviews
3.4.1.1 Interview Guide Questions
3.4.2 Archival Documents
3.5 Data Analysis
3.5.1 Phase 1
3.5.2 Phase 2
3.5.3 Phase 3
3.5.4 Analysis Process Clarification
3.6 Methodological Considerations
3.6.1 Data Type Limitations
18
18
19
20
20
21
21
21
22
23
25
25
25
25
26
26
26
3
3.6.2 Generalizable Theory
3.6.3 Research Ethics
26
27
4. Findings
4.1 One-sided Conflict
4.1.1 Autonomy
4.1.1.1 Financial Freedom
4.1.1.2 Artistic Freedom
4.1.2 Incoherent Self-Image
4.1.2.1 Organizational Divide
4.1.2.2 Lack of Respect
4.1.2.3 Unclear Leadership
4.2 Efficiency as an Enabler for Culture and Art
4.2.1 Rationalization
4.2.1.1 #metoo
4.2.1.2 Organizational Restructuring
4.2.2 Art Above All
4.2.2.1 Common Purpose
4.2.2.2 Different Productions for Different Purposes
4.2.2.3 Increasing Measurement Orientation
28
28
30
30
31
32
32
32
33
34
36
36
37
39
39
41
42
5. Discussion
5.1 The Relationship Between Dramaten’s Incorporated Logics
5.2 Unquantifiability: a Source of Confusion
5.3 How Dramaten Evades Conflict
5.4 A Threat to Artistic Excellence
43
43
43
44
45
6. Conclusion
6.1 Limitations
47
47
7. References
7.1 Academic Literature
7.2 Other Sources
48
48
51
Appendices
Appendix I: Interview Guide
4
Figures
Figure 3.1 Dramaten’s organizational chart
21
Figure 4.1 Data Structure
28
Figure 4.2 Organizational chart 2012-2014.
37
Figure 4.3 Organizational chart 2015-2017.
38
Figure 4.4 Organizational chart 2019-present.
38
Tables
Table 3.1 Interviewee overview
22
Table 3.2 Archival documents overview
24
Table 4.1 One-sided Conflict
29
Table 4.2 Efficiency as an Enabler for Culture and Art
35
5
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
More and more organizations find themself in situations having to comply with multiple societal
expectations (Furusten, 2013). One example is The Royal Dramatic Theater, or simply,
Dramaten. Dramaten, once established by Gustaf the III, operates in a palace-like building in the
heart of Stockholm and has the mission to be Sweden's national stage for theater. That mission is
set by Dramaten's sole owner, the Swedish state, and is further depicted in the governing
document from Kulturdepartementet (Ministry of Culture). The document claims that Dramaten,
as the national stage for all of Sweden, must be the leading performing arts institution, standing
at the highest level in terms of development, renewal, and artistic quality, (Kulturdepartementet,
2021). Additionally, Dramaten has other expectations deriving from their organizational form,
which is the joint-stock company. Being a company implies legal undertakings like employing a
CEO, and publishing annual reports, among other things. Upon that, being state-owned,
Dramaten is expected to govern according to the general guidelines set by the Swedish state - to
be efficient and economically stable (Regeringskansliet, 2020).
Researchers call the origin of these expectations institutional logics, defined as "socially
constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs and rules"
(Thornton & Ocasio, 1999, p. 804). The first institutional logic Dramaten incorporates is the one
of artistic excellence, which (as all institutional logics) ingrains implicit and explicit values,
beliefs, and rules, where the most tangible embodiment is the governing document from
Kulturdepartementet (2021) expressing Dramaten's artistic goals. The second incorporated logic
is the company which implies legal undertaking and obedience to the aforementioned general
guidelines. Organizations incorporating multiple logics are called hybrid organizations (Mair et
al., 2015). Since we identify two institutional logics in Dramaten's organization, we argue that
Dramaten is a hybrid organization.
6
1.2 Problematization
There is no shortage of studies on organizations incorporating multiple institutional logics, i.e.,
hybrid organizations. Many focus on the negative effects of incorporating multiple institutional
logics, which has been shown to lead to internal confusion (Brunsson, 1994) or conflict
(Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Glynn, 2000), while other studies have focused on the potential of
incorporating multiple logics (Mars & Lounsbury, 2009). Another group of papers focuses on
how hybrid organizations have overcome the potential harmful effects the hybrid form brings
(e.g., Pache & Santos, 2013; Reay & Hinings, 2009).
Both Pache and Santos (2013) and Reay and Hinings (2009) declare organization-wide
mutual goals vital to avoiding internal conflicts in hybrid organizations. Different groups within
the organizations might adhere to different institutional logics and use different means to achieve
a mutual goal. However, as long as the whole organization has the same overarching goal,
collaboration can take the place of conflict (Reay & Hinings, 2009).
While mutual goals are presented as a solution for hybrid organizations' continuity and
success (Pache & Santos, 2013; Reay & Hinings, 2009), how to find an overarching goal and
keep the balance between that goal and other goals and subgoals needs to be addressed. In the
case of Dramaten, the overarching goal is already set, i.e., to be the leading institution in the field
of performing arts, standing at the highest level in terms of development, renewal, and artistic
quality (Kulturdepartementet, 2021). However, Dramaten is a state-owned joint-stock company
obligated to govern efficiently (Regeringskansliet, 2020). In relation to the artistic goals, these
efficiency goals are secondary. In a society where performance measurement increases
(Furusten, 2013), balancing primary artistic and secondary efficiency goals is easier said than
done. Keeping these goals' hierarchy is essential in the first place because they are partially
contradicting. An innovative theater play on the highest artistic level is not necessarily a play
selling well and using Dramaten's resources efficiently.
Pursuing financial and other not-as-easily quantifiable goals simultaneously is not a
challenge for Dramaten alone. Instead, it is one many hybrid organizations encounter, examples
being combining financial performance with providing care (Reay & Hinings, 2009) or
benefaction (Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Pache & Santos, 2013). However, we, along with
Ebrahim and Rangan (2014), argue that goals of cultural and artistic nature are even harder to
7
quantify and assess than socially oriented goals many other hybrid organizations try to combine
with financial ones (e.g., Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Battilana et al., 2019; Ebrahim et al., 2014;
Pache & Santos, 2013). Consequently, the cultural field appears suitable for investigating how
the quantifiability of different goals impacts how hybrid organizations balance between them.
1.3 Aim and Contribution
Models, frameworks, and theories on hybrid organizations build on a significant degree of
field-level observations, like Besharov and Smith's (2014) declarations on how the prioritization
between incorporated institutional logics affects the amount of conflict within hybrid
organizations. The same goes for the evidence that mutual goals within organizations can
overcome the harmful effects of incorporating multiple institutional logics (Pache & Santos,
2013; Reay & Hinings, 2009).
By conducting a qualitative case study on Dramaten in order to answer: How do different
degrees of quantifiability of goals impact how hybrid organizations balance between them? We
aim to further theorize these findings on an organizational level by investigating the role of goals'
quantifiability impacts the governing of hybrid organizations.
1.4 Overview
In the literature review, we present the concept of institutional logic from its origin in the 60s to
its latest application used by present scholars. We further explain the phenomenon of hybrid
organizations and the implications it brings. The methodological section describes our sample of
interviewees and documents and the qualitative approach we took to investigate those. What
follows is the findings section, where we present our findings that emerged from our thematic
analysis. The succeeding section discusses and theorizes the findings using the literature earlier
presented. The thesis concludes by suggesting practical implications, ideas for future research,
and limitations for this study.
8
2. Literature Review
2.1 Institutional Theory
Actions frequently repeated in the same manner and with the same effort are likely to become a
habit. The meaning of these habitualized actions becomes embedded as routines in one's general
stock of knowledge and becomes taken for granted. Over time these taken-for-granted routines
become institutionalized. Institutions are, therefore, a product of historically taken-for-granted
actions and thoughts and, by their existence, control human conduct. They set up rules that have
coercive power over people, limiting what is and is not socially acceptable (Berger & Luckmann,
1966).
Berger and Luckmann (1966) argue that institutions require legitimacy, that is, "ways by
which they can be 'explained' and justified" (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 79). Since institutions
are based on historically taken-for-granted actions and thoughts, their original meanings are long
forgotten as they are now embedded within the routines. Hence, the meanings of the actions are
inaccessible to newer generations in terms of memory. Therefore, it becomes necessary to
interpret the meaning through various legitimating formulas. The new generation learns these
legitimations during the same process that introduces them to the institutional order.
Legitimacy is important not only for individuals learning what is appropriate but very
much so for organizations (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Meyer and Rowan (1977) argue that, for
organizations to survive, they cannot solely rely on being effective but must also be legitimate
and credible. Thus, formal organizational structures materialize as a response to the boundaries
set by the institutions. The many rules and norms upheld by actors in the institutional
environment's surrounding organizations reduce room for action. Organizations must adapt to
these institutional pressures to be regarded as legitimate (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).
2.1.1 Institutional Logics
All institutional orders have a central logic that they revolve around. These can be described as a
central logic within the institution that "guides its organizing principles and provides social
actors with vocabularies of motive and a sense of self (i.e., identity)" (Thorton & Ocasio, 2008,
p. 101). The core assumption is that individuals' and organizations' interests, beliefs, values, and
9
identities are embedded in different institutional logics - implying individuals' and organizations'
decision-making is embedded in one or more institutional logics. Thus, organizations' and
individuals' actions are restrained to actions considered legitimate in the present institutional
logic(s) (Thorton & Ocasio, 2008).
Thornton et al. (2012) argue that institutional logics can be seen as a metatheoretical
framework that can be used when analyzing the interrelationships between institutions,
individuals, and organizations. Each institutional logic stipulates different principles, practices,
and goals that shape how reasoning takes place (Thornton et al., 2012). Organizations are in
direct contact with these logics via institutional products, of which there are two: materialized
and social. Materialized products are information and rules materialized into a distributable
form. Social products like education, consulting, and investigation cannot be materialized. With
these institutional products come institutional demands and pressures (Furusten, 2013).
Institutional demands asserted onto organizations stem from elements in its institutional
environment, such as regulatory, social, and cultural demands, penetrating the organization's
boundary through two central aspects. The first one is external actors such as regulatory bodies,
customers, and other influential parties who, by the nature of their demands, could affect the
organization in what they can and should do (Pache & Santos, 2010). The second one is internal
actors, such as employees, representing a specific institutional logic and therefore asserting
logically aligned demands on the organization (Battilana & Dorado, 2010).
2.2 Multiple Institutional Logics in Organizations
2.2.1 Hybrid Organizations
Hybrid organizations are organizations that embody multiple institutional logics, and because of
that, (1) involve a variety of stakeholders, (2) pursue multiple and often conflicting goals, and (3)
engage in divergent or inconsistent activities (Mair et al., 2015). Consequently, those
organizations do not fit into established organizational forms, like joint-stock companies,
authorities, or associations (Powell, 1987). Examples are hospitals governed like companies
(Reay & Hinings, 2009), for-profit companies in the field of beneficence (Battilana & Dorado,
2010; Pache & Santos, 2013), associations operating in market-setting (Alexius et al., 2017) and
joint-stock companies owned by a state (Jutterström, 2019). Various scholars investigating
10
hybrid organizations use slightly varied definitions of hybrid organizations. However, the
definition provided by Mair et al. (2015) is the one adopted for this paper.
Early research on hybrid organizations often emphasized the contradictions organizations
had to deal with while incorporating multiple institutional logics. These contradictions could lead
to confusion among stakeholders (Brunsson, 1994), internal conflict (e.g., Battilana & Dorado,
2010; Glynn, 2000), or even organizational breakup (Pache & Santos, 2010), a phenomenon
described further down. More recently, scholars have nuanced the simplified view of multiple
institutional logics being endlessly competing when addressing how multiple institutional logics
can complement one another. One example is Mars and Lounsbury (2009); they argue that the
institutional logics of social activism and the market are complementary rather than competing,
as the social change one activist wants to see can reach a more extensive scale when leveraged
by the market.
2.2.2 Relationship Between Institutional Logics
Besharov and Smith (2014) further elaborate on the relationship between multiple institutional
logics and provide a roadmap to understand why logic multiplicity seems to produce conflict in
certain organizations but minimal to no conflict in others. In order to understand this roadmap,
two key concepts need to be explained - compatibility and centrality. Compatibility refers to how
compatible or contradictory logics are when combined. Centrality refers to how central a logic is
to core organizational functioning. Besharov and Smith (2014) claim that the compatibility and
centrality of the present institutional logics will determine how much conflict one organization
will experience due to its pluralistic composition. An estranged relationship is one where the
institutional logics have low compatibility and low centrality, meaning the prescriptions for
actions contradict, but only one institutional logic is central to the organization's functioning; this
leads to moderate conflict. If the centrality had been high, the relationship would instead be
contested. According to Besharov and Smith (2014), contested relationships lead to most
conflict, and hybrid organizations having a contested relationship is a well-studied species (e.g.,
Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Glynn, 2000). If both centrality and compatibility are high, the
relationship is aligned, and the hybrid organization will endure minimal conflict. Reay and
Hinings (2009) display an example of an aligned hybrid organization.
11
Centrality is highly dependent on where the resources originate. If one hybrid
organization funds its operations by selling to the market, the institutional logic of the market
will be central. Two factors influencing the compatibility between institutional logics are goals
and the workforce. It is harder for a hybrid organization to achieve high compatibility if it
employs various professions, as showcased by the microfinance company BancoSol, whose
employees were highly divided between business and social welfare logic (Battilana & Dorado,
2010).
Mutual goals are one component leading to higher compatibility. Different groups within
one hybrid organization might adhere to different institutional logics and use different means.
However, compatibility increases as long as all groups aspire to reach the same goal(s) (Beharov
& Smith, 2014).
The variegated view on hybrid organizations and the way they incorporate different
institutional logics presented by Besharov & Smith (2014), among others (e.g., Mars &
Lounsbury, 2009), have led to different terms for different kinds of hybrid organizations. Mair et
al. (2015) point out two kinds of hybrid organizations conforming hybrids and dissenting
hybrids. Conforming hybrids incorporate one central institutional logic while the other logic(s)
have a minor influence on the core functioning of the organization. Dissenting hybrids, on the
other hand, have two or more institutional logics highly present. In other words, Mair et al.
(2015) distinguish between hybrids with low respectively high centrality.
2.3 Managing Multiple Institutional Logics
2.3.1 Incorporate Multiple Institutional Logics
Greenwood et al. (2011) point out that organizations incorporate multiple institutional logics, i.e.,
hybrid organizations are not only 'victims' to the logics. They actively choose how to blend and
govern the activities and structures the institutional logic(s) stipulates. Greenwood et al. (2011)
reviewed various responses executed by hybrid organizations to cope with their pluralistic
composition.
Battilana et al. (2022) build upon Greenwood et al.'s (2011) paper presenting three central
governance pillars determining how hybrid organizations can respond to minimize the downsides
12
of incorporating multiple and contradicting institutional logics. The three pillars are (1) goal
setting, (2) composition of leadership, and (3) composition of organizational members. Battilana
et al.'s (2022) paper focuses on organizations simultaneously pursuing social and financial goals.
The authors display several propositions on how the governance pillars can be organized to
minimize trade-offs between social and financial goals.
Regarding goal setting, Battilana et al. (2022) state that trade-offs get lower if both social
and financial goals are more explicitly formulated. Focusing primarily on financial goals puts
social goals at risk of neglect, commonly referred to as mission drift (Ebrahim et al., 2014).
Conversely, focusing primarily on social goals may lead to bankruptcy (Alexius & Furusten,
2020). For the composition of leadership and organizational members, Battilana et al. (2022)
propose that the more members and leaders adhere to both social and financial institutional
logics and, by extension, focus on both financial and social goals simultaneously, the lower the
trade-off.
How hybrid organizations organize around these pillars will determine how they
experience and respond to the institutional pressure upon them. The diversified responses and
outcomes for different hybrid organizations presented subsequently reinforce this proposition.
2.3.2 Consequences of Hybridity
Due to its composition of multiple institutional logics and exposure to a more complex
institutional environment, hybrid organizations, as opposed to non-hybrids, need to consider
demands from a greater variety of sources (Greenwood et al., 2011; Pache & Santos, 2013).
These sources could be external, such as regulatory bodies, customers, and other influential
actors (Pache & Santos, 2010), and internal, such as employees and organizational leaders
(Battilana & Dorado, 2010). The consequence of multiple demands for an organization varies
from almost no implications to severe conflict (Besharov & Smith, 2014; Pache & Santos, 2010),
and the likelihood of a specific outcome depends on an organization's structure, governance,
ownership, and identity (Greenwood et al., 2011).
Battilana & Dorado (2010) investigated two microfinance organizations that operated in
the field of beneficence. The organizations aimed to fight poverty by providing affordable loans
to the population, and due to the nature of their mission, they incorporated both banking and
social welfare logic. Thus, making them hybrid organizations needing to satisfy demands
13
stemming from both institutional logics. BancoSol, one of the organizations, hired people with
previous experience aligned with either banking or social welfare logic. This resulted in a
division between the two groups, and a paralyzing conflict erupted about whether they should
focus on profit or fighting poverty, i.e., the organizational goal was up for debate as the logics
prescribed conflicting demands concerning goals.
Moreover, Glynn (2000) investigated a resembling case in the Atlanta Symphony
Orchestra. The musicians and the board held different opinions of what to prioritize. The
musicians saw the board as too centered around monetary issues and neglecting the most
essential aspect of the orchestra: musical quality. As in the case of BancoSol, the situation
erupted in a paralyzing conflict leading to a strike on behalf of the musicians. Arguably, these are
examples of institutional confusion, meaning what the organization ought to be is unclear or
contradictory (Brunsson, 1994).
The other organization in Battilana and Dorado's (2010) study, Los Andes, took another
approach and hired recent graduates without prior exposure to any logic. The rationale was to
form the employees into adhering to a hybrid logic of the two logics guiding the organization to
avoid the conflict observed in BancoSol, which seemed a viable strategy. These examples align
with the argumentation of Pache and Santos (2010). They argue that the degree of a logic's
internal representation, to what degree demands concerns goals, and the respective power of
different groups, are all grounds for a specific outcome of hybridity. Another factor affecting the
outcome is the relationship between the multiple logics, meaning how central each logic is for
organizational operations and how compatible they are (Besharov & Smith, 2014). For example,
if social welfare logic manifested more in the periphery, rather than being very much central, in
BancoSol, the outcome might have been different.
Hybrid organizations can also bring advantages to the table that other organizational
forms cannot. Pache and Santos (2013) argue that hybrid organization, due to their hybridity, has
access to a broader repertoire of configuration possibilities. This places them in an advantageous
position if they combine elements in a way aligned with their environment's demands. If
achieved, the organization can draw on a broader range of support from institutional referents
than organizations not embodying hybridity, which is crucial for organizational prosperity (Pache
& Santos, 2010, 2013).
14
As aforementioned, the outcome of hybridity can range from almost no implications to
severe conflict depending on several factors (Battilana et al., 2022; Besharov & Smith, 2014;
Greenwood et al., 2011; Pache & Santos, 2010). However, in case of conflict, it must be
addressed and solutions sought since long-term conflict can lead to organizational paralysis and
organizational breakup (Pache & Santos, 2010), as seen in the case of the Atlanta Symphony
Orchestra (Glynn, 2000) and BancoSol (Battilana & Dorado, 2010).
2.3.3 Overcoming Consequences of Hybridity
Organizations facing conflicting and contradictory institutional logics need to exercise some
level of strategic choice in what demands to prioritize and satisfy in order to guarantee survival
(Pache & Santos, 2010). By doing so, however, the organization might need to defy the demands
of other logics, which in turn could lead to losing legitimacy from important institutional
referents (Pache & Santos, 2013). Organizations could resort to selective coupling to minimize
the risk of losing legitimacy, meaning enacting intact elements from each logic. This strategy is
superior to previous strategies (Pache & Santos, 2013) since the organization can project
legitimacy to important referents without having to deceive, using decoupling (Meyer & Rowan,
1977), or negotiate, using compromising (Oliver, 1991), with those referents.
The risk for organizational conflict depends not only on conflicting demands in general
but, more specifically, whether the conflict concerns means or goals. Pache and Santos (2010)
argue that means (i.e., ways of reaching a set goal) are potentially flexible and negotiable, thus
not very likely to create severe tension among groups. Conversely, goals are not as flexible and
negotiable since they are an expression of the organization's core values and beliefs (Pache &
Santos, 2010). Due to this fact, scholars have emphasized the need for mutual goals between
conflicting logics in order for them to coexist (e.g., Pache & Santos, 2013; Reay & Hinings,
2009). Reay & Hinings (2009) exemplified this in their study of the Alberta (Canada)
government's efforts to streamline its healthcare system for it to become more economically
efficient, meaning making company logic more present in its healthcare system. The medical
professionals who adhered to a different logic, i.e., medical professionalism, reacted negatively
to this implementation as they considered excellent care to be the organization's core values and
beliefs (i.e., goals) rather than providing care as economically efficient as possible. Both logics
had a central role in the organization after implementation, and a pragmatic relationship was
15
formed since neither could exist without the other. Moreover, the compatibility of the logics was
low since both tried to assert control over organizational goals and actions. The high centrality
and low compatibility led to substantial conflict between the government and physicians, much
in line with a contested organization according to the model described by Besharov & Smith
(2014). However, by finding mutual goals and maintaining independent identities, the different
groups could find a collaboration allowing for the logics to coexist (Reay & Hinings, 2009),
making the organization more aligned rather than contested (Besharov & Smith, 2014).
2.4 (Un)quantifiability
Furusten (2013) argues that, in today's society, the importance of performance measurements is
increasing. To a great extent, the modern human wants to be able to quantify and measure the
performance of goals to assess their development. By doing so, one can more easily evaluate if
the actions performed are on track to achieve what is expected (Furusten, 2013).
However, some goals are more challenging to quantify than others. A subject studied in
this regard is social enterprises, that is, hybrid organizations composed of commercial logic,
whose goals are generally easy to quantify, and social welfare logic, whose goals are not
(Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014; Ebrahim et al., 2014). Financial results such as revenue and profit are
easy to quantify, whereas measuring the actual impact of social actions is more complex
(Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014). It is, of course, possible to, for instance, measure how many
eyeglasses one provides but measuring the actual impact of improved vision in society is difficult
(Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014).
Due to this variation in quantifiability, and the modern human's aspiration to assess
performance in clear and well-established financial benchmarks, goals difficult to quantify might
be subject to neglect (Ebrahim et al., 2014). Moreover, hybrid organizations, such as social
enterprises, need to consider demands from both logics. If certain demands are neglected as a
result of unquantifiability, the organization might lose support from important stakeholders
(Pache & Santos, 2013). Consequently, balancing goals of varying quantifiability might be
difficult, but at the same time important to stay within the boundary of the organizational mission
and secure the all-so-important legitimacy.
16
2.5 Literature Summary
Due to hybrid organizations' composition of multiple institutional logics, the environment in
which they operate is usually more complex than non-hybrids (Greenwood et al., 2011; Pache &
Santos, 2013). Hence, the demands they need to satisfy are often more varied and sometimes
incompatible, which could lead to organizational conflict (Pache & Santos, 2010). As
organizational conflict is harmful, scholars have presented a few detailed strategies to handle
such situations (e.g., Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Oliver, 1991; Pache & Santos, 2013; Reay &
Hinings, 2009), but the overarching principle for success seems to be creating a coalition among
the conflicting groups that focuses on mutual goals (Pache & Santos, 2013; Reay & Hinings,
2009).
Some goals are more tricky to quantify than others (Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014), so
evaluating their performance can be challenging. In a society where the importance of
performance measurement is ever-increasing (Furusten, 2013), one wonders if goals hard to
quantify are at risk. Ebrahim et al. (2014) seem to think so, as they suggest that humans'
temptation to assess performance in clear and well-established financial benchmarks might put
goals where this is not possible at risk for neglect. Therefore, balancing goals that vary in
quantifiability in a way that satisfies the demands of the organization's environment might be
difficult.
In light of that notion, Ebrahim and Rangan (2014) provided a framework for assessing
the performance of social welfare goals, i.e., measuring the organization's social impact, which is
generally hard to quantify. A critical remark is that this framework is adapted explicitly to social
welfare goals and is not meant for generalization to other fields facing the same challenges
regarding quantifiability. As the authors state: "We leave out a discussion of organizations
primarily engaged in [...] or the arts and culture [...], where we believe the measurement of
performance is even more complex and nuanced" (Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014, p. 119). This
substantiates the need for further research on how hybrid organizations balance their goals within
hard-to-quantify segments, like art and culture.
17
3. Methodology
3.1 Empirical Context
The empirical scope of this study will be on a particular organization, namely, Dramaten. Bell et
al. (2022) define a case study as: "A research design that entails the detailed and intensive
analysis of a single case." (p. 587). In light of that definition, this study will be of a case study
nature as Dramaten will be the single case analyzed to answer the stated research question; How
do different degrees of quantifiability of goals impact how hybrid organizations balance between
them?
Dramaten is chosen as a study object because it is exposed to two institutional logics: one
is highly quantifiable, and the other is not. Two central governing documents illustrate this. First
is Kulturdepartementet's document (2021) stating that Dramaten must be Sweden's leading
institution in the theater field. The document also provides more fine-grained goals with that
broadly stated goal. Examples are that Dramaten should reach as many of Sweden's citizens as
possible, target different groups of people, give expression to the development and change in
contemporary language, and have a varied repertoire that includes Swedish and international
classical and modern plays. These are goals Dramaten has to work towards to keep the grants
from the Swedish government paid out each year. The second governing document Dramaten
needs to follow is not explicitly written for Dramaten as the previous one. Instead, it applies to
every company owned by the Swedish state. Dramaten differs from many other state-owned
companies because it does not pay out dividends, a provision that appears in Dramaten's articles
of association (Articles of association, 2018). Apart from that, Regeringskansliet's document
(2020) illustrates governing principles Dramaten ought to follow. The document goes over
principles for board composition to accounting oath. As a consequence of Regeringskansliet's
document presenting general guidelines for the plethora of companies the Swedish state owns,
no explicit goals are presented. However, regarding financial goals, Regeringskansliet (2020)
states that it is a vital tool for companies to achieve efficiency - an attribute the Swedish state
wants their companies to possess.
Concerning the unquantifiable nature of Kulturdepartementet's document (2021), which
is said to be the primary radar for Dramaten's governance (Annual report, 2021), we identify
18
Dramaten as a critical case in terms of pursuing multiple goals varying in their degree to be
quantified, which is the type of case that has a "strategic importance in relation to the general
problem" (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 229). The general problem is that hybrid organizations often
pursue goals that are hard to quantify and measure, like organizations with social goals such as
providing banking services (Battilana & Dorado, 2010) or eyeglasses (Kassalow et al., 2011) to
emerging markets. Measuring the aforementioned social impact has shown to be tricky (Ebrahim
& Rangan, 2014). However, we, along with Ebrahim and Rangan (2014), argue that measuring
art and cultural impact is even more troublesome. Thus, making Dramaten and its situation
critical.
3.2 Research Approach
The study will be conducted using a qualitative research strategy, emphasizing words instead of
numbers and quantifications (Bell et al., 2022). Different strategies also entail different
approaches to the relationship between theory and research. Qualitative research generally
interprets the relationship as inductive or abductive; both imply that theories are generated by the
data collected, the difference being that abduction builds upon previous research, and an
indicative approach presupposes a blank slate (Bell et al., 2022). Since previous literature on
hybrid organizations and their governance (e.g., Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Besharov & Smith,
2014; Glynn, 2000; Pache & Santos, 2010, 2013; Reay & Hinings, 2009) will influence the
research question, research design, and the prospective emerging theory, the abductive approach
is the one of choice.
Our standpoint towards previous research in the field and, subsequently, the choice of
abduction derive from Alvesson & Kärreman's (2007) outlook of minimizing the influence of
past findings and subjectivity is counterproductive. Instead, old research is reflected upon while
analyzing and "used as a tool that opens up a dialogue with empirical material" (Alvesson &
Kärreman, 2007, p. 1269). Subjectivity is handled in a similar matter. All research methods are
influenced by the researcher's subjectivity (Flyvbjerg, 2006), and that insight we choose to
embrace and not fight. As declared by Weick (1989), "Whenever one reacts with the feeling
that's interesting, that reaction is a clue that current experience has been tested against past
experience, and the past understanding has been found inadequate" (p. 525). Thus, interpreting
19
something as interesting can signify the need for further investigation. This does not mean to
explore whatever infers interest, but subjectivity is used as one of the three pillars in play to
unveil interesting findings, i.e., theory, subjectivity, and empirical material (Alvesson &
Kärreman, 2007)
In the social sciences, researchers often adopt different philosophical approaches to
understanding human behavior and social phenomena. One key distinction in these approaches is
between ontological and epistemological perspectives. Ontology refers to theories about reality's
nature and how we understand and interpret it. Some researchers take an ontological stance that
sees reality as something external to social actors, while others see reality as something that
social actors and their actions construct. The latter perspective, known as constructivism, is often
adopted in qualitative research, including the present study. Epistemology, on the other hand,
refers to theories about how we gain knowledge about reality. In this study, we have taken an
epistemological stance known as interpretivism, which involves seeking to understand behavior
and actions through the subjective experiences and meanings of the research participants rather
than seeking an objective truth. This interpretivist approach allows us to gain insight into our
interview subjects' unique perspectives and experiences and understand how these subjective
experiences shape their behavior and interactions with others.
3.3 Sampling Strategy
3.3.1 Interviewees
The sampling strategy for interviewees was in line with what Bell et al. (2022) label purposive
sampling, where the study object and participants are selected strategically. Examining
Dramaten's organizational chart (Figure 3.1), a divide in the organization's formal structure
becomes apparent, with departments administered by the CEO on one side and the Chief of
Theater on the other. Interviews were held with workers from each side of the divide - as we
assumed workers on contrasting sides likely adhere to different institutional logics. This
sampling strategy enabled us to investigate if different parts of Dramaten’s organization evaluate
and prioritize their goals differently and use different means to achieve them.
20
Figure 3.1 Dramaten’s organizational chart
Source: Adapted from Dramaten’s Sustainability report (2021).
3.3.2 Archival Documents
Convenience sampling to involve all accessible data in the sample (Bell et al., 2022) was used
for archival documents but was later trimmed down. Documents older than ten years were
removed, partly because we deemed them less relevant for the organization's functions today and
for time constraints. The sample of documents was further shortened when removing irrelevant
documents. A document was judged irrelevant when we did not refer to that document type
someplace in the text.
3.4 Data Collection
3.4.1 Interviews
The conducted interviews were semi-structured, meaning a pre-set of questions, referred to as an
interview guide, where the basis of each interview (Bell et al., 2022). Nonetheless, the
interviewee could freely elaborate, and we could complement it with follow-up questions. This
method of interviewing allows for leeway in what questions are asked to enable theories to
emerge, following the abductive way of reasoning (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007; Bell et al.,
2022). seven interviews were conducted in total. Details on each interview are summarized in
table 3.1.
21
Table 3.1 Interviewee overview
More detailed information about each interviewee, like department, exact employment time, and
whether the interviewee is part of the management team, add more clarity for the reader.
However, since most of our interviewees wanted to remain anonymous, we have chosen to
conceal this information for every study object. In general terms, our sample consisted of
employees from four departments, three were part of the management team, and the average
employment time was 11 years.
Each interview was recorded and later transcribed. Since the native language of the three
authors and every interviewee is Swedish, all interviews were conducted and transcribed in
Swedish - only translating quotes that were carried into the paper.
3.4.1.1 Interview Guide Questions
Following the abductive approach, previous findings influence our study, including interview
questions.
With question #1, we wanted to explore the background of each worker as the
institutional logic(s) dominating old workplaces turned out to be impactful for hybrid
organizations' survival in Battilana and Dorado's (2010) study.
22
Questions #2 and #5 were asked to see if all workers from both sides of the organization
see the same goal for Dramaten and how they evaluate specific productions. The questions are
influenced by Reay and Hinings (2009) and Pache and Santos (2013) findings on the importance
of common goals.
As a rough relationship between workers and management was a source of internal
conflict in Glynn's (2000) study, we wanted to examine this relationship at Dramaten, which we
did with question #6.
Question #8 is copied from Treviño et al. (2014, cited in Bell et al., 2022). They proclaim
that some of the most insightful answers came out of asking an open-ended question at the end
when the interviewee understood the topic of interest. While some of our interviewees had
nothing to add, some served fruitful answers we otherwise would miss.
3.4.2 Archival Documents
In addition to interview data, documentary data were collected from documents ranging from
annual reports to internal governing guidelines, see table 3.1 for details.
23
Table 3.2 Archival documents overview
Some document types miss a year in an otherwise sequential collection. It is not by design that
some documents were left out to cover up data. They are missing because they do not exist or
they were not available.
The total amount of pages examined through document analysis is partially deceptive.
Since a large part of the annual and sustainability reports are dedicated to financial and
sustainability standings that are not relevant to our study, like balance sheet and amount of
recycled material. Nonetheless, the documents are included because other parts, like the
comments from the CEO and governing reports, are of the highest interest.
24
3.5 Data Analysis
The data analysis was done following thematic analysis (Bell et al., 2022). The fundamental idea
is to analyze the data in order to identify themes. A theme represents a pattern or meaning
identified by active engagement with the data. It is related to the research focus, builds on
familiarity with the gathered data, and provides a basis for understanding the data in a way that
enables theoretical contribution (Bell et al., 2022). We divided our analysis process into three
crude phases.
3.5.1 Phase 1
The first phase took place before the interviews started. This phase implied analyzing archival
documents to familiarize ourselves with the data and build an understanding of the inner
workings of the study object to build further on during the interviews.
In practical terms, this involved reading archival documents to generate codes, preparing
for the interviews, and developing the interview guide with questions relevant to the organization
and our study. Additionally, all documents were analyzed in sequential order, making it easier to
identify longitudinal change.
3.5.2 Phase 2
Phase 2 started when the interviews started. The interviews, transcription, and analysis were
conducted in parallel. Transcripts meant more data to become familiar with and more codes to
generate.
3.5.3 Phase 3
This last phase began when all three of us had individually analyzed all documents and
transcriptions. We then conducted a joint session where we reviewed all individually generated
codes, removing some and merging overlapping ones. In the same manner, we identified,
reviewed, and finalized themes from the identified codes.
25
3.5.4 Analysis Process Clarification
The parting of the analysis into three phases was earlier presented as crude. The reason is that
new codes were also generated in phase 3, the final step of writing up started as early as phase 2,
and so on. In other words, our way of analyzing was considerably iterative. Despite the iterative
elements, the description above provides an equitable explanation of how our findings
originated.
The previous literature was used throughout all phases to guide what codes to pick up on.
Not only in a confirming way but also when and maybe even more interesting when our findings
contradict previous knowledge, as contradictions are an excellent resource for theorizing
(Alvesson & Kärreman, 2007).
3.6 Methodological Considerations
3.6.1 Data Type Limitations
Both types of data (interviews and documents) used for this study have limitations.
Organizational documents, the type all examined documents belong to, often illustrate an image
the publisher wants to present rather than a representative image of the organization (Bell et al.,
2022). Interviews tend to lack naturalism since the study participants are taken out of their
natural environment to collect data (Bell et al., 2022). This artificial environment might cause
reactivity, meaning the participant is showing untypical behavior because they know they are
being studied. On the other hand, the documents under investigation were not created for the
purpose of research; thus, one can dismiss the reactive effect. Regarding this, findings were, to
the greatest extent, cross-checked between the two data types. I.e., a triangular approach,
meaning using more than one source of data, was put to use to add substance to our findings
(Bell et al., 2022).
3.6.2 Generalizable Theory
Strauss and Corbin (1998, cited in Bell et al., 2022) describe theory as “a set of well-developed
codes [...] that are systematically related through statements of relationship to form a theoretical
framework that explains some relevant social [...] or other phenomenon” (p. 535). Bell et al.
(2022) continue by suggesting two different kinds of theories: substantive theory and formal
26
theory. The first relates to theories for one specific empirical context, while the latter refers to
general theories applicable to more than one context. Since this study collects data from one
single empirical instance, and that data is what will build concepts that eventually will nurture a
theory, that theory will be substantive to its nature.
Criticism of the case study method and the theories it eventually brings is both brought
up and met by Flyvbjerg (2006). He mentions that “the view that one cannot generalize on the
basis of a single case is usually considered to be devastating to the case study as a scientific
method” (p. 224). Later, expressing that the thought of theory emerging from case studies is only
valid for one context, i.e., substantive, is flat-out wrong. Even the highly generalizable theory of
gravitation builds on case studies. We comprehend that our findings will never have the same
reach as the example Flyvbjerg (2006) brings up. Nevertheless, suppose the theoretical
framework we build upon is coherent for Dramaten.. In that case, it might as well be for other
hybrid organizations as critical cases are well suited to examine “if this (not) valid for this case,
then it applies to all (no) cases” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 230).
3.6.3 Research Ethics
Regarding the used research design, the ethical transgression that may occur is a lack of consent
from interviewees. The principle of informed consent has been used to cope with this risk. In
essence, the principle entails that interviewees must not be subjected to implicit or explicit
coercion (Bell et al., 2022). To achieve compliance, every potential interviewee got written
information about the background of the study, what we ought to investigate, how the interviews
would work out with recording equipment, and sample questions. Additionally, every
interviewee got at least 24 hours from receiving the information until they needed to answer the
invitation. The practiced commitments emanate from Bell et al.’s (2022) recommendations.
27
4. Findings
During the course of the research, data was gathered by analyzing documents and conducting
interviews. From this data, findings emerged. These findings were then categorized into codes,
themes, and finally aggregated themes as showcased in figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 Data Structure
4.1 One-sided Conflict
Interviewees across the board express satisfaction about Dramaten’s current state - primarily
based on the relief that their operations are back to normal after the Covid-19 pandemic.
Nonetheless, workers from the administrative side of the organization show signs of
dissatisfaction because of their experienced marginalized role. We identify the autonomous role
Dramaten has in regard to its external actors and the varying view the internal actors articulate
about the organization and its governance as the source of what we termed a one-sided conflict.
28
Table 4.1 One-sided Conflict
29
4.1.1 Autonomy
Early on during our interviews and repeatedly over several interviews, it became evident that
Dramaten is an organization that does not closely act up to directions from external stakeholders.
Neither Kulturdepartementet regarding artistic goals nor the Swedish state directly regarding
financial goals. This perceived autonomy comes in two shapes: financial and artistic freedom.
4.1.1.1 Financial Freedom
The grant Dramaten receives from the Swedish state amounts to roughly 80 % of its revenue.
Having most of the income secured yearly implies opportunities to take risks, as Dramaten does
not stand and fall with ticket sales for each production. This was shown to be a relief for workers
from both the administrative and artistic sides of Dramaten:
“It is fun. It is creative in a different way [...] Now we can have flexibility and look
away from the sales figures.” (Administrative worker #1)
“If you look at Arv [a current play] for example, it is seven hours long. [...] Does it
[the audience] last seven hours? So it was definitely a bit of an experiment.”
(Artistic worker #3)
The grants are based on Dramaten's work towards the goals Kulturdepartementet stipulates and
only to a very minimal extent how the organization is governed in terms of efficiency and
financial measures. Something that is manifested in the official reporting Dramaten does.
Dramaten's financial results were positive in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2020, and
2021. In those years, the management report (part of the annual report) includes a short
clarification that the organization is not meant to make a profit. Still, it is good for financial
stability. 2016 is the year Dramaten made the biggest deficit of the years we have examined
(2012-2021). That year's management report explains the negative result, while the negative
results of 2018 and 2019 are left uncommented in their respective management reports.
As
previously
mentioned, the general guidelines for state-owned companies
(Regeringskansliet, 2020) are general. It implies that companies should be governed efficiently
and in an economically stable manner but do not provide any concrete goals. The only goal laid
30
upon Dramaten from external actors in terms of efficiency and financial stability is that
Dramaten's total equity over time should amount to SEK 28 million on average over a rolling
five-year period and not fall below SEK 20 million (Result statement, 2021).
4.1.1.2 Artistic Freedom
How and if culture is kept apart from politics is a never-ending debate. 'Keeping an arm's length'
between culture and politics is desirable, states Artistic worker #1. On the note of an arm's
length, the same interviewee says that the governing document from Kulturdepartementet is
deliberately rather vaguely written. It is up to the Chief of Theater to interpret the assignment as
he sees fit. This freedom is essential and enables Dramaten to be truly independent in their
relation to Kulturdepartementet:
“It [Kulturdepartementet’s governance document] is somewhat of a roadmap. How
we work towards the goals and the choices we make is not something we either
need to anchor or account for afterward - it is a passive governance process that
way.” (Artistic worker #1).
In the result statements (2012-2021), Dramaten presents what they have done in the past year,
but there is no yearly follow-up or feedback from Kulturdepartementet. When asked about their
opinion on yearly feedback, the answer left no room for interpretation: "No, not in a direct way,
and it's about the fact that you don't really want that either" (Artistic worker #1).
That Dramaten and specifically the CEO is free to interpret their assignment becomes
apparent when examining each CEO statement from the annual reports. Marie-Louise Ekman,
who was Chief of Theater and CEO until 2014, dedicated her opening statements (Annual report
2012, 2013, 2014) to poet-like texts about Dramaten's role in society. Eirik Stubø, the succeeding
Chief of Theater and CEO, dedicated his statements (Annual report 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018) to
comment on Dramaten's past year with productions which have been done as well as
commenting on Dramanten's role in the international arena and the importance of the
international theater network MITO21. Maria Groop Russel, the CEO after Stubø and the first
person being appointed only CEO, while the Chief of Theater is separate, is closer to business in
her statements (Annual report 2019, 2020, 2021). Commenting on renovations, the impact
31
Covid-19 has had on the organization, and Dramten's purpose in relation to its goal of being on
the national stage.
4.1.2 Incoherent Self-Image
Given that there are few direct tasks from external stakeholders Dramaten ought to complete
much power is delegated to the leaders within the organization, and who that leader is or should
be are divided opinions about. Formally, an organizational divide exists, but whether or not it
actually does encompasses conflicting views. One side of the organization seems to think a
divide exists, while the other does not. The variegated opinions about this issue seem to derive
from a lack of respect from one group toward the other.
4.1.2.1 Organizational Divide
The organizational chart of Dramaten (Sustainability report, 2021) displays a divide between
practices - administrative workers on one side and artistic workers on the other. We wanted to
know more about this potential divide and, if there was one, how it played out within the
organization. Different views from the two sides arose when we asked about Dramaten as a
divided organization. The administrative workers suggest that there is internal grouping: “Yes, I
can probably say that it is. There is a big difference, there is a very big priority on the artistic
side” (Administrative worker #3). While the artistic side contradicts: “I would say that it is very
rare to talk about administrative or artistic staff“ (Artistic worker #3). Apart from the
administrative side seeing the divide as real, they regard their side as undervalued internally,
described by the code presented in the following section.
4.1.2.2 Lack of Respect
While the artistic interviewees painted the picture of Dramaten as an organization free of divides,
the administrative side had another impression. Additionally, administrative workers voiced
perceived disrespect for their roles and functions. According to them, since Dramaten's mission
is art and culture, the artistic workers do not value the administrative workers' contribution to the
organization. There is a belief that anyone not directly working with the production of art is
unimportant and only costs money that could otherwise be invested in theater plays.
32
“We at admin are not that popular, we can experience. We are just annoying, very
annoying [...] ‘Euw does it have to be so many administrative workers? [...] ‘You
only cost money’.” (Administrative worker #3)
Administrative workers see the lack of understanding of how much administrative work an
organization as big as theirs needs as the origin of this disrespect. The absence of administrative
knowledge from the artistic side turns out to be partially true: "I think we are proportionately
skeptical types here [...]," one artistic worker (#1) states when discussing increasing
administrative work. Signs of insufficient respect and knowledge for different departments were
also observed in internal documents. As a result of cross-departmental meetings held during the
spring of 2018, it was concluded that "the knowledge of - and respect for - each other's different
professional roles could be improved" (Ethics policy, [2018] 2021, p. 5).
4.1.2.3 Unclear Leadership
Nowadays, Dramaten has, at least formally, a joint-leadership between the CEO and the Chief of
Theater, where both are on equal terms. However, some interviewees of the artistic side assert
that the Chief of Theater is more borne and has the final decision: “[...] in a theater organization
is the artistic leader, a bit more [...] elevated” (Artistic worker #2). While the administrative side
is leaning in another direction: “What is it that makes the board not clear that the CEO
decides?” (Administrative worker #2).
The administrative workers express that their leader, the CEO, gets less influence than
she should, according to the formal structure. Their rationale is that Dramaten is a joint-stock
company, and the CEO possesses the knowledge of running a company and, therefore, should
have the ultimate responsibility. Administrative worker #2 concludes that the Chief of Theater
has other qualities, such as producing a repertoire, and stresses the importance of cooperation
between the Chief of Theater and the CEO. However, in the end, the Chief of Theater should be
second in command. Conversely, artistic workers suggest the Chief of Theater should be at the
top since that is how it is done in an organization such as Dramaten. Consequently, opinions on
who the leader should be differ. However, the formal structure where the CEO and Chief of
Theater are on equal terms is new, and the balance of power between the groups and the two
leaders might settle further down the road:
33
“When I started, it was still the old structure with the CEO and Chief of Theater in one.
Since it’s new, we don’t really know yet, I think. We haven’t seen the fruits of it.”
(Artistic worker #1)
4.2 Efficiency as an Enabler for Culture and Art
The potential clash between artistic quality and efficiency is, if taken to the most basal level,
what we attempt to investigate. The CEO point directly at this balancing act in her CEO
statement in the annual report from 2020:
“Behind every play hides complex and creative undertakings performed by
numerous professional groups with specialist skills. On the other end is there
expectations about efficient use of resources and results. It is a constant
deliberation to find balance that does not limit the development of theater art.”
(Annual report, 2020, p. 5)
When bringing up the subject with interviewees, they, as opposed to the CEO, saw it as
combinable matters. Efficient governance as a facilitator rather than inhibitor for culture and
artistic quality.
34
Table 4.2 Efficiency as an Enabler for Culture and Art
35
4.2.1 Rationalization
During the last couple of years, Dramatens has undergone a restructuring toward a more rational
organization - derived from the sign of the times and the #metoo movement.
Interviewees and documents depict Dramaten as increasingly marked by formal
structures. Examples are more reporting, formalized HR activities, and the split of the CEO and
Chief of Theater roles that were combined up until 2019. Where the purpose of the change where
to develop:
“[...] Dramaten as a workplace and company. [...] Dramaten must be at the
forefront both when it comes to artistic quality and production as well as
organization, work environment, work processes, and sustainable development.”
(Sustainability report, 2019, p. 3)
Most interviewees pointed at the #metoo movement as a catalyst for this rationalization of the
organization. Still, when examining older documents, we see signs of this direction before 2017,
when #metoo occurred. Thus, we interpret #metoo as an accelerator rather than a catalysator for
Dramaten’s rationalization.
4.2.1.1 #metoo
Repeatedly through interviews, the #metoo movement during late 2017 and 2018 was said to
have impacted Dramaten immensely. Interviewees working at Dramaten prior to #metoo
experienced the before and after, and all suggest that the work environment has improved. Apart
from the formal changes following the movement, like an implemented ethics policy ([2018]
2021), many workers talk about actual changes in how employees see each other:
"I mean, it took many years before you dared to go through it [The Chief of
Theater's corridor] yourself because it was that bit of mined ground. 'Haven't you
gone wrong little friend?' It's not like that at all today. Now you can talk to the
Chief of Theater and joke." (Administrative worker #2)
36
Exceedingly, the interviewees are solely positive about the organizational changes in recent
years. One administrative worker (#4) matches the cheerful tones but also explains the changes
more concretely: "Back then, it was the creation of art at any cost, so to speak, and that's no
longer the case." The worker's experience is that the artistic leaders have had to stand back.
Nevertheless, that fact is not necessarily damaging to the art Dramaten is producing: "but it must
be said that the authoritarian leader does not always make good art" (Administrative worker
#4).
4.2.1.2 Organizational Restructuring
As many interviewees point out, much organizational change happened because of and around
the time of #metoo. But the trend of a more formalized workplace, towards one more like other
companies, started long before, at least formally.
Before the position of CEO and Chief of Theater got split, the Vice-CEO was responsible
for the tasks the CEO is now, like work environment issues, communication and accounting.
Until 2014 there was another artistic position at the same level as the Vice-CEO, the Chief of
Playwright. That position was downgraded to the playwright department in 2015, and in 2019
the Vice-CEO became CEO, and the Chief of Theater was no longer alone at the top.
Figure 4.2 Organizational chart 2012-2014.
Source: Adapted from Sustainability report (2012, 2013, 2014).
37
Figure 4.3 Organizational chart 2015-2017.
Source: Adapted from Sustainability report (2015, 2016, 2017).
Figure 4.4 Organizational chart 2019-present.
Source: Adapted from Sustainability report (2019, 2020, 2021).
When asked about these changes to the organizational chart - where the administrative side, led
by the Vice-CEO and later CEO, is growing, the answer lies in the sign of the times:
“[...] this is the zeitgeist we are in now. Both in the fact that great demands are
placed on reporting and follow-up and so on, but also that the employees have
higher demands, everything from individual development plans [...].”
(Artistic worker #1)
38
Even if Dramaten tries to evade formalization and rationalization of their organization: “The
administrative burden is getting bigger here too, even if we fight against it” (Administrative
worker #1). Ultimately, their organizational form is a joint-stock company. They need to comply
with the increased requirements and regulations it implies, like sustainability reporting, which
was introduced in 2007 and enlarged in 2015 due to a new standard (Sustainability report, 2015).
As well as publishing compensation- and year-end reports, which started in 2020 (Compensation
report, 2020, 2021; Year-end report, 2020, 2021)
4.2.2 Art Above All
Even if one worker who has been at Dramaten for a long time points out that: “Back then, it was
the creation of art at any cost [...]” (Administrative worker #4). We argue that art creation is
above all else, though it might not be to every price anymore.
This theme derives from the fact that every worker agrees that Dramaten’s existence
involves making and showcasing art for the Swedish citizens. Some workers emphasized
reaching more citizens, while others saw greater value in producing avant-garde plays. However,
the underlying purpose is the same. The clear purpose showcased itself across the organization.
When asked about measurement tools for efficiency or marketing they use, no one answered not
concerning the tool’s significance in relation to Dramaten’s purpose.
4.2.2.1 Common Purpose
Since the corporate governance report was added to the annual report in 2014, it has explicitly
stated that Dramaten is governed according to the Swedish state’s general guidelines. But every
interviewee refers to the governing document from Kulturdepartementet (2021) as their sole
loadstar, while the general guidelines (Regeringskansliet, 2020) are seen as peripheral at best.
Fulfillment of Kulturdepartementet’s (2021) goals is Dramaten’s raison d'être. As Artistic
worker #1 states: “We are Sweden’s national theater, and that means that we should still be a
place where our art form gives everyone either an impact or an impression.” This includes
managing the Swedish language, the cultural heritage, reaching every target group, developing
art creation, and having the best practitioners. While every worker is clear about this being
Dramaten’s purpose, different interviewees express different interpretations of the purpose and
39
opinions on what goals (emanating from the purpose) should be emphasized. The design makes
these parted renderings possible, where the document shall be free for interpretation.
Artistic worker #1 states they do not “always draw an equal sign between best production
and most audience.” Another artistic worker elaborates:
“If I put it like this: I have worked on a production on the Big Stage that sold very
very well. But they [producers] were not pleased with the quality of that production.
So even though it sold very well, they chose to stop it after a while, and it has not
been part of the repertoire since. Although it was such an audience success.”
(Artistic worker #3)
To a higher degree, the artistic workers highlight goals regarding artistic quality as significant. At
the same time, they also state the importance of selling tickets as they underline that it is not fun
to play for empty seats. Administrative workers agree that Dramaten’s purpose is artistically
oriented, even though they emphasize other parts of the purpose and emanating goals as opposed
to the artistic side, like reaching as many citizens as possible. Perceivable in the desire for known
actors as a mechanism to draw an audience:
“‘If you are going to make this one [a production with low forecasted sales], it
would be desirable that you have this one [a famous actor] that attracts,’ I would
never say that explicitly because I will not get involved in the artistic productions.”
(Administrative worker #1)
The different opinions on what goals from Kulturdepartementet’s governing document (2021)
Dramaten should prioritize should not be overstated. There are slight differences when artistic
workers talk about artistic freedom and avant-garde plays and administrative workers talk about
reaching as many people as possible. Nonetheless, the conviction that Dramaten should be an
institution delivering qualitative plays for all Swedish citizens is overarching.
40
4.2.2.2 Different Productions for Different Purposes
There is a consensus about the fact that no production can fulfill all goals Dramaten works
towards. As one worker puts it when asked if one production is considered successful if it sells
well:
“It absolutely doesn't have to be, it depends on which parameter you value it by
[...]. Every theater performance can be valued. What audience, what economy they
get, but you can also evaluate it artistically.” (Administrative worker #4)
Some productions are made to sell well and appeal to many people, while other, narrower, are
made to achieve Dramaten's artistic goals. Even though government grants primarily finance
Dramaten, it is important that Dramaten, to a degree, earns money by itself so it can afford to
make narrower productions aligned with its artistic goals. As an administrative worker puts it:
“We got the small stages [...] for this a little bit more narrow, [...] that is not going
to attract everybody. [...] but if we have the Big Stage [...] to rake in the cash, we
are able to afford to have these small productions which might not bring in as much
money.” (Administrative worker #3)
The Chief of Theater directly addresses that some productions are made for cultural gain and
some for economic purposes. He recently published an internal document, a 'manifest' as our
interviewees term it. We did not get to meet the Chief of Theater or read the manifest, so our
knowledge of the content comes from the interviewees who have taken part. According to them,
the manifest states that Dramaten works with different kinds of capital, including cultural and
economic. It discusses how cultural capital is hard to measure, but he is progressing toward
making a framework for it.
41
4.2.2.3 Increasing Measurement Orientation
The desire to measure different kinds of matters appears in more places than the manifest:
“We also work with something called culture segments, which are divided based on
motivation and driving forces for going [to see the theater]. [...] [the audience] are
divided between motivation and drive [...]. It's a way to get to know the audience.”
(Administrative worker #1)
Both the administrative and artistic side express ambition to measure. We identify this fondness
for measurement as a building block for the aggregated theme Efficiency as an Enabler for
Culture and Art because when these measurement instruments are discussed, it is in relation to
goals stated in the governing document from Kulturdepartementet (2021). The administrative
worker (#1) wants to understand their audience better. Hence, they know whom they reach and,
maybe more importantly, who they do not - since reaching as wide as possible is what Dramaten
ought to do (Kulturdepartementet, 2021). One artistic worker (#1) sees measuring efficiency as
vital because they can produce more. And more productions lead to more artistic freedom:
“Here, as a director or creator, you don’t really have the same pressure. It’s not the
end of the world if [...] one can take a chance and test something because if there is
no success, we can handle it in the repertoire flow.” (Artistic worker #1)
42
5. Discussion
Our point of departure was to investigate if the quantifiability of different goals impacts how
organizations prioritize between them. More specifically, answering: how do different degrees of
quantifiability of goals impact how hybrid organizations balance between them? The short
answer to the question is that quantifiability had a small impact on this balancing act. What
turned out to have a bigger impact on this balancing act was how influential internal actors
prioritized goals.
5.1 The Relationship Between Dramaten’s Incorporated Logics
There were split opinions on who should be the supreme leader, however, our findings hint that
the Chief of Theater is. It is his duty to interpret Kulturdepartementet's governing document
(2021) and decide what Dramaten should focus on. That this document, which is an institutional
product stemming from the artistic excellence logic, plays such a central part in Dramaten’s
organization is not surprising. Besharov & Smith (2014) declare that the centrality of logic in an
organization is dependent on how the operations are funded. Dramaten gets roughly 80 % of its
revenue by following that document. Thus, that document and its institutional origin become
central.
Even if the institutional logic of artistic excellence dominates in Dramten’s organization,
the institutional logic of the company is present. Accordingly the relationship between the logics
can be contested or aligned, depending on the compatibility of the two (Besharov & Smith,
2014). Since workers within Dramaten describe activities native to the company institutional
logic, like efficiency measurements, as enablers for more artistic freedom, we identify the
relationship as aligned.
5.2 Unquantifiability: a Source of Confusion
While we found that quantifiably did not play an influential role when it came to what to
prioritize internally, it turned out to be a source of confusion. The Chief of Theater works on
developing a measurement instrument for cultural impact. What is interesting is that the artistic
side of the organization, i.e. the elevated side and the one expressing internal harmony, do not
43
see the use of such an instrument in their work: “There is probably an overbelief right now in
society at large that it is very important to have measurable goals” (Artistic worker #1). Another
Artistic worker (#4) adds that such an instrument would not change that worker’s role but can
help with communication and evaluation of productions, as those can be confusing when there is
no common conventional way of relating to the cultural and artistic impact of a production
internally. Artistic workers may have seen a bigger use of a measurement tool if they were the
subordinate group having to justify the cultural impact to administrative superiors. On the other
hand, the quantifiable results the administrative workers bring do not uplift their status namely.
5.3 How Dramaten Evades Conflict
The level of internal conflict seen in the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra depicted by Glynn (2000),
which eventually led to organizational paralysis (Pache & Santos, 2010), is not found at
Dramaten. Not to say that Dramaten is conflict-free, but the conflict we could identify presents
itself differently. The dissatisfied group is reversed; in the orchestra, it was the musicians (artistic
workers), while at Dramaten, it was the administrative personnel. Additionally, even if
administrative workers at Dramaten declare the organization to be divided, it is not to the same
extent as the orchestra, at least not formally. The orchestra’s management group was without
musicians, while Dramaten’s management group included both administrative and artistic
workers. Though this characteristic is not needed to avoid conflict, as seen in the example by
Reay and Hinings (2009), where an organization with the same set of divides between the
management group and other workers did not experience the level of conflict as Glynn (2000)
saw in the orchestra. Instead, Reay and Hinings (2009) emphasize the importance of mutual
goals. In this regard, the orchestra and Dramaten also differ. The musicians in the orchestra
pronounced a different goal for the organization than the management team did. In the case of
Dramaten, the whole organization judged Kulturdepartemet’s goal for Dramaten as theirs. Reay
and Hinings (2009) and Pache and Santos (2013) proclaim this aspect as crucial to bypass
conflict in hybrid organizations, and it seems Dramaten makes use of that insight.
Employee background is another potential source of conflict (Battilana & Dorado, 2010).
An organization recruiting groups of people molded by different institutional logics is at greater
44
risk for conflict than an organization recruiting blank slates. At Dramaten, the workers on both
sides of the organization showcase similarities in their backgrounds - even the administrative
workers have a background in theater. However, due to what their respective roles imply, there is
a slight difference in which institutional logic they lean towards. The conflict experienced in
BancoSol erupted as a result of conflicting views of what the organizational goal ought to be.
This could be explained by groups within the organization having backgrounds stemming from
different logics (Battilana & Dorado, 2010). Even though the workers at Dramaten prioritize the
incorporated logics slightly differently, no conflict of the BancoSol-magnitude was witnessed.
Arguably because they all agree on what Dramaten, first and foremost, ought to be: an institution
of culture and art. Presumably, this shared view is derived from the background similarities of
workers on both sides of the organization.
5.4 A Threat to Artistic Excellence
Workers across the organization state that the focus on efficiency and artistic excellence
simultaneously works well since efficiency enables a more varied repertoire, as explained by the
aggregated theme Efficiency as an Enabler for Culture and Art. In that sense, the incorporated
institutional logics can be interpreted as complementary (Mars & Lounsbury, 2009) or aligned
(Besharov & Smith, 2014).
At the same time, artistic and administrative workers worry about this efficiency
orientation in the long run. One artistic worker explained this in detail when asked if we missed
discussing something important during the interview. The worker (Artistic worker #2) voiced
concern that the operation cost at Dramaten increases yearly due to inflation and increasing
salaries, while the grants do not follow at the same rate. Despite that, Dramaten has managed to
fulfill Kulturdepartementet's goals by operating more efficiently, but as the worker states - this
approach is not sustainable for eternity. In the code Different Productions for Different Purposes,
we explain that different productions exist for different purposes. The productions that bring in
the most money belong to the Big Stage, while smaller and more innovative plays often find
their home at some of Dramaten's smaller stages. If the trend continues, Dramaten will sooner or
later have to trim its operations, and the worker is sure that the smaller stages will take the hit
and shut down. In that case, Dramaten would lose the place where they attain many
45
unquantifiable artistic goals. So even if the balance between financial- and artistic goals, i.e.,
quantifiable- and unquantifiable goals are in balance in the organization now, the balance might
not last forever.
46
6. Conclusion
Overall, Dramaten’s situation is fairly unique, being wholly owned by a state and financed by
grants for the most part. Yet, being a hybrid organization pursuing multiple goals of varying
quantifiability is far from unique. In that aspect, Dramaten is a critical case. Assessing artistic
and cultural impact is tricky (Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014). Despite the trickiness and lack of
follow-up opportunities, the artistic and cultural goals were not deprioritized. Instead, the
prioritizing made by the most influential governing actor was decisive. Who is giving directions
seems to influence the balancing act more than the nature of the different directions.
For other hybrid organizations pursuing multiple goals, which are many (e.g., Battilana et
al., 2019; Battilana & Dorado, 2010; Glynn, 2000; Kassalow et al., 2011), our study suggests that
trying to make all goals equally measurable to avoid drifting away from goals that are hard to
quantify is fruitless. On the other hand, it might help bypass internal confusion.
Regardless of our study investigating how quantifiability affects the prioritization of
goals, the field is far from saturated. We suggest that future scholars examine the effect in
cultural and art organizations more embossed by the market, where most revenues originated
from sales, not grants.
6.1 Limitations
The significant limitations of this study come from our sample, both regarding the sample of
interviewees and archival documents. Our interview sample consisted of interviewees from four
departments in an organization consisting of seven. While workers from two different
departments on the administrative side expressed a lack of respect from the artistic side, the other
two might carry another view, as one example of what we might miss when our sample was
limited.
Another drawback is that we could not obtain information directly from either the Chief
of Theater or his manifest. Our findings suggest that he is aware and reflect that his organization
is pursuing multiple and somewhat contradicting goals. Our interviewees could only speculate
about the underlying intention of the performance tools and various capitals he is implementing
internally.
47
7. References
7.1 Academic Literature
Alexius, S., & Furusten, S. (2020). Enabling sustainable transformation: Hybrid organizations in
early phases of path generation. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(3), 547-563.
Alexius, S., Gustavsson, M., & Sardiello, T. (2017). Profit-Making for Mutual Benefit : The
Case of Folksam 1945–2015, SCORE rapporten 2017:2.
Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory
development. Academy of management review, 32(4), 1265-1281.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of
commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of management Journal, 53(6), 1419-1440.
Battilana, J., Obloj, T., Pache, A. C., & Sengul, M. (2022). Beyond shareholder value
maximization: Accounting for financial/social trade-offs in dual-purpose companies. Academy of
Management Review, 47(2), 237-258.
Battilana, J., Pache, A. C., Sengul, M., & Kimsey, M. (2019). The dual-purpose playbook.
Harvard Business Review, 97(2), 124-133.
Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022). Business research methods. 6th edition. Oxford
University Press.
Berger, P.L., Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality. Penguin Group.
Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations:
Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of management review, 39(3),
364-381.
48
Brunsson, N. (1994). Politicization and 'company-ization'—on institutional affiliation and
confusion in the organizational world. Management accounting research, 5(3-4), 323-335.
Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2014). What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and
scope of social performance. California management review, 56(3), 118-141.
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift
and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behaviour. 34.
81-100.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry,
12(2), 219-245.
Furusten, S. (2013). Institutional Theory and Organizational Change. Edward Elgar Publishing
Glynn, M.A. (2000), When Cymbals Become Symbols: Conflict Over Organizational Identity
Within a Symphony Orchestra. Organization Science, 11(3), 285-298.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodieh, F., Micelotta, E., Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional
Complexity and Organizational Responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317-371.
Jutterström, M. (2019). Problematic Outcomes of Organization Hybridity: The Case of Samhall.
In: Alexius, S., Furusten, S. (eds) Managing Hybrid Organizations. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Kassalow, J., Lee, M., Karnani, A., & Garrette, B. (2011). Better Vision for the Poor. Stanford
Social Innovation Review, 9(2), 66–71.
Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating Institutional Plurality: Organizational
Governance in Hybrid Organizations. Organization Studies, 36(6), 713–739.
49
Mars, M. M., & Lounsbury, M. (2009). Raging against or with the private marketplace? Logic
hybridity and eco-entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(1), 4-13.
Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth
and Ceremony. The University of Chicago Press, 83(2), 340-363.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic response to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review.
16, 145-179.
Pache, A-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational
responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management, 35(3), 455-476.
Pache, A-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a
response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management, 56(4), 972-1001.
Powell, W. W. (1987). Hybrid organizational arrangements: new form or transitional
development?. California management review, 30(1), 67-87.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C.R. (2009). Managing the Rivalry of Competing Logics. Organization
Studies, 30(6), 629-652.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of
power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry,
1958–1990. American journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801-843.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W (2008). “Institutional Logics,” in R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K.
Sahlin och R. Suddaby (eds.): The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, CA:
Sage. 99-129.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective. Oxford
University Press.
50
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of management
review, 14(4), 516-531.
7.2 Other Sources
Kulturdepartementet. (2021). Riktlinjer för statens bidrag till Kungliga Dramatiska teatern AB
för
budgetåret
2022.
https://cms.dramaten.se/Media/trla1plh/riktlinjer-fo-r-kungliga-dramatiska-teatern-fo-r-budgeta-r
et-2022.pdf
Regeringskansliet. (2020). Statens ägarpolicy och principer för bolag med statligt ägande.
https://www.regeringen.se/49314c/contentassets/d0ec26e509b94bd698f968aca4d983c1/statens-a
garpolicy-och-principer-for-bolag-med-statligt-agande-2020-webb.pdf
51
Appendices
Appendix I: Interview Guide
#
Questions
1
Tell us about your background and role at Dramaten.
2
Do you feel that Dramaten has a clear goal with its operation?
3
Do you think there is a clear divide within Dramaten, similar to the one shown in the
organizational chart?
4
Have you noticed any big changes since you started at Dramaten (regarding goals or
organizational structure)?
5
When is a theater production seen as successful?
6
How do you experience the relationship between employees and management?
7
Are questions about finance and budget present in your role?
8
Given that our goal is to understand how Dramaten is governed and is working internally, is
there something we have missed to discuss?
52
Stockholm Business School
Stockholm University
SE-106 91 Stockholm
Tel: 08 - 16 20 00
www.sbs.su.se
53