Svensson, I (2022) Exploring the connection between emotions, artefacts and institutional work: The case of institutional change for public facilities management. Construction Management and Economics, 40(5), pp. 343-358. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Public facilities management (PFM) is currently moving from being an institution driven by ad-hoc practices to now introducing long-term and strategic practices. During this institutional change, human actors engage in institutional work to create new practices. However, old practices seem to be maintained within PFM to a large extend. Why? Data were collected through case studies in two public facilities management organizations, an interview study in eight organizations from the institution of PFM and a workshop with representatives from the institutional field of PFM. Findings show how the changing institutional setting for the institution of PFM produce negative emotions. To manage these, human actors engage in institutional work and here they employ artefacts as means to drive change. These artefacts functioned in various ways to reduce negative feelings by inducing a sense of safety (as soft blankets), by enabling the avoidance of dealing with 'the truth' (as shields) and by offering hope (as a vision of perfect future). Thereby, they did not take part in creating change, as much as they took part in maintaining current practices. The unintended consequences of the usage of artefacts, explain why practices are maintained during institutional change for PFM.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction management; organization theory; organizational change |
| Index terms: | interview, case study, organizational change, unintended consequence, institutional work, institutional change, facilities management, workshop, artefact |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, business, data collection methods, management, construction type, sociology |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Risk Management, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here