argument and demonstrate

® Academy o/ Management Beview 2000, Vol. 25, No. 1, 13-17.

INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL TOPIC FORUM

ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY AND IDENTIFICATION: CHARTING NEW WATERS

AND BUILDING NEW BRIDGES STUART ALBERT

University of Minnesota

BLAKE E. ASHFORTH Arizona State University

JANE E. DUTTON University of Michigan

Identity and identification are powerful terms. Because they speak to the very definition of an entity—an organization, a group, a person— they have been a subtext of many strategy ses- sions, organization development initiatives, team-building exercises, and socialization ef- forts. Identity and identification, in short, are root constructs in organizational phenomena and have been a subtext of many organizational behaviors.

Part of the power of the constructs comes from the need for a situated sense of an entity. Whether an organization, group, or person, each entity needs at least a preliminary answer to the question "Who are we?" or "Who am I?" in order to interact effectively with other entities over the long run. Similarly, other entities need at least a preliminary answer to the question "Who are they?" for effective interaction. Identities situate the organization, group, and person.

Another part of the power of identity and iden- tification derives from the integrative and gen- erative capacity of these constructs. Identity and identification are terms that travel easily across levels of analysis. They simultaneously convey distinctiveness and oneness (e.g., of an organi- zation, group, or individual), while allowing for blurring, multiplicity, and dynamism in identity content and process. As noun (identity) and verb (identify), they can be used as versatile con- cepts, frames, or tools that open up possibilities for theoretical development and revelation. We hope you will see the generous yield from this

invitation in both the articles and concluding dialogues contained in this forum.

WHY NOW?

Neither identity nor identification is a new construct in the organizational literature. How- ever, there are several reasons why both are particularly important in contemporary organi- zational life. On the macro side, as the environ- ment becomes ever more dynamic and complex, organizations become ever more organic. The flattening of hierarchies, the growth in team- work and empowerment, the outsourcing of sec- ondary competencies, and so on are means of creating flexible pools of sophisticated capaci- ties. However, as conventional organizational forms are dismantled, so too are many of the institutionalized repositories of organizational history and method, and the institutionalized means by which organizations perpetuate them- selves. Increasingly, an organization must re- side in the heads and hearts of its members. Thus, in the absence of an externalized bureau- cratic structure, it becomes more important to have an internalized cognitive structure of what the organization stands for and where it intends to go—in short, a clear sense of the organiza- tion's identity. A sense of identity serves as a rudder for navigating difficult waters.

On the micro side, it may seem odd to argue that identity and identification are important in contemporary organizations. Given the massive corporate downsizings of recent years, the de-

13

14 Academy of Management Review January

crease in long-term relational contracts in favor of shorter-term transactional ones, and the growth in boundaryless careers (Arthur & Rous- seau, 1996), the notion of identification with and loyalty to one's employer, workgroup, or occupa- tion may seem quaint, even naive. However, it is partly because of this loss of organizational moorings that individual identity and identifica- tion are critical issues.

These are turbulent times. In preindustrial so- ciety one could see much of one's future self in one's parents and grandparents. The industrial age uprooted numerous traditions, but identity choices (whether made by design or default) re- garding one's occupation, employer, neighbor- hood, and friends often assumed an air of per- manence. In postindustrial times, however, there are far fewer identity givens, more identity options, more tolerance of identity diversity, and more frequent identity changes over the life course (Gergen, 1991). In such a world there is a need not just for self-discovery but self-inven- tion, and possibly reinvention. In such a world one's identity moorings are planted in shifting sand. Thus, it is because identity is problemat- ic—and yet so critical to how and what one values, thinks, feels, and does in all social do- mains, including organizations—that the dy- namics of identity need to be better understood.

Diversity also motivates a concern with iden- tities and processes of identification for individ- uals, groups, organizations, and populations. Evidence abounds that social distances be- tween social entities are declining. Political boundaries between many nation states have shattered. Organizational forms are mutating. People with more diverse backgrounds, expec- tations, and values increasingly populate all levels of work organizations. The result is that an identity formed through interaction with a similar other is necessarily altered when the other is replaced by a stranger.

The same is also true at the macro level. Or- ganizations that come into contact with new en- tities, such as Web-based competitors, are likely to have to rethink their identity and decide whether they wish to add a ".com" to their name. All of these changes add to the range of identi- ties and self-definitions available to social en- tities. The sheer scale and range of heterogene- ity of people, of groups, and of social forms more generally, fuel greater interest in identity pro-

cesses and their role in organizational theory and practice.

The momentum to study identity and identifi- cation also comes from a rediscovery of the im- portance of meaning and emotion in organiza- tional life. The beauty of the identity and identification concepts is that they provide a way of accounting for the agency of human ac- tion within an organizational framework. By in- ternalizing the group or organizational identity as a (partial) definition of self, the individual gains a sense of meaningfulness and connec- tion. Identity and identification explain one means by which individuals act on behalf of the group or the organization. Thus, theories of iden- tity and identification are infused with motiva- tion and feeling. They help to explain the direc- tion and persistence of individual and more collective behaviors. They are ideas that fit the times' concern with how people acquire and make meaning in social life. As the articles in this special issue reveal, these theories are pow- erful lenses for explaining change, action, and inaction by individuals and collectivities.

DESIGN OF THE THEORY FORUM

The current state of identity scholarship left us in a quandary. On the one hand, we believe that more integration is needed to encourage cross-fertilization and opportunities for theoret- ical ideas to build on one another. On the other, the state of current theory called for an opening up, rather than a closing down, of theoretical possibilities. The two competing conditions in- spired a broad invitation to the field for theoret- ical papers addressing issues of identity and identification in organizations, as well as the introduction of a design innovation in how this forum is organized. The design innovation is the "Identity Dialogues" conclusion to the special issue. We asked the authors of each article to read the other articles to appear, and then build bridges across articles from their particular point of view. Thus, the six integrative state- ments provide multiple vantage points on how each of the forum articles is linked to the others.

The diversity of the six articles in this special topic forum suggests the continuing generative richness of the concepts of organizational iden- tity and identification. Together, the articles and dialogues provide a richly textured account of how and why identity and identification pro-

2000 Albeit, Ashfoith, and Dutton 15

cesses matter in organizations. Whereas some articles set the discussion in a larger framework (e.g., Gioia, Schultz, & Corley), others begin to explore largely uncharted waters (e.g., Pratt & Foreman). The articles range from micro (Brick- son and Hogg & Terry) to more macro concerns (Scott & Lane), and reflect a theoretical electi- cism—from individual cognitive processes (Hogg & Terry) to psychodynamic theory (Brown & Starkey).

Although some may be dismayed at the lack of consensus regarding the meaning and defini- tion of the terms organization identify and iden- tification, we prefer to see this diversity as re- flecting a creative process that will evolve through cycles of divergence and convergence. Different views at different points in history may simply serve different purposes, without the lack of universal agreement being in any way an impediment to progress. In fact, it may turn out that some of the most profound issues raised by questions of identity are not resolvable; that identity—because of its depth and profundity— will always be, in part, an enigma.

THE IDENTITY ARTICLES

Michael Pratt and Peter Foreman ("Classify- ing Managerial Responses to Multiple Organi- zational Identities") analyze how managers handle multiple organizational identities. They argue that managers tend to favor a plurality of identities when the identities are thought to hold future value, are supported by powerful stakeholders, are intensely held and considered legitimate by stakeholders, and when the organ- ization is not facing strict resource constraints. Managers also tend to favor linking these iden- tities when the identities are compatible and diffused across the entire organization, and when the interdependence among the relevant stakeholders is high. Crossing high and low lev- els of "identity plurality" with high and low "identity synergy" leads to an elegant 2 x 2 table of potential managerial responses.

Drawing insightful parallels between the lit- erature on individual identity and organization- al identity, Pratt and Foreman discuss the pros and cons of each response. A particular strength of their analysis is the discussion of not only the modal response within each of the four cells but of potential responses at the maigins dividing the cells. It is often in these kinds of gray areas

that organizational complexity and dynamism lie—and, thus, the real challenges for practitio- ners and scholars alike.

Susanne Scott and Vicki Lane ("A Stakeholder Approach to Organizational Identity") set the problem of identity within the broader context of manager-stakeholder relationships. They argue that "organizational identity is best understood as contested and negotiated through iterative interactions between managers and stakehold- ers" (p. 44), focusing on what they call organiza- tional identity construction. They advance a number of propositions concerned with the fac- tors that shape the desired organizational im- ages that managers form—for example, that managers will be more concerned with the ac- curacy of desired organizational images when they believe that the intended stakeholder au- dience has access to alternative information sources regarding the organization, or when the images consist of claims that are quantifiable and measurable.

Developing the stakeholder approach, Scott and Lane suggest a number of propositions re- lating properties of stakeholders to the construc- tion of identity—for example, the denser the stakeholder network (the number of relation- ships in a network linking members together, relative to the total number possible), the greater the influence of stakeholder needs, val- ues, and beliefs on managers' reconstruction of organizational identity. Scott and Lane also dis- cuss a number of tactics that organizations use to cue stakeholder identification and influence stakeholders to view themselves as members of an organization.

Dennis Gioia, Majken Schultz, and Kevin Corley ("Organizational Identity, Image, and Adaptive In- stability") take to task the idea that organizational identity is core, distinctive, and enduring (Albert & Whetten, 1985). They build an elegant account of how organizational identity and image interrelate in a process over time to make organizational identities adaptively unstable. They ask the im- portant question of where the apparent stability of identity is to be found and argue that "the seem- ing durability of identity is actually contained in the stability of the labels used by organizational members to express who or what they believe the organization to be" (p. 64). Their article maps the various ways that organizational scholars have applied the construct of image to theories of iden- tity and identity change.

16 Academy oi Management Review January

These authors distinguish between an iden- tity that endures (remains the same over time) and—in their view, what is more prevalent—an identity that exhibits continuity over time (the latter admits shifts in meaning and interpreta- tion). Drawing on these distinctions (as well a s on others), the authors build a theory about how different forms of organizational images desta- bilize a sense of organizational identity and en- gage an adaptive process of identity change. They buttress their arguments with a particu- larly lucid account of revisionist history and postmodernism. Their depiction of the recursive process of mutual influence between an organi- zation's sense of self-definition (identity) with c h a n g i n g organizational i m a g e s c r e a t e s a framework for understanding incremental ad- justments of organizational identities over time.

Shelley Brickson ("The Impact of Identity Ori- entation on Individual and Organizational Out- comes in Demographically Diverse Settings") addresses the question of how identity pro- cesses affect majority and minority responses to diversity in organizations. Her framework uses Brewer and Gardner's (1996) idea that contexts can activate three different types of identity ori- entations for individuals—personal, relational, and collective—each of which has different so- cial motivations. She uses these distinctions to build two important sets of arguments.

First, she argues that different features of organ- izational contexts (organizational, task, and re- ward structures) engage different identity orienta- tions. The engagement of different orientations, in tum, is related to different cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses of individuals in groups. Second, she maps the engagement of different identity orientations to individual and organiza- tional outcomes that relate to the way that diver- sity is experienced in organizations and the kinds of organizational-level, diversity-related patterns that unfold. Her core claim is that activation of a relational identity orientation in organizations of- fers the most promise for progress in diversity management practices.

Andrew Brown and Ken Starkey ("Organiza- tional Identity and Learning: A Psychodynamic Perspective") argue that organizational learning is often retarded by the organization's efforts to preserve its current identity. Drawing on the psychodynamic literature. Brown and Starkey consider five defenses individuals and organi- zations use that may prove dysfunctional for

organizational learning: denial (individuals and organizations disclaim knowledge and respon- sibility, reject claims on them, and disavow acts and their consequences), rationalization (an at- tempt to justify impulses, needs, and so on that one finds unacceptable so that they become both plausible and consciously tolerable), ideal- ization (the process by which an object becomes emotionally overvalued and stripped of its neg- ative features), fantasy (a kind of vivid day- dream that affords unreal, substantive satisfac- tions), and symbolization (the process though which an external object becomes the disguised outward representation for another internal and hidden object, idea, person, or complex).

The existence of all of these defenses. Brown and Starkey argue, make change difficult. At the same time, they point to three factors that they believe can contribute to a change in organiza- tional identity: critical self-reflexivity; the pro- motion of a dialogue about the future identity; and, perhaps most difficult, the attainment of an attitude of wisdom.

Michael Hogg and Deborah Terry ("Social Identity and Self-Categorization Processes in Organizational Contexts") focus on an impor- tant extension of social identity theory called self-categoiization theory. According to this, cat- egorizing oneself a s a group member accentu- ates one's self-perceived similarity to the group prototype. In becoming a de facto prototypic member, one tends to enact the group identi- ty—at least when the group is salient. Thus, Hogg and Terry argue that this depersonaliza- tion of the self "is the process underlying group phenomena" (p. 123). This is an immensely im- portant claim, for it suggests that group dynam- ics cannot be understood apart from the catego- rization a n d identity p r o c e s s e s of group members.

Hogg and Terry illustrate the power of their argument with applications to cohesion and devi- ance, leadership, and group structure. The discus- sion suggests a number of provocative proposi- tions, such a s "social attraction may foster organizational cohesion, and thereby identifica- tion and adherence to organizational norms; con- versely, interpersonal attraction may fragment the organization and disrupt identification and adher- ence to norms" (p. 126); "organizational identifica- tion may hinder endorsement of effective leaders" (p. 130); and "harmonious relations among sub- groups . . . are often best achieved by simulta-

2000 Albeit, Ashfoith, and Dutton 17

neous recognition of subgroup and organizational identity" (p. 132). In short, the depersonalization of the self has intriguing implications for a variety of organizational phenomena.

THE IDENTITY DIALOGUES

The authors have approached the extension task in the dialogues in distinctly different ways. Some look across the articles and find commonal- ties, as do Pratt and Foreman, in their account of the "beauty" and "barriers" to organizational identity theories. Others take a stand about the most pressing need for theoretical development. Gioia, Schultz, and Corley assert that it is the concept of organizational identity that requires deeper consideration, whereas Scott and Lane fo- cus on the "stickiness" of organizational identity.

Some authors use the dialogue format to cat- egorize the six-article set. Brickson does this by classifying the articles by their prescriptive ver- sus descriptive tones and by their level of anal- ysis (e.g., more micro or macro in orientation).

Finally, some authors use the dialogues to rein- terpret others' articles through an extension of the authors' core premise. Hogg and Terry do this, as they reinterpret how the other authors' ideas could be elaborated through a social identity lens. Brown and Starkey also take this stance in surfac- ing the psychodynamic processes underlying core ideas in the other articles.

CONCLUSION

The identity articles and dialogues touch on a wealth of provocative issues: multilevel

identities (personal, interpersonal, and collec- tive) and the parallels in identity dynamics among levels; identities as negotiated or so- cially constructed phenomena; multiple iden- tities and the dynamics among identities; identities as political arenas; identities as en- during versus changeable qualities; identities as spontaneous and emergent versus planned and managed phenomena; identity and demo- graphic diversity; identities as flashpoints for psychodynamic processes; identification as a basis for group phenomena; and so on. As the variety of topics indicates, identity and iden- tification are, indeed, generative constructs. It is our hope that the articles and dialogues in the special topic forum will inspire organiza- tional scholars to continue to explore the rich and challenging nuances of identity and iden- tification in organizational life.

REFERENCES Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. 1985. Organizational identity. In

L. L., Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organ- izational behavior, vol. 7: 263-295. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Arthur. M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.). 1996. The bound- aryless career: A new employment principle /or a new organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press.

Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. 1996. Who is this "we"?: Levels of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 71: 83-93.

Gergen, K. J. 1991. The saturated sell: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.

Stuart Albert is an associate professor in the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. He received his Ph.D. in social psychology from Ohio State University. In addition to continuing interest in the subject of hybrid organizational identity, his current work focuses on the problem of timing—specifically, the question of what leads individuals to believe that the moment for action has arrived.

Blake E. Ashforth is a professor of management at Arizona State University. He received his Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the University of Toronto. His research interests include identity and identification, socialization and newcomer work adjustment, the dysfunctions of organizational structures and processes, and the links among individual-, group-, and organization-level phenomena.

Jane E. Dutton is the William Russell Kelly Professor of Business Administration at the University of Michigan Business School. She received her Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Northwestern University. Her research passions include trying to un- derstand how people are valued and devalued at work, how feelings-in-interaction are created and how they matter, and how people provide healing in the workplace.