argument and demonstrate

http://mcq.sagepub.com

Management Communication Quarterly

DOI: 10.1177/0893318902161001 2002; 16; 5 Management Communication Quarterly

Timothy Kuhn and Natalie Nelson Reengineering Identity: A Case Study of Multiplicity and Duality in Organizational Identification

http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/1/5 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Management Communication Quarterly Additional services and information for

http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://mcq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/16/1/5 Citations

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY /AUGUST 2002Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLEIDENTIFICATIONS

REENGINEERING IDENTITY

A Case Study of Multiplicity and Duality in

Organizational Identification

TIMOTHY KUHN NATALIE NELSON

University of Colorado at Boulder

5

AUTHORS’NOTE: The authors are grateful for the partici- pation and patience of the Development and Project Coordi- nation members as well as the input of Steve Corman, Kevin Dooley, Bob McPhee, Angela Trethewey, Craig Scott, and Teri Ward. This article benefited significantly from the thoughtful comments of the editor and three anonymous reviewers.

“Organizational identification

should not be

seen as simply a

top-down shaping

of the individual;

it is also a

process of

shaping the very

organizational

identities to

which members

attach.”

Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 1, August 2002 5-38 © 2002 Sage Publications

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Recent theoretical work in organizational identification has devel- opedtwothemes:thatmembersofcomplexorganizationshavemul- tiple social groups with which they identify and that acts displaying members’identificationscontributetotheconstructionofcollective identities.Usingamultimethodologicalandlongitudinalapproach, this case study of a planned organizational change found that (a) members central in the communication network identified similarly across four social groups, whereas others concentrated on subsets of these identities; (b) members’ use of discursive resources to explain a contentious event both displayed structured interests and madeclaimsonthecollective’sidentity;and(c)members’preferred identity structures were more local than distant following the event. Thesefindingscontributetoscholarshipandpracticebyillustrating themultiplicityanddualityofidentification,byintroducingaproce- dure to assess multiple identity structures simultaneously, and by calling attention to the influence of activity patterns in shaping identities, particularly during planned change.

O ne way people establish identities and evaluate self-worthis by making judgments about the formal organizations with which they affiliate (Tyler, 1999). Recognition of these affilia- tions has led scholars to investigate the consequences of those con- nections for both the individuals and their organizations. For instance, Ahrne’s (1994) theory of social organizations posits that becoming an organizational affiliate has two important implica- tions.First, it leadstocooperationbetweenindividualswhodepend oneachotheroverspaceandtime,becauserecognizinganotherasa valid affiliate generates interpersonal trust. Second, affiliation facilitates the development of what Ahrne terms the organizational centaur, “the embodiment of both actions on behalf of organiza- tions and actions on behalf of the natural person; it is part organiza- tion, part human” (p. 28). Organizational communication scholars have picked up on these issues, discussing the causes and conse- quences of organizational affiliations that become self-referential or self-defining (Pratt, 1998). In much of this work, organizational identification refers to “the

degree to which a person defines him or herself as having the same attributes that he or she believes define the organization” (Dutton,

6 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994, p. 239) and is discernible when indi- viduals make decisions they perceive to be in the best interest of the organization(Tompkins&Cheney,1985).Thisconceptionofiden- tification suggests that identification is largely cognitive, because individuals may identify with organizations in the absence of inter- personalcontact(Glynn,1998).Bywayofcontrast,arecentcontri- bution to thinking on identification explores its inherently commu- nicative nature. Scott, Corman, and Cheney’s (1998) structurational theory of identification has challenged researchers to recognize the complex, interactive nature of organizational identification in its attention to two issues: duality and multiplicity. First, following Giddens (1984, 1991), they assert that organizational identification can be profitably conceptualized as a duality, in which structures (i.e., rules and resources) are both medium and outcome of actions composing a system (i.e., reproduced relations between actors). Identification, thus, refers to communicative acts illustrative of one’s attachment to one or more identity structures. These acts simultaneouslydrawonandcontributetosetsofindividualandcol- lective rules and resources. From the duality perspective, identity and identification are not

equivalent. An identity is structural in the sense that it is medium and outcome of discursive acts; it is a source from which individu- als construct expressions of self based on collectively generated identity types, such as “social worker,” “mother,” or “attorney.” Identitiessuchastheseexistnotmerelyinthecognitionsofindivid- uals but are also properties of social structures. Identification, how- ever, is a discursive process implicating, shaping, expressing, and transforming identity structures that occurs during coparticipation in coordinated (i.e., organizational) activity. Behaviors performed by social workers, mothers, and attorneys draw upon identity struc- tures in producing sensible activity; in so doing, these acts not only build individual identities but also produce, reproduce, and/or transform the very identity structures on which they are based. Identities, then, are both sources of, and targets for, identifications. From this duality perspective, organizational identification should notbeseenassimplyatop-downshapingoftheindividual; it isalso a process of shaping the very organizational identity structures to which members attach.

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 7

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Second, Scott et al. (1998) hold that examinations of the process of identification should consider the multiple identities of which individuals and collectives are composed. The theorist on whom much identification research is based, Kenneth Burke (1937), maintained that our individual sense of self is actually a “combina- tion of partially conflicting corporate ‘we’s’” (p. 264). In organiza- tional life there are many possible identity structures (e.g., ethnic- ity, profession, religion, gender, region, work team, or organization), which are made more or less salient for individuals by particular activities (Elsbach, 1999; Scott et al., 1998). At the same time, it is likely that an individual will have a preferred identity structure across a variety of situations, though this primary structure is also subject to change. Several researchers have examined how individ- uals manage multiple identification claims (Barker & Tompkins, 1994;Gossett,2000;Russo,1998;Scott,1997;Scott&Timmerman, 1999), demonstrating that individuals have multiple identity struc- tures on which they draw during activity coordination (Weick, 1995). Thestudyreportedhererepresentsanattempttocontributetothe

line of research taking this more complex perspective on the pro- cess of identification. Specifically, our interest is in investigating the communicative factors influencing choices among identity structures as well as with understanding how individuals manage multiple structures over time, particularly during organizational activitiesthatstrainortestmemberattachments.Inturn,wearealso interested in the ways that members’ identification choices shape those identity structures. This is an important topic not only because it may aid in refining Scott et al.’s (1998) theory but also because thereisaneedtoexpandourunderstandingof(a)howpeoplenego- tiate the multiple identification demands in their organizational lives, and (b) how identification unfolds over time. Such topics are importantbecause,asGlynn(1998)noted,mostexistingidentifica- tion research is “focused more on a static sense of being identified rather than becoming identified” (p. 238). To investigate these issues we first review research on the factors that facilitate the social influences contributing to identification. Following this is a section on multiple identity structures and the discursive resources organizational members use in managing activity-related conflicts that influence their valued identities. Next, our case study method-

8 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

ology and tools are discussed; then comes a description of our results. The article concludes with a discussion of these findings in terms of theory and practice.

IDENTIFICATION AND COMMUNICATION NETWORKS

Scott et al. (1998) suggested that identification choices are cou- pled with situated organizational activity; consequently, a first step in understanding how identification is generated and modified is to examine the individual’s position in flows of organizational activ- ity. Because the literature on communication networks evinces a rich history of examining the effects of an individual’s surrounding relationships on his or her cognitions and behavior, a network per- spective is appropriate for this task. Members’ attitudes regarding their organization are not created in a vacuum; they are formed and changed primarily through interactions with others (Erickson, 1988). Over time these relationships can lead to attitude similarity among group members (Rentsch, 1990; Rice & Aydin, 1991; Walker, 1985). A key claim of many network studies is that attitude conver-

gence is the result of frequent interpersonal contact, reflecting a “contagion” mechanism at work (Monge & Contractor, 2001). Othershaveadvancedsimilarargumentsaboutnetworks’effectson individuals’ identifications with their organizations. For instance, Gartrell (1987) showed that personal ties are important sources of information for identity construction, and Bullis and Bach (1991) found that those whose interactions involve multiple forms of con- tent tend to alter identifications in similar ways. This finding aligns with a study by Hartman and Johnson (1989), who showed that people who shared direct communication links were similar in organizational commitment,

1 mediated by message content. From these studies, we may conclude that members’organizational iden- tifications are shaped by both their frequent communication part- ners and the content of those interactions. Advancing knowledge about the relationships between identifi-

cation and communication networks requires attention to individu- als’ network positions or roles. Along this line, Andrews, Basler,

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 9

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

andColler(1999)proposedthatactorswhoplayacentralroleinthe network—those connected to many others, or those through whom many messages flow (Wasserman & Faust, 1994)—will identify more strongly with organizations than peripheral actors, because central actors are more likely to adopt collective sense-making myths (Andrews et al., 1999) and thought patterns. This presents a unique perspective on networks’ influence on identification, sug- gesting that position in the network shapes identification more than, or in addition to, dyadic contact. Although there is some evi- dence that one’s position affects the strength of identification (Dutton et al., 1994), the case is less clear when considering the relationshipsbetweennetworkroleandidentificationwithmultiple structures. We aim to expand this research theme not only to include net-

workpositionbutalsotoaddressthewaysactorsnegotiatemultiple identifications. If network connections influence attitudes, we would expect network position to affect both actors’conceptions of particular identity structures as well as the choices they make in “distributing” identifications across those structures. One way to conceive of such a distribution is to consider a member’s profile of identificationacrossseveralidentities,fromwhichmeasuresofdis- persion can be assessed (Nunnally, 1967). In essence, dispersion is the standard deviation of a set of scores composing a profile, and a high standard deviation suggests that the scores are likely to differ dramatically from one another. For instance, given four identity structures from which to choose, a high degree of dispersion is likely to occur when one identifies strongly with only one or two identities. In contrast, a low standard deviation would indicate rela- tively similar scores across the four identities. Of course, certain structureswithintheprofilearepronetobemoresalient thanothers in particular situations (Scott, 1997) such that the distribution is subject to change over time. An investigation of the distribution of identifications may be a useful addition to our understanding of the allocation of individuals’ identification resources, because it can provide information on the degree of “pull” that particular identity structures have on individuals in particular situations. Drawing on actors’ network centrality and distribution of their

identifications, thisstudyaimstoprovideanunderstandingofposi- tional influences on the development of identification with multi-

10 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

ple identity structures. Because investigating this topic promises to increase and expand understanding of organizational identifica- tion, we advance the following:

Research Question 1: What is the relationship between communica- tion network centrality and distribution of identification profiles over time?

IDENTIFICATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

Although individuals may distribute their identification across several structures, the multiple identities available for appropria- tion may also overlap, leading to either reinforcements or contra- dictions when these identities are drawn upon in action (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Scott et al., 1998). When organizational activity involves conflict that is tied to the individual’s self-concept, mem- bers may adjust their identifications in response. In the terms of Scott et al.’s (1998) identification theory, in which social contexts and events activate particular identities, some activities (such as conflict) lead members to choose among valued identities. In many organizational settings, conflict between groups is both

common and integral to the construction of a collective identity:

When an organization is characterized by multiprofessionality (Abbott, 1991) and multiplicity in identity, intergroup conflict often emerges; claims and counterclaims over the organization’s identity are made inaneffort tolegitimatecertaingroupsoverothers, therebydefining firmcapabilitiesinwaysthatadvantagethem.(Glynn,2000,p.287)

Insituationsofintergroupconflict,participants’actionscanbeseen as manifesting a valued identity. There is, however, little under- standing of how such choices, and the discursive moves that make them manifest, are actually accomplished (Tompkins & Cheney, 1983). One perspective on intergroup conflict and identification can be

found in social identity theory (SIT) (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and its extension, self-categorization theory (SCT) (Hogg, 1996). This view claims that individuals create social categories for both in-

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 11

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

groups and out-groups and that stereotypical attributes of groups are represented in individuals’ minds by prototypes: “fuzzy sets that capture the context-dependent features of group membership” (Hogg & Terry, 2000, p. 123). In cases of intergroup conflict, iden- tification with a given collective is made more likely because mem- bers are motivated to create a positive self-concept by both enhanc- ing the status of their own group by developing positive prototypes and by derogating the status of other groups through negative pro- totypes. Although prototypes are cognitive constructs in SIT and SCT, thoughts about in- and out-groups are likely to be expressed discursively in cases of manifest conflict. Although his study neither employs SIT nor considers multiple

identity structures, Ruud (1995) provided an example of how iden- tities are discursively expressed through an ethnographic analysis of a conflict within a regional symphony. His study locates ways that members of three groups (musicians, board members, and administrators) categorized both themselves and the other groups and examines how those categorizations created semantic dimen- sions marked by sets of bipolar terms. A significant conflict led members of each group to invoke discourses that enabled in-group identification and solidarity, as well as discourses that created sym- bolicseparations,makingsmoothorganizationalfunctioningimpos- sible.AsRuudmadeclear,members’responsestointraorganizational conflict are multilayered discursive acts that draw on and shape both individual and collective identities. Consequently, to more fully understand identification with multiple structures during con- flict,attentionmustshift tothediscursiveresourcesmembersusein navigating such situations. We use the notion of a discursive resource to signify that how

members talk about identity is much more than a simple means of expressing one’s prototype. Similar to Barker’s (1999) use of the term “discursive formation,” a discursive resource is a unique way of talking about a phenomenon, a socially constructed frame drawn from a culture or subculture that enables members to assign mean- ing to (and thus guide and direct) both their own and others’activ- ity. This concept thus has much in common with Giddens’s (1984) concept of interpretative schemes: modes of typification stored within members’stocks of knowledge and implicated in communi- cative action. Discursive resources are thus central to system

12 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

structuration and should be manifest in members’talk about salient organizationalevents,becausesubgroupsdevelopsharedlinguistic repertoires for negotiating membership and regulating activity (Wenger, 1998). An example of a discursive resource is the account an actor gives for engaging in work that is socially tainted (Ashforth&Kreiner,1999),whichcanbothexpressanindividual’s connection with the job and a group’s method for defending its identity. A further example could be the stories members tell while jointly working through problems; such stories, as Orr (1990) explained, simultaneously display membership in a community, exhibit competence, and construct group memory and identity. Particularly when groups within an organization clash over

activitiesthatinvolvevaluedidentities,discursiveresourcesemployed in making sense of the tensions are likely to display and influence identity structures, identification, and power relations in the sys- tem.Hence,examiningthecontentofdiscursiveresourcesemployed in response to the sort of conflict mentioned above holds the poten- tial toshedlightonthedualityofidentificationasmembersmanage the multiple identities activated by organizational events that place identitystructuresinopposition.Weemploythisnotionofadiscur- sive resource (as opposed to the more conventional concepts of accounts or explanations) to draw attention to the claim that mem- bers’discoursebothexpressesindividualidentityandtellsussome- thing valuable about collective identity. This leads to the following research questions:

Research Question 2a: What are the contents of the discursive resources organization members use in managing events that involve tensions between identity structures?

Research Question 2b: To what extent are organization members’uses ofparticulardiscursiveresourcesrelatedtoworkgroupmembership?

Asmentionedabove, thepresenceofmultipleidentitystructures suggests that identities may be hierarchically organized such that individualswillfavoraprimarystructureinmostsituations, though other identities will be available for expression and appropriation given situational demands (Scott et al., 1998). Modifications in activities or types of social influence would be expected to alter an individual’s preferred identity structure; conflicts that draw on val-

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 13

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

ued identities would also be likely to affect which structures mem- bers choose as primary to their identities. Along these lines, SIT and SCT would predict that intergroup conflict leads to stronger identification within a core group because members would cohere in the face of a threat. What occurs when members have multiple identities to negotiate (and multiple social groups to consider) is less clear, however. Therefore, we pose the following research question:

Research Question 3: In what ways do events involving tensions between identity structures affect organization members’choice of primary structure?

METHOD

The research questions posed above call for a longitudinal and multimethodologicalstudyofidentification,assuggestedbyCheney (1991).Suchastudymustnotonlyassessmembers’networkprom- inence, identification profile, and preferred structure but must also observe an organizational event—and members’ sense making in reference to it—that implicates multiple identities. Consequently, case study research is an appropriate approach, as it enables an investigation of the process of identification and identity formation over time, providing understandings of both unique and common events (Yin, 1993). Toward this end, this section describes the set- ting for the case study and the multiple methods used.

RESEARCH SETTING

Development and Project Coordination (DPC) is a division within a municipal government organization that guides, approves, and supervises commercial and residential development. The pro- cess for DPC’s work includes (a) assessing a proposed develop- ment for conformance with a variety of criteria, (b) notifying the surrounding community of a developer’s plans, and (c) presenting the application to a governing body such as the city council for

14 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

approval or denial. Thus, as in many organizations, DPC’s activi- ties must respond to rigorous internal standards as well as rigorous external scrutiny. DPCiscomposedof 24membersdividedintofourworkgroups.

First are the project coordinators (PCs), 7 employees who are the primarypointofcontactforapplicantsandwhocoordinateapplica- tion review with other divisions. PCs are granted a level of owner- ship over the applications that come in for review and often refer to a planned development—as well as those long since completed— as “their” case. Second are the technical assistants (TAs), 8 mem- bers who review each application for compliance with ordinance, precedent, and engineering matters, resulting in the writing of stip- ulations for changes in proposals. TAs have relatively little interac- tion with applicants, citizens, or members of other city units; this sort of contact is usually handled by PCs. Thefirsttwoworkgroupsarethemostcloselyinvolvedwithoper-

ational matters in DPC’s routine work, and most have development- related academic degrees. The other two groups are more involved with administrative and support tasks. The third group is the plan- ning assistants (PAs), 5 members who create agendas for public hearings and compile packets that summarize applications for the DPC director and city council members. Finally, the administrative (AD) group consists of 4 members who both support and direct the action of others—the director, a receptionist, and two special pro- jects employees. Of these only the director has a relevant academic background and experience in DPC’s routine work.

Altering the application review process. In June 1998, a new director was appointed to lead DPC. Shortly after “Roy” assumed this position, he and a small group of hand-picked members began analyzingDPC’sapplicationreviewprocess,seekingwaystoincrease efficiency. One of the members of this team, aware of the first author’s scholarly interests, invited him to study the change they were planning. After the study met with the entire division’s approval, this member became the primary informant and source for conducting member checks. In November 1998, Roy presented the revised model of DPC’s

application review process (termed a “reengineering,” hence the reference in our title). Although the changes touched all opera-

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 15

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

tional areas in DPC, they were neither dramatic nor discontinuous (Nadler, Shaw, Walton, & Associates, 1995) but did alter power relationships between work groups in ways unanticipated before implementation. The reengineering resulted in more scrutiny of eachapplicationbyallmembersandconferredmorepoweronTAs, as they were given several opportunities to analyze each applica- tion. (Previously, TAs usually saw each application only once.) At the same time, the reengineering removed a degree of control in the process from PCs.

“Emotional involvement” conflict. At a division-wide retreat to discuss the reengineering in April 1999, an unplanned discussion of the increased influence of TAs occurred, displaying members’ differing perspectives on both application review and DPC’s col- lective identity. As DPC began to discuss the reengineering’s prog- ress, “Karl” (a PC) gained the floor and asserted that “[TAs] get too emotionally involved” in application review. He declared that TAs were inflexible and applied different quality standards to applica- tions based on personal criteria. This accusation set off a lengthy opposition in the meeting, airing issues that were previously latent, displaying a lack of smooth coordination between work groups. This is the sort of contentious issue that can challenge members’ identification with the division, as well as the identity DPC had constructed for itself (Glynn, 2000). At the same time, Karl’s claim can be seen as an attempt to alter DPC’s collective identity by influ- encing others’ task conceptions. It was in this setting that the first author collected data through

questionnaires, semistructured interviews, and observations over 9 months, providing the sort of prolonged engagement required for credible research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). There were two waves of data collection for questionnaires: one 2 months after the begin- ning of the reengineering and another approximately 6 months later. The interviews reported here were conducted approximately 6 months after the study’s beginning, averaged an hour in length, and took place in locations that offered privacy. This approach allowed the pursuit of topics relevant to work in DPC and, there- fore, provided an opportunity for members to both make multiple identities manifest and to make sense of ongoing organizational activity. Observations took place throughout the project in public

16 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

and private meetings, between scheduled interviews, and at social events. Observations form the basis of our portrayal of the focal “emotional involvement” event drawn from the first author’s field notes and consultations with the primary informant.

INSTRUMENTATION

Identification profile. We used a version of Cheney’s (1983) organizational identification questionnaire (OIQ)2 borrowed from Scott’s (1997) study of multiple targets of identification. This ver- sion of the questionnaire assessed each individual’s identification with work group, division (i.e., DPC), organization (the city gov- ernment), and her or his profession or occupation. It consisted of four equivalent subscales of nine items for each identification structure, using a 5-point Likert-type scale. These items were mixed within the questionnaire and several items were reversed to guard against response set bias. These four identity structures were chosen because they facilitate comparison with existing research (e.g., Barker & Tompkins, 1994; Scott, 1997) but also because the four structures were compatible in the setting. There were no clear conflicts between these structures, yet members’interpretations of organizational events seemed to alter their meanings for structures in important ways, as is displayed below. ThemodifiedOIQwasadministeredtoDPCmembersatmonthly

division meetings in January and July 1999, during which time was allotted for its completion (members also had the opportunity to complete it at their leisure). This mode of administration was cho- sen to allow us to (a) decrease the possibility of a Hawthorne effect because members would have been familiar with the researcher for several months prior to the first administration, (b) increase our response rate among a relatively small set of individuals (92% at Time 1; 83% at Time 2), and (c) to protect against the possibility of a sensitization effect by leaving 6 months between administrations. An assessment of the reliability of each subscale for both adminis- trations produced satisfactory results. At time one, Cronbach’s alpha was sufficient for work group (.86), division (.80), organiza- tion (.88), and profession or occupation (.85). Likewise, in the sec- ond administration, the four subscales were reliable: work group

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 17

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

(.89), division (.79), organization (.86), and profession or occupa- tion (.86). From each member we computed an average score across the

nine questions of each subscale. This allowed two relevant mea- surements. First was a classification of each individual’s primary identity structure, located by simply finding the largest mean among the four structures. Second was an assessment of the disper- sion of each individual’s identification profile, arrived at through computation of the standard deviation of average scores across all four identity structures at each point in time, as directed by Nunnally (1967). This measure, as suggested above, serves as an index of the degree of distribution or spread of identification across the four structures. Thus, an individual with a high level of dispersion was likely to identify strongly with one or two structures (and less strongly with the others), whereas an individual with a low level of dispersion was likely to identify to a similar degree with several structures.

Communication network centrality. This study employed a “cog- nitive social structures” approach to communication networks pio- neered by Krackhardt (1987) and used more recently by Casciaro (1998) and Heald, Contractor, Koehly, and Wasserman (1998). The purpose of this technique is to obtain a description of DPC’s collec- tive task structure from which an index of network centrality may be derived. In this approach, each participant is asked to report his or her understanding of the communication links of other people. The argument that self-reports of communication with others bear no useful resemblance to actual communication, or the “accuracy problem,” has been vexing for researchers who had long assumed that reported networks are analogous to actual behavior (Bernard, Killworth, & Sailer, 1982). Our approach is to follow those who seek to shift the ground of the debate by reframing self-reports as cognitive reconstructions of behavior that are meaningful in their ownrightandhaveveryrealconsequences(Corman,1990;Corman& Bradford, 1993; Freeman, 1992). Thus, a cognitive social structure technique does not capture actual behavior but rather tells us about the collective cognitive structure members draw upon to accom- plish activity (Corman & Scott, 1994).

18 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Theinstrumentusedtoassesstheperceivedtaskcommunication network consisted of a square symmetric matrix with all DPC members listed on the margins. Respondents rated the amount of time each combination of people spent communicating (defined as “face-to-face conversations, telephone contact, e-mail, fax, memo- randa, etc.”) about tasks in the previous 2-week period. Task-based communication was selected because Ibarra and Andrews (1993) found that the importance of centrality in social influence is based on communication content such that instrumental ties are more influential than affective ties. In each cell of the matrix, the respon- dent reported the amount of time (rated on a 0-to-5 scale) he or she perceived each pair communicated. Following Krackhardt (1987), all completed matrices (n = 18 in Time 1; n = 17 in Time 2) were then aggregated; that is, each cell entry was averaged across respondents.Thisprocedureallowedtheretentionoftherichnessin a valued assessment of each possible pair’s relationship (between 0 and 5), rather than a binary measurement as in most social network research. This technique enabled a unique measure of individuals’ perceived centrality. Freeman (1979) presented three versions of centrality for any

node in a network: (a) degree, or the number of other nodes con- nected to the focal node; (b) closeness, or the lengths to which a nodemustgotobeconnectedwithanother(e.g.,pathsofcommuni- cation); and (c) betweenness, the degree to which a focal node lies onpathsconnectingothernodes.Thesemeasuresallassumethatan efficiency rule operates in communication networks: that the short- est path between actors is the one most likely to be used for interac- tion. In many complex organizations, however, this assumption is untenable. Stephenson and Zelen (1989) proposed an alternative calledinformationcentrality,whichtakesintoaccounttheinforma- tion contained in all possible paths between actors based on the strength of connection. Because we are concerned with position- based influence that creates, maintains, and alters organizational identification, this is a superior choice for assessing the perceived centrality of actors in a cognitive social structure.

Discursive resources to explain an identity-oriented conflict. Twenty-three moderately structured interviews were conducted

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 19

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

withDPCmembers(1memberwasunavailable)toelicitdiscursive resources related to the aforementioned conflict. Specifically, inter- vieweeswereaskedtorecall theeventandtointerpretthetermemo- tional involvement. Most members discussed this as an outcome of the tension between PCs and TAs, so the line of questioning addi- tionally sought to understand the causes and consequences of this conflict. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. From

these transcripts we employed an inductive content analysis tech- nique to ascertain the discursive resources embedded in members’ explanations of the event (which often touched on the conflicts betweenTAsandPCsinroutineapplicationprocessing).Todothis, four steps were necessary. First, we assembled all responses to the questioning about the emotional involvement conflict in a master document.Second,thetwoauthorsindependentlyreadtheresponses and generated preliminary response categories. Third, we met to compare categories and jointly analyze each response, exploring the latent meanings in the interviewees’ comments. This process resulted in a set of four exhaustive and mutually exclusive catego- ries, discussed below, that were initially created from individual readings but through negotiation became the unique product of dis- cussionanddebate.Fourth,wecodedeachresponseindependently, then met a final time to compare results, resolve disputes, and gen- erate category descriptions. This sort of inductive process is appro- priate in the present case because (a) there was little previous knowledge of the range of possible responses, making a predefined content scheme impracticable, and (b) our intention was to capture thelatentmeaningsregardingtheconflictandDPCidentitypresent in the discourse, which required knowledgeable interpretation to enable analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This process produced the discursive resources that fueled and supported the findings below.

RESULTS

The first research question asked about the relationship between a member’s centrality in the perceived communication network

20 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

(the cognitive social structure) and the distribution of his or her identification profile among the various identity structures. At two points in time we assessed DPCs’ perceived communication net- work and individuals’ information centrality within that network; we also computed the dispersion of each member’s scores across the four structures in our version of the OIQ. Important to note here are the relatively high scores on each of the four subscales of the OIQ across work groups. The mean scores for each identity fell between 3.71 and 4.33 on a 5-point scale, indicating generally strong identifications with each of the four structures. We computed a Pearson’s correlation between perceived net-

work centrality and dispersion of identifications and found a weak negative relationship in the first time period: r = –.281, p = .22, n = 21. In the second time period the relationship was slightly stronger: r = –.342, p = .14, n = 20. The data for these correlations are dis- played in Table 1. Important to recognize here are the small sample and the intention of the study. Correlation statistics are notoriously influenced by sample size such that the associations shown here would have achieved statistical significance given a larger sample.3

Atthesametime,theintentionofthepresenttestisnottomakegen- eralizationsaboutabroaderpopulation(thusDPCwasnotsampled from a population) but to support claims about a single case. Table 1 also shows members’ centrality rankings, facilitating

understanding of this association. Given these results it is evident that DPC members who were more central in the perceived com- munication network tended to have a lower degree of dispersion in identification profiles. In other words, those who were perceived to communicate with many other members about tasks were more likely to identify with several identity structures relatively strongly (i.e., their identifications were distributed relatively equally across the four structures). In contrast, those who were less central in the network were more likely to choose a smaller set of structures with which to express their identifications. The lack of significant change over the two time periods suggests that this is a relatively stable relationship, even during DPC’s reengineering.

4

Research Questions 2a and 2b focused on members’expressions of discursive resources in making sense of the emotional involve- ment conflict between the PCs and TAs. Using the inductive con- tent analysis described above, we derived four categories of discur-

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 21

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

sive resources from interview transcripts: PC disrespect, superior vision, role definition, and other, as described below. Table 1 lists the resource employed by each DPC employee. The first category, PC disrespect, is represented by three TA

responses that revealed exasperation at PCs’apparent disregard for TAs as professionals. These 3 TAs characterized PCs’ability to cir- cumvent the system (and the TAs’ review) as an abuse of PCs’

22 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

TABLE 1: Development and Project Coordination (DPC) Members’ Network Cen- trality, Identifications, and Discursive Resources

Perceived Perceived Network Network Centrality Profile Primary Centrality Profile Primary Discursive & Rank Dispersion Structure & Rank Dispersion Structure Resource (t1) (t1) (t1) (t2) (t2) (t2) Category

AD1 26.28 (1) .80 Div 20.44 (5) .85 Wkgp 3 AD2 17.26 (23) .25 Org 15.91 (22) — — 2 AD3 21.73 (16) .47 Wkgp 15.52 (23) .47 Wkgp 3 AD4 20.20 (20) .40 Div 16.74 (19) .96 Wkgp 3 PA1 24.91 (10) .31 Div 19.75 (10) .14 Wkgp 3 PA2 20.40 (19) .53 Org 16.01 (21) .46 Org 4 PA3 24.97 (9) .15 Wkgp 19.54 (11) .26 Wkgp 3 PA4 25.00 (8) — — 19.98 (8) .55 Org 3 PA5 20.09 (21) .82 Wkgp 16.50 (20) 1.02 Wkgp 3 PC1 26.21 (2) .10 Wkgp 21.83 (1) .25 Org 2 PC2 26.05 (3) .25 Wkgp-Div 21.21 (3) .12 Wkgp 4 PC3 24.67 (11) — Wkgp-Div-Org 20.33 (7) — Wkgp 2 PC4 21.25 (17) .26 Div 18.74 (15) .06 Prf 2 PC5 25.09 (7) .42 Wkgp 19.91 (9) .24 Wkgp 2 PC6 16.87 (24) .82 Wkgp 19.53 (12) — — 2 PC7 25.39 (5) .57 Wkgp 21.18 (4) .48 Div 3 TA1 25.96 (4) .26 Div 21.47 (2) .12 Wkgp 3 TA2 23.42 (15) .22 Wkgp-Org 17.91 (17) .09 Wkgp 1 TA3 19.38 (22) .17 Prf 16.94 (18) .19 Wkgp 3 TA4 20.48 (18) .28 Wkgp 18.28 (16) .36 Wkgp 3 TA5 25.13 (6) .22 Wkgp 20.4 (6) .32 Wkgp 1 TA6 24.46 (12) — — 18.81 (14) — — 1 TA7 23.50 (14) .16 Org 19.23 (13) .08 Wkgp 3 TA8 23.97 (13) — — 4.05 (24) — — —

NOTE: t1 = Time 1; t2 = Time 2; AD = administrative; PA = planning assistant; PC = project coordinator; TA = technical assistant; Wkgp = work group; Div = division (DPC); Org = organization (city government); Prf = Profession or occupation. Discursive resource catego- ries are 1 = PC disrespect; 2 = superior vision; 3 = role definition; and 4 = other.

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

greater hierarchical authority within DPC. Illustrative of this cate- gory is one TA’s remark:

I’ve been told that [the ordinance] is what I’m supposed to enforce, andwhenItrytowritestips[stipulations]todothat, theygetdeleted because “we” don’t want to talk about that, for some strange rea- sons, or, “No, no, that makes it look bad.” Then it’s like, “Well, why am I even here? What am I doing working here?” That’s where the frustration comes from.

Our second category, superior vision, illustrates the belief that PCs possess a more sophisticated and holistic conception of DPC’s purpose and activity, whereas others (e.g., TAs) are shortsighted or myopic. Five PCs and 1 AD expressed such a perspective. One PC stated,

If anybody is going to have to get emotional, it needs to be the coor- dinator. [PCs] are making a professional judgment call working on it, but they are working with a little more history on it, they’re work- ing with the neighbors, the council, the applicants, and they have a professional recommendation to make, but they personally need to deal with the applicant.

A second example of superior vision, from an AD, further illus- trates the sentiment that TAs do not adequately recognize the com- plexity of DPC’s tasks:

Thereisalotofgrayarea,andIthinkthe[TAs]tendtobemoretech- nical and black and white than the [PCs], who are there to get the best product for the city. And sometimes you have to bend the rules . . . and the [TAs] are more, “this is it,” because they don’t deal with the [city] council or the public.

In contrast to these first two categories, category three, role defi- nition, reveals a perspective less aligned with work group interests. Three TAs, 1 PC, 4 PAs, and 3 ADs described role definitions, role interactions, and work group identities within DPC as the source of conflict but noted that such a conflict served as an appropriate sys- tem of checks and balances. These 11 responses suggested that adherence to the proper role definitions and identities would ulti- mately alleviate the conflict, as seen in this statement by a TA:

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 23

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

But do [TAs] sometimes argue our points? Yeah, we’re not neces- sarily supposed to give way, kiss [PCs’] rings, and move on. [TAs] are supposed to address these issues, and they are important issues. Now, whose responsibility is the project, ultimately? It’s the [PC’s], I have no confusion about that. I think it’s really fortunate that they have a mature staff that takes care of those issues for them.

Accordingly,aPCremarkedontheproductivenatureoftheTA–PC conflict: “[The tension] is a good thing, to a certain degree. Other- wise you’ve got a stagnancy that we don’t want to have. If there were no tension, then nobody would be doing their job.” Our final category, other, represented by 1 PC and 1 PA, describes

comments or explanations for the conflict that did not fit within the previous categories. Although possibly influential in shaping the power relationships in DPC, this sort of viewpoint was not voiced by others and, therefore, qualifies only for this category. One such remark, by a PC, contends that TAs often have a personal vendetta against some applicants:

There are certain [TAs] that know applicants, and know their appli- cations, and know how they submit applications, because that’s what they do for a living, is review all their applications. [Those TAs] will sometimes take on those cases just so they can find prob- lems with them.

In sum, then, these four categories exhaustively represent mem- bers’ explanations of the opposition within DPC and display very different ways of making sense of the conflict. Thus,inresponsetoResearchQuestion2a,thediscursiveresources

members employed in explanations of this activity-related conflict all expressed a vision of the “proper” functioning and identity of DPC as a whole. On one hand, there were claims that change was needed in DPC because of problems regarding the use and abuse of the rules or that some members lacked vision. On the other hand, many argued that the existing power/status hierarchy was adequate and useful and that emotional involvement was a natural outcome of being a professional. In a sense, then, the event discussed by memberscanbeframedasaconflictoverDPC’sdivisionalidentity, as some participants argued for alterations in the power held by one or another work group, whereas others argued that DPC’s identity

24 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

was not a problem—that conflict of this sort was to be expected, andall thatwasrequiredtodealwiththeconflictwasasimpleclari- fication of work group roles. Consequently, conceiving of these statements as discursive resources is made clearer: Members drew uponcompetingdiscoursesorrepertoiresinaneffort toeitherbring about change in the system or to reproduce existing structures. Research Question 2b asks about the relationship between work

group membership and the use of discursive resources. As can be seeninTable1,mostmembersnotdirectlyinvolvedintheconflict— PAs and ADs, in particular—used discursive resources that rein- forced the status quo. That is, most developed interpretations of the tension between the work groups as a necessary part of application processing and believed that the difficulties caused by the conflict could be resolved by more closely adhering to existing formal role requirements. The categories calling for change and involving accusations of another group’s shortcomings, in contrast, were more explicitly partisan, as only TAs were in the first category (3 members)andallbutoneofthememberswhofell inthesecondcat- egorywerePCs(6members).Workgroupmembershipwasassoci- ated with actors’ understanding of this conflict and their notions abouttheproperidentityforthedivisionasawhole,particularlyfor TAs and PCs. Therefore, in response to Research Question 2b, there is evi-

dence that work group membership is moderately associated with use of discursive resources. In the present case, when members’ identifications were challenged by activity that implicated valued identities, members argued that either (a) the “other side” is the cause of the problem, and their own group’s practices (and thus identity) provide a solution, or (b) no substantive problem exists, requiring no change in one’s identification profile or DPC’s divi- sionalidentity.Additionally,whatisofinterestintheseresponsesis the neutrality expressed by most PAs and ADs, who were relatively uninvolvedinthePC–TAconflict,evidentinthediscursiveresources they employed. To pursue these results further and gain insight into the interplay

between multiple identity structures, we analyzed the relationship between members’categorized responses to the emotional involve- ment question and their scores on the identification questionnaire for work group and division structures, because these structures

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 25

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

seemmostrelevantintheconflict.First,asdisplayedinTable2,it is evident that those who used discursive resources in the first cate- gory, PC disrespect, declined in expressed identification with both the work group and the division. Because all 3 of these respondents were TAs, the reduction in identification could be the result of being accused of emotional involvement, and it is possible that this reduction is tied to their lack of power in altering the application- processing practices. Their level of expressed identification is still relatively high in the second round, yet a reduction is clearly pres- ent. Second, members in the second and third categories (superior vision and role definition) retained a high level of identification with both the work group and the division across the two rounds; in fact, there is scant evidence of movement in these scores at all. This couldreflectboththesenseofcontrolovertheprocesspossessedby PCs, as well as a general claim that the identity of DPC—as expressed through the relations between work groups developed during routine application processing—need not undergo change. These results extend the findings for Research Question 2b, as they display the connections between members’claims on DPC’s iden- tity and their own identification with its identity structures. The contrast between stability in the majority of identification scores and a reduction in only a few highlights the power differentials between work groups and the unlikely prospect of the changes impliedbythosewhoinvokedthePCdisrespectdiscursiveresource.

26 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

TABLE 2: Associations Between Discursive Resources and Identification with Work Group and Division

Time 1 Time 2

Identification Identification With Work Identification With Work Identification

Category of Group With Division Group With Division

Discursive Resource M SD M SD M SD M SD

PC disrespect (n = 3)a 4.65 .36 4.31 .62 4.45 .36 4.00 .71 Superior vision (n = 6)a 4.50 .74 4.31 .71 4.48 .28 4.31 .24 Role definition (n = 11)a 4.24 .27 4.16 .44 4.33 .59 4.15 .54 Other (n = 2)a 4.20 .42 4.25 .36 3.95 .78 4.00 .53

a. Respondents to the organizational identification questionnaire in the given content analy- sis category in each of the two rounds.

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Finally,ResearchQuestion3pursuesananalysisofthisidentity- orientedconflictfurtherbyinvestigatingtheprimaryidentitystruc- tures reported by members on the OIQ. Returning to Table 1, mem- bers’primary identity structures in the first round were distributed across the four structures: Twelve listed the work group as primary, 7 the division, 5 the organization, and 1 the profession (this list includes three ties). In the second round, however, more members listed their work group as primary (15), whereas fewer listed the division (only 1) and the organization (3). Examining these find- ings by work group displays an interesting shift. TAs, in particular, altered their primary identifications: At Time 1 TAs identified with severalstructures,butatTime2theyallexpressedaprimaryidenti- fication with the work group. Thus, although the TAs who employed PC disrespect discursive resources reduced the strength of their allocation of identification resources to the work group identity structure (see Table 2), this identity structure was preferred over all others among all TA members in the second time period. AD mem- bers were similar in that all identified most strongly with the work group structure in the second round. In contrast, 6 PCs identified moststronglywiththeworkgroupinthefirst timeperiodbutonly3 did so in the second. In response to Research Question 3, then, we conclude that DPC displayed an overall transition from Time 1—in which members identified with several of the four structures—to Time 2, in which members tended to concentrate their identifica- tion on work group structures. This finding, however, differed slightlybyworkgroupandwasnotdisplayedbyPCs.Thestrongest shift was toward the most local of the structures (work group) and away from the division. This finding provides further evidence of unanticipated change within DPC during the study. Although such changes cannot be unambiguously attributed to the force of the emotional involvement conflict, they align with the other findings in showing changes in DPC’s task conceptions, as well as in mem- bers’ identification choices, occasioned by this change. To summarize, this study attempts to (a) understand how mem-

bers negotiate multiple organizational identities and (b) illustrate how identification is a duality, meaning that members’ manifest identification acts simultaneously reveal individual identities and shape collective identity structures. Findings for Research Ques-

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 27

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

tion 1 showed that centrality in DPC’s perceived communication network was negatively related to identification profile dispersion, suggesting that those in prominent network positions allocated their identifications across several structures more uniformly than those less central in the network. The results for Research Question 2a supplement the investigation of multiple identification struc- tures by focusing the analysis on activity that brings these multiple identities into opposition while shaping collective identities. In turn, Research Question 2b shed light on the shaping of collective identity, showing that those who were most threatened by the con- flict tended to call for more substantial divisional change whereas those less affected generally reinforced DPC’s status quo identity. A final finding concerning the factors influencing choices among identity structures was provided by Research Question 3, which showed consolidation of primary identity structures as more members—particularly TAs—mentioned their work group as their preferred structure after the conflict. These findings cover new ground in the study of organizational identification with multiple structures, showing how DPC members allocate their identifica- tions,howtheseallocationschangeovertime,andhowindividuals’ identifications have implications for collective structures.

DISCUSSION

This study contributes to our understanding of the process of organizational identification in several potentially important ways. In this final section, we discuss contributions to identification research and practice as well as the limitations of the study.

IMPLICATIONS FOR IDENTIFICATION SCHOLARSHIP AND PRACTICE

A first contribution to theorizing from this study is to underscore the need to address activity-based factors shaping individuals’ identification choices. Here, network centrality and work group membership serve as markers for members’ activity patterns and

28 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

structured interests; attending to such factors presents a shift from analyses of self-categorizations (Hogg, 1996) and forms of content in communication links (Bullis & Bach, 1991) that do not examine the activities around which communication patterns emerge. The knowledge individuals gain through coparticipation in activity can be seen as a resource shaping their distributions of resources to manage multiple identities (Scott et al., 1998); in this study, activity- based knowledge derived from interactions both within DPC (as assessed by the communication network measure) and outside DPC (as suggested by tasks performed by members of each work group). As shown in Table 1, those in more central network positions—generally, PCs and ADs—tended to identify with all four identity structures in a similar manner. Not coincidentally, these members were also more instrumental in completing tasks outside DPC. For instance, our observational data indicate that PCs’routine work provided everyday exposure to all four identifi- cation structures, suggesting that they could more readily conceive of the organization and the profession as identity structures when responding to the OIQ. In contrast, TAs and PAs tended to be lower in network centrality, and the nature of their routine work tended to restrict them to interactions within DPC. It is possible that these activity patterns restricted their knowledge about identity struc- tures other than the workgroup and division. This is a tentative explanation, however, because members were not asked to supply reasons behind their choices on the OIQ. Yet this explanation’s plausibility suggests that investigations of multiple identifications must consider situated activity (and the knowledge associated with it) when attempting to understand the choices actors make among valued identities. The study’s second main contribution to identification scholar-

shipisitsattentiontothedualityofidentification(or“identification modality”) discussed by Scott et al. (1998), which has rarely been examined empirically. Scott et al. propose that acts of identifica- tion, manifest in coordinated activity, express individuals’ attach- ments to identity structures. At the same time, these acts produce, reproduce, and transform those same (individual and collective) identity structures. Our study demonstrates this process through its analysis of members’ explanations of DPC’s emotional involve- ment conflict. The discursive resources used by members illustrate

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 29

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

how they coped with competing claims on the divisional identity; some responded by highlighting the negative characteristics of a workgroup,butmostexpressedanaffinityfortheexistingstructure ofthedivisionovertheclaimsofbothTAsandPCs.Theirdiscourse helps show how these members participated in the production of the targets of their identifications. The results for Research Ques- tions2aand2bdisplayhowonekeyevent,andmembers’responses to it, shaped both divisional and work group identities. Therefore, by framing members’ discourse and activity as constructing the very work groups and division with which they identify, we can understand why TAs’ identification with the division declined in thesecondround:TAswerenotonlyconstructedinthediscourseas the source of DPC’s problems, but they had little ability to control the application review process they supposedly disrupted. InGlynn’s(2000)studyofaconflictinasymphonyorchestrathe

organizational identity was the target of artisan-oriented claims made by musicians versus the fiscally oriented claims of the board of directors and management. The TA–PC opposition is similar in that each side’s claims were intended to shape the identity of the division as a whole. In the DPC case, however, the majority of DPC members—including most members of the other work groups— rejected both TAs’and PCs’claims for collective change. Respon- dents in this majority preferred the existing DPC structure, arguing that greater role definition and enforcement were all that was needed to resolve the conflict. Given these findings, significant, substantivechangeinsystemicpowerrelations(and,thus,inDPC’s identity) was unlikely, even during this reengineering, because the majority of members accepted and endorsed the status quo. Our findings illustrate how organizational members’ acts of

identification, framed as dualities, help create the multiple identity structuresonwhichtheysubsequentlydrawincoordinatedactivity. It shows how members participate in the production of identity structures before, during, and after a significant conflict and, there- fore, advances the study of identification from examining identifi- cation as a top-down process to include also an examination of identification as the creation of the very identity structures with which members identify (i.e., identification is simultaneously a bottom-upprocessofthestructurationofcollectiveidentities).This aligns with the literature on communities of practice, in which

30 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Wenger (1998) argued that it is “a mistaken dichotomy to wonder whether the unit of analysis in identity should be the community or theperson.Thefocusmustbeontheirmutualconstitution”(p.146). A third important finding for scholars concerns the changes in

members’ primary identity structures. The results for Research Question 3 show that members both consolidated identification choices within work groups (particularly TAs and ADs) and moved away from the division as a valued structure. One explanation for this shift can be found by framing identification as a basic human need. If identification is compensatory to division (Burke, 1950, p. 22), and if people seek to enhance self-esteem through proto- types that praise characteristics of in-groups and derogate out- groups (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), then the observation that TAs and ADs were more identified with their work group after the conflict is not surprising, because people often look to the most proximate structures for strong identifications (Barker & Tompkins, 1994; Bullis & Tompkins, 1989; Scott, 1997), and threats from external groups increase identification with one’s own group (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Additionally of interest here is the slightmoveawayfromthedivisionasadesirableidentitystructure. Scott et al. (1998) noted that multiple identification targets may be either congruent or conflicting depending on circumstance; it is possible that the emotional involvement conflict changed mem- bers’ definitions of the situation enough to bring these structures into a slight opposition. In short, the findings for Research Ques- tion 3 illustrate that understanding identification with multiple structures must consider not only the choices made between struc- tures but also the situational elements that alter profiles. A fourth contribution to scholarship is methodological, specifi-

cally, the use of the OIQ in investigating multiple identity struc- tures.Weusedameasureofprofiledispersionacrossthefourstruc- tures, enabling conclusions about how members’ distribution (vs. concentration) of identifications was associated with perceived networkposition,asexplainedabove.Profiletechniqueshaveother analytical possibilities, such as plotting individuals in a conceptual space (Nunnally, 1967), that may prove illuminating in future research on multiple identity structures. When combined with the inductive content analysis of interview responses, the techniques usedhereprovidedistinctinsightsintotheprocessofidentification,

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 31

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

as opposed to using the OIQ alone (Cheney, 1991; Miller, Allen, Casey, & Johnson, 2000) or by coding statements of group discus- sion (Scott, 1999). The knowledge gained from this research offers insight not only

for theorists but also for those interested in practical applications. Specifically, thefindingsofferpractitionersameansofrecognizing that organizational change (i.e., DPC’s reengineering) affects orga- nizational members differently depending upon the sorts of multi- ple attachments they form in and around the workplace. Thus, for planned change to achieve desired outcomes, members should uti- lize the discursive resources offered by different groups to under- stand the elements necessary for successful implementation. In addition, attending to the discursive resources employed by differ- ent groups illustrates how members identify, offering insight and the basis for rhetorical strategies to better coordinate action between organizational groups. For instance, Roy could have intervened during or after the retreat by leading a discussion to clarify group tasks and expectations, praising TAs for their reviewing diligence while indicating that PCs need to make the “big picture” evident to the larger DPC membership.

LIMITATIONS

One shortcoming of this study is the possibility that the changes in identifications observed between the two time periods were the result of a Hawthorne effect (see Adair, 1984). Perhaps scores on the OIQ were artificially high at the beginning of the study as mem- bers were conscious of a researcher’s presence (and fell after becoming accustomed to having a researcher in the workplace). Alternatively, it is plausible that the increased levels of identifica- tionwiththeworkgroupanddivisionforADmemberswereacom- pensation for the drop in identifications they anticipated others wouldreportinTime2.Inshort, thecausesoftheOIQchangescan- notbeunambiguouslyattributedtoeventsoccurringinDPC’soper- ations,yetsituationalcontrolsandfollow-upanalyseswereinfeasi- ble. One of the difficulties in doing site-based research is that such analyses are difficult and cause cannot be easily assigned, although we took several precautions with the case study design (e.g.,

32 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

becoming familiar with members before administering the first OIQ and waiting several months before the next). Asecondlimitationconcernstheuseofcommunicationnetwork

data. Although this study investigated the relationship between centrality and identification profile dispersion, there are many othernetworkfactorsthatcouldhavebeenexplored.Forinstance,it is possible that members who play other network roles, such as boundary spanners or liaisons, may exhibit meaningfully different identification profiles. Moreover, a study committed to examining the network as a mechanism of social influence might investigate the effects of cliques, structural holes, or network density on modi- fications in members’ identifications. Unfortunately, such inquiry was outside this study’s scope, which focused more on individuals’ centralityandidentificationthananetworkeffectsuchascontagion.

CONCLUSION

This examination advances theory on the multiplicity and dual- ity of organizational identification in three ways. First, by showing how members’ profiles of identification with multiple structures wereaffectedbytheirpositionintheperceivedcommunicationnet- work, it brings a relational and activity-based perspective to this area of study. Second, it shows how members’ use of discursive resources in an identity-oriented organizational conflict not only express an individual’s identity but simultaneously make claims on the production (and reproduction or transformation) of collective identity structures. Those structures are resources for subsequent identifications,andthemannerbywhichtheyareformedhasimpli- cations for stability or change in collective identities. Third, it shows that members’ preferred identity structures are subject to changegivensituationalfactorsandcommunicativeaction.Insum, although it does not trace the consequences of becoming an “orga- nizational centaur” (Ahrne, 1994), the study displays the complex- ity involved in the process of organizational affiliation. In so doing it exemplifies the dynamism and complexity of communication by providing a detailed and longitudinal look at how multiple identi- ties are both communicatively constructed and utilized in coordi- nated activity.

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 33

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

NOTES

1. There are important differences between organizational identification and commitment that are beyond the scope of this article. Fundamental to this distinc- tion is that commitment refers to an individual’s “pledge” (Cheney & Tompkins, 1987)inword,thought,anddeed,to(a)accepttheorganization’sgoalsandvalues, (b)exertgreateffortonbehalfoftheorganization,and(c)maintainmembershipin the organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Pratt (1998) suggested that commitment can be observed when individuals question feelings such as satisfac- tion with the organization, whereas identification concerns individuals’cognitive self-perceptions in relation to the organization. An excellent source for under- standing these differences is Miller, Allen, Casey, and Johnson (2000).

2. Recently, Miller et al. (2000) called for a moratorium on the use of the orga- nizational identification questionnaire (OIQ) in identification research, arguing that it measures organizational commitment rather than identification (see also Sass & Canary, 1991). In defense of our use of this instrument, we advance three arguments that build on the discussion above, in which identification was defined as both a process and a product. First, no survey methodology can adequately cap- ture the complex, dynamic process of identification; therefore, we employ a multimethodological design to gain a richer perspective. Such an approach is how theOIQwasoriginallydesignedtobeused,asMilleretal.admit.Second, theOIQ provides an assessment of attitudes toward identification targets and, therefore, referstotheproductofamember’sevaluativeappropriationofanidentity.Thedis- cussion in the first section of this article mentions that to measure organizational identification it is necessary to understand members’self-categorizations (Hogg, 1992, 1996), which are expressions of the salience of particular identity structures for the individual (Scott, Corman, & Cheney, 1998). Finally, the few studies on multiple targets of identification in organizational settings tend to use modified versions of the OIQ. Because we intend this study to be comparable to (as well as contribute to) this literature, using a similar instrument is prudent.

3. We computed power analyses on these correlations using a technique sug- gested by Cohen (1988). Using a moderate effect size, we found that our tests would have achieved statistical significance had there been 52 participants in the first round and 35 in the second.

4. Between the two time periods, members’ dispersion scores were relatively stable. Correlating each actor’s Time 1 score with his or her Time 2 score revealed a strong positive association: r = .80, p < .01, n = 18.

REFERENCES

Abbott, A. (1991). The future of professions: Occupation and expertise in the age of organization. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 8, 17-42.

34 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Adair, J. G. (1984). The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodologi- cal artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 334-345.

Ahrne, G. (1994). Social organizations: Interaction inside, outside, and between organizations. London: Sage.

Andrews, S. B., Basler, C. R., & Coller, X. (1999). Organizational structures, cul- tures, and identities: Overlaps and divergences. In S. B. Andrews & D. Knoke (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 16, pp. 213-235). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Ashforth,B.E.,&Kreiner,G.E.(1999).“Howcanyoudoit?”:Dirtyworkandthe challenge of constructing a positive self-identity. Academy of Management Review, 24, 413-434.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Barker, J. R. (1999). The discipline of teamwork: Participation and concertive control. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Barker, J. R., & Tompkins, P. K. (1994). Identification in the self-managing orga- nization:Characteristicsoftargetandtenure.HumanCommunicationResearch, 21, 223-240.

Bernard, H. R., Killworth, P. D., & Sailer, L. (1982). Informant accuracy in social network data V: An experimental attempt to predict actual communication from recall data. Social Science Research, 11, 30-66.

Bullis, C., & Bach, B. W. (1991). An explication and test of communication net- work content and multiplexity as predictors of organizational identification. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 180-197.

Bullis, C., & Tompkins, P. K. (1989). The forest ranger revisited: A study of con- trol practices and identification. Communication Monographs, 56, 287-306.

Burke, K. (1937). Attitudes toward history. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Burke, K. (1950). A rhetoric of motives. New York: Prentice Hall. Casciaro, T. (1998). Seeing things clearly: Social structure, personality, and accu-

racy in social network perception. Social Networks, 20, 331-351. Cheney,G.(1983).Onthevariousandchangingmeaningsoforganizationalmem-

bership: A field study of organizational identification. Communication Mono- graphs, 50, 342-362.

Cheney, G. (1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Cheney, G., & Tompkins, P. K. (1987). Coming to terms with organizational iden- tification and commitment. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 1-15.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.

Corman, S. R. (1990). A model of perceived communication in collective net- works. Human Communication Research, 16, 582-602.

Corman, S. R., & Bradford, L. (1993). Situational effects on the accuracy of self- reported organizational communication behavior. Communication Research, 20, 822-840.

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 35

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Corman, S. R., & Scott, C. R. (1994). Perceived networks, activity foci, and observable communication in social collectives. Communication Theory, 4, 171-190.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.

Elsbach, K. D. (1999). An expanded model of organizational identification. In R. Sutton & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 163- 200). Stamford, CT: JAI.

Erickson,B.(1988).Therelationalbasisofattitudes.InS.Berkowitz&B.Wellman (Eds.), Social structures: A network approach (pp. 99-121). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239.

Freeman, L. C. (1992). Filling in the blanks: A theory of cognitive categories and the structure of social affiliation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 118-127.

Gartrell, C. D. (1987). Network approaches to social evaluation. Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 49-66.

Giddens,A.(1984).Theconstitutionofsociety:Outlineofthetheoryofstructuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late mod- ern age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Glynn, M. A. (1998). Individuals’ need for organizational identification (nOID): Speculationsonindividualdifferencesinthepropensitytoidentify.InD.Whetten& P.Godfrey(Eds.),Identityinorganizations:Buildingtheorythroughconversa- tions (pp. 238-244). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glynn, M. A. (2000). When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organiza- tionalidentitywithinasymphonyorchestra.OrganizationScience,11,285-298.

Gossett, L. M. (2000, November). Temporary identity: Managing multiple targets of identification within the temporary help industry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Seattle, WA.

Hartman, R. L., & Johnson, J. D. (1989). Social contagion and multiplexity: Com- munication networks as predictors of commitment and role ambiguity. Human Communication Research, 15, 523-548.

Heald, M. R., Contractor, N. S., Koehly, L. M., & Wasserman, S. (1998). Formal and emergent predictors of coworkers’perceptual congruence on an organiza- tion’s social structure. Human Communication Research, 24, 536-563.

Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attrac- tion to social identity. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Hogg, M. A. (1996). Intragroup processes, group structure and social identity. In W. P. Robinson (Ed.), Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 65-93). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.

Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993). Power, influence, and sense making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 277-303.

36 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Krackhardt,D.(1987).Cognitivesocialstructures.SocialNetworks,9,109-134. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage. Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of

the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organiza- tional Behavior, 13, 103-123.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, V. D., Allen, M., Casey, M. K., & Johnson, J. R. (2000). Reconsidering the organizational identification questionnaire. Management Communication Quar- terly, 13, 626-658.

Monge,P.,&Contractor,N.S.(2001).Emergenceofcommunicationnetworks.In F.M.Jablin&L.L.Putnam(Eds.),Newhandbookoforganizationalcommuni- cation (2nd ed., pp. 440-502). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organi- zational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Nadler, D. A., Shaw, R. B., Walton, A. E., & Associates. (1995). Discontinuous change:Leadingorganizationaltransformation.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Orr,J.E.(1990).Sharingknowledge,celebratingidentity:Communitymemoryin

a service culture. In D. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds.), Collective remember- ing: Memory in society (pp. 169-189). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Pratt,M.G.(1998).Tobeornottobe?Centralquestionsinorganizationalidentifi- cation. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171-207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rentsch, J. R. (1990). Climate and culture: Interaction and qualitative differences in organizational meanings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 668-681.

Rice, R. E., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Admin- istrative Science Quarterly, 36, 219-244.

Russo, T. C. (1998). Organizational and professional identification: A case of newspaper journalists. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 72-111.

Ruud, G. (1995). The symbolic construction of organizational identities and com- munity in a regional symphony. Communication Studies, 46, 201-221.

Sass, J. S., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Organizational commitment and identification: An examination of conceptual and operational convergence. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 275-293.

Scott, C. R. (1997). Identification with multiple targets in a geographically dis- persed organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 10, 491-522.

Scott, C. R. (1999). The impact of physical and discursive anonymity on group members’ multiple identifications during computer-supported decision mak- ing. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 456-487.

Scott, C. R., Corman, S. R., & Cheney, G. (1998). Development of a structur- ational model theory of identification in the organization. Communication Theory, 8, 298-336.

Kuhn, Nelson / DUALITY OF MULTIPLE IDENTIFICATIONS 37

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Scott, C. R., & Timmerman, C. E. (1999). Communication technology use and multipleworkplaceidentificationsamongorganizationalteleworkerswithvar- ied degrees of virtuality. IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication, 42, 240-260.

Stephenson, K., & Zelen, M. (1989). Rethinking centrality: Methods and exam- ples. Social Networks, 11, 1-37.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup rela- tions (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Tompkins, P. K., & Cheney, G. (1983). Account analysis and organizations: Deci- sion making and identification. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 123-146). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Tompkins,P.K.,&Cheney,G.(1985).Communicationandunobtrusivecontrol in contemporary organizations. In R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.), Orga- nizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 179- 209). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations: An identity-based perspective. In B. M. Staw & R. I. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 201-246). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Walker, G. (1985). Network position and cognition in a computer firm. Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 30, 103-130.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and appli- cations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Timothy Kuhn (Ph.D., 2000, Arizona State University) is an assistant pro- fessor in the Department of Communication at the University of Colorado at Boulder. His research interests are in organizational discourse and knowledge, organizational identification, new communication technolo- gies, and group decision making.

Natalie Nelson (B.A., 2000, University of Utah) is a graduate student in the Department of Communication at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Her work has been presented at the meetings of the National Communica- tion Association and the International Communication Association. Her scholarly interests include how identity is communicatively constructed in organizations and how entrepreneurial identities develop among modern professionals.

38 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / AUGUST 2002

at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2009 http://mcq.sagepub.comDownloaded from