On the edge of identity: Boundary dynamics at the interface of individual and organizational identities

On the edge of identity: Boundarydynamics at the interface of individualand organizational identitiesGlen E. Kreiner, Elaine C. Hollensbe and Mathew L. Sheep

A B S T R AC T Organizational members are often faced with tremendous demands

on their individual identities that affect their performance at work

and their well-being as individuals. Previous research has been limited,

however, by typically studying identity at either the individual or the

organizational level. We therefore introduce a boundary approach

that simultaneously examines identities across levels in order to

better understand these identity demands. Specifically, we examine

boundary dynamics that are negotiated at the interface of individual

and organizational identities. We introduce the identity boundary

dynamics of identity intrusion, distance and balance as different mani-

festations of identity boundary (in)congruence, both within and

between individuals and organizations. Finally, we outline propositions

that suggest boundary dynamics as a source of identity change.

K E Y WO R D S balance � boundaries � congruence � identification � identity �

multiple identities

Individual identity and organizational identity have evolved as constructs fromthe age-old quest to understand ‘Who am I?’ and ‘Who are we?’ While thesequestions are clearly related, researchers have tended to address themseparately. In the few cases in which organizational scholars have studiedidentity at both the individual and organizational levels, it has tended to befor the purpose of theorizing organizational identity as exhibiting phenomena

1 3 1 5

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/0018726706071525

Volume 59(10): 1315–1341

Copyright © 2006

The Tavistock Institute ®

SAGE Publications

London, Thousand Oaks CA,

New Delhi

www.sagepublications.com

that are analogous to – or ‘entangled’ with (Hatch & Schultz, 2002: 993; cf. Jenkins, 1996) – identity at the individual level. Pratt (2003) has called forthe ‘disentangling’ of levels of identity by making assumptions of collectiveidentity more explicit. However, none of these multi-level approaches hasaddressed directly how individuals manage the interface between individualand organizational identities. Recent calls, however, have urged researchers toexamine the dynamic interaction between individual and organizational iden-tities (Albert, 1998; Brown, 2001; Gioia, 1998; Sveningsson & Alvesson,2003). As Albert (1998) and Ashforth and Mael (1996) note, identity is aprime candidate for multi- or cross-level research.

To address the interface of identities, we suggest using a boundaryperspective – an approach that has been used successfully in a wide range ofliteratures. This article moves us in that direction by applying boundarytheory to the interfaces within and between individual and organizationalidentities. We also discuss the dynamics emanating at the interfaces ofidentity to better explain how individuals negotiate complex identitydemands in the modern workplace. In this article then, we attempt toaccomplish the following objectives:

• Provide a brief conceptual framework describing characteristics ofidentity and boundaries.

• Apply a boundary perspective to individual and organizational identi-ties, introducing two types of identity boundary interfaces: intra-identity boundary interfaces and inter-identity boundary interfaces.

• Discuss boundary dynamics at the interface of identities, introducingthe constructs of identity intrusion, distance and balance as sources ofidentity change.

In applying a boundary perspective to individual and organizationalidentities, our focus is predominantly on the way that individuals construeor make sense of identity boundaries within themselves, how they perceiveidentity boundaries within the collective organization – a type of perceivedorganizational identity (Dutton et al., 1994) – and how they negotiate a fit(or lack of fit) between aspects of their own identity and perceived organiz-ational identity. Admittedly, this perspective requires the reader to shift levelsof analysis at points; thus, we include signposts throughout the article tosignal when these shifts occur.

Brief conceptual framework

Before applying the boundary perspective to individual and organizationalidentities, it is first necessary to consider more closely the concepts of

Human Relations 59(10)1 3 1 6

individual and organizational identities and their multiplicity, as well as todescribe boundaries and their characteristics.

Individual and organizational identities

Among the various theoretical camps in the social sciences, there is a widerange of opinion about how one should conceptualize identity. At theextremes, opinions vary from a structurally oriented approach, whichregards identity as stable and fixed, to an action-oriented approach, whichregards identity as fluid and malleable. This presumed dichotomy in defi-nition applies to identity both at the individual (Markus & Kunda, 1986;Turner & Onorato, 1999) and organizational (Gioia et al., 2000) levels.Also, when researchers speak of individual identity or organizationalidentity, they speak as if identity were a unitary whole. However, it has longbeen accepted among psychologists that individuals have multiple identities(James, 1920; Mead, 1934), and more recently, that individuals have a reper-toire of identities that are made salient by various roles and contexts(Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; Serpe, 1987). Similarly, individuals in organiz-ations have ‘multiple conceptualizations about “who we are”’ (Pratt &Foreman, 2000: 19), based on factors such as personal histories or positionin the organizational hierarchy (Corley, 2004).

Although structural and action approaches hail from quite differentparadigmatic assumptions, Markus and Wurf (1987) contend that theseapproaches are not necessarily incompatible. In discussing identity at the indi-vidual level, these authors point out that some aspects of self-concept existbefore being activated in a social situation. Elaborating on Markus and Wurf(1987), Turner and Onorato (1999: 15, emphasis in original) state that ratherthan being ‘brought into being by specific circumstances,’ these aspects of self-concept are ‘brought into sight and are stored beforehand.’ A key point tonote in the Markus and Wurf (1987) view is that these authors recognizeidentity as a composite of ‘aspects’ rather than as a holistic totality. Further,Markus and Kunda (1986) contend that some aspects of self-concept are coreor central and as such are more likely to be accessible and salient across socialsituations. For example, an individual may claim both ‘Catholic’ and ‘patronof the arts’ as aspects of his or her individual identity. However, to that indi-vidual, the social identity ‘Catholic’ may be more central in the sense that itbecomes salient more often in a variety of situations involving morality,ethics or values than does ‘patron of the arts.’ The social identity ‘patron ofthe arts’ becomes salient in a more limited sphere of circumstances. In otherwords, the self-concept includes ‘one’s core self-conceptions embedded in acontext of more tentative self-conceptions that are tied to the immediatesocial circumstances’ (Markus & Kunda, 1986: 859).

Kreiner et al. On the edge of identity 1 3 1 7

Identity at both the individual and organizational levels then includesmultiple aspects that differ in saliency (Stryker, 1980, 1987). Individualidentity is comprised of aspects of self that arise from personal character-istics, as well as social categories in which the individual claims membership(Deaux, 1993; Graafsma et al., 1994; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Organizationalidentity is comprised of aspects of the organization that members perceiveand understand to be central and distinctive (Albert & Whetten, 1985;Dutton et al., 1994). While some aspects of identity are more central or‘recalcitrant’ (Gabriel, 1999; cf. Rousseau, 1998), other aspects of identityare subject to ongoing interpretation and change. Further, all aspects ofidentity are not engaged simultaneously and, in fact, some aspects may evenbe incompatible (Brewer, 1999), which as we will see, can create a state ofconflict. In light of the above discussion, we make the following assumptionsabout identity: identity at the individual and organizational levels iscomprised of multiple aspects; these aspects vary in accessibility and salienceacross situations; and certain aspects are more central and stable while otheraspects are subject to ongoing interpretation and change. In the next section,we describe how boundaries have been used in various literatures, as well ascharacteristics of boundaries, including location and permeability.

Boundaries

Disciplines outside of organization studies in which a boundary perspectivehas been applied include political science, anthropology, and psychology.Political scientists utilize boundary theories to document phenomena ingeopolitical territories and in so-called ‘borderlands’ (Schofield, 1994), whichare geographic regions that share some or all aspects with another region.Anthropologists employ boundaries to study how individuals and cultures usespace and/or time to interpret and classify their surroundings (Alvarez, 1995;Goddard et al., 1994; Hall, 1969). Social psychologists use boundaries tounderstand where an individual’s self-concept begins and ends and to diagnosethe healthiness of interpersonal relationships (Katherine, 1991). Organizationtheorists have also drawn from boundary theories – in treatments on inter-organizational relations (Bertrand, 1972), boundary spanning behavior(Friedman & Podolny, 1992; Verbeke & Bagozzi, 2002), knowledge transfer(Carlile, 2002), intergroup relations (Yan & Louis, 1999) and the work–non-work interface (Ashforth et al., 2000; Clark, 2000; Rau & Hyland,2002). Hence, numerous and diverse fields have incorporated boundarytheory to explain phenomena at either the individual or organizational level.

In general, boundaries as used in the literature refer to the physical,temporal, and cognitive limits that define domains as separate from one


another and define components within domains. ‘Domains’ consist of thecognitive space of what is included within the boundary. Boundaries separatedomains from one another; both enable and constrain how domains areconnected and interrelated; and define aspects within domains. In this article,we focus on the domains of individual and organizational identity and the‘mental fences’ that individuals build in making sense of who ‘I am’ and ‘weare’ (Zerubavel, 1991). As will be seen in a later section on boundarydynamics, the precise location and nature of the boundaries is contestable asindividuals interact and ‘shift among definitions of the self’ (Weick, 1995:20). Boundaries in an identity framework then are not fixed but are sociallyconstructed and prone to re-negotiation.

Boundary location

The many literatures that invoke the boundary concept speak fundamentallyof two types of boundaries, based on whether the boundaries are locatedaround the perimeter of a domain or within a domain. A boundary arounda domain serves to demarcate where that domain begins and ends and isreferred to as an ‘external boundary.’ A boundary within a domain serves todelimit the subdivisions of the domain and is referred to as an ‘internalboundary.’ For example, Clark (2000) has studied the ‘work–home border,’a boundary between work and home domains. In this case, external bound-aries apply to the work and home domains, demarcating where one domainbegins and the other domain ends. Internal boundaries are located aroundaspects within one domain, demarcating, for example, ‘parenting’ and‘repairing the house,’ subdivisions within the home domain.

Although most research invoking the boundary concept has not explic-itly made the distinction between internal and external boundaries, there area few precedents for this approach (Hartmann, 1991; Schneider, 1991). Forexample, Schneider (1991) notes that boundaries serve two functions in indi-viduals: first, they separate self from others (external boundaries), andsecond, they differentiate internalized objects and representations (internalboundaries). Also, researchers have rarely studied internal and externalboundaries concurrently. In one of the few exceptions, Dreiss (1986) outlinedwhat he termed the ‘external dimension’ of group boundaries (threats toexistence, efforts to maintain itself) and ‘internal dimension’ (members’sensemaking). Similarly, Fiol (1989) examined internal organizationalboundaries (borders between units) and external organizational boundaries(borders between organizations) in relation to a joint-venture activity. Shefound that internal and external boundaries could vary in their strength. Forexample, organizations with strong internal boundaries may have weak


external boundaries and vice versa. In other words, boundaries can vary intheir permeability, a boundary characteristic described in the next section.

Boundary permeability

Hall and Richter (1988) explored boundary permeability, which refers to thedegree that the facets, elements, concerns, or issues of one bounded domainare allowed to influence another bounded domain. Permeability allowscertain outside influences in and keeps others out. For example, an individ-ual may create a permeable boundary between family (one domain) andwork (another domain) when he or she addresses problems and stresses ofhome while at work. The permeability of a given set of boundaries deter-mines the degree of integration or segmentation of the content of thebounded domains. In other words, permeability of boundaries determineswhether or not aspects of one domain will be integrated or segmented withaspects of another domain. Impermeable boundaries reduce integration ofthe domains and encourage segmentation by maintaining a strong border,excluding unwanted elements (Ashforth et al., 2000). Hence, we can speakof impermeable boundaries as being ‘strong’ or ‘thick’ in that they preservesegmentation from other entities.

Having established a framework for identity and boundaries, we nowintegrate these concepts in a boundary perspective of individual and organiz-ational identities. We also introduce two types of boundary interfaces thatare relevant to identities.

A boundary perspective of individual and organizationalidentities

While researchers have examined multiple identities at either the individualor organizational level (e.g. Foreman & Whetten, 2002; Golden-Biddle &Rao, 1997; Thoits, 1983), they have not addressed adequately the interfacesof identities (or aspects of identity) within and between individuals andorganizations. To address this gap, we propose using a boundary perspectiveto shed light on these interfaces. Figure 1 illustrates two such types ofboundary interfaces: intra-identity boundary interfaces, where boundarieswithin identity are negotiated, and inter-identity boundary interfaces, whereboundaries between individual and organizational identities are negotiated.On the left side of the figure, we illustrate a case in which the boundarieswithin and between identities are permeable, and identities are more inte-grated. On the right side of the figure, we illustrate the opposite case in which



Fig

ure

1T

he n

atur

e of

iden

tity

boun

dari

es.F

or e

ase

of il

lust

ratio

n,id

entit

ies

are

show

n to

be

univ

ersa

lly in

tegr

ated

or

diffe

rent

iate

d.H

owev

er,

each

iden

tity

boun

dary

can

var

y in

per

mea

bilit

y w

ith r

espe

ct t

o ot

her

iden

tity

boun

dari

es (e

.g.i

nteg

rate

one

asp

ect

but

diffe

rent

iate

from

ano

ther

aspe

ct).

Als

o,th

e ill

ustr

atio

n as

sum

es a

sna

psho

t at

one

poi

nt in

tim

e ra

ther

tha

n an

imm

utab

le s

truc

ture

the boundaries are impermeable and identities then are more segregated. Byproviding this two-dimensional view of boundary interfaces, we are notsuggesting a static state in which identities and boundaries do not change.Rather, we view the illustration as a snapshot representation, capturing twoof many possible changing states. In the next two sections, we describe intra-and inter-identity boundary interfaces. We then introduce the constructs ofidentity intrusion, distance and balance as different manifestations ofpossible boundary dynamics that occur at these interfaces.

Intra-identity boundary interfaces

Lewin (1938) used the notion of a ‘life space’ to describe the psychologicalenvironment created and lived in by individuals. Individuals carve out differ-ent patterns in their life space and differentiate aspects of their lives bycreating, dismantling, and/or maintaining boundaries of varying permeabil-ity. Some aspects of identity may be highly permeable to others (allowingflow between them), while some are rigid and isolated from other aspects.For example, someone who is actively religious one day a week, and thenengages in unethical business practices the rest of the week would be a personwith little or no spillover between the ‘religion’ and ‘work’ aspects of theirlife space (Clark, 2000). As pointed out above, individual and organizationalidentities include multiple aspects, sometimes referred to as subidentities(Ashforth, 2001) or multiple identities (Ashforth & Johnson, 2001; Thoits& Virshup, 1997). For example, an individual may have multiple personaland social identities – female, Hispanic, Olympic athlete, extrovert, graduatestudent, fiancée, protestant.

We now shift to the organizational level of analysis and consider howorganizations also may develop more than one identity or multiple aspectsof identity over time (Albert & Whetten, 1985). This often happens asorganizations develop in size, acquire other companies, or respond toexternal threats. The presence of multiple organization identities has beendocumented in cases such as not-for-profit organizations (as both a ‘volun-teer-driven organization’ and a ‘family of friends’; Golden-Biddle & Rao,1997) and rural cooperatives and family businesses (as both ‘family-like’ and‘business-like’; Foreman & Whetten, 2002; Sundaramurthy & Kreiner, inpress). The organization then is a collective comprised of various aspects ofidentity, some of which organizational members may perceive ‘fit’ and someof which organizational members may perceive ‘do not fit’ with individualaspects of identity.

We propose that cognitive boundaries exist at the perimeter of aspectsof identity, and these boundaries can vary in permeability. For example, at


the individual level, consider the two circles in Figure 1 that represent indi-vidual identities. In each of the circles are three aspects of identity, which forsake of illustration, we will label as ‘parent,’ ‘professor’ and ‘soccer coach.’The placing and maintaining of individual boundaries is an individual pref-erence. An integrated individual identity (left side of the figure) would be onein which the individual prefers to allow one aspect of individual identity toinfluence another aspect of individual identity. An example of this would bea professor who routinely refers to his or her ‘soccer coach’ self-aspect inlectures and/or is highly professorial while coaching soccer players. Asegmented individual identity (right side of the figure) would be one in whichthe individual prefers a separation or segmentation between aspects. Aprofessor with this preference would not integrate or intimate any aspects ofself other than those related to his or her professorial identity in lectures.

Moving to the organizational level of analysis, intra-identity boundaryinterfaces also exist within organizational identity, with varying degrees ofpermeability. Thus, in Figure 1, the two representations of organizationalidentity each comprise three aspects of identity. In the organizational identityrepresentation on the left of Figure 1, these aspects are permeable, while inthe organizational identity representation on the right, they are segmented.

Permeability of intra-identity boundary interfaces determines whetherone aspect of individual or organizational identity will be integrated with (asin identity synergy) or differentiated from (as in identity plurality) otheraspects (Pratt & Foreman, 2000). Impermeable boundaries reduce integra-tion of the identities and encourage differentiation by maintaining a strongperimeter, excluding unwanted elements (Ashforth et al., 2000). Thus, wecan speak of impermeable intra-identity boundaries as being ‘strong’ or‘thick’ if they preserve differentiation from aspects of identity, either at theindividual or organizational level.

Inter-identity boundary interfaces

Since both individuals and organizations have multiple identities, it is reason-able to assume that interaction of multiple aspects of identity (individual andorganizational) across levels would also occur. In other words, congruent orinterdependent aspects of individual identity may be integrated with aspectsof organizational identity at the person–organization boundary, while otheraspects may be differentiated and/or excluded due to incongruence. Thus,the inter-identity boundary between individual and organizational identitiesbecomes a matter of whether the individual perceives that different aspectsof individual identity ‘match’ or ‘fit’ with aspects of organizational identity.For example, one could speculate as to how multiple individual identity


aspects of ‘Olympic athlete, extrovert’ might differentially fit with aspects ofperceived organizational identity such as ‘volunteer-driven organization,family of friends.’ To clarify, it is the individual’s perception of ‘fit’ betweenindividual aspects of identity and aspects of perceived organizational identitythat is of interest.

Returning to the illustration in Figure 1, inter-identity boundary inter-faces occur at the intersection of individual and organizational identities. Inthis case, the boundaries of interest are those that encompass the peripheryof individual and organizational identities, as perceived by the individual.The left side of the figure illustrates a situation in which there is a good dealof overlap perceived between individual and organizational identity. Usingthe language of boundary theory, this represents a case of integration ofindividual and organizational identities. The individual represented in thishalf of the figure is one who claims a strong sense of oneness (i.e. identifi-cation) with many aspects of organizational identity. The converse isdemonstrated on the right side of the figure. In this case, the individualperceives no overlap between individual and organizational identities,which represents a case of segmentation of individual and organizationalidentities. Boundary dynamics occur at the margins or interface of identi-ties, and these dynamics, as well as their implications for identity change,are discussed in the next section.

Identity boundary dynamics

Table 1 provides a brief description of three types of boundary dynamics,which are developed below. The boundary dynamics described apply bothto intra-identity and inter-identity boundaries. In the table, the dynamics arecategorized broadly by boundary location. Intra-identity boundary dynamicsoccur within individuals or within organizations and refer to proportions ofidentity aspects. At the individual level, an individual may perceive that oneaspect of individual identity comprises too much – or not enough – of self.At the organizational level, organizational members may perceive that oneaspect of collective organizational identity comprises too much – or notenough – of the organization’s identity. With intra-identity boundarydynamics then, the levels of analysis are individual or organizational.

Inter-identity boundary dynamics occur between individuals andorganizations and refer to the overlap of identity aspects. With inter-identityboundary dynamics, the level of analysis is individuals and organizations. Anindividual may perceive that an aspect of organizational identity overlaps toogreatly – or not enough – with an aspect of self.



Tabl

e 1

Boun

dary

dyn

amic

s at

the

inte

rfac

e of

iden

titie

s

Boun

dary

N

atur

e of

Id

entit

yId

entit

y as

pect

s D

escr

iptio

n dy

nam

icdy

nam

icin

stab

ility

invo

lved

(pro

posit

ion)

Intr

a-id

enti

ty b

oun

dary

dyn

amic

sW

ithin

-iden

tity

intr

usio

nC

onfli

ctua

lH

igh

Indi

vidu

al →

←In

divi

dual

or

Prop

ortio

n of

one

asp

ect

of id

entit

y is

per

ceiv

edO

rgan

izat

iona

l →←

Org

aniz

atio

nal

as t

oo g

reat

;sen

se t

hat

this

asp

ect

of id

entit

y co

mpr

ises

too

muc

h of

sel

f (or

gani

zatio

n);y

earn

ing

for

less

intr

usio

nan

d gr

eate

r se

gmen

tatio

n of

thi

s as

pect

of i

dent

ity (

1a)

With

in-id

entit

y di

stan

ce

Con

flict

ual

Hig

hIn

divi

dual

→←

Indi

vidu

al o

rPr

opor

tion

of o

ne a

spec

t of

iden

tity

is p

erce

ived

Org

aniz

atio

nal →

←O

rgan

izat

iona

l as

insu

ffici

ent;

lack

of a

sen

se o

f con

nect

ion

with

thi

sas

pect

of i

dent

ity;y

earn

ing

for

mor

e in

tegr

atio

n of

thi

sas

pect

of i

dent

ity in

sel

f (or

gani

zatio

n) (

2a)

With

in-id

entit

y ba

lanc

e C

ompl

emen

tary

Lo

wIn

divi

dual

←→

Indi

vidu

al o

rPr

opor

tion

of a

spec

ts o

f ide

ntity

is p

erce

ived

as

Org

aniz

atio

nal ←

→O

rgan

izat

iona

l op

timal

(3a

)

Inte

r-id

enti

ty d

ynam

ics

Wor

k-se

lf in

trus

ion

Con

flict

ual

Hig

hIn

divi

dual

→←

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Ove

rlap

bet

wee

n in

divi

dual

and

org

aniz

atio

nal

iden

tity

aspe

cts

is p

erce

ived

as

too

grea

t;se

nse

ofin

trus

ion

of o

rgan

izat

iona

l ide

ntity

asp

ect(

s);y

earn

ing

for

mor

e se

gmen

tatio

n be

twee

n in

divi

dual

and

org

aniz

atio

nal

iden

titie

s (1

b)W

ork–

self

dist

ance

Con

flict

ual

Hig

hIn

divi

dual

→←

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Ove

rlap

bet

wee

n in

divi

dual

and

org

aniz

atio

nal i

dent

ityas

pect

s is

per

ceiv

ed a

s in

suffi

cien

t;la

ck o

f a s

ense

of

onen

ess

with

org

aniz

atio

n;ye

arni

ng fo

r m

ore

inte

grat

ion

of in

divi

dual

and

org

aniz

atio

nal i

dent

ities

(2b

)W

ork–

self

bala

nce

Com

plem

enta

ryLo

wIn

divi

dual

←→

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Opt

imal

bal

ance

bet

wee

n in

divi

dual

and

org

aniz

atio

nal

iden

titie

s (3

b)

As illustrated in Table 1, a conflictual boundary dynamic can occur inthree ways: 1) between aspects of individual identity, an intra-identityboundary at the individual level; 2) between aspects of organizationalidentity, an intra-identity boundary at the organizational level; and 3)between aspects of individual and organizational identities, an inter-identityboundary across levels. The conflictual boundary dynamic can involve eitherintrusion or distance, boundary dynamics that are discussed in the next twosections.

Within-identity and work–self intrusion

. . . employee dissent must be sought at the margins – at the marginsof organizations, at the margins of discourse, at the margins ofexperience . . . a terrain where identities are fashioned, tested, andtransformed.

(Gabriel, 1999: 195)

We call the first type of conflictual boundary dynamic intrusion, and it occurswhen a particular identity boundary is perceived as being too permeable.Intrusion can occur within individual identity (individual level of analysis),within organizational identity (organizational level of analysis), or betweenindividual and organizational identity (across levels of analysis). In the caseof within-identity intrusion at the individual identity level, the individualperceives an intrusion of a particular aspect of self into the domain of anotheraspect of self in that it occupies a greater proportion of individual identitythan is desired. As an example, Kreiner et al. (in press) document ‘identityintrusion’ in their study of priests; many priests felt that the priest aspect(social identity) of their lives intruded on other aspects of individual identity.When engaged in a non-priest-related activity such as participating in asoftball game with non-priest friends, they felt they could not let go of thepriest aspect of their identity. The priests felt they could not swear and hadto appear priestly even when the context in which they were behaving (asoftball game) had nothing to do with this particular aspect of their identity.The conflict then exists between the priest aspect of identity and other aspectsof self. The priest seeks more segmentation of boundaries between aspectsof self – less ‘intrusion’ of the priest aspect of identity.

Within-identity intrusion can also operate at the organizationalidentity level when two aspects of organizational identity conflict. Forexample, in Glynn’s (2000) study of the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, shedescribes a conflict between an ‘aesthetic’ and an ‘economic’ aspect oforganizational (orchestra) identity in which claims on each identity aspect


resulted in very different resource implications (e.g. investing in morecomplex musical pieces when claiming an aesthetic identity and cutting costswhen claiming an economic identity). When one aspect of identity comprisestoo great a proportion of organizational identity (in the eyes of the organiz-ation members), within-identity intrusion at the organizational identity leveloccurs.

We shift now to work–self intrusion in which the conflict is betweenindividual identity and organizational identity, as perceived by the individ-ual. For example, when an individual perceives a particularly strong organiz-ational identity aspect that requires its employees to change their personalvalues or individuality, an individual member of the organization maybegrudge that he or she has had to give up a valuable part of him- or herselfin order to fit in. That sacrifice may involve emotional labor, cognitive loss,personal resources, time, etc. In other words, the individual may perceivethat the organization is requiring the individual to have more permeableboundaries than the individual is willing to allow. For example, one of theauthors worked at a university that had a nationally ranked basketballprogram, and she experienced work–self intrusion when she perceived thatan aspect of organizational identity (‘athletic leader’) intruded on an aspectof her individual identity (‘professor’). The author was asked to make conces-sions in the classroom for athletes, attend faculty-night games and even plantests around the basketball schedule. Her individual identity as a professor,of which academic freedom in the classroom was a part, was being chal-lenged by a perceived aspect of the organization’s identity. While organiz-ational identity is a collective of various identity aspects, conflict occurs whenthe individual perceives that one or more of these aspects of organizationalidentity conflict with aspects of individual identity.

Work–self intrusion likely occurs more often in strong situations(Mischel, 1977), in so-called greedy institutions which ‘seek exclusive andundivided loyalty and . . . attempt to reduce the claims of competing rolesand status positions on those they wish to encompass within their bound-aries’ (Coser, 1974: 4), in dirty work or stigmatized environments (Ashforth& Kreiner, 1999), and in other organizations with strong, demanding, oroppressive identities (Albert & Whetten, 1985). Some managers actively seekto ‘manage’ employee identities and identification as a form of normativeorganizational control (Barley & Kunda, 1992), reflecting ‘increasing mana-gerial interest in regulating employees’ insides’ (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002:622). Casey (1995: 127) also refers to ‘corporate colonization of self’ inwhich the company she studied not only attempted to appropriate personaltime of employees, but also their identities. However, as Kunda (1992) andGabriel (1999) argue, normative demands in the workplace are only one side


of the control equation because members need not be passive objects ofcontrol, but are free to react. Further, Nippert-Eng (1996: 152) places hernotion of ‘boundary work’ in the context of organizations when she notesthat ‘personal boundary work occurs within greater or lesser margins ofdiscretionary territory, which are set by the people and situations of workand home.’

In cases in which aspects of identity are perceived as intrusive, it islikely that the boundary or margins will be unstable as individuals seek reso-lution of an uncomfortable intrusive state. At the individual level of analysis,conflict within individual identity creates instability as the individual seeksto resolve the conflict and can prompt individual identity change. At theorganizational level of analysis, conflict within organizational identity createsinstability as organizational members seek to resolve the conflict and canprompt organizational identity change. At the individual and organizationallevel of analysis, conflict at the margins of individual and organizationalidentities creates instability as the individual seeks to resolve the conflict andlikely will prompt individual identity change. This discussion leads us to thefollowing propositions:

Proposition 1a: When the proportion of one aspect within identity isperceived as too great (within-identity intrusion), identity conflict willexist; the boundaries within individual (organizational) identities willbe unstable; and individual (organizational) identity change will bemore likely.

Proposition 1b: When the overlap between individual and organiz-ational identities is perceived as too great (work–self intrusion),identity conflict will exist; the boundaries between individual andorganizational identities will be unstable; and individual identitychange will be more likely.

Within-identity and work–self distance

Markus and Nurius (1986) theorize that among one’s set of self-concepts are possible selves – the selves one would like to be . . . Theseselves function as incentives for behavior, providing images of thefuture self in desired . . . end-states.

(Markus & Wurf, 1987: 302)

The second type of conflictual boundary dynamic is distance, and it occurswhen a particular identity boundary is perceived as too segmented or not


permeable enough. In the quote above Markus and Wurf (1987: 302)theorize that there are ‘possible selves’ among one’s self-conceptions that‘provide an evaluative and interpretive context for the current view of self.’In other words, some individuals may seek a self-concept beyond the onethat they currently hold – in effect, an aspirational or unfulfilled identity. Inthe case of within-identity distance at the individual identity level, the indi-vidual perceives that an aspect of individual identity comprises an insufficientproportion of individual identity. For example, an individual who is acomputer programmer (one aspect of individual identity) may yearn for agreater proportion of self to be creative. The ‘creative’ aspect of individualidentity is more distant or segmented than the computer programmer wouldlike, and the individual desires for more integration of the creative aspect inindividual identity.

We propose that within-identity distance can also operate at theorganizational identity level. Returning to the university context, one mightimagine a situation in which organizational members (faculty) yearn for agreater proportion of organizational identity to be dedicated to one aspectof organizational identity (e.g. ‘research excellence’) rather than to anotheraspect of organizational identity (e.g. ‘land-grant institution’) than currentlyexists. With the latter organizational identity aspect, claims on identity resultin the admission of many more students than can be realistically served, andfaculty long for more representation of the former identity aspect, whichwould result in more time for and recognition of research.

In the case of work–self distance, the level of analysis is between indi-vidual and organizational identity. The distance felt is between individualand organizational identity, as perceived by the individual. A sense of longingor an unwanted separation is felt by an individual in respect to the organiz-ation – a craving for a deeper meaning, a desire for a stronger bond, ayearning for a closer connection. For example, consider a person who desiresa higher purpose with his or her organization, who feels a sense of empti-ness that the organization might fulfill. This person hopes to enrich his orher identity with some social group that can help provide meaning in his orher life. To the degree an individual experiences work–self distance, we cansay he or she has a desire to affiliate with an organization that can completea sense of identity, vision, or purpose that may be missing from his or herlife. This is similar to what Glynn (1998) has called a person’s ‘need fororganizational identification.’ She defines the need for organizational identifi-cation as ‘an individual’s need to maintain a social identity derived frommembership in a larger, more impersonal social category of a particularcollective . . . and incorporate salient organizational attributes as part of theself’ (Glynn, 1998: 238–9). In fact, the increasing attention given to the place


of spirituality in the workplace (e.g. Mirvis, 1997; Mitroff & Denton, 1999),may signal a desire among some individuals for greater connection betweenthemselves and their work – a more permeable boundary between individ-ual and organizational identity. Work–self distance then is the result of anindividual desiring a stronger sense of oneness with the organization, moreintegration between individual and organizational identity.

At the individual or organizational level of analysis, within-identitydistance suggests that conflict within individual (organizational) identity asa result of a perceived insufficient proportion of one aspect of identity canlead to instability. Efforts to resolve the conflict can prompt individual(organizational) identity change. At the individual and organizational levelof analysis, a desire for greater connection or a more permeable boundarybetween one’s self and certain aspects of organizational identity as perceivedby the individual can induce discomfort, leading to instability in theboundary between individual and organizational identity. This instability canlead then to individual identity change. This discussion leads us to the follow-ing propositions:

Proposition 2a: When the proportion of one aspect of identity isperceived as insufficient (within-identity distance), identity conflict willexist; the boundaries within individual (organizational) identities willbe unstable; and individual (organizational) identity change will bemore likely.

Proposition 2b: When the overlap between individual and organiz-ational identities is perceived as insufficient (work–self distance)identity conflict will exist; the boundaries between individual andorganizational identities will be unstable; and individual identitychange will be more likely.

Within-identity and work–self balance

I propose the possibility that if we, as individual people, can acknowl-edge and harmonize our conflicting parts in the interest of becomingmentally healthy, the same process can work on a cultural level.

(Krebs, 1999: 10)

In her book Edgewalkers, Nina Boyd Krebs studies people who balanceparticular cultural or spiritual identities and ‘integrate complexity ratherthan splitting differences into conflicting components. They manage paradoxas a way of life’ (Krebs, 1999: 73). In essence, the ‘edgewalkers’ that she


describes have found a way to balance differing aspects of their own identi-ties by embracing the ambivalence within themselves. In her article on ‘beingthe same and different at the same time,’ Brewer (1991) describes this senseof balance and resolution of tension from collective identities as ‘optimaldistinctiveness.’ She proposes dual motivations of assimilation and differen-tiation in identity formation and change among regional (Hong Kong) andethnic (Chinese) identities during a period of change (Brewer, 1999). Wepropose that when one achieves a desirable level of boundary permeabilitywithin self, the proportion of aspects within individual is perceived asoptimal, and within-identity balance occurs. At the individual identity level,this balance involves complementariness rather than conflict among aspectsof self.

Shifting to the organizational identity level, balance among aspects ofcollective organizational identity can also occur. Pratt and Foreman (2000)describe a condition of identity synergy in which there is a high degree ofinterdependence among a variety of stakeholders and multiple identities arehighly diffused across the organization. In such a condition, the internalconflict (between aspects of organizational identity) is minimized, and wewould describe this condition as within-identity balance at the organizationalidentity level.

While within-identity balance, in effect, leads to a sense of stabilitywithin identity (individual or organizational), it is by no means a permanentstate. As individuals engage aspects of their identity in interactions and situ-ations, the boundaries are always subject to re-negotiation; however, withidentity balance, there is no overriding and imminent sense of conflict ordiscomfort. The same could be said of organizations in that when comple-mentariness exists among aspects of collective identity, there is no imminentdrive for change and a sense of stability ensues.

Moving to the inter-identity boundary interface between individual andperceived organizational identity aspects, work–self balance is conceptualizedas an individual identity/organizational identity boundary congruence inwhich the individual perceives the organizational identity as neither intrus-ive nor insufficient, but rather, for the individual, a sort of Goldilocks ‘nottoo hot, not too cold, but just right’ scenario. Aspects of organizationalidentity and individual identity are thus not in conflict, but rather in balance,and boundaries function as comfortable interfaces, facilitating an appreci-ated exchange. Kreiner et al. (in press) describe ‘optimal balance’ as the stateof being neither too distinct/independent nor too inclusive/dependent inrelation to a particular social identity. Work–self balance, then, is one typeof optimal balance that refers specifically to the interface between individualand organizational identities; optimal balance is the more general term that


can be applied to any kind of social identity. Given the above discussion, wepropose:

Proposition 3a: When the proportion of aspects of identity is perceivedas optimal (within-identity balance), identity complementariness willexist; the boundaries within individual (organizational) identities willbe stable; and individual (organizational) identity change will be lesslikely.

Proposition 3b: When the overlap between aspects of individual andorganizational identities is perceived as optimal (work–self balance),identity complementariness will exist; the boundaries between individ-ual and organizational identities will be stable; and individual identitychange will be less likely.

Identity boundary instability and identity change

Brewer (1999: 187) states that ‘changes in social identity imply changes inwho is seen as sharing common in-group membership with the self and whatattributes and values are presumed to be self-defining.’ Certain aspects ofidentity that are held more strongly as self-defining by individuals – thosewith a less permeable boundary – are less likely to change. As Gabriel (1999)points out, these ‘recalcitrant’ aspects of identity can be held strongly evenin the face of strong political, normative and cultural controls in the organiz-ation and can be manifested in forms of employee resistance. With otheraspects of identity – those with a more permeable boundary – individualsmay be more motivated to change. In the propositions above, we suggest thatinstability in either intra- or inter-identity boundaries can trigger identitychange. For example, as individuals experience identity intrusion or distance,a challenge to their existing identity boundaries, they will likely seek waysto alleviate the conflictual boundary dynamic.

While many studies suggest ways that employees attempt to shape indi-vidual identities, this article identifies a more reciprocal dynamic. Individualand organizational identities are recursively interrelated, and identity changeoccurs at the interface, when boundaries within and between aspects ofidentity are (re)negotiated. In this recursive interrelationship, ‘not only doesthe organization construct the employee, but the employee constructs theorganization’ (Gabriel, 1999: 190). As incongruence between individual andorganizational identities occurs, boundaries are reconstituted. Further, thetheory of autopoiesis, literally meaning ‘self create,’ relates to the system ofpermeable and negotiated boundaries described here. Autopoiesis is an


approach that argues that living systems are characterized by autonomy,circularity and self-reference. An aim of such a system is to (re)produce itself in a recursive fashion (Hernes & Bakken, 2003; Morgan, 1986) and to‘seek its invisible remainder in the necessary “unmarked space” external toitself’ (Cooper, 2006: 60). Thus, as individuals negotiate identity boundarypermeability, they are, in essence, (re)producing individual identity as wellas opening it up to an identity completeness external to themselves that canpotentially reside in aspects of organizational identity. At the intra- and inter-identity boundaries – the edges of identities – conflict can occur as aware-ness of multiple identity aspects and the relation between them promptsidentity change in an attempt ‘to prevent a paralysis of [identity] reproduc-tion’ (Seidl, 2003: 142).

Discussion

It is time to allow agency back into discourses of power at the work-place, not as a coherent transcendental subject, but as a struggling,interacting, feeling, thinking and suffering subject, one capable ofobeying and disobeying, controlling and being controlled, losingcontrol and escaping control, defining and redefining control for itselfand for others.

(Gabriel, 1999: 199)

Individuals are not merely passive recipients of identities provided to themby social entities. Rather, individuals are capable of recognizing the identityimplications and demands of organizations, groups, and other social entities.Individuals can respond to identity pressures as well as proactively initiateidentity dynamics. We have herein presented a perspective where identity isco-constructed at the interface of identity boundaries. Any individual is butone of two parties involved in the interaction of co-creating identity. Thisacknowledgement of individual agency provides an important departurefrom much of the existing research on individual and/or organizationalidentity, which tends to focus on only one level of analysis at a time. Ourexamination of the interplay between and within levels affords a richerunderstanding of identity dilemmas, conflicts, and processes.

Hence, the model and propositions in this article provide a frameworkfor simultaneously studying individual and organizational identity – a frame-work clearly needed in identity research (Ashforth, 2001; Pratt, 2003). Byso doing, our approach addresses one of the more pressing issues embeddedin the broader fields of organization theory and behavior – that of bridging


multiple levels of analysis – and identity is a particularly useful way to do so(Albert, 1998). We have illustrated that boundaries and boundary conflictare appropriate lenses through which to examine identity dynamics atmultiple levels. By focusing on the intra-identity boundaries within individ-ual and organizational identities and the inter-identity boundaries betweenindividual and organizational identities as perceived by individuals, we canunderstand more completely complex identity relationships. Boundaries thenprovide a versatile way to describe identity and identity change across levelsof analysis, giving identity researchers a sharper, more useful language anddiscourse upon which to draw for their research.

This article also contributes to the identity literature by integratingdiverse aspects of previous identity research into a common framework. Thisframework offers important theoretical implications for such researchavenues as identity change, multiple identities, dirty work/stigma research,optimal distinctiveness, and the expanded model of identification. Forexample, viewing identity conflict as an intrusion of boundaries helps toexplain the phenomenon and effects of greedy institutions (Coser, 1974), aswell as the concept of the need for organizational identification (Glynn,1998). Viewing identity congruence as balance at the boundary betweenindividual and organizational identity helps to explain optimal distinctive-ness, an emerging area in the identity literature (Brewer, 1999). Acknowl-edging that individuals might be congruent on some identity dimensions andin conflict on other dimensions provides a foundation for understandingambivalent identification, one of the main components of the expandedmodel of identification (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). Moreover, our explica-tion of the identity conflicts undergone by individuals can help to explain theimpetus for ‘aspirational identities’ or ‘possible selves’ (Markus & Wurf,1987) being provisionally created and tested. It can also further explain thecognitive processes undergone by individuals in dirty work professions, asthey negotiate the demands of being identified in stigmatized professions(Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). Hence, the boundary lens that we outline in thisarticle provides a framework for identity researchers to use and ‘hang theirconceptual hats on’ – a way to synthesize and illustrate linkages amongseveral previously disparate identity-related constructs.

Future research

In future research, qualitative and quantitative studies could more fullydocument the dynamics of individual and organizational identity interfaces,using a boundary lens, as well as explore the nature and consequences ofboundary conflict. Our newly introduced constructs of intrusion, distance


and balance, both within and between individual and organizational identi-ties, can be operationalized and tested for construct validity. What futureresearch can add are propositions that specify attitudinal and behavioraloutcomes (e.g. job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behaviors,turnover, absenteeism, commitment) that might flow from boundary conflict.

Future research might also explore the linkages suggested in applyingan identity boundary framework to the expanded model of identification(Elsbach, 1999; Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). This model (and its extension)proposes three processes by which individuals define themselves: disidentifi-cation, ambivalent identification and neutral identification. It is noteworthythat the expanded model of identification has been theorized to link to anumber of individual and organizational outcomes (e.g. organizationalcitizenship behaviors, commitment, self-enhancement). However, theserelationships have not been demonstrated empirically, and it might just aswell be asked whether these outcomes are direct effects of work–self balanceand work–self conflict. For example, in addition to disidentification, doeswork–self intrusion also affect turnover, absenteeism, and reduced organiz-ational citizenship behaviors directly? Does work–self distance relate to lowperceived organizational support (Eisenberger et al., 1986), or low perceivedorganizational membership (Masterson & Stamper, 2003)? Does work–selfbalance contribute directly to employee satisfaction, commitment, andorganizational citizenship behaviors? The effect of work–self balance, intru-sion, and distance on such outcomes is a prime concern for further identityboundary theory development and research because individual attitudes andbehaviors are more proximally related to individual well-being and organiz-ational effectiveness.

Future research could also address such questions as: under whatconditions do individuals allow permeability in intra- and inter-identityboundaries? What individual differences and/or organizational influencesfoster congruence or incongruence of intra- and inter-identity boundaries?What traits or artifacts might serve as markers for a desire for greater identifi-cation with the organization, as is the case with identity distance? Anotherpossibility for future research would be to explore the psychodynamicsassociated with identity boundaries. For example, do more permeableboundaries result in transference and counter-transference of aspects of indi-vidual and organizational identities?

Social and practical implications

A potential stream of research that would help organizations and individualsbetter understand and manage multiple identities remains relatively


unexplored (Pratt, 1998). By using a boundary framework to considerdynamics at the edge of identities, individuals and organizations benefit byunderstanding how conflictual dynamics may affect desired personal andorganizational outcomes. When organization members, including managers,recognize the nature of identity boundaries, they will be more apt to under-stand episodes that involve members who experience work–self intrusion ordistance from some aspect of the organization’s identity. Additionally,organization members may develop means to detect conflicts at earlier stages,providing more opportunities to work through problems before they solidifyas bitter boundary disputes.

It is also important that managers be able to account for the unevenintegration or differentiation of multiple identities at the individual andorganizational identities boundary. For managers to oversimplify either theindividual’s or the organization’s identity as monolithic ‘boxes’ would, inmost cases, produce grave misconceptions of both. As a practical matter,managers can better motivate individuals if they are aware of the multiplic-ity and complexity of identity boundary interactions between individuals andorganizations. For example, it would be premature to deal with anemployee’s disidentification (Dukerich et al., 1998) with one aspect of anorganization without first ascertaining if there may be other aspects of theorganization with which the individual strongly identifies. The model wehave proposed in this article can lead to research that provides managerswith a better understanding of the complex boundary dynamics within andbetween identities.

Conclusion

While conceptualizing individual and organizational identities within aboundary framework is consistent with cognitivist social psychologicalperspectives, we acknowledge that this approach may be inconsistent withothers. For example, in some discourse analytic perspectives, emphasis isplaced on explicating the relationships among power, discourse, and subjec-tivity (e.g. Alvesson & Karreman, 2000; Bergstrom & Knights, 2006;Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1983), with a main focus being on how identities areconstituted discursively (e.g. Potter & Wetherell, 1987) rather than onperceptual boundaries as we conceive them here. For example, as one of ourreviewers pointed out, from a critical/discursive perspective, boundaries andidentity might be viewed as linguistic/social constructs ‘deployed to draw,maintain, defend, exploit . . . particular subject positions in relations ofpower’. Although our approach and a discursive approach diverge in their


assumptions and particular foci, we acknowledge that a discursive approachaddresses different, though equally useful, questions. However, we alsobelieve there is value in the boundary perspective we propose, both in under-standing identity at multiple levels, as well as in invoking further thoughtand discussion.

Previous research from diverse disciplines has successfully used bound-aries to explicate the relationships between social entities. This past workhas provided a foundation on which to build a new framework for under-standing the interfaces within and between individual and organizationalidentities. This article builds on that foundation by beginning a conversationfor organizational scholars on the merits and potentialities of boundaries andboundary conflict for identity-related research. These concepts provide fertileground for our future understanding of how employees, managers, andleaders negotiate the interfaces within and between individual and organiz-ational identities, and the potential conflicts arising where the edges meet.

References

Albert, S. The definition and metadefinition of identity. In D.A. Whetten & P.C. Godfrey(Eds), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage, 1998, pp. 1–16.

Albert, S. & Whetten, D.A. Organizational identity. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds),Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1985,pp. 263–95.

Alvarez, R.J. The Mexican–US border: The making of an anthropology of borderlands.Annual Review of Anthropology, 1995, 24, 447–70.

Alvesson, M. & Karreman, D. Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations throughdiscourse analysis. Human Relations, 2000, 53, 1125–49.

Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. Identity regulation as organizational control: Producing theappropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 2002, 39, 619–44.

Ashforth, B.E. Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001.

Ashforth, B.E. & Johnson, S.A. Which hat to wear? The relative salience of multiple iden-tities in organizational contexts. In M.A. Hogg & D.J. Terry (Eds), Social identityprocesses in organizational contexts. Ann Arbor, MI: Taylor & Francis, 2001,pp. 31–48.

Ashforth, B.E. & Kreiner, G.E. ‘How can you do it?’: Dirty work and the challenge ofconstructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 1999, 24, 413–34.

Ashforth, B.E., Kreiner, G.E. & Fugate, M. All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro roletransitions. Academy of Management Review, 2000, 25, 472–91.

Ashforth, B.E. & Mael, F. Organizational identity and strategy as a context for the indi-vidual. Advances in Strategic Management, 1996, 13, 19–64.

Barley, S.R. & Kunda, G. Design and devotion: Surges of rational and normative ideolo-gies of control in managerial discourse. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1992, 37,363–99.

Bergstrom, O. & Knights, D. Organizational discourse and subjectivity. Human Relations,2006, 59, 351–77.


Bertrand, A.L. Social organization: A general systems and role theory perspective. Phila-delphia, PA: F.A. Davis, 1972.

Brewer, M.B. The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personal-ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1991, 17, 475–82.

Brewer, M.B. Multiple identities and identity transition: Implications for Hong Kong. Inter-national Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1999, 23, 187–97.

Brown, A.D. Organization studies and identity: Towards a research agenda. HumanRelations, 2001, 54, 113–21.

Carlile, P.R. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in productdevelopment. Organization Science, 2002, 13, 442–55.

Casey, C. Work, self and society: After industrialism. London: Routledge, 1995.Clark, S.C. Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human

Relations, 2000, 53, 747–70.Cooper, R. Making present: Autopoiesis as human production. Organization, 2006, 13,

59–81.Corley, K.G. Defined by our strategy or our culture? Hierarchical differences in perceptions

of organizational identity and change. Human Relations, 2004, 57, 1145–78.Coser, L.A. Greedy institutions. New York: Free Press, 1974.Deaux, K. Reconstructing social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1993,

19, 4–12.Dreiss, J.E. Building cohesiveness in an adolescent therapy group. Journal of Child and

Adolescent Psychotherapy, 1986, 3, 22–8.Dreyfus, H.L. & Rabinow, P. Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1983.Dukerich, J.M., Kramer, R. & Parks, J.M. The dark side of organizational identification.

In D.A. Whetten & P.C. Godfrey (Eds), Identity in organizations: Building theorythrough conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998, pp. 245–56.

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. & Harquail, C.V. Organizational images and member identifi-cation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1994, 39, 239–63.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. & Sowa, D. Perceived organizationalsupport. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1986, 71, 500–7.

Elsbach, K.D. An expanded model of organizational identification. In R.I. Sutton & B.MStaw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 21. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,1999, pp. 163–200.

Fiol, M.A. Semiotic analysis of corporate language: Organizational boundaries and jointventuring. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1989, 34, 277–303.

Foreman, P.O. & Whetten, D.A. Members’ identification with multiple-identity organiz-ations. Organization Science, 2002, 13, 618–35.

Friedman, R.A. & Podolny, J. Differentiation of boundary spanning roles: Labor negotia-tions and implications for role conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1992, 37,28–47.

Gabriel, Y. Beyond happy families: A critical reevaluation of the control-resistance-identitytriangle. Human Relations, 1999, 52, 179–203.

Gioia, D.A. From individual to organizational identity. In D.A. Whetten & P.C. Godfrey(Eds), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage, 1998, pp. 17–32.

Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M. & Corley, K.G. Organizational identity, image, and adaptive insta-bility. Academy of Management Review, 2000, 25, 63–81.

Glynn, M.A. Individuals’ need for organizational identification (nOID): Speculations onindividual differences in the propensity to identify. In D.A. Whetten & P.C. Godfrey(Eds), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage, 1998, pp. 238–44.

Glynn, M.A. When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity withina symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 2000, 11, 285–98.


Goddard, V.A., Llobera, J.R. & Shore, C. The anthropology of Europe: Identity andboundaries in conflict. Providence, RI: Berg, 1994.

Golden-Biddle, K. & Rao, H. Breaches in the boardroom: Organizational identity andconflicts of commitment in a nonprofit organization. Organization Science, 1997, 8,593–611.

Graafsma, T.L.G., Bosma, H.A., Grotevant, H.D. & de Levita, D.J. Identity and develop-ment: An interdisciplinary view. In H.A. Bosma, T.L.G. Graafsma, H.D. Grovetant &D.J. de Levita (Eds), Identity and development: An interdisciplinary approach.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994, pp. 159–74.

Hall, D.T. & Richter, J. Balancing work life and home life: What can organizations do tohelp? Academy of Management Executive, 1988, 11, 213–23.

Hall, E.T. The hidden dimension. New York: Anchor Books, 1969.Hartmann, E. Boundaries in the mind: A new psychology of personality. New York: Basic

Books, 1991.Hatch, M.J. & Schultz, M. The dynamics of organizational identity. Human Relations,

2002, 55, 989–1018.Hernes, T. & Bakken, T. Implications of self-reference: Niklas Luhmann’s autopoiesis and

organization theory. Organization Studies, 2003, 24, 1511–35.James, W. Collected essays and reviews, edited R.B. Perry. New York: Russell & Russell,

1920.Jenkins, R. Social identity. London: Routledge, 1996.Katherine, A. Boundaries: Where you end and I begin. New York: Parkside, 1991.Krebs, N.B. Edgewalkers: Defusing cultural boundaries on the new global frontier. Far

Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press, 1999.Kreiner, G.E. & Ashforth, B.E. Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational

identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2004, 25, 1–27.Kreiner, G.E., Hollensbe, E.C. & Sheep, M.L. Where is the ‘me’ among the ‘we’? Identity

work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, in press.Kunda, G. Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation. Phila-

delphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1992.Lewin, K. The conceptual representation and the measurement of psychological forces.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1938.Markus, H.R. & Kunda, Z. Stability and malleability of the self-concept. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 1986, 51, 858–66.Markus, H.R. & Wurf, E. The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective.

Annual Review of Psychology, 1987, 38, 299–337.Masterson, S.S. & Stamper, C.L. Perceived organizational membership: An aggregate

framework representing the employee–organization relationship. Journal of Organiz-ational Behavior, 2003, 24, 473–90.

Mead, G.H. Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1934.Mirvis, P.H. ‘Soul work’ in organizations. Organization Science, 1997, 8, 193–206.Mischel, W. The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N.S. Endler (Eds),

Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977, pp. 333–52.

Mitroff, I.I. & Denton, E.A. A spiritual audit of corporate America: A hard look at spiri-tuality, religion, and values in the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1999.

Morgan, G. Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1986.Nippert-Eng, C. Home and work: Negotiating boundaries through everyday life. Chicago,

IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996.Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behavior.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1987.Pratt, M.G. To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification. In D.A.

Whetten & P.C. Godfrey (Eds), Identity in organizations: Building theory throughconversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998, pp. 171–207.


Pratt, M.G. Disentangling collective identities. In J.T. Polzer (Ed.), Identity issues in groups:Research on managing groups and teams, Vol. 5. Boston, MA: Elsevier Science, 2003,pp. 161–88.

Pratt, M.G. & Foreman, P.O. Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizationalidentities. Academy of Management Review, 2000, 25, 18–42.

Rau, B.L. & Hyland, M.M. Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: The effects onapplicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 2002, 55, 111–36.

Rousseau, D.M. Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 1998, 19, 217–33.

Schneider, S.C. Managing boundaries in organizations. In M.F.R. Kets De Vries (Ed.),Organizations on the couch: Clinical perspectives on organizational behavior andchange. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1991, pp. 169–90.

Schofield, C.H. Global boundaries: World boundaries: Vol. 1. New York: Routledge, 1994.Seidl, D. Organizational identity in Luhmann’s theory of social systems. In T. Bakken &

T. Hernes (Eds), Autopoietic organization theory. Copenhagen: Copenhagen BusinessSchool Press, 2003, pp. 123–50.

Serpe, R.T. Stability and change in self: A structural symbolic interactionist explanation.Social Psychology Quarterly, 1987, 50, 44–55.

Stryker, S. Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA:Benjamin/Cummings, 1980.

Stryker, S. Identity theory: Developments and extensions. In K. Yardley & T. Honess (Eds),Self and identity: Psychosocial perspectives. New York: Wiley, 1987.

Sundaramurthy, C. & Kreiner, G.E. Governing by managing identity boundaries: The caseof family businesses. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, in press.

Sveningsson, S. & Alvesson, M. Managing managerial identities: Organizational fragmen-tation, discourse and identity struggle. Human Relations, 2003, 11, 63–93.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel& W.G. Austin (Eds), Psychology of intergroup relations, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, 1986, pp. 7–24.

Thoits, P.A. Multiple identities and psychological well-being: A reformulation and test ofthe social isolation hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 1983, 48, 174–87.

Thoits, P.A. & Virshup, L.K. Me’s and we’s: Forms and functions of social identities. InR.D. Ashmore & L. Jusim (Eds), Self and identity: Fundamental issues. New York:Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 106–33.

Turner, J.C. & Onorato, R.S. Social identity, personality, and the self-concept: A self-categorization perspective. In T.R. Tyler et al. (Eds), The psychology of the social self.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999, pp. 11–46.

Verbeke, W. & Bagozzi, R.P. A situational analysis on how salespeople experience and copewith shame and embarrassment. Psychology & Marketing, 2002, 19, 713–41.

Weick, K. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995.Yan, A. & Louis, M.R. The migration of organizational functions to the work unit level:

Buffering, spanning, and bringing up boundaries. Human Relations, 1999, 52, 25–47.Zerubavel, E. The fine line: Making distinctions in everyday life. New York: Free Press,

1991.


Glen E. Kreiner is an Assistant Professor of organizational behavior atthe University of Cincinnati. Glen received his PhD from Arizona StateUniversity. His research interests include on such processes as socialidentification, work–family boundary management, role transitions,identity threats, and emotion management. His research focuses on a wide variety of occupations such as stigmatized workers, familybusinesspeople, contingent/temporary workers, and people in religiousvocations. His work has appeared in such journals as the Academy ofManagement Journal, the Academy of Management Review, OrganizationScience, and the Journal of Organizational Behavior.[E-mail: [email protected]]

Elaine C. Hollensbe is an Assistant Professor of organizational behaviorand human resource management in the College of Business at theUniversity of Cincinnati. She received her PhD in organizational behaviorfrom the University of Kansas. Her research interests include identity andidentification, emotion, self-efficacy in wellness and training contexts, andmotivational aspects of compensation. Her work has appeared in theAcademy of Management Review, the Academy of Management Journal, theJournal of Management, and Human Resource Development Quarterly.[E-mail: [email protected]]

Mathew L. Sheep is Assistant Professor of Management at Illinois StateUniversity. He received his PhD at the University of Cincinnati. He waspreviously a Visiting Professor at Ohio University. His research interestsinclude organizational identity and identification, workplace spirituality,business ethics, and discourse analytic perspectives of organization. Hehas published in such journals as the Academy of Management Journal andthe Journal of Business Ethics.[E-mail: [email protected]]


On the edge of identity: Boundary dynamics at the interface of individual and organizational identities

Documents