Purposive Organizational Identity Change
Author:
Tibor van Bekkum, MSc; BR*ND Positioneringsgroep;
[email protected]; T: 0031(0)610939326
About the author:
Tibor van Bekkum is senior consultant at BR*ND Positioneringsgroep, a European
branding agency. His main focus is on positioning issues (strategy and change) for
corporate brands. Currently he is involved in a Phd project on purposive
organizational identity change.
Changing organizational identity - members’ core beliefs about the organization - is a
critical task for leaders aspiring to transform their organizations. Our understanding
of how these beliefs can purposively be changed, however, is limited. To our opinion,
the literature lacks: (1) a comprehensive overview of the aspects that make up this
change process, and (2) guiding principles that general management can adopt to
navigate the multifaceted process of purposive organizational identity change.
Together, the overview and principles form a more comprehensive framework than
the literature currently provides for when it comes to purposive change of
organizational identity.
Organizational identity is defined as members’ collective understanding of who the
organization is, defined by its central, distinctive and enduring features (Albert &
Whetten, 1985). It is that what’s in members’ heads (and hearts) concerning the
questions ‘who are we as an organization?’ and ‘who do we want to be?’.
Organizational identity – together with identification - is central to organizational life
and functioning (Haslam, Postmes and Ellemers, 2003; Albert, Ashforth and Dutton,
2000). For, organizational identity helps explain why individuals act on behalf of the
organization and thus explain the persistence and direction of organizational
behavior (Albert, et. al. 2000). Moreover, as a form of social identity, organizational
identity helps members perceive and interpret their world in similar ways (Haslam et.
al. 2003; Weick, 1995). And organizational identity facilitates processes of mutual
social influence which allows members to coordinate their actions (Haslam et. al.
2003). Not surprisingly, due to its constituting character, researchers have registered
organizational identity to impact upon a great variety of issues amongst which:
environmental adaptation (Dutton & Duckerich, 1991; Fox-Wolffgram, Boal & Hunt,
1998), role enactment of board members (Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997), capability
development and resource allocation (Glynn, 2000), choice for strategic benchmarks
(Labianca et. al. (2001), the intention to leave a company (Cole & Bruch, 2006),
knowledge management (Willem, Scarborough & Buelens, 2008) or for example
campaigning tactics (Balser & Carmin, 2002). The centrality of organizational identity
to organizational life and functioning, make it a concept of specific interest to those
in positions to lead organizations. As Haslam et. al. (2003) state:
“… - rather than being ‘just another’ analytical and managerial tool - organizational
identity and organizational identification should be of particular interest to those who are
seeking to structure and harness the collective energies of organizations. Indeed, in this
vein, Reicher and Hopkins (1996a, 2001) characterize effective leaders as ‘entrepreneurs
of identity’ whose primary project is to create, coordinate and control a shared vision of
‘who the organization is’ and ‘what it wants to be’ (see also Fiol, 2002; Haslam, 2001)”
(p. 365)
Moreover, organizational identity should be of specific interest to leaders when it
comes to change (Van Tonder, 2004; Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003). First, because
organizational identity can sway organizational behaviors. If organizational identity
influences the persistence and direction of organizational behavior, than changing
organizational identity is instrumental to changing these behaviors (Van Tonder,
2004). Furthermore, organizational sensemaking is grounded in identity
construction. By defining who we are, we accordingly define ‘what’s out there’
(Weick, 1995). Organizational identity shapes the way people view their world, frame
issues and act accordingly (see for case study descriptions e.g. Dutton & Duckerich,
1991; Fox-Wolfgramm, Boal & Hunt, 1998). Members’ core beliefs about the
organization impact a companies’ ability to adapt to changing circumstances,
especially when such beliefs are strongly held. Therefore, as some authors have
suggested, organizations need to constantly engage in development and change of
their organizational identity to maintain a healthy external fit and prevent myopia
(Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000; Hatch & Schultz, 2002). Finally, members’ core
beliefs about the organization emerge from complex, dynamic and reciprocal
interactions among managers, members and stakeholders outside the organization
(Scott & Lane, 2000; Hatch & Schultz, 2008). Within these relations, psychological,
economic and political interests play a major role. When organizational change is
perceived to impact members’ core beliefs and their associated interests, resistance
to the change effort is likely to occur (e.g. Gioia, Thomas, Clark & Chittipeddi, 1994;
Nag, Gioia & Corley, 2007) and the effort may fail. Or external stakeholders may
oppose to such organizational change, because their interest associated with the
outcomes of the current identity are threatened (Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003). In
sum, managing the organizational identity change process is a promising activity
when it comes to organizational change.
Purposive organizational identity change
Although our knowledge of organizational identity construction and change has
advanced in recent years, the literature still has some serious shortcomings. This is
especially true when we adopt the perspective of ‘purposive change’ (Bower, 2000).
Purposive change refers to the perspective of the general manager or the top
management team who is responsible for defining ‘what it should be’ and ‘how it
should be accomplished’. In relation to organizational identity change, we perhaps
better speak of ‘who we should be’ and ‘how we should become it’. Grounding for the
perspective of purposive change is the idea that the general manager has to account
for the cognitive, economic, organizational and emotional aspects of the change
process. Therefore, as Bower argues, for the general manager it is unproductive to
adopt either an economic (e.g. Jensen, 2000) or a learning (e.g. Senge, 2000)
perspective to change. We belief this is also true for organizational identity change.
The institutional perspective to organizational identity is grounded in the idea that
organizational identity resides in institutional claims available to members. By
defining and explicating such claims, leaders provide members with an organizational
self-definition. The social constructivist perspective, on the other hand, views
organizational identity as residing in members’ shared beliefs. The institutional
perspective emphasizes sensegiving by leaders, where as the social constructivist
perspective emphasizes sensemaking by members. Following Ravasi and Schultz
(2006), these perspectives “…represent different aspects of the construction of
organizational identities.” (pp. 436). This is especially true, because when it comes
to purposive change sensegiving and sensemaking are inextricably connected (Gioia
& Chittipeddi, 1991). Therefore, we define purposive organizational identity change
as: an attempt of top management to change members collectively shared beliefs
about ‘who the organization is’ and ‘what it wants to be’ and strives for members to
identify themselves with the aspired organizational identity.
In June 2008 we performed a structured literature search in two databases (Social
Sciences Citation Index and Business Source Premier/Ebscohost) on the issue of
organizational identity; using terms like ‘organizational identity’, ‘corporate identity’,
‘organization identity’, ‘organizational/organization identity change’, ‘identity
change’, and ‘organizational/organization identity AND change’. Many thousands of
hits were registered. Three rounds of information reduction followed. First, all hits
were excluded that contained non relevant content. Secondly, all articles were
excluded that didn’t fully centre on the issue of organizational identity. This implies
that all articles that referred to organizational identity as one of the dimensions of
influence on the subject matter of the article were excluded. As recently noticed by
many key scholars, the definition of organizational identity has been used too freely;
mistaking it for corporate identity, reputation, image, construed external image, and
culture (Whetten, 2006; Corley, Harquail, Pratt, Glynn, Fiol & Hatch, 2006; Brown,
Dacin, Pratt & Whetten, 2006). Therefore, finally, all articles were excluded that
didn’t define organizational identity as members’ beliefs about the central, distinctive
and enduring characteristics of the organization. The three rounds of information
reduction resulted in a list of 77 key scholarly contributions on the subject matter.
Reviewing the literature from the perspective of purposive organizational identity
change reveals three gaps. First, many contributions discuss critical aspects of the
identity change process: language use by leaders (Fiol, 2002), managing ego-
defenses (Brown & Starkey, 2000), the relation between identity, practices and
knowledge (Nag, Corley & Gioia, 2007), the way in which culture functions as a
source for sensemaking and sensegiving for leaders in identity change processes
(Ravasi and Schultz, 2006), identity ambiguity as a critical step in processes of
organizational identity change (Corley & Gioia, 2004), or for example the effects of
hierarchical differences on organizational identity change (Corley, 2004). Yet, from a
purposive perspective to organizational identity change, the literature lacks a
comprehensive framework displaying the dimensions that come into play and top
management has to account for – or can make use of – when aiming to change
members core beliefs about the organization.
Secondly, little attention has been bestowed to the question ‘how we should really
become it?’. We have little understanding of the processes by which management
sways that new understandings of the organizational identity become shared,
internalized and densely articulated by members (except for example Scott & Lane,
2000 or Corley, 2004). That is, the dynamics that lay behind a successful
organizational identity change process are firmly overlooked. Scholars have rather
primarily focused on the processes that ground the development of an answer to the
question ‘who should we be?’ (e.g. Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Hatch & Schultz, 2002;
Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000; Corley & Gioia, 2004). And thus, when it comes to
organizational identity change, the literature primarily focuses on manners in which
management develops its’ aspired organizational identity or focuses on ‘abstract’
processes that describe the way in which organizational identity is defined. How such
new identity conceptualizations are successfully implemented, is a somewhat fallow
terrain.
Finally, although attention has been given to the ‘who should we be’ component, the
literature mainly focused on the processes that (should) constitute this development
(e.g. Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000;
Corley & Gioia, 2004). Less attention has been given to the development of criteria
to define whether or not an aspired organizational identity by top management is the
right one in relation to realizing the change. The literature reveals little
comprehensive ideas on ‘who we should really be’.
This paper presents a more comprehensive framework for purposive organizational
identity change than the literature currently provides for. Herewith we make a start
filling the gaps signaled above. First we present a widespread inventory of the
concepts the literature associates with organizational identity change. As our analysis
shows, changing organizational identity is indeed a multifaceted endeavor that
involves multiple levels and aspects to account for in the change process. Secondly,
we will propose a framework for purposive organizational identity change. However,
managing such a multifaceted endeavor is quite a challenging task. Therefore we
present two managerial heuristics critical to purposive organizational identity
change: relevance and centrality. These managerial heuristics are substantiated by
several propositions that define these heuristics and help promote the desired
organizational identity change. Relevance refers to the idea that a new defined
organizational identity is most likely to be successfully adopted, enacted and
developed when it has: (1) broad relevance, (2) psychological-, instrumental- and/or
strategic relevance, and (3) situational relevance. Centrality refers to the idea that
any new defined organizational identity is most likely to be successfully adopted,
enacted and developed, when it is ubiquitous: (1) management uses the aspired
organizational identity to direct internal and external activities, (2) management
uses the aspired organizational identity to direct expressive-communicative acts and
organizational practices, and (3) management designs organizational identity change
processes in which multiple intelligences are consistently spoken to. The relevance
hypothesis applies to the criterion that can define the adequacy of an aspired
organizational identity to the change process. The centrality hypothesis applies to
the ‘how we should really become it’ aspect of purposive change. Finally, this paper
discusses the implications for further research on the subject matter.
Concepts: defining concepts, sensemaking sources and personality traits
What do we encounter and should we account for when aiming to change
organizational identity? Our study reveals ten concepts that relate to changing
members core beliefs about the organization. These concepts fall into three distinct
categories. The first category contains two concepts that define the change process
itself: (1) organizational identity strength and (2) organizational identification.
Decreasing identity strength and identification with the current identity and
increasing identity strength and identification with the aspired organizational identity,
is what the process of purposive organizational identity change ultimately comes
down to. The second category contains six concepts that function as organizational
identity sensemaking sources for members: (3) aspired organizational identity (4)
culture, (5) construed external image, (6) reputation, (7) individual context and (8)
individual disposition. In concerted effort, these concepts sway identity construction
and identification processes and organizational identity strength. The third category
refers to actor based (individual and organizational) personality traits required for
purposive organizational identity change: (9) wisdom and (10) expressiveness.
These traits are associated with processes that constitute organizational identity
construction and change. Together these ten concepts provide a managerial
framework for organizational identity change, which we will discuss in the next
paragraph. But first we will discuss these concepts individually and explain how they
relate to purposive organizational identity construction and change.
Defining concepts
Organizational identity strength
Organizational identity is a prerequisite for any kind of organization. At least some
people must share a common idea of who the organization is and what it wants to
be. Yet, not all organizations have equally clear or strong identities. The strength of
organizational identity can be defined as the extent to which members’ individual
beliefs about the identity of the organization are shared and densely articulated (Cole
& Bruch, 2006). Organizational identity strength is categorized as a defining concept
because it expresses what organizational identity change focuses on: (a) weakening
the current collective understanding and articulation density of who the organization
is and wants to be, and (b) building a new collective understanding of who the
organization is and strengthening articulation density.
Organizational identification
The stronger the identity of an organization is, the stronger the potential for
identification and disidentification with that specific identity (Ashforth, Harrison &
Corley, 2008). The enactment of any organizational identity is related to the extent
that people identify with it. When people identify with a specific organizational
identity, this organizational identity becomes a (partial) definition of the individual
self (Albert et. al., 2000). In this manner, identification can connect the individual to
the organization at the cognitive, affective and behavioral level (Ashforth et. al.
2008). Aiming for change in the persistence and direction of organizational behaviors
and outcomes is, from an identity perspective, thus strongly related to the concept of
identification. Disidentification, as the opposite, is typified as: a cognitive separation
between the own identity and the identity of the organization and a negative
categorization of the relation between ‘I’ and the ‘organization’ (Elsbach &
Bhattacharya, 2001). Managing the processes of disidentification with the current
organizational identity and identification with the aspired organizational identity, are
of central concern to leaders and managers in change trajectories (Empson, 2004;
Fiol, 2002).
Identification has many formulations as Ashforth et al. (2008) conclude from their
extensive literature review. They unravel three levels of identification. The first level
they label ‘the core of identity’. At this level, identification is defined as a persons’
cognitive notion that he or she is a member of the organization and his or her
evaluative notion that this membership has some value connotations. This doesn’t
refer, however, to identification with particular central, distinctive and enduring
characteristics of the organization. One can thus acknowledge the membership of an
organization, without identifying with its’ specifics. For example because these
attributes are not always densely articulated, or may be unclear, emergent or in flux
(2008). Identification at the first level alone, thus, doesn’t necessarily influence the
direction of organizational behavior, because of the absence of guiding referents. The
second level of identification is labeled ‘the content of identity’ and refers to a
persons’ acceptance of the central, enduring and distinctive characteristics (like
values, goals, beliefs, traits, knowledge / skills) of the organization as one’s own.
Here, a persons’ self definition is (made) congruent with that persons definition of
the organization. In contrast to first level identification, now members are likely and
able to enact the organizational identity. Together, first level and second level
identification promote third level identification which is labeled ‘the behaviors of
identity’. The third level of identification refers to congruency between the
characteristic behaviors of an organization and the person who identifies with it: “I
do X, because X is what the organization does”. Yet, it also works the other way
around. By creating congruency between behaviors of the organization and the
individual, one can also work its’ way into identification with the organizations
identity (2008). Ultimately, if one aims to change the direction of organizational
behavior and outcomes by interfering at the level of organizational identity, this
inevitably involves interventions that affect the second and third level of
identification.
Organizational identification is considered defining concept for purposive
organizational identity change, because ultimately managing organizational identity
change requires managing disidentification with the current organizational identity
and identification with the aspired organizational identity. The aspired organizational
identity can only become a source for changing and guiding the behaviors and
outcomes of the organization, if members identify.
Sensemaking sources
Aspired organizational identity
Purposive organizational identity change focuses on the ways in which general
managers can lead organizational identity change efforts. In this view, it is the CEO’s
responsibility to define ‘what is should be’ and ‘how it should be accomplished’. It is
then overtly clear, that the ‘aspired organizational identity’ by top management is
central to purposive change (Hatch & Schultz, 2008; Lerpold, Ravasi, Van Rekom &
Soenen, 2007; Empson, 2004; Corley, 2004; Gioia & Thomas, 1996). For, top
management aspirations are the point of reference against which organizational
identity strength and identification are to be evaluated. Purposively managing the
organization identity change process inevitable leads managers to the following two
questions: ‘To what extent is the aspired organizational identity shared and densely
articulated?’, ‘and to what extent do members’ identify with the aspired
organizational identity?’ Finally, the enactment and institutionalization by top
management of the aspired organizational identity – for example in institutional
claims (Ran, 2007; Gioia & Corley, 2004), projected images (Kärreman & Rylander,
2008; Gilpin, 2008; Gioia & Corley, 2004; Gioia & Thomas, 1996), or modeled
managerial behavior (Gioia & Corley, 2004) – functions as a sensemaking source for
members and external stakeholders.
Culture
A second sensemaking source for members is organizational culture (Hatch &
Schultz, 2008, 2002, 1997; Jack & Lorbieki, 2007; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Corley,
2004; Fiol, 2001; Dutton & Duckerich, 1991). Let us first make a clear distinction
between organizational culture and organizational identity for these concepts are
often confused (Corley et. al., 2006; Brown et. al., 2006). Organizational culture is
mainly associated with the tacit understandings of the organization on the one hand
(e.g. assumptions, values, beliefs) and the concrete manifestations of these tacit
understandings on the on the other hand (e.g. artifacts, symbols, behaviors) (Fiol,
2002; Hatch & Schultz, 2002). Yet, organizational identity is first and foremost
associated with the more or less deliberate sensemaking process of members, when
looking for an answer to the question ‘who are we as an organization?’ (Albert &
Whetten, 1985; Whetten, 2006; Fiol, 1991). Therefore, when compared to
organizational culture, organizational identity can be characterized as more textual
than contextual, more explicit than tacit, and more instrumental than emergent
(Hatch & Schultz, 2002). Organizational culture refers to the context in which
meaning is made, where organizational identity refers to the meaning and meaning
making process itself. That is, when members are looking for an answer to the
question ‘who are we as an organization?’, their tacit understandings of the
organization and the concrete manifestations of these tacit understandings
contextualize (and therefore influence) the sensemaking process (see for case study
examples on this process: Dutton & Duckerich, 1991; Corley, 2004; Ravasi &
Schultz, 2006). Although culture contextualizes the organizational identity
construction process, the meaning that cultural elements have is not straight
forward. Our understanding of these cultural elements ultimately is a socially
constructed interpretation of our observations. The inferences that we draw from our
culture to define ‘who we are’ are moldable; either because a certain artifact can
contain different meanings, or because we selectively focus on those artifacts that
‘fit’ or ‘fuel’ our aspired organizational identity. As Ravasi and Schultz (2006) showed
in their case study of Bang & Olufsen, managers referred to specific products from
the past to guide the aspired organizational idenitty. By doing so, organizational
identity also influence organizational culture. If organizational identity is partly based
on the meaning members draw and explicate from their culture - and that meaning
guides members’ cognition, affect and behavior - than organizational identity also
creates organizational culture. That is, assumptions, values, symbols and behaviors
are reinterpreted an enacted accordingly and culture is recreated (Hatch & Schultz,
2002; Fiol, 1991).
Construed external image
Next to looking inside the organization for identity cues, members beliefs about the
organization are also influenced by the so called ‘construed external image’: what
members think outsiders think about their organization (Dutton & Duckerich, 1991;
Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000; Dutton, Duckerich & Harquail,
1994; Elsbach & Kramer, 1996; Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001; Brown, Dacin, Pratt
& Whetten, 2006). A perceived incongruence between members own organizational
identity conceptualization and the conceptualizations of external others, stimulates
members to engage in sensemaking processes searching for identity cues (Hatch &
Schultz, 2002; Dutton & Duckerich, 1991). Such incongruence can be perceived
because different characteristics are attributed to the organization, or because a
different value is placed upon an agreed characteristic. Confirmation of a
characteristic or value placed upon a characteristic strengthens members’ beliefs
about and identification with the organization (Dutton, Duckerich & Harquail, 1994).
This is especially true when ‘the other’ is held in high regard (Smidts, Pruyn & Van
Riel, 2001). By deliberately explicating (in)congruence, top management can thus
influence the organizational identity construction process. One should notice here
however, that different parts of the organization may be confronted with different
external others or place a different value upon external others.
Reputation
When engaging in the purposive change of organizational identity, next to construed
external image, the actual image and reputation of the organization plays an
important role. For, as Fombrun and Van Riel (2004) explain: “Reputation involves
the assessment that multiple stakeholders make about the company’s ability to fulfill
their expectations (……) Reputation affects the likelihood of supportive behaviors
from all of the brand’s stakeholders.” Reputation is thus all about the “predictability
of behavior and the likelihood that a company will meet these expectations”
(Sandberg 2002:3 in Whetten and Mackay, 2002). Because identity guides members
behavior - for manager and employee tend to act in ways consistent with an
organizations identity - identity is the backbone for reputation (Fombrun, 1996).
Changing organizational identity changes the persistence and direction of
organizational behavior. This disrupts current expectations external stakeholders
have of a company. Herewith, the psychological (Aaker, 20..), political or economic
(Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003) interests they have associated with the current
organizational identity can become threatened. Support for or opposition against
such changes may occur. Managing reputation is critical when leading organizational
identity change trajectories, because reputation and the resulting external
stakeholders behaviors fuel ‘construed external image’ and are therefore of influence
on members’ conceptualizations of the organization and their respective
identification. Moreover, practices associated with reputation management (e.g.
Branding, PR) leave identity impressions on members as well (Gilpin, 2008;
Kärreman & Rylander, 2008).
Individual context
Although organizational identity irrevocably is an attribute of the organization,
ultimately it is created, sustained and altered by members who enact it. From an
institutional perspective, members are representatives of the organization as a social
actor and act on behalf of it. Therewith creating images about the organization upon
which others evaluate the organization. From a social constructivist perspective, it is
members’ beliefs about the identity of the organization that influence the persistence
and direction of organizational behavior. In any case, aiming to sustain or alter
organizational identity ultimately concerns members’ individual understanding and
enactment of that organizational identity.
While ‘individual context’ is not a term used in the literature like culture or construed
external image, we choose to use this generic term to refer to the idea that different
work contexts within the organization give different identity conceptions. Were
‘culture’ thus addresses the collectively shared internal context by which members
make sense of organizational identity, ‘individual context’ refers to those contexts in
which members make sense of organizational identity that are not shared by the
collective. Think of a unit, position, department, function, et cetera. As research
shows, identity conceptions are amongst others influenced by hierarchical position
(Corley, 2004), role (Simpson & Carroll, 2008; Chreim, 2006), work processes and
daily practices (Alvesson & Empson, 2008; Nag, Corley & Gioia, 2007; Kilduff, Funk
& Mehra, 1997), content of knowledge with which we deal (Alvesson & Empson,
2008; Nag, Corley & Gioia, 2007), the products we produce (Kilduff, Funk & Mehra,
1997) and the confrontation with external others in a specific organizational context
(see paragraph on construed external image). As Fiol (2002) argues, members build
identity ties in their concrete settings. The generic term ‘individual context’, herewith
explains to some extend the concept of ‘ideographic multiplicity’. Ideographic
multiplicity refers to the idea that organizations can have multiple identities that are
associated with different collectives within the organization (Pratt & Foreman, 2000).
When work contexts differ, identity conceptualizations can differ. Managing
identification and organizational identity strength therefore involves adaptation to
individual context (Fiol, 2002).
Personal disposition
Next to differences in individual contexts, also differences in personal disposition
explain different organizational identity conceptualizations. Because members’ beliefs
are ultimately individually held and influence members’ sensemaking, we define
current organizational identity beliefs as part of an individuals’ disposition that
influences members sensemaking. Moreover, personal disposition is defined by
members’ individual values, goals, beliefs, traits, knowledge and skills. For, they
influence identification with the organization (Ashforth et. al., 2008). That is, the
level of congruence perceived by the individual between his/her own characteristics
and the characteristics of the organization influences peoples’ identification with the
organization. Furthermore, peoples’ individual identity also influences sensemaking
about the organization by the individual. Glynn (2000), for example, showed how
professional identity differences within an orchestra, led to conflict over
organizational identity. Where musicians had their ambitions focused on developing
artistic excellence, administrators had their ambitions focused on economic utility.
Both defined the desired future development of the organization congruent with their
professional individual values. Accounting for personal disposition seems highly
relevant because ultimately it is the individual who makes sense of and identifies
with the aspired organizational identity.
Personality traits
Wisdom
Next to ‘defining concepts’ and ‘concepts that function as sensemaking sources’, we
also uncovered personality traits (or perhaps attitudes) as a central element in
purposive organizational identity change processes. Of which the first one is ‘wisdom’
(Brown & Starkey, 2000). If current organizational identity conceptions are
threatened, ego-defenses (like denial, rationalization, idealization or for example
fantasy) can occur to preserve a sense of collective self-esteem and self-continuity
(2000; Gloud, Ebers, Clinchy, 1999). For example, Dutton and Duckerich (1991)
case study of the New York Port Authority (NYPA) shows how the homeless issue,
that the NYPA was confronted with in it’s terminals, was denialed between ‘82 and
‘86. Only after this denial resulted in such fierce negative images about the NYPA in
the press that the collective self-esteem was threatened, the issue was addressed.
Such ego-defenses are barriers to organizational adaptation, learning and ultimately
organizational identity change. Adopting an attitude of wisdom by engaging in critical
self-reflexivity and making dialogues on future identity an integral feature of
strategic management, enables organizations to master ego-defenses. As Brown and
Starkey state:
“The wise individual or organization is one who accepts that a willingness to explore ego-
threatening matters is a prerequisite for developing a more mature individuality and identity.
Negotiating such identity change requires a process of profound self-questioning.
Wise individuals and organizations shape and reshape identity through the ongoing construction
and reconstruction of self.” (pp.113)
Interesting to notice, is that Brown and Starkey explicitly refer to individuals and
organizations. Within a purposive organizational identity change effort both entities
probably come into play. On the one hand, critical self-reflexivity should be an
attribute of the organization, for it is wise to institutionalize processes that facilitate
information gathering on ego-threatening matters. Yet, on the other hand, it’s
ultimately top management and members that have to be self-reflexive. For in the
end, purposive organizational identity change is about members beliefs about the
organization and their individual willingness to identify.
The idea that processes of self-reflexivity are crucial in organizational identity
development and change is widely recognized (e.g. Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Corley,
Schultz & Gioia, 2000; Brown et al. 2006). Hatch and Schultz (2002) break down the
self-reflexivity process into two components: one with internal focus labeled
‘reflection’ and one with external focus labeled ‘mirroring’. Reflection refers to
members sensemaking of the identity of their organization by reflecting on their
organizational culture. Reflection connects identity and identification to culture.
Mirroring is the external component and refers to the process where organizations
engage into self-reflexivity by mirroring external opinions and views on the
organization. Mirroring connects identity and identification to reputation and
construed external image. Although self-reflexivity is a widely acknowledged aspect
of organizational identity construction and change, Hatch and Schultz didn’t explicitly
term them ‘personality traits’ (or attitude). They, however, did refer to the psycho-
analytical property of self-reflexivity by arguing that organizations that do not
critically reflect on their identity in relation to external stakeholders can be labeled
‘narcists’ (a personality trait).
Expressiveness
Finally, we detect the concept of ‘expressiveness’ as a critical personality trait (or
attitude) to the development of organizational identity. Expressiveness refers to the
extent to which an organization (or individual) expressions of its own cultural
understandings have emotional appeal and invite us into orbit (Hatch & Schultz,
2002). From a viewpoint of building reputation, Fombrun and Van Riel (2004) define
expressiveness as the extent to which an organization is: visible, transparent,
distinctive, consistent and authentic. Being expressive, they reason, helps
organizations build a collective understanding of the organization by all its’
stakeholders (internal and external). This is also recognized by Hatch and Schultz
(2002), who argue that cultural expressions leaf impressions on the members of that
culture and external stakeholders. Being expressive helps organizations to manage
the desired fit between internal beliefs about the organization and external
expectations of the organization. First, because it sends one clear massage to all.
Secondly, because it enables internal and external stakeholders to asses the identity
of the organization more easily and provide the organization with feedback on the
desirability of its identity. Together with wisdom, expressiveness is a crucial
personality trait for purposively changing organizational identity.
Changing organizational identity: managing it all
Table 1 presents an overview of the concepts discussed, categorized by their
typology and the level(s) at which they operate. First of all, the overview points our
attention to the fact that to fully understand the interaction dynamics in a purposive
organizational identity change effort, one needs to involve the different levels of the
process: the individual (level 1), the work context (level 2), the organization at large
(level 3), and the organizations’ context (level 4). The necessity to account for all
levels (both for the researcher, and the general manager) seems especially
important, because the dynamics in the process of organizational identity change are
partly explained by interactions between these levels. As Corley (2004) describes in
his case study of a corporate spin-off, a perceived incongruence by top management
between culture (level 3) and reputation (level 4) urged top management to define a
new organizational identity (level 3). Yet, members’ organizational identity
conceptualization and their identification (level 1) didn’t change, because their
concrete settings didn’t provide cues that signaled the aspired organizational identity
(level 2). Something similar has been registered by Nag, Corley and Gioia (2007)
who observed how an attempt to transform a high-tech R&D department to a market
oriented organization (level 3) stranded, because of the interplay between practices
(level 2), knowledge (level 1 and 2) and professional identification (level 1).
[INSERT TABLE 1 HERE]
Secondly, because all levels need to be included, we ought to be aware that
changing organizational identity potentially involves interventions of various kinds:
institutional interventions (e.g. reputation, aspired organizational identity),
organizational interventions (e.g. developing strategic management processes that
account for reflection, developing work contexts that provide cues for the aspired
organizational identity), cultural interventions (e.g. symbolically expressing culture),
behavioral interventions (e.g. training members may help them work their way into a
new organizational identity, modeling managerial behavior), cognitive interventions
(e.g. explaining strategic rationales behind a chosen aspired organizational identity),
emotional interventions (e.g. being expressive invites members into orbit), and
psychodynamic interventions (e.g. making sure people reflect on culture, work
context, and external stakeholders views). Within organizational identity change
processes these interventions are not clearly separable. Rather, they are mutually
related. For example, building reputation (institutional), benefits from being
expressive to external stakeholders (emotional). Yet, externally addressed reputation
practices, have their effect on members sensemaking (cognitive) (Fombrun & Van
Riel, 2004; Gilpin, 2008). Another example. People may work their way into
identification with the aspired organizational identity (Ashforth et. al., 2008). Yet,
interventions in members work contexts (organizational) need to go had in hand with
explaining the link to the aspired organizational identity (cognitive) to stimulate re-
identification (Fiol, 2002).
When it comes to members’ sensemaking processes on the identity of the
organization, much seems to go hand in hand. Successful management of these
sensemaking processes thus requires top management to take a broad view and
manage it all. This, however, is a sizable and difficult task. We believe, therefore,
that a framework for purposive organizational identity change is most productive
when it describes core managerial activities and heuristics that help promote the
desired change. This we will elaborate in the next paragraph.
A framework for purposive organizational identity change
Purposive organizational identity change is defined here as an attempt of top
management to change members shared understandings of the organization and
stimulating members’ identification with the aspired organizational identity. Such
understandings are socially constructed, for meaning ultimately is a socially-
constructed phenomenon (Berger & Luckman; Weick; in: Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991).
Taking a stakeholder perspective to purposive organizational identity change is
essential (Scott & Lane, 2000), for managers, members and external stakeholders
are the participants of the process in which meaning is made. This puts forward an
extra argument for the general manager to involve all levels of the process, for
together these levels account for all relevant stakeholders. Engaging in the purposive
change of organizational identity poses the question for top management ‘under
what conditions are we most likely to redefine organizational identity and stimulate
members identification with the aspired organizational identity?’. To this end, we will
first present an overview of the purposive organizational identity change process
(see figure 1). This overview is subsequently followed by two key managerial
heuristics by which management can navigate the process of purposive
organizational identity change: relevance and centrality.
Aiming to change members’ beliefs about the organization can be defined as a
process of sensegiving. For sensegiving is “…the process of attempting to influence
the sensemaking and meaning construction of others towards a preferred redefinition
of organizational reality” (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, pp. 442). Following Fiol (2002)
we believe that current identity beliefs need to be broken down first before new
identity beliefs can arise. Merely presenting an attractive alternative future identity
will not be enough, because current beliefs form the frame of reference by which
members make sense of their world. The stronger these beliefs are held and
members’ identification with these beliefs, the less likely it is that members are
receptive to new frames of reference. Top management will thus first need to engage
in sensebreaking, before engaging in sensegiving. Sensebreaking is defined as an
attempt to “…question existing understandings of others, causing them to experience
their views of reality as incoherent, insensible and untenable.” (Lawrence & Maitlis,
in: Vlaar, Fenema & Tiwari, 2008). Without sensebreaking, new information will be
incorporated in existing understandings, which will prevail, and the basis for
members’ information processing and behavior will not be fundamentally challenged
and changed (2008).
A situation in which members’ are in doubt of ‘who the organization is’, is referred to
as organizational identity ambiguity (e.g. Corley & Gioia, 2004; Ravasi & Shultz,
2006). Ambiguity rises when members perceive incongruence between different
sensemaking sources. For, ambiguity may be produced by: (1) a situation in which
organizational identity strength is low (Cole & Bruch, 2006; Ashforth, 2008);
different sensemaking sources provide different cues; (2) a situation in which
members perceive identity cues that contrast with current identity beliefs (e.g.
Dutton et. al., 1994; Dutton & Duckerich, 1991; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006); personal
disposition is incongruent with other sensemaking sources from a content
perspective; or (3) a situation in which members psychological interests derived
from the current organizational identity are threatened (e.g. Dutton et. al., 1994;
Fiol, 2002; Dutton & Duckerich, 1991); a situation in which personal disposition is
incongruent with other sensemaking sources from a value perspective. Incongruence
leads members to perceive organizational identity ambiguity, the need to engage in
sensemaking processes on the identity of the organization, and therefore weakens
identification with the current organizational identity. Rebuilding new beliefs, we
argue, is supported by perceptions of congruence between sensemaking sources.
Congruence is defined as the exact opposite of incongruence: (1) a situation in which
members perceive consistent and strongly articulated identity cues form different
sensemaking sources, (2) as a situation in which members perceive identity cues
that confirm aspired identity beliefs, or (3) as a situation in which members perceive
cues that serve their psychological interest derived from the aspired organizational
identity. By managing incongruence and congruence top management can influence
organizational identity strength and identification.
Finally, incongruence and congruence are managed by being wise and expressive. By
being wise, top management designs and engages in practices and processes that
help members critically reflect on the identity of their organization. Within such
processes, perceived (in)congruence can purposively be organized. Think for
example about disseminating market research or stakeholder surveys, company wide
employee surveys on the current and desired identity of the organization (as did IBM
with its Value JAM), or strategic management processes in which identity reflection is
incorporated. By engaging in expressive practices top management can deliberately
create (in)congruence between sensemaking sources. For example, by using
negative rhetoric in relation to the current organizational identity (Fiol, 2002), or by
branding practices that signal the aspired organizational identity (Kärreman &
Rylander, 2008).
Proposition 1a: managers that design organizational identity change
processes in which reflective and expressive practices are purposively used to
increase members’ perceived incongruence between sensemaking sources,
decrease organizational identity strength and identification.
Proposition 1b: managers that design organizational identity change
processes in which reflective and expressive practices are purposively used to
increase members perceived congruence between sensemaking sources,
increase organizational identity strength and identification
[INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE]
Relevance
Next to managing members’ perceived incongruence and congruence between
sensemaking sources, defining an aspired organizational identity that is perceived as
‘relevant’ by critical stakeholders is essential to changing members’ core beliefs
about the organization. Building on a social constructivist point of view, framing is an
essential task for top management (Smircich and Morgan, 1982). From the
perspective of organizational identity, framing focuses on questions like: what labels
do we (as a company) choose to describe who we aspire to be? And, what meanings
do we attach to these labels? Moreover, from a purposive perspective top
management may wonder: ‘what criteria underlie labels that are likely to be adopted
by management, members and external stakeholders as the … point of reference
against which a feeling of organization and direction can emerge?’. We believe that
the contours of such a frame need to be defined by the interests of the stakeholders
involved. For if a desired organizational identity or the expected outcomes of that
identity apply to these interests it is more likely that one identifies, behaves
congruently, and behaves supportively. This is suggested for managers judging an
organizational identity strategically (Pratt & Foreman, 2000), members and
managers judging the aspired organizational identity from a psychological
perspective (Ashforth, et. al. 2008), managers and members judging the aspired
organizational identity instrumentally (Corley & Gioia, 2004), and external
stakeholders judging organizational identity from an instrumental perspective and
psychologically (Van Riel & Fombrun, 2004; Aaker, 1991). Vice versa, if a new
proclaimed organizational identity or the associated outcomes opposes any of these
stakeholders’ interests this may result in conscious or unconscious resistance to
change (Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003; Brown & Starkey, 2000), with the
(unfortunate) probability of failure of the effort as a result. Moreover, members’ core
beliefs and identification are strengthened when they perceive positive external
feedback (Dutton, et. al., 1994; Smidts et. al., 2001), for that serves their
psychological interests. Appealing to the interests of a broad array of stakeholders is
desirable, because it will stimulate members’ identification with the aspired
organizational identity directly and indirectly via positive external feedback.
Proposition 2a: managers that define a new organizational identity with labels
and meanings that have ‘broad relevance’ are more likely to change
members’ core beliefs about the organization
As indicated above, we recognize three types of relevance in the literature:
psychological-, instrumental- and strategic relevance. First, psychologically, people
are likely to identify with the organization when it appeals to motives related to the
self, like self-expression, self-distinctiveness, self-enhancement, and self-continuity
(Ashforth et. al. 2008). Although the organizational identity literature primarily
focuses on members self-related motives, also external stakeholders like consumers
can have strong psychological interests in the identity of an organization or brand
(Aaker, 1991). Think for example about the consumers’ uproar when the Body Shop,
known for its animal friendly tested products, was sold to L’Oreal who didn’t take
animal friendly testing as serious as the Body Shop. Secondly, stakeholders are likely
to give support to the identity of the organization when they experience its relevant
outcomes: instrumental relevance. Instrumental relevance relates to a stakeholders’
economic, social or political interests (Gioia, Thomas, Clark & Chittipeddi, 1994;
Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003). The third type of relevance we label ‘strategic
relevance’ and refers to the idea expressed by Pratt & Foreman (2000), that
managers are likely to support an organizational identity when they perceive it has
future strategic value for the organization: economic, political, social, and what
more. The difference between instrumental value and strategic value is the
perspective taken. Strategic value refers to a future value for the organization and is
judged by management responsible for defining strategy. Instrumental value refers
to the relevance for the individual or the stakeholder (group) and is judged
accordingly.
Top management, members and external stakeholders can all experience different
types of relevance at the same time. When using ‘innovative’ as label to define the
aspired organizational identity, top management may experience strategic relevance
and psychological relevance at the same time. Being innovative may have strategic
value for the organization and it may at the same time tickle their need for self-
enhancement, self-expression, and self-differentiation. And for clients of top tier
consulting firms, being ‘bright’ may encapsulate instrumental relevance (bright
people bring the best solution) and psychological relevance (the safety of the
brightest people and the best solution). Speaking to more than one type of relevance
is not the issue. This will only stimulate identification and supportive behavior for the
aspired organizational identity. The issue comes in when a label appeals on the one
hand but revolts on the other. This we experienced in our consulting practice, when
we helped define a new identity for a technology company. Strategically it was
broadly recognized that the best option was to become a ‘consortium organization’,
engaging in organizing networks for open ICT innovation. This however meant that
the focus on ‘engineering’ solutions by the organization itself would be left behind.
Being engineers themselves (like all other management team members), two
managers felt strong opposition against this scenario arguing that they didn’t want to
become business administrators (something they strongly associated with being an
organizer of innovation networks). Although strategic relevance was covered,
psychological relevance wasn’t.
Proposition 2b: managers that define a new organizational identity with labels
and meanings that appeal to at least one kind of relevance for a stakeholder
and do not revolt another are more likely to change members’ core beliefs
about the organization.
Besides differences in aspirations between stakeholder groups and different types of
relevance at the scene to account for, changing members’ beliefs also involves
attuning a label to members’ individual context. The aspired organizational identity
has to have the property of ‘situational relevance’. That is, the labels used and
meanings chosen need to be relevantly translatable to members’ individual context.
Members need to be able to recognize the identity of a company in their direct work
context. In the first place, because members sensemaking on the identity of the
organization is strongly attached to individual context (Fiol, 2002). Secondly,
because members can work their way into a new organizational identity (Ashforth et.
al., 2008). Actively engaging in activities that help clarify the link between the
organizational identity and ones individual work context, is likely to help change
members’ core beliefs about the organization.
Proposition 2c: managers that define a new organizational identity with labels
and meanings that have situational relevance, and invest in explicating the
link to members’ individual context, are more likely to change members’ core
beliefs about the organization.
Centrality
Centrality refers to the idea that an aspired organizational identity is most likely to
be translated into beliefs about the organization and accordingly enactment of the
aspired identity, when it is ubiquitously applied. That is, when the aspired
organizational identity is used by top management as their own frame of reference
by which they project images, make decisions, participate in dialogues, develop
processes, make investments, model behaviors, etc. However, centrality is
conditioned by relevance, for ubiquitously applying an aspired organizational identity
that fails on relevance will only stimulate opposition against the aspired change. We
identified two pillars on which we base the centrality hypothesis: institutionalization
and multiple intelligences.
Institutionalization
Ultimately purposive organizational identity change is aimed at internalization of the
aspired organizational identity in the hearts and minds of members. For, then, it can
become a source for managing the direction and persistence of organizational
behavior. Internalization refers to the process by which new understandings become
part of people’s internal world (Aronson, 1992). Critical for internalization, is
institutionalization. Institutionalization refers to the process of making a new self-
understanding a formal part of one’s external social world (Fiol, 2002).
Institutionalization is assumed to be an important process in relation to purposive
organizational identity change, because members’ new identity conceptions need to
be ‘confirmed’ by institutional social structures. That is, new identity conceptions
tend to stay tentative until people experience congruence between their new identity
conceptions and the perceived institutional social structures (Czarniawska & Wolff,
In: Fiol, 2002). It needs to be taken for granted that it is socially legitimate and
normal to adapt and express a new organizational identity (Aldrich & Fiol, In: Fiol,
2002). Institutionalization of the aspired organizational identity is thus a prerequisite
for members to internalize the new aspired organizational identity and enact it. On
the other hand, institutionalizing the aspired organizational identity is in itself a form
of enactment by (top) management.
First and for most such institutionalization processes are referred to in the literature
as expressive and communicative acts (e.g. Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Empson, 2004;
Alvesson & Robertson, 2006). Practices that are associated with these processes are
for example corporate branding (Kärreman & Rylander, 2008; Corley & Gioia, 2004;
Olins, 1989), PR (Gilpin, 2008), language use by management (Fiol, 2002), modeling
managerial behavior (Corley & Gioia, 2004), mission statements (Ran & Duimering,
2007), corporate architecture, corporate dress, corporate rituals (see Hatch &
Schultz, 2002). Expressive and communicative acts project desired images, explicate
desired values by top management and symbolize the desired organizational identity.
It is useful to notices that these expressive practices can primarily be directed to
insiders (e.g. corporate rituals, managerial behavior) or primarily to outsiders (e.g.
corporate branding, PR). Changing members’ beliefs about the central, distinctive
and enduring characteristics of the organization is more likely to succeed when
expression of the aspired organizational identity is addressed to insiders and
outsiders. For two reasons: (1) members take notice of expressive acts directed to
outsiders (Gilpin, 2008; Kärremann & Rylander, 2008) and these form extra cues for
understanding the aspired organizational identity; and (2) the impressions left on
external stakeholders are a basis for image formation and thus a source for feedback
to the organization that fuels the construed external image.
Proposition 3a: managers that are expressive about the desired organizational
identity to members and external stakeholders are more likely to change
members’ core beliefs about the organization
Not all members’ sensemaking on the identity of the organization is based on the
expressive and communicative acts of top management. That is, members
particularly also make sense of organizational identity based on organizational
structures, task structures, reward structures (Brickson, 2000), daily routines / work
processes (Kilduff, Funk, Mehra, 1997; Alvesson & Empson, 2008), knowledge
(Alvesson & Empson, 2008; Nag, Corley & Gioia, 2007), their role (Chreim, 2006;
Simpson & Carroll, 2008), or for example the institutional form of the organization
(e.g. co-operative versus commercial; Foreman & Whetten, 2002). In short, as Fiol
(2002) points out, members build identity ties in their concrete settings. Thus, next
to institutionalizing the desired identity in expressive and communicative acts ‘about’
the organization, top management should also focus on institutionalizing the desired
organizational identity ‘in’ the organizations practices. Changing organizations may
benefit from changing organizational identity, changing organizational identity surely
also benefits from changing organizations.
Proposition 3b: managers that institutionalize the desired organizational
identity in organizational practices that make up members’ individual context,
are more likely to change members’ core beliefs about the organization
Of course, what we might call ‘about’ or respectively ‘in’ is a bit arbitrary. For, as an
example, rituals take place within the organization and work practices can become
expressed as symbols of a desired organizational identity. Yet, we focus on this
distinction to argue that in the case of purposive organizational identity change, top
management needs to combine expressive and communicative acts with acts
directed towards the concrete settings in which these expressions take place. The
more ambiguous the sensemaking context is for members, the harder it is for
members to clearly decode what management aspires. Creating ambiguity about the
organizational identity can be valuable step in letting go of the old organizational
identity (e.g. Corley & Gioia, 2004). Yet, if we aim to give sense to a new
organizational identity ambiguity is a burden.
Proposition 3c: managers that combine expressiveness about the desired
organizational identity with anchoring the desired organizational identity in
organizational practices are more likely to change members’ core beliefs
about the organization
Changing organizational identity is inextricably linked to reputation management.
First, because external stakeholders can oppose to changing organizational identity
because they have political, economic or psychological interests in the current
organizational identity. Or they can support the desired organizational identity if it
fits their interests. Secondly, because the feedback they provide an organization with
is potentially a powerful mechanism to manage the construed external image. For
sensegiving to external stakeholders holds the same as for sensegiving to members.
Being expressive about the organizations identity needs to go hand in hand with
anchoring the desired organizational identity in organizational practices. For, external
stakeholders draw inferences about a companies’ identity on what is says and what it
does. After all, reputation is all about the predictability of behavior (Fombrun & Van
Riel, 2004; Sandberg 2002:3 in Whetten and Mackay, 2002). Building a strong
reputation thus requires being expressive about ‘who you are’ and substantiating the
handed frame with proof. The claim needs to be materialized. ‘Substantiating the
claim’, however, requires building an organization with practices that themselves
signal the desired identity (Google for example is known for it’s work environment
that fits our expectation of Google as a creative and young organization) or produce
outcomes that signal the desired identity (Philips innovation process incorporates
mechanisms that ensures that new products fit their identity claim ‘sense &
simplicity’) (Kreutzer, 2009).
Proposition 3d: managers that are expressive to external stakeholders about
the desired organizational identity and materialize this claim are more likely
to change members’ core beliefs about the organization
Multiple intelligences
The study of organizational identity focuses on members’ understandings of the
unique and differentiating characteristics of the organization. Central to the discourse
of organizational identity, therefore, is the question ‘how do people come to
understand the identity of their organization?’. As this paper has already shown,
members come to understand the identity of their organization by drawing inferences
about the organization from different sensemaking sources, residing at different
levels of the organization. And from the perspective of internalization and
institutionalization we have formulated some hypotheses that focus on the necessity
to engage in symbolic-communicative acts and materialization of the desired
organizational identity to successfully change members’ beliefs.
We have not yet, however, formulated an answer to this question from the cognitive
perspective of an individual’s information processing. To do so - as did Harquail &
King, (2002) and Oliver & Roos, (2007) - we draw on the theory of multiple
intelligences (Gardner, 1993, 1999). The idea is that people use different
informationprocessing capacities to understand and experience their world. Gardner
distinguishes mathematical-logical, linguistic, visual-spatial, musical-rhythmic,
bodily-kinesthetic, and emotional capacities. Following Harquail and King (2002), we
also assume that members use all six capacities to construe their organization’s
identity. That means that members come to understand the organizational identity
by the building and room they work in, the logo’s they see, the language that is
used, the pace of our work, the logic by which arguments are made, the quantitative
measures used and presented, the emotions displayed and the non verbal bodily
signals perceived, et cetera.
Members categorize information based on the mental model that is generated and
activated by a specific capacity touched upon. This opens up six channels through
which a new organizational identity can be become present for members. Although
this might be an attractive observation at first hand - for it opens up six ways for
members to relate to and identify with the organization, Harquail and King (2002) -,
it also bears the serious risk of evoking confusing conceptualizations of the aspired
organizational identity. For, if different intelligences categorize identity information
differently and point in different directions, than ‘who are we becoming?’. For
example, developing or maintaining an amateurish logo and office, will weaken or
confuse the aspired claim of ‘professionalism’. As well as becoming ‘caring’ for clients
or patients will be a difficult challenge, when one preaches ‘caring’ (verbal
intelligence) on the one hand but maintains work processes and reward systems that
push members to high patient or client turnover (rhythmic) or have managers that
manage by ‘running around’ (bodily). Avoiding contrary signals and managing
consistency across intelligences will be a central task for leaders in purposive
organizational identity change processes. However, if one manages to arrive at the
point of consistency, than this opens up six channels that can fuel organizational
identity strength. For, the perceived articulation of a new organizational identity will
be denser, and therefore stronger, if multiple capacities are activated. The stronger
the identity of the organization, the stronger the potential for identification (Ashforth,
et. al., 2008).
Proposition 3e: managers that account for consistency and design
organizational identity change processes in which members can experience
the aspired organizational identity via multiple intelligences are more likely to
change members’ core beliefs about the organization.
Discussion
The impact of organizational identity on organizations is indisputable. And managing
organizational identity is a critical task for top management when it comes to
organizational change. By taking a purposive perspective, it has been our attempt to
provide a more comprehensive picture of what managing organizational identity
change involves. We argue that purposively changing members core beliefs about
the organization involves (1) accounting for multiple levels (individual, work context,
organization at large, and the organizations context), (2) a great variety of potential
interventions (institutional, organizational, cultural, behavioral, cognitive, emotional,
and psychodynamic), (3) managing incongruence and congruence between different
sensemaking sources by being wise and expressive to influence organizational
identity strength and identification, (4) defining an aspired organizational identity
that has relevance (broad relevance, types of relevance, and situational relevance),
and (5) ubiquitously applying the aspired organizational identity (internal and
external, communicative-expressive and organizational practices, and consistently
speaking to multiple intelligences).
Clearly this study didn’t go into process detail itself, or made a widespread inventory
of the practices organizations use in organizational identity change processes. We
aimed to construct a framework - more comprehensive than the literature currently
provides for – that can be a useful starting point for empirically studying purposive
organizational identity change. Moreover, we believe that this framework can be
useful to general management when engaging in purposive change of members’ core
beliefs about the organization.
Literature
Aaker, D. A. (1991) ‘Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of the
Corporate Brand Name’, New York: The Free Press
Albert, S., Ashforth, B.E. and Dutton, J.E. (2000) ‘Organizational Identity and
Identification: Charting New Waters and Building New Bridges’, Academy of
Management review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 13-17
Albert, S and Whetten, D. A. (1985) ‘Organizational identity’ In: L.L. Cummings and
Barry M. Staw (eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior 7: 263-295. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Alvesson, M. and Empson, L. (2008) ‘The Construction of Organizational Identity:
Comparative Case Studies of Consulting Firms’, Scandinavian Journal of
Management, Vol. 24, pp. 1-16
Alvesson, M. and Robertson, M. (2006) ‘The Best and the Brightest: The
Construction, Significance and Effects of Elite Identities in Consulting Firms’,
Organization, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 195-224
Aronsen, E. (1999) ‘The Social Animal’, New York: Worth Publishers
Ashforth, B.E., Harrison, S.H. and Corley, K.G. (2008) ‘Identification in
Organizations: An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions’, Journal of
Management, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 325-374
Balser, D. B., Carmin, J. (2002) ‘The Interpretative Basis of Action: Identity and
Tactics in Environmental Movement Organizations’, Academy of Management
Proceedings
Bouchikhi, H. and Kimberly, J.R. (2003) ‘Escaping the Identity Trap’, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 20-26
Bower, J.L. (2000) ‘The Purpose of Change: A Commentary on Jensen and Senge’ In:
Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (Eds), Breaking the Code of Change, Boston: Harvard
Business School Press
Brickson, S. (2000) ‘The Impact of Identity Orientation on Individual and
Organizational Outcomes in Demographically Diverse Settings’, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 82-101
Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, G. and Whetten, D. A. (2006) ‘Identity, Intended
Image, Construed Image, and Reputation: An Interdisciplinary Framework and
Suggested Terminology’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, Vol. 34, No.
2, pp. 99-106
Brown, A.D. and Starkey, K. (2000) ‘Organizational. Identity and Learning: A
Psychodynamic Perspective’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.
102 - 120
Chreim, S. (2006) ‘Postscript to change: Survivors’ Retrospective Views of
Organizational Changes’, Personnel Review, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 315-335
Cole, M. S. and Bruch, H. (2006) ‘Organizational Identity Strength, Identification,
and Commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: Does Organizational
hierarchy matter?’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, pp. 585-605
Corley, K.G. (2004) ‘Defined by Our Strategy or Our Culture? Hierarchical Differences
in Perceptions of Organizational Identity and Change’, Human Relations, Vol. 57, No.
9, pp. 1145 - 1177
Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A. (2004) ‘Identity Ambiguity and Change in the Wake of a
Corporate Spin-off’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 173 - 208
Corley, K. G., Harquail, C. V., Pratt, M. G., Glynn, M., Fiol, C. M. and Hatch, M. J.
(2006) ‘Guiding Organizational Identity Through Aged Adolescence’, Journal of
Management Inquiry, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 85-99
Dutton, J.E. and Dukerich, J.M. (1991) ‘Keeping an Eye in the Mirror: Image and
Identity in Organizational Adaptation’, Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517-
554
Dutton, J. E., Duckerich, J. M. and Harquail, C. V. (1994) ‘Organizational Images and
Member Identification’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 239-263
Elsbach, K. D. and Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001) ‘Defining Who You Are By Defining
What You're Not: Organizational Disidentification and The National Rifle Association’,
Organization Science, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 393-413
Empson, L. (2004) ‘Organizational Identity Change: Managerial Regulation and
Member Identification in an Accounting Firm Acquisition’, Accounting, Organizations
and Society, Vol. 29, pp. 759-781
Fiol, C. M. (1991) ‘Managing Culture as a Competitive Resource: An Identity-based
View of Sustainable Competitive Advantage’, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No. 1,
pp. 191-211
Fiol, C. M. (2002) ‘Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of Language in Transforming
Organizational Identities’, Organization Science, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 653-666
Fox-Wolfgramm, S. J., Boal, K. B., Hunt, J. G. (1998) ‘Organizational Adaptation to
Institutional Change: A Comparative Study of First-order Change in Prospector and
Defender Banks’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 87-126
Fombrun, C. J. (1996) ‘Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image’,
Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Fombrun, C. J. and Van Riel, C. M. B. (2004) ‘Fame and Fortune: How Successful
Companies built Winning Reputations’, Upper Saddle River: Financial Times prentice
Hall Books
Gardner, H. (1993) ‘Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice’, New York: Basic
Books
Gilpin, D. R. (2008) ‘Narrating the Organizational Self: Reframing the Role of News
Release’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 34, pp. 9 - 18
Gioia, D. A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991) ‘Sensegiving and Sensemaking in Strategic
Change Initiation’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 433-448
Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M. and Corley, K. G. (2000) ‘Organizational Identity, Image,
and Adaptive Instability’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 63-81
Gioia, D. A. and Thomas, J. B. (1996) ‘Identity, Image and Issue Interpretation:
Sensemaking during Strategic Change in Academia’, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 370-403
Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M. and Chittipeddi, K. (1994) ‘Symbolism and
Strategic Change in Academia: The Dynamics of Sensemaking and Influence’,
Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 363-383
Glynn, M. A. (2000) ‘When Cymbals Become Symbols: Conflict Over organizational
Identity Within a Symphony Orchestra’, Organization Science, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.
285-298
Gloud, L. J., Ebers, R. and Clinchy, R. M. (1999) ‘The Systems Psychodynamics of a
Joint Venture: Anxiety, Social Defenses, and the Management of Mutual
Dependence’, Human Relations, Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 697-722
Golden-Biddle, K. and Rao, H. (1997) ‘Breaches in the Boardroom: Organizational
Identity and Conflicts of Commitment in a Nonprofit Organization’, Organization
Science, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 593-611
Harquail, C. V. and King, A. W. (2002) ‘We Know More than We Say: A Typology for
Understanding A Manifold Organizational Identity’, Academy of Management
Proceedings
Haslam, S.A., Postmes, T. and Ellemers, N. (2003) ‘More than a Metaphor:
Organizational Identity Makes Organizational Life Possible’, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14, pp. 357 - 369
Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (1997) ‘Relations Ships between Organizational Culture,
Identity and Image’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, No. 5/6, pp. 356-365
Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2002) ‘The dynamics of Organizational Identity’,
Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 8, pp. 989-1018
Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2008) ‘Taking Brand Initiative: How Companies can
Align Strategy, Culture and Identity through Corporate Branding’, San Francisco: A
Wiley Imprint
Jack, G. and Lorbiecki, A. (2007) ‘National Identity, Globalization and the Discursive
Construction of Organizational Identity’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp.
79-94
Jensen, M.C. (2000) ‘Value Maximization and the Corporate Objective Function’ In:
Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (Eds), Breaking the Code of Change, Boston: Harvard
Business School Press
Kärreman, D. and Rylander, A. (2008) ‘Managing Meaning through Branding: the
Case of a Consulting Firm’, Organization Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 103-125
Killduff, M., Funk, J. L. and Mehra, A. (1997) ‘Engineering Identity in a Japanese
Factory’, Organization Science, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 579-592
Kreutzer, L. (2009) ‘Philips Sense and Simplicity: Establishing and Embedding Brand
Strategy into Our Organization’, Presentation Given at the Science-Practice Meeting
of SWOCC, University of Amsterdam
Labianca, G., Fairbank, J. F., Thomas, J. B., Gioia, D. A. and Umphress (2001)
‘Emulation in Academia: Balancing Structure and Identity’, Organization Science, Vol.
12, No. 3, pp. 312-330
Lerpold, L., Ravasi, D., Van Rekom, J. and Soenen, G. (2007) ‘Organizational
Identity in Practice’, New York: Routledge
Nag, R., Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A. (2007) ‘The Intersection of Organizational
Identity, Knowledge, and Practice: Attempting Change via Knowledge Grafting’,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 821 - 847
Pratt, M. G. and Foreman, P. O. (2000) ‘Classifying Managerial Responses to Multiple
Organizational Identities’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 18-
42
Olins, W. (1989) ‘Corporate Identity’, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press
Oliver, D. and Roos, J. (2007) ‘Beyond Text: Constructing Organizational Identity
Multimodelly’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 342-358
Ran, B. and Duimering, P. R. (2007) ‘Imaging the Organization: Language Use in
Organizational Identity Claims’, Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 155 - 187
Ravasi, D. and Schultz, M. (2006) ‘Responding to Organizational Identity Threats:
Exploring the Role of Organizational Culture’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.
49, No. 3, pp. 433 - 458
Senge, P.M. (2000) ‘The Puzzles and Paradoxes of How Living Companies Create
Wealth: Why Single Valued Objective Functions Are Not Quite Enough’ In: Beer, M.
and Nohria, N. (Eds), Breaking the Code of Change, Boston: Harvard Business
School Press
Scott, S.G. and Lane, V.R. (2000) ‘A Stakeholder Approach to Organizational
Identity’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 43-62
Simpson, B. and Carroll, B. (2008) ‘Re-viewing ‘Role’ in Processes of Identity
Construction’, Organization, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 29-50
Smircich, L. and Morgan, G. (1982) ‘Leadership: the management of meaning’,
Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 18, 257 -273.
Van Tonder, C. L. (2004), ‘Below-the-Surface and Powerful: The Emerging Notion of
Organization Identity’, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.68-78
Vlaar, P. W. L., Van Fenema, P. C. and Tiwari, V. (2008) ‘Co-creating Understanding
and Value in Distributed Work: How Members on Onsite and Offshore Vendor Teams
Give, Make, Demand and Break Sense’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 227-255
Weick, K. E. (1995) ‘Sensemaking in Organizations’, London: SAGE Publications, Inc
Whetten, D. A. (2006) ‘Albert and Whetten Revisited: Strengthening the Concept of
Organizational Identity’, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 219-234
Whetten, D. A. and Mackay, A. (2002) ‘A Social Actor Conception of Organizational
Identity and Its Implications for the Study of Organizational Reputation’, Business
Society, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 393-414
Willem, A., Scarborough, H. and Buelens, M. (2008) ‘Impact of Coherence versus
Multiple Identities on Knowledge Integration’, Journal of Information Science, Vol.
34, No. 3, pp. 370-386
Tables and Figures
Table 1
Defining concepts of organizational identity change
Members sensemaking sources for organizational identity
Personality traits motivating processes for organizational identity change
Organizations’ context
(Level 4) Reputation
Organization at large
(Level 3)
Organizational
identity strength
Aspired org. identity
Culture
Construed external image
Wisdom
Expressiveness
Work context
(Level 2)
Individual context
(role, hierarchical
position, work processes,
practices, job
knowledge, what we
produce, external
others)
Individual (Level 1)
Identification Individual disposition
(values, goals, beliefs,
traits, skills)
Wisdom
Expressiveness
Table 1: Overview of concepts
Figure 1
Figure 1: the purposive organizational identity change process