Alvesson OrgSci 2007

OrganizationScienceVol. 18, No. 4, July–August 2007, pp. 711–723issn 1047-7039 �eissn 1526-5455 �07 �1804 �0711

informs ®

doi 10.1287/orsc.1070.0267©2007 INFORMS

Unraveling HRM: Identity, Ceremony, and Control ina Management Consulting Firm

Mats Alvesson, Dan KärremanDepartment of Business Administration, Lund University, P.O. Box 7080, S 220 07 Lund, Sweden

{[email protected], [email protected]}

This paper addresses human resources management (HRM) systems and practices in a large multinational managementconsultancy firm. The firm invests considerable resources in HRM, and is frequently praised by employees for its

accomplishments in hiring, developing, and promotion. However, this general faith in HRM does not align particularly wellwith employees’ experiences and perceptions of the specific HRM practices in the firm. The paper critically interprets themeaning and the functions of the HRM system and the beliefs supporting it. The paper suggests a reinterpretation of HRMsystems and practices based on a cultural-symbolic perspective. It introduces the concepts of excess ceremonialism, identityprojects, and aspirational control to highlight and interpret the significance of organizational symbolism in accounting forthe role of HRM systems and practices, and the various effects of HRM systems and practices on employee identity andcompliance.

Key words : HRM; assessment; identity; organizational culture; symbolism; contradictions

IntroductionThe principal resource in knowledge-intensive firms isthe competence of the work force (Alvesson 1995,2000; Löwendahl 1997; Maister 1993). In this sense,knowledge-intensive firms underscore a general trend inorganization analysis: They emphasize the crucial signif-icance of personnel—or human resources to use a morecontemporary label (cf. Pfeffer 1994, Tichy et al. 1982).Human resources management (HRM) is argued to be acore strategic activity (e.g., Boxall and Steeneveld 1999;Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall 1988; Tichy et al.1982, p. 47). HRM focuses on what can be broadlydescribed as the human side of an enterprise: recruit-ment, training, staffing, career planning and develop-ment, compensation, and labour relations (Steffy andGrimes 1992).In this paper, we investigate the HRM system and

practices of a large international management consul-tancy firm. The firm claims to have and use a ratio-nal and ambitious HRM system in which people areassessed and developed into a highly competent, moti-vated, and well-functioning work force. People praisethe system for its usefulness to junior personnel and forits capacity to deliver an effective work force. The firmseems to be an examplar of an organization benefittingfrom large investments in HRM.However, as one would perhaps expect, there is a lot

of variation in the application of HRM policies, lead-ing to strong deviations from the suggested normativeorder. This is consistent with earlier in-depth researchthat has revealed widespread doubt about the rational-ity of assessment and promotion (Barlow 1989, Jackall

1988, Longenecker et al. 1987, Townley 1999) in favourof emphasizing uncertainties and politics. In a com-plex, ambiguous world calling for pragmatic behaviour,it makes sense that HRM practices such as promotion beloosely coupled with earlier assessments and feedback.Interestingly, the general perception among organiza-

tional members is not that the HRM system is pragmatic,incoherent, and politicized. On the contrary, organiza-tional members unequivocally express strong beliefs inthe HRM system’s capacity to deliver on its promisein a rational and consistent way. They claim that theHRM system delivers good feedback, fair assessment,input plus resources for improvement, and meritocraticpromotion. They think it works. As a consequence, thedeviations mentioned above—and fleshed out in detailbelow—were received as surprising and puzzling events.We have a similar reaction of surprise and puzzlement,

but with regards to the predominant trust of HRM. Howcan we understand that organizational members believein the HRM policies so strongly? Why and how dothey not take the experiences of shortcomings seriously?This calls for taking the meanings people ascribe to theHRM system seriously. Thus, we study HRM from aculture-identity perspective (cf. Alvesson 2002, Brown1995, Czarniawska 1992, Eisenberg and Riley 2001,Frost et al. 1985, Kunda 1992, Martin 1992, Smircich1983a). A key dimension here is identity, at individ-ual (Alvesson and Willmott 2002, Collinson 2003) andorganizational levels (Albert and Whetten 1985, Duttonet al. 1994, Hatch and Schultz 2002). HRM practices areviewed as vehicles for the construction of meanings and“stories” about the individuals—who they are—and the

711

Alvesson and Kärreman: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting Firm712 Organization Science 18(4), pp. 711–723, © 2007 INFORMS

organization—its distinctiveness and coherence. HRM isnot viewed as an objective-functional system but as ameaning-creating device, which organizational membersuse to develop and reproduce meanings about who theyare and what their firm represents.The paper tells two stories: One about HRM prac-

tices and one about meanings and identities aroundHRM. The first story tells how the realization of ambi-tious HRM designs face formidable problems. The sec-ond tells how, despite these difficulties, people still useHRM systems, practices, and ideologies for the con-struction of positively loaded meanings about organi-zational identity and the identities of the employees.The observation that failed practices are accompanied bysuccessful symbolism offers the overall framing of thispaper. The theoretical purpose of the paper is to developa new, cultural-theoretical understanding of ambitiousHRM, emphasizing its role in aligning individual andorganizational identity.

HRM and Organizational CultureThe HRM literature is strongly dominated by theassumption that recruitment, assessment, and develop-ment processes deal with people who have stable setsof skills and capacities, and that these characteristics arenecessary to objectively investigate and measure, thusmaking so-called job-performance prediction possible(Steffy and Grimes 1992, Iles and Salaman 1995). Main-stream HRM researchers claim that company perfor-mance is positively affected by HRM practices (Delaneyand Huselid 1996, Guest 1999, Huselid 1995, Huselidet al. 1997, MacDuffie 1995; for a critique of method-ological difficulties of making such claims, see Legge2005, Marchington and Grugulis 2000, Purcell 1999).Common distinctions involve soft and hard HRM sys-tems (Tyson 1995), perhaps better labeled as high- andlow-commitment ones (Legge 2005, Watson 2004). Softor high-commitment HRM is characterized by long-termrelationships, caring, and personal development. Hard orlow-commitment HRM is characterized by exploitativeand short-term relationships.These broad distinctions say little about the more

nuanced ideas and meanings of how organizations viewtheir employees. Thus, we will follow an alternativeroute, which suggests that the individual is produced,rather than discovered, in HRM processes (Deetz 2003,Iles and Salaman 1995, Steffy and Grimes 1992, Town-ley 1993). HRM practices, in this sense, create what theyallegedly discover. Although HRM is typically seen as afunctional tool, this perspective indicates that HRM maybe more powerfully understood as a device that providesshared meanings about the corporate universe, thus beinginstrumental in sustaining the normative order.In this sense, HRM practices may be understood as

key providers and manifestations of culture and cul-tural material in organizations. HRM and organizational

culture are frequently viewed as closely related. Jacksonand Schuler (1995), for example, view “organizationalculture as inextractably bound to HRM and therefore notmeaningful if separated from it” (p. 238), but they do notexpress any theoretical view on culture or use it as aninterpretive device. Culture is often reduced to a variableaffecting HRM or as a managerial tool for accomplish-ing the wanted workforce (Beer et al. 1984). As Bowenand Ostroff (2004) note, “little attention has been givento the social constructions that employees make of theirinteractions with HRM” (p. 206), arguably a key aspectfrom a cultural perspective.We use the term “culture” as a concept for a way

of thinking that particularly highlights symbolic phe-nomena. Culture is viewed as “a framework of mean-ing, a system of reference that can generate both sharedunderstandings and the working misunderstandings thatenable social life to go on. These frameworks of mean-ing are cultivated, negotiated, and reproduced withinbehavioural enactments � � � ” (Batteau 2001, p. 726). Cul-turally speaking, HRM phenomena are understood interms of the symbolism and meanings that they com-municate and/or group members ascribe to (or interpretfrom) arrangements and practices. From this point ofview, promotion practices are significant not becausethey promote the better candidate, but because theytell us what it means to be the better candidate. Theyarticulate and propagate shared understandings on themeaning of promotion and candidature in this con-text. Similarly, cultural resources—rituals, myths, sto-ries, language use—are important building blocks inorganizational members’ identity work.Based on a cultural framework, we investigate HRM

as a meaning-creating device for identity construction.Identity is often seen as indicating the characteristics,the coherence, and the distinctiveness of a person, group,or organization (Albert and Whetten 1985). In dynamiccontexts—such as most contemporary organizations—identities are unstable, making it more reasonable totalk about temporary forms of coherence rather thansomething fixed and stable (Gioia et al. 2000). This isrelevant not only with relationship to constructions ofwhat the organization stands for (organizational iden-tity, Albert and Whetten 1985, Dutton et al. 1994, Hatchand Schultz 2002), but also in terms of how individualsdefine themselves and their specific orientations (Dunne1996, Sveningsson and Alvesson 2003). People in orga-nizations engage in identity work, aiming to achieve afeeling of a coherent and strong sense of self, which isnecessary for coping with work tasks and social inter-actions (Alvesson and Willmott 2002). In particular, inoccupations and organizations characterized by instabil-ity and a multitude of groups and interactions, iden-tity work becomes crucial (Alvesson 2004, Deetz 1998).Identities are constituted, negotiated, reproduced, and

Alvesson and Kärreman: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting FirmOrganization Science 18(4), pp. 711–723, © 2007 INFORMS 713

threatened in social interaction, in the form of narratives,and also in material practices.We pay particular attention to how HRM may influ-

ence what we refer to as identity projects. This refers toindividuals’ definitions of their selves in the light of theirongoing development and imagined future (e.g., Grey1994 on career as self-projects and Markus and Nurius1986 on possible selves). Identity projects include long-term orientations and self-improvement efforts supportedby cultural norms and guidelines structured by a spe-cific social architecture (e.g., an HRM system). Identityprojects bear the imprints of organizational arrangementsand are prone to efforts of identity regulation (Alvessonand Willmott 2002), rather than emerging more or lessspontaneously.The paper is structured as follows: After a brief note

on methodological considerations we provide a shortdescription of the case. This leads to a close reading ofactual HRM practices, followed by an analysis of HRMin relationship to organizational identity and individualidentity. Finally, we suggest that HRM aligns construc-tions of organizational identity with individual identityprojects through what we refer to as excess ceremonial-ity and aspirational control.

MethodThis paper follows an interpretive approach in organi-zation studies (e.g., Geertz 1973, Smircich 1983b). Weemploy a hermeneutic reading in which there is a cir-cular move between part and whole, and the preun-derstanding that what the researcher brings with herinto research is actively used, qualified, challenged, anddeveloped in the research process (Alvesson and Sköld-berg 2000). Rather than a straightforward codifying ofempirical material, one tries to go beyond the surfaceand look for something less obvious, or less easilyrevealed in a (quick) coding process. The totality of thetext is also borne carefully in mind, which means thatvariation and contradiction within interviews are takenseriously.Fieldwork was conducted using an open and emer-

gent approach (Alvesson and Deetz 2000), asking ques-tions such as, what is going on here? and, what do thenatives think they are up to? No specific ideas (hypothe-ses) apart from a broad interest in studying managementand employment practices from a cultural perspective,guided the study from the start. Exact research ques-tions were formulated after a good understanding of thesite being studied had been developed, thus giving spacefor unexpected empirical material to affect the researchprocess and results.Interviewees’ references to a so-called feedback cul-

ture and a strong focus on formal assessments, frequentpromotions, and a preoccupation with career steps andtitles aroused our curiosity. A useful guideline in this

kind of study is to look out for significant deviationsfrom what could have been expected, given a strongfamiliarity with the literature in a field. This makes itpossible to produce a mystery, offering an interestingsource of further thinking in itself, but also giving impe-tus for solving the mystery and thus adding new knowl-edge (Alvesson and Kärreman 2007, Asplund 1970). Inour case, the mystery was a strong faith among peoplein the firm in the HRM system, while at the same timethere was a perception that the system failed in a lot ofspecific instances.The study is comprised of interviews as well as obser-

vations of a variety of organizational gatherings. Obser-vations included closely following a project group atwork during two days (and half a night!), and attend-ing training sessions, a meeting about promotions, theyearly meeting of all managerial staff, as well as externalevents such as presentations of the firm to students, andso on (see Table 1 for details). We also studied documen-tary material (e.g., manuals for giving feedback, projectmethodology). We thus utilized the three means avail-able for qualitative research, “asking questions,” “hang-ing around,” and “reading texts” (Dingwall 1997). Thispaper reports mainly on the interview material and oneobservation, but is informed by other kinds of data.We conducted 59 interviews with 51 people. All inter-

views were conducted in Swedish and took place inStockholm, Güteborg, and Lund. About half were cho-sen for various specific reasons of being able or willingto provide a good overview and/or deeper viewpoints(e.g., contact persons, CEO, ex-students of ours, sub-jects recommended for interviews), and half were cho-sen as a matter of convenience (e.g., being availablefor interviews during days we were doing fieldwork).People from all parts of the organization were inter-viewed: the CEO, partners, consultants on various lev-els of seniority, support staff, newly recruited organiza-tional members, and so on. Our interviews covered dif-ferent business areas and the entire spectrum from jobapplicants to ex-employees, although most intervieweeswere working in the firm. We worked hard to get goodaccess to a business not well known for its opennessto research or mass media (O’Shea and Madigan 1998).Participant observation, contact with ex-students fromour department working in the firm, repeated interviewswith people who appeared to have some distance fromthe firm and were willing to air critical comments with-out being biased were tactics used in order to facilitate“deep access.”Due to our open approach, we did not restrict our-

selves to a strict interview protocol. Instead, we basedinterview questions on different sets of common themesthat consequently have been adapted to (a) the stagein the research process, and (b) the particular devel-opments of each interview, related to the interviewee’sspecific work situation, seniority, and experiences. As


Table 1 Interviewee Sample Overview

Level No. of participants No. of interviews

ConsultantsPartner & Associate 10 10

PartnerManager 12 15Consultant 12 12

StaffResearch (knowledge 4 8

management)Finance 3 3HR 3 4

OutsidersEx-employees 2 2Customers 5 5

Total 51 59

our understanding of the field developed, our lines ofinquiry followed suit. We moved back and forth between(a) details about HRM practices and how people relatedto these and the broader organizational context, andbetween (b) looking for patterns and coherence versuspaying attention to fragmentation and discrepancies. Inthis way, we were able to refine our understanding ofthe themes that emerged without providing excessive apriori closure to fieldwork practices.

The CaseExcellence is a large, fast-growing up-market manage-ment consulting firm employing over 25,000 peopleworldwide. We focus on the Scandinavian subsidiary,which employs approximately 700 people. Excellencespecializes in management consultancy, with a focuson implementation of organizational changes involvinginformation technology (IT). The firm targets large orga-nizations as customers. It is very successful and has apositive reputation worldwide.The HRM system is, as mentioned above, designed

in a way that closely matches the normative ideal typ-ically voiced by proponents of strategic HRM. Recruit-ment practices, career structure, appraisal systems, anddevelopment and training are all designed in an elabo-rate fashion and allocated considerable time and money.Below we briefly specify the parts of Excellence’s HRMsystem that this study addresses—recruitment, careerstructure, appraisal and evaluation systems, develop-ment, and promotion.The HRM system is generally seen as an important

and vital symbol for the firm, and a key to understandinghow the firm works.

The career and the pyramid [i.e., organizational hierar-chy] is absolutely central. It expresses the logic for howprecisely everything works. You almost know this beforeyou enter the firm. In the recruitment process there is alot of talk about “we are a pyramid, we work that way,

we are hierarchical for sure, but that’s the way we oper-ate” and that creates a sense of security because youknow exactly where you are, and that everybody has theopportunity to move up in the pyramid. Expectations areanother central feature. That you, given your role, areexpected to do certain things, and that you meet, exceed,or, in the worst case, fail to meet your expectations. (For-mer senior manager)

Most consultants are recruited directly from the largerScandinavian universities. Degrees in business admin-istration or engineering are mandatory. All employees(even partners) are expected to take part in variousrecruitment efforts, such as presenting the firm at univer-sities, interviewing and assessing job seekers, and gener-ally looking out for people to hire. The HR departmentadministers recruitment, but consultants decide on whowill be employed. The firm is generally understood tobe a career firm. Initial advancement is expected to beswift for the individual. There are five basic levels: ana-lyst, consultant, manager, senior manager, and partner.New personnel typically start as analysts, are expectedto master that role within 12–18 months, and after two tofour years as consultants be promoted to managers. Afterthe manager level, advancement becomes more difficult.The employees at Excellence are constantly evalu-

ated. Evaluation is organized in two main processes.First, employees are evaluated in relation to their indi-vidual development. This process is labeled A-sheeting(A stands for appraisal) and is carried out three to fourtimes every year. Second, employees are ranked by theirsuperiors in a process labeled banding. Banding occursonce a year and influences salary.Excellence invests heavily in the training and devel-

opment of individual employees: courses, competencedevelopment groups, workshops, invited speakers, andpublications available for those interested. Junior consul-tants are also paired with a senior consultant, who oper-ates as his or her counsellor—which is also the officialtitle. The counsellor, who takes on the task as mentorvoluntarily, helps the junior consultant with career devel-opment, tries to shelter him or her from exploitation byoverambitious project managers, and communicates tothe higher echelons of the firm hierarchy.

HRM: Ambiguity, Pragmatics, and PoliticsThe HRM practices at Excellence may appear to be con-sistent and built into an integrated framework. However,a closer look reveals several illuminating deviations anddiscrepancies from policies. We discuss two themes indetail. One concerns the nature and character of the feed-back provided by the HRM system. The other relatesto the output of the HRM system, i.e., the delivery ofoptimal HR “products” in the form of the promotionand hierarchical location of people to positions matchingtheir competence and contributions.


HRM practices at Excellence are replete with feed-back mechanisms—employees talk about a feedbackculture. Organizational members are actively encouragedto give and seek feedback in all situations, but the formalsystem with frequent appraisals seems to dominate:

It’s very formalized. Every project feeds a feedbackdatabase consisting of 20–25 preformed criteria, whereyou are graded based on hierarchical level, summarizedin strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations that aresupposed to be followed by a discussion. This is doneafter the project is concluded, about six weeks after. Butyou need feedback and guidance during the whole pro-cess. On the whole, I think that there is a balance betweenpointing out when it is not quite good and encouragingwhen you are doing well. (Consultant)

Interestingly, the highly formalized character of the feed-back seems to devalue its effects. Superiors often do nothave time to do it properly. Part of the problem is thatit is difficult to provide rich feedback because this maycall for careful monitoring, excellent judgment, languageskills, and the allocation of considerable time. As onepartner said: “We are too kind. Feedback tends to bevague and positive.” The evaluation system rarely pro-duces differentiated and nuanced feedback (distinguish-ing between good and bad performances), and thus wasviewed as problematic to use as input for promotion.

The problem is that sometimes there is a lot of inflation-ary grading. You participated in a reasonably successfulproject, and you think that you have worked with some-body who was really great, and tend to give them goodgrades. And then when you look at the whole popula-tion, if we should just look at the grading, everybodywould have been promoted and we obviously can’t dothat. (Partner)

Another deviation in the system is evident in the waythe appraisal and evaluation procedures actually work.According to the norm, A-sheets are written and per-formed by project managers. However, it seems thatin practice organizational members often write theirA-sheets themselves.

I wrote my own A-sheet again at the Dairy project. I‘evenwrote the evaluation, both contribution and summary.Then the project manager edited it somewhat. It is notsupposed to work this way, but it does. (Consultant)

The so-called banding is another example of how prac-tice sometimes deviates from the norm. In principal thebanding process is a simple additive process of puttingtogether evaluations carried out during the period, inparticular the relevant A-sheets. However, A-sheets havelittle direct impact on the banding process.

I was surprised when I became involved in the band-ing process, that A-sheets meant so little. I thought theywere important but it was evident that other aspects mat-tered more. In practice, it is recommendations and com-ments from project managers that decide. As a freshman,

you think that A-sheets are the thing. A couple of goodA-sheets become a good banding. But there is no clearconnection between A-sheets and your banding. Rather,your banding depends on what project managers thinkabout you. (Manager)

According to our informants at junior levels and in sup-port functions, it is sometimes difficult to see a pattern orspecific criteria that apply for promotion to the partnerlevel.

[Partner promotion] has signalling effects, for example,that the people promoted are skilled in management orselling, or can produce the best margins or � � � it is a com-municative act for the rest of us. But as an observer, youcan’t really see a natural pattern. There is no establishedtruth on what it takes to be a partner here � � � � I don’tknow why Patrick became a partner and why Paul didn’t.I don’t know what Patrick has done to qualify as a part-ner. There is no difference in seniority. Paul appears to bevery good. Patrick appears to be very good. Why Patrickand why not Paul? (Support staff manager)

This perception is presumably not shared by senior peo-ple and may reflect limited insights of the part of thosenot having the entire picture of people’s qualifications.However, an observation of a meeting about promo-tion underscores difficulties in accomplishing rationalityin the decision process. The meeting gathers about 20senior people who discuss individuals suggested to beconsidered for promotion. Due to the recession, top man-agement has decided that a maximum of three peoplecan be promoted from consultant to manager at this time.Chairperson Eva goes briefly through all 21 names onthe list and adds that in several situations the counsellorsdid not recommend promotion.

Chairperson: So, as you can see, we recommend Burton,Wally and Erik to be promoted. Burton based on hismonths at level and extensive experience, Wally basedon his entrepreneurial skills combined with his ability tointeract with clients, and finally Erik based on strong go-to-market skills and a clear profile within wireless solu-tions. There have been concerns regarding why we donot promote all delivery consultants at our most impor-tant client, GlobalTech. The answer is that we would liketo promote people with different profiles. Comments?

Anton: I am at Product Ltd right now and I wouldlike to position Jonathan as our number one candidate.To quote John B.: “I finally have a manager on myteam,” and I strongly oppose that we promote Wally andErik instead of the implementation people at GlobalTechbecause these are our major revenue generators. It willsend the wrong signals in the organization.

Hulda: I agree with Anton, it would be strange not to pro-mote the SAP people at GlobalTech. I would not knowwhat to say to my counselee!

Anders: I agree with Anton regarding Jonathan. And thenwe have Anna, Cecily, and Clare. These three peoplehave sold more and managed larger projects than mostof the managers in Sweden.


Chairperson: Can you rank them?

Anders: Well, perhaps Oskar or Anton can do that?

Oskar: Anna, Cecily, and Clare should be treated as agroup. They cannot be separated. What line of thinkingdo you follow when you say that Wally and Erik shouldbe promoted instead of them!?

Chairperson: Dick, do you want to comment?

Dick: I have worked a lot with Wally. He is anentrepreneur and has managed to open up a new clientfor us. He is a key resource at this new client and hasmanaged to maintain a good relationship with the exec-utive team. He has also continuously received very goodfeedback.

� � �

Oskar: But Clare is rated higher than Wally. How does itwork? I don’t understand!

Chairperson: As you said, we cannot promote Clarealone. Then we must promote the other GlobalTechpeople.

Oskar: Then I don’t think we should promote Wally!

Chairperson: That might be the case.

Hulda: We must give credit to those selling atGlobalTech. We should not promote Wally if we do notpromote the SAP people at GlobalTech!

George: The people who sell shall be rewarded, butwe also need to reward people that can start fromscratch with new clients. Wally has done just that andI am extremely confident with him. I think we shouldshuffle around and promote some additional people atGlobalTech, but I’m not able to tell which.

Sixten: Wally is not as “heavy and sharp” as a few ofthe GlobalTech people at the list. Do not regard Wally’seagerness to get promoted as a reason for promotion!

Helmut: Let me emphasize the strength of Clare! Wealso need to consider Bert. He is performing very well atGlobalTech in China.

� � �

Chairperson: Thank you for your comments.

In the meeting a wide span of different, and tosome extent conflicting, criteria for promotion arebeing used, e.g., historical rating, experience (months atlevel), entrepreneurial skills, loyalty with the “cash-cowproject,” client interaction, selling skills, project man-agement skills, degree of specialization, but also moremetaphorical qualities like “heavy and sharp” and “a guythat can walk on water” (the latter statement not beingreported in our excerpt). It was emphasized that onemust promote people working within a special area sothat people will not be discouraged from working therein the future. A large number of different names areput forward as most worthy of promotion. There is a

strong tendency for people to promote those they areclosely associated with—as counsellors, project man-agers, and/or those working in the same area. There is avery strong political undertone during the meeting: Peo-ple form coalitions and act in line with their own groupinterests to promote their own candidates. There is noexplicit challenging of the organizational politics—beingloyal to your allies and protogees seems to be a valueembedded in the organizational culture.Based on the chairman’s initial comments on pro-

motion of the implementation people at GlobalTech,followed by Anton’s, Hulda’s, and Anders’s strong reac-tions, we can see that the fact that two of three sug-gested candidates (Wally and Erik) are picked outsideGlobalTech is something that is controversial (approxi-mately 75% of the firm’s Industry Group work at Glob-alTech). That might send “strange signals,” i.e., if youare loyal, chargeable, secure continued assignments, andwork with relatively standardized tasks (SAP implemen-tation) over a long time at our most important client, itis not necessarily the fastest way to success!After the meeting Burton and Wally are promoted. In

the case of Burton this seems predictable (his senioritywas not disputed), but there was little consensus aboutthe worth of Wally. Here it can be noted that Clarewas assessed more favourably than Wally by her projectmanagers during the time up to the meeting, and a largegroup argued against Wally’s promotion, but neverthe-less he was the one promoted.Political aspects also matter in other contexts, for

example, in the tactic of junior people “teaming up” witha senior person as a way of surviving in the firm.

The art of surviving here is to team up with a superiorwho has already teamed up with his or her superior. Thenyou work together. (Consultant)

Coalitions and personal interests generally play a role inassessments, promotions, and task assignments. Seniorpeople want to have discretion and be able to make deci-sions based on their personal interests and preferences(e.g., on who to work with) without being constrainedby aggregates of previous assessments (Barlow 1989,Longenecker et al. 1987).There are thus many deviations from the espoused

ideals and ambitions of the HRM system. This may bereasonable because, overall, pragmatic HRM considera-tions, and whether this serves the firm better than try-ing to maximise the ideal of meritocracy and trying toreward and promote people based on competence andperformance is hard to say. Strikingly, however, and thisis why our case is of great interest, organization mem-bers do not share the world-weary view of the HRMsystems presented above. Actually, all of our informantstend to think that the HRM system delivers. Even dis-senters appear convinced that the HRM system works, tothe extent that they tend to blame it for converting people


into corporate clones. There is a widespread belief thatthe corporate system for selection, ranking, developing,and promotion is reliable and that the resulting hierar-chy expresses valid differences in technical and man-agerial competence. The elaborate formal differentiationsystem is assumed to register the actual competence ofthe employees.Thus, hierarchy is valued at Excellence, not only

because it provides a unitary chain of command, but alsobecause it is believed to accurately express competence.It is the meritocratic value of differentiation that makeshierarchy—and the differences in power it expresses—perceived as legitimate and even necessary among orga-nizational members.

The reason why it works at Excellence is because peo-ple get promoted, not because they have been working acertain number of years at the firm, but because they areready to take the responsibility. They have the experienceand they have the competence. And, usually, you createrespect in relation to the lower levels of the organiza-tion, and pay and economic compensation come with theresponsibility. (Partner)

In practice, it seems to be difficult not to use seniorityas an important criteria. This is illustrated by the case ofBurton above, who is seen as well worthy of promotion“based on his months on level and extensive experience”(chair person).The confidence in the ability to produce, assess, and

structure competencies in a formal system is worth not-ing. Little doubt is raised whether human capacitiesare that well-ordered, transparent, and capable of beingdifferentiated along hierarchical lines, or whether theassessments and other HRM operations exhibit a highdegree of rationality and precision in dealing with thesecapacities. Several of our informants said, when askedwhy they have applied for work at Excellence, thatemployment in the firm would look good on their CVsand make them more attractive in the labour market.Many, in particular at higher hierarchical levels, creditedthe HRM system for being responsible for the good rep-utation of Excellence’s personnel on the labour market.

Our reputation is very good concerning our employees.If you have five years at Excellence on your CV, thenthey don’t care to look at your degree etc. They prac-tically don’t care to look at anything at all, they justsay: “Okay, here is the job if you want it.” They knowthat the quality of the people we hired is assured, andthat we have trained and developed them. This makesour employees very attractive to everything from head-hunters or ex-employees to, well, other consultancy firmstoo, that know us quite well. (Manager)

(Other companies) know that we have rigorously testedthem (the employees) before they were offered and thatwe also have developed and educated them. Our peopleare very attractive. (Consultant)

Here it is assumed that the labour market confirms theconstructions of Excellence as an organization guaran-teeing the reliable assessment and improvement of peo-ple. Employment plus a few years at the firm means it iswidely recognized that you—and the HRM system—arevery good.How can we understand this in the light of all the

reported experiences of deviations from prescribed HRMpolicies and ideals? A fruitful path is to view HRMnot in objective, rational, and functional terms but asrelated to organizational identity and individual identityconstructions.

HRM and Organizational IdentityMany functionalist HRM researchers believe that thesuccess of an HRM system is closely related to thevalidity of the practices and the consistency of HRMmessages. Bowen and Ostroff (2004), for example, em-phasize the need to establish “an unambiguous perceivedcause-effect relationship in reference to the HRM sys-tem’s desired content-focused behaviours and associatedemployee consequences” (p. 210, italics in original).However, in our study it is clear that strong experiencescontradicting the perceived instrumentality, validity, andconsistency of HRM do not mean that employees losefaith in the HRM system.One reason for this is the way the HRM system

communicates and symbolizes the core identity of theorganization. Excellence employees see what is distinc-tive and typical for the firm very much in terms ofHRM themes. One interviewee compares Excellencewith another medium-sized consultancy firm he workedfor earlier (Administrative Consulting), and emphasizesthe superiority of the former in its people developmentand screening process, resulting in a very fine matchbetween level and capacity of people.

At Administrative Consulting, there is a hierarchy assuch, but older people, so to speak, could be in themiddle of the pyramid. And there was also people whoadvanced in the organization, but who lacked the respectand the knowledge that they should have. So already bythat time, some of the credibility of this project organi-zation was damaged, even if there were attempts, duringmy time there, to professionalize this approach. Therewere a couple of seniors who didn’t perform very well.These people don’t exist at Excellence, or at least theyare extremely rare, they just don’t stay. There is an“up-or-out”-system. It is not brutal. People are not sackedbecause they fail in a project. But over a longer period,in one way or another, these people disappear. (Partner)

I am not familiar with any other company that puts inso much effort in their rating and promotion processesas we do. Imagine all the executives who are involved inthis process, twice a year, when we go through the meritsof every single person in this company! (Partner)


In the case of Excellence, the HRM structures and prac-tices go far beyond the requirement to follow broadlyshared myths in order to attain legitimacy (Meyer andRowan 1977). The firm is seen as extraordinary inits attendance to developing and assessing employees.Even with half of the time, energy, and costs allo-cated to HRM, Excellence would meet expectationson legitimacy. Compared to what Meyer and Rowanhave in mind, we can talk about excess ceremoniality.This involves much more “intense” or “thick” mean-ings, attention, and symbolic output than are neededto comply with institutionalized expectations. Excessceremoniality refers to arrangements that gain credibil-ity through being detached from operational efficiency,going beyond legitimacy, and standing out as somethingspecial, original, and superior. The concept highlightsthe ceremonial underpinnings of HRM practices, suchas assessments and development. It is important to pointout that ceremony in this context does not refer to win-dow dressing—as Meyer and Rowan’s meaning of theterm may lead us to believe. Rather, excess ceremoni-ality draws on an anthropological understanding of cer-emony: It points to important nonrational (or situatedrational) conduct in the face of unresolvable uncertainty,aimed to preserve a sacred set of beliefs. The excessceremoniality in HRM practices creates a strong connec-tion between organizational identity,1 individual identityprojects, and production; this connection is not createdthrough technical accuracy or relevance, but through theminds and feelings of those exposed to it (living in andthrough it).Although Meyer and Rowan point at what is general

and average, the idea of organizational identity indicatesconstructions of what is specific and distinct. As willbe developed below, this self-view affects employees’identifications with the firm and their sense of who andhow they are. The HRM structures signal to external andinternal audiences that this firm knows what it is doingand that the personnel who are promoted are thoroughlybona fide. HRM is thus about “the creation of the orga-nization’s view of itself” (Keenoy and Anthony 1992,p. 238), i.e., organizational identity (see also Broms andGahmberg 1983, who refer to many organizational mes-sages as autocommunication).There is also an external side to the organization’s

view of itself: identity and image interplay (Alvesson2004, Hatch and Schultz 2002). How others view one-self is important for self-understanding. Why buy thefirm’s—very expensive—services? Why try extra hard toget a job and continue in this firm? One reason wouldbe the beliefs in a high level of competence that thefirm develops, maintains, and then offers, indicated bythe HRM system and all the procedures, time, attention,and energy that characterize it. In this sense, the HRMsystem provides both meaning and instruction.

A key aspect of Excellence is the claim of efficient useof hierarchy. The HRM structures and practices, thus, donot just legitimize hierarchy, but fuel it with value andmeaning associated with organizational identity. Whyshould one willingly obey superiors, and accept sub-ordination? It is because a lot of brainpower has beeninvested in building systems that make it possible todecide the competence of people and because an enor-mous amount of energy goes into the activities that makethese systems work.

Hierarchy tends to have negative connotations, but I thinkit has advantages. You take care of your subordinates andyour superiors are supposed to take care of you. So youhave a caring environment, which I think is good. Forme, hierarchy is not negative. It provides security. (Seniormanager)

The HRM apparatus indicates to people that they live inan organizational world where the formal systems guar-antee the competence of people, senior people take a lotof responsibility for junior people, that the system is fair;and that it is the abilities and efforts of the employeesthat account for their successes or lack thereof. Being amember of this firm is believed to confirm one’s value.

They work for a firm with a good reputation. It feels abit posh to work for Excellence Consulting. Eventually,one develops a magnificent narcissist disorder, and thinksthat one is a very good person in other areas. I thinkthat is a satisfying feeling for younger people, “I am suc-cessful.” And the people we recruit have always wantedto be successful. They have always been dependent onstrokes from the environment. And they get the strokeshere. They have been A-kids since birth. (Manager)

In a sense, organizational members engage in systemjustification (Jost et al. 2003, 2002; Rabinowitz 1999).System justification occurs when “people � � �performcognitive and ideological work on behalf of the socialsystem to preserve the sense that authorities are fairand legitimate” (Haines and Jost 2000, p. 222). Sys-tem justification is typically used to explain why under-privileged groups embrace the status quo (the workingclass supporting capitalism, women supporting patri-archy, and so on). However, this kind of system justifica-tion is unlikely at Excellence, at least in undiluted forms,because all positions—except the partnership level—are perceived as transitional. Due to the blurring ofboundaries between workers/managers/owners, and therelentless pressure—propelled by the HRM system—toaspire to become a partner, system justification blendsseamlessly with identification, thus making system jus-tification a central theme in identity work among orga-nizational members.HRM systems and rituals thus symbolize a kind of

rationality that makes compliance the only reasonableresponse. It encourages a leap of trust that is called for insettings in which there are no proofs or solid experiences


indicating what to expect from the future (Möllering2001). It allows people to rationalize their positionin a system that may appear to be old-fashioned—particularly in the professional sector—in terms of for-mal hierarchy and preoccupation with rules, standards,and titles.The Excellence people use this symbolism to help con-

struct a positive, secure view of themselves, as well asfor their organization. This means that (inter)subjectivelygratifying meanings, rather than distanced observationand reasoning, guide construction processes. As fusedwith and, in a sense “subordinated” to (a key aspect of)organizational identity (who we are), HRM is not sub-jected to “reality tests” (critical scrutiny) in such a wayas may be the case with issues less close to a sense ofwho we are (I am).

HRM and Identity Constructions ofIndividualsObviously, people typically draw on a variety of socialcategories in doing identity work. In professional orga-nizations like Excellence, people tend to invest a lot ofthemselves in work and in their careers (Grey 1994).Because they enter the firm after university, and do inmost cases expect to progress in the organization, theemployment in Excellence forms a basis for individualidentifications and provides cultural meanings and com-petences for the formation of selves.The many, frequent, and, for the individuals, important

activities associated with HRM are central here. Thisis the case from a senior, as well as a junior, position.The HRM—manifesting and reinforcing organizationalidentity—affects the identity constructions through par-ticipating in the production as well as consumption offeedback, rankings, promotions, assignment planning,training activities, and so on (Covaleski et al. 1998 makea similar point about mentoring). Of course, both seniorand junior people contribute to the construction of HRMin interactions, but people in senior positions tend to pro-duce more feedback, advice, assessments, and decisions,whereas junior people receive or consume their seniors’feedback to a higher degree.

HRM as a Source of Producer Identity. Given thesignificance ascribed to HRM and the frequency andceremonial thickness of many HRM activities like thepromotion meeting we briefly described above, theseactivities offer material for identity constructions ofsenior people. When people offer feedback and coun-seling, do the ratings, and decide about promotions,they constitute themselves as devoted facilitators, care-takers, developers, and evaluators of others. HRM, then,is enacted as identity projects not only for people atthe receiving end of HRM, but also at the producingend of such activities. They may act politically, but thisis not how they construct themselves or their corporatepractices.

HRM as a Source of Receiver Identity. Identifica-tion also occurs through outcomes of HRM activi-ties and the general idea (identity) of the firm as anambitious competence-developing system. Individualsare constantly worked on through feedback, evaluations,mentoring, and allocation of increasingly demandingwork and training; this indicates a specific trajectory inwhich possible (future-directed views of) selves (“I willbecome � � � ”) are also a part of their self-view (Markusand Nurius 1986). Direction, progress, and future posi-tions are key aspects. HRM activities and the construc-tion of the organizational identity increase the credibilityof career steps and titles, and boost self-esteem.

The Excellence brand stands for professionalism. Itmeans that I’m serious and professional in my work.I must confess that I like the aura of the Excellencebrand. I know that I was recruited to an elite and thatI am still considered to be worthy of an organization thatrecruits the best students, has the best clients, and makesa lot of money. We hire one out of hundred who applyfor work here. We have long and trying tests and evalua-tions and I have passed them all. Excellence is successful.We have passed ThinkIT as the most attractive employeramong students at this country’s leading business school.(Consultant)

Of course, a large part of the personnel, the most juniorand senior excluded, are interchangeably and regularlypositioned as both producers and receivers of HRM:They give feedback and receive it, decide on promotionof juniors, and are subjects for the promotion decisionsof their seniors. HRM activities, then, affect identityfrom two angles. HRM becomes fused with strongidentity-loaded meaning and plays an important role inwho people think they are and how they see themselves.

The Alignment of Organizational Identityand Individual Identity ProjectsThus, in this paper, we conceptualize (high-commit-ment) HRM as an identity-aligning project. As such, itworks as a major linking mechanism between organi-zational identity and individual identity regulation (seealso Covaleski et al. 1998). It means organizational iden-tity claims about what the organization stands for areexpressed in a clear, distinct, and coherent way. Fromthis point of view, it becomes easier to understand thewidespread cognitive dissonance on HRM matters atExcellence—why the people at Excellence tend to coverup and rationalize discrepancies in the HRM system.There is simply too much at stake; the motives and socialmechanisms tend to privilege positive meanings and saveidentity (at organizational and individual levels). In thissense, the HRM system is partly secured through thesocial psychology of self-serving bias (Babcock et al.1996, Sedikides et al. 1998).Whereas an outsider sees discrepancies in HRM prac-

tices, the insider experiences discredit to an integrated


system of faith. In this sense, the HRM system employsorganizational identification cuing through the embed-ding of employees within the organizational community(Scott and Lane 2000). Excess ceremoniality fuels andexpresses organizational identity and makes it possiblefor people to retain their faith despite experiences ofHRM practices deviating from the plan. The fusion ofidentity and HRM make questioning the latter an unwel-come option—it would imply also questioning oneselfand would undermine vital resources for identity con-structions.The HRM system not only embeds stakeholders within

the organizational community, it also is highly involvedin constituting the community, in terms of constructionof the organization and individual identity projects. This,in combination with the ubiquitous and all-embracingframing of HRM practices as identity-regulating tools(feedback systems and sessions, competence develop-ment programs, promotion, and so on), makes the pre-scribed “reality” signified by the HRM system far moreplausible and pervasive than the run-ins organizationalmembers have with actual HR reality—with its share ofweak feedback, the porosity of competence claims, andambiguous and politicized promotions. Because HRMas system and policy are strongly communicated in theorganization and people’s individual experiences of prac-tices are not—they are hesitant in raising skepticism—these experiences tend to be compartmentalized andcarry less weight for beliefs than prescribed HRM real-ity.HRM, thus, seems to work in ways that make organi-

zational life easier for the individuals through structur-ing, supporting, and constraining their identity projects.Key elements here seem to be:• Emotional coping: uncertainty and existential an-

xiety—key issues around identity struggles (Knights andWillmott 1989, Collinson 2003)—are being reduced butalso channeled through the ingredients of “balancedfeedback,” regulated promotion, and the use of ritualisticform. HRM offers a clear structure for dealing with inse-curity. Although the HRM system may lead to surprisesin practice, it provides powerful instruction on how theworld ought to work: Hard work pays off, hierarchy mir-rors competence, and merits prevail. It provides meaningto temporary stations for the individual’s identity project:As a junior consultant this and this is expected, senioritymeans that and that.• Providing cognitive clues: HRM as a symbol sys-

tem and a set of practices facilitates people’s to develop-ment of the cultural competences necessary for handlingadaption processes to the corporate career world prop-erly; thus dealing better with emotional, relational, andpractical matters. As Swidler (1986) points out, cultureinfluences action not primarily by providing values andnorms, but rather by providing particular competencies

and tools for how to manoever in a complex organiza-tional world. In Bourdieu’s (1979) terms, HRM activitiescan be viewed as concentrated lessons in the learning ofthe social field in which people act, and the habitus—cultural disposition—needed to make people appear tooperate competently in it.• Normative ordering: in HRM discourse and practice

normative elements are being highlighted and embraced,not just in terms of competence, hard work, and devel-opment, but also in terms of order, structure, and soon. This underscores communal aspects of the identityprojects, fostering a sense of solidarity and loyalty to thefirm and to colleagues. The normative ordering providedthrough the HRM system makes temporary stations inindividual identity projects legitimate and meaningful,even at subordinate levels, thus counteracting oppor-tunism.The alignment of identity projects clearly involves

the exercise of organizational control. However, themain mode of control operating here differs from tradi-tional forms of control such as behavioural, structural,output, and normative control, as well as disciplinarypower. What is at stake here is neither time independentlike “pure” normative control (where internalized valuesreach beyond time and space), nor fairly precise futuredirected control as most instrumental and performance-related motives are (where the bonus/wage raise, pro-motion, or visible result is targeted). Here we insteadhave the fusion of a sense of self (identity), the strug-gle to maintain and improve skills, the prospect of real-izing objectives and get (instrumental) rewards (wageincreases, rapid promotion), and the desire to complywith and live up to a specific normative order (being ablend of instrumental and value-oriented elements). Welabel this aspirational control.2 Put bluntly, aspirationalcontrol occurs through tying the self with a particularcareer idea and prospect, linked to a prescribed identityproject, thus forming a trajectory, including a sense ofa projected self (associated with anticipated position).The HRM part of aspirational control is supported by

material forms of power involved in the structure aroundidentity projects and in the exercise of aspirational con-trol. As one interviewee remarked about problems ofraising critique,

To use a typical Excellence expression: You must be con-structive. It means that you must contribute in a way thatleads forwards. If not, you’re seen as destructive. Andthat is not good. In the end it may effect your bandingand also the wage. (Consultant)

Thus, there is careful surveillance of people express-ing negative opinions or telling nonaffirmative stories,and regular exercise of sovereign power—senior peo-ple having control over promotions and other materialrewards. Thus, they are able to, both subtly and not sosubtly, prevent those who potentially obstruct the domi-nance of this culture from doing so.


ConclusionOverall, we make three points in this paper: (1) theactual practices of HRM can easily fall far behind andcontradict ambitious HRM objectives, ideologies, sys-tems, and procedures; (2) HRM may feed into orga-nizational and individual identity projects; and (3) thesuccess of HRM—the inclination of people to take thisseriously and ascribe positive meaning to it—is contin-gent on social mechanisms, such as excess ceremonialityand aspirational control, that facilitate the willing sus-pension of disbelief. All this indicates the need to rethinkconventional ideas about HRM.HRM researchers feel that they “now can say with

increasing confidence that HRM works” (Guest 1999,p. 188) and they can mobilize empirical studies indi-cating that ambitious use of HRM practices has posi-tive effect on performances (Huselid 1995, MacDuffie1995). Perhaps it (often) works, but how? MainstreamHRM research views this to be a matter of the competentrealization of plans and intentions, leading to a sys-tem characterized by instrumentality, validity, and con-sistency (Bowen and Ostroff 2004). Our study suggeststhat other mechanisms may be even more important.It also demonstrates the usefulness of observing actualHRM practices, rather than treating them as a black-boxed phenomenon that reliably converts particular inputto predictable outcomes.We have studied a large, successful management con-

sultancy firm with very ambitious HRM systems andprocedures, characterized by experiences of frequentdeviations from policies in feedback, ranking, promo-tion, and assignment planning. Our study once againreminds us about the difficulties of organizations ful-filling technocratic fantasies when it comes to peopleissues. It confirms the common experience of in-depthcase studies that “organizational life seldom lives up tothe facade of order it presents” (Batteau 2001, p. 728).At Excellence, this does not prevent people from

having faith in the HRM system on a general level,indicating discrepancies between an overall assessmentand specific experiences. This indicates that HRM may“work,” not in a technical-rational sense, but in termsof people sometimes using it for the constructions ofmeanings, values, and orientations that help them copewith work and develop a positive self-view, partly asso-ciated with organizational affiliation. We thus suggesta reconceptualization of HRM from a system of struc-tures and practices leading to effective people processingthrough techniques to a set of meanings and symbolsthat organizational members draw on in producing a par-ticular view of the organization as well as themselves.This view means a certain selectivity and closure in howpeople make sense of their experiences.We particularly emphasize the existence and impor-

tance of excess ceremoniality. The concept suggests thatthe success of the HRM system depends less on the

quality or rationality of the HRM arrangements, andmore on their sheer quantity and intensity and the back-up of supportive ideologies. This empowers the HRMsystem with a rich symbolic density that is highly per-suasive. The large amount of people-processing systemsand practices circling around in the firm strongly commu-nicates cultural meanings and values such as rationality,improvement, effort, individualism, fairness, compliance,order, differentiation, and transparence. This forms thebasis of what is distinctive about the organization andhow people relate to it, i.e., organizational identity.We also suggest that HRM is instrumental in consti-

tuting and sustaining the identity projects of the employ-ees based on these meanings. This concerns efforts ofconstructing identity of individuals within the frame oforganizational identity and of HRM providing a facili-tating and controlling structure for these projects. HRMinvolvement in individual identity projects affects boththose subordinates being processed and those superiorsdoing the processing. The frequent HRM activities linksideas about the organization and the individual; theyprovide points and mechanisms of identification, whereorganizational identity and cultural ideas become man-ifested and attached to the identity constructions andaspirations of the individuals.The symbolic significance for identity constructions

may mean that detached observations and logical rea-soning play a limited role in the formation of beliefs.HRM is enacted for the telling of positive stories aboutthe organization and its members (e.g., no other com-pany puts so much effort in their rating and promotionprocesses as we do). HRM is used by people in theirmeaning constructions against the ambiguity, fragmen-tation, and arbitrariness of the social world in generaland the consultancy work in particular. Constructionsof HRM reduce insecurity, facilitate cognitive-culturalcompetence, and exhibit the normative order. From thisfollows an inclination to suspend doubt about the tech-nical efficiency of HRM practices.The impact of the HRM systems and practices is thus

not necessarily only, or even mainly, about developingpeople with potential. The impact may be as much interms of affecting motivation, self-confidence, and com-pliance: We suggest that this occurs through aspira-tional control. This is the management control aspectof identity projects. Self-esteem becomes tightly linkedto career progress. The elaborated HRM systems makeyou get what you deserve, it is assumed. There is lit-tle socially acknowledged space for people to rationalizefailures. Apart from encouraging and maintaining highambitions, it thus makes it difficult to retreat from these,at least within the specific organizational context. Thedisciplinary effects are often strong when people con-nect their self-esteem and ambitions—i.e., their identityprojects—closely to the HRM systems and the organi-zational hierarchy.


AcknowledgmentsAn early draft of this paper was presented at the 2003 Euro-pean Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) conference,Copenhagen. The authors thank Thomas Armbruster, Max-ine Robertson, Graham Sewell, André Spicer, Paul Thompson,Stacey Wieland, and Hugh Willmott, as well as Organiza-tion Science editors David Courpasson and Linda Argote andanonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts of thispaper. The research project on which this paper is based wasfunded by Jan Wallander and Tom Hedelius’ Research Foun-dation and Vinnova.

Endnotes1We use terms like organizational identity, elements, andmechanisms as metaphors and/or as economical expressions,assuming—or at least hoping—that neither we nor the readerfalls into the trap of reification.2Foucauldian ideas perhaps come closest to what we areaddressing, where labelling, classification, and ranking plusconfessions and the providing of templates for being areemphasized (e.g., Foucault 1976, 1980; Townley 1993). Aspi-rational control, however, goes beyond this and emphasizesthe regulation of ambitions and orientations in relationship toexperiences and anticipations of a trajectory. It also empha-sizes the blend of normative control and material rewards.Studies of professional service firms by Covaleski et al.(1998) and Grey (1994) point at similar aspects. Covaleskiet al. address mentoring and Management by Objectives(MBO) as integrating individual and corporate goals, respec-tively “realizing corporate clones when people avow organi-zational imperatives as their own” (p. 300). Grey investigatescareer orientation as a self-project. Our contribution to thepower/control literature is that we show the role of the entireHRM system in relationship to organizational identity operat-ing as an overall identity regulating control structure, and thatwe offer the concept of aspirational control.

ReferencesAlbert, S., D. A. Whetten. 1985. Organizational identity. Research in

Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 7. L. L. Cummings, B. M. Staw,eds. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 263–295.

Alvesson, M. 1995. Management of Knowledge-Intensive Companies.de Gruyter, New York.

Alvesson, M. 2000. Social identity and the problem of loyaltyin knowledge-intensive companies. J. Management Stud. 371101–1122.

Alvesson, M. 2002. Understanding Organizational Culture. Sage,London, UK.

Alvesson, M. 2004. Knowledge Work and Knowledge-Intensive Firms.Oxford University Press, New York.

Alvesson, M., S. Deetz. 2000. Doing Critical Management Research.Sage, London, UK.

Alvesson, M., D. Kärreman. 2007. Constructing mystery: Empiricalmatters in theory development. Acad. Management Rev. Forth-coming.

Alvesson, M., K. Sköldberg. 2000. Reflexive Methodology. Sage,London, UK.

Alvesson, M., H. Willmott. 2002. Producing the appropriate individ-ual: Identity regulation as organizational control. J. ManagementStud. 39(5) 619–644.

Asplund, J. 1970. Om undran inför samhället. Argos, Uppsala,Sweden.

Babcock, L., X. Wang, G. Loewenstein. 1996. Choosing the wrongpond: Social comparisons in negotiations that reflect a self-serving bias. Quart. J. Econom. 111 1–19.

Barlow, G. 1989. Deficiencies and the perpetuation of power: Latentfunctions in management appraisals. J. Management Stud. 26(5)499–517.

Batteau, A. 2001. Negations and ambiguities in the cultures of orga-nizations. Amer. Anthropologist 102(4) 726–740.

Beer, M., B. Spector, P. R. Lawrence, D. Quinn Mill, R. E. Walton.1984. Managing Human Assets. The Free Press, New York.

Bourdieu, P. 1979. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Bowen, D., C. Ostroff. 2004. Understanding HRM-firm performancelinkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Acad.Management Rev. 29(2) 203–221.

Boxall, P., M. Steeneveld. 1999. Human resource strategy and com-petitive advantage: A longitudinal study of engineering consul-tants. J. Management Stud. 36(4) 443–463.

Broms, H., H. Gahmberg. 1983. Communication to self in organiza-tions and cultures. Admin. Sci. Quart. 28(3) 482–495.

Brown, A. 1995. Organizational Culture. Pitman, London, UK.

Cohen, A. 1974. Two-Dimensional Man. An Essay in the Anthropol-ogy of Power and Symbolism in Complex Society. Routledge andKegan Paul, London, UK.

Collinson, D. 2003. Identities and insecurities. Organization 10(3)527–547.

Covaleski, M., et al. 1998. The calculated and the avowed: Tech-niques of discipline and struggles over identity in Big Six publicaccounting firms’. Admin. Sci. Quart. 43 293–327.

Czarniawska, B. 1992. Exploring Complex Organizations. Sage,Newbury Park, CA.

Deetz, S. 1998. Discursive formations, strategized subordination, andself-surveillance. A. McKinley, K. Starkey, eds. Foucault, Man-agement, and Organization Theory. Sage, London, UK.

Deetz, S. 2003. Disciplinary power, conflict suppression, and humanresource management. M. Alvesson, H. Willmott, eds. StudyingManagement Critically. Sage, London, UK.

Delaney, J. T., M. A. Huselid. 1996. The impact of human resourcemanagement practices on perceptions of organizational perfor-mance. Acad. Management J. 39 949–969.

Dingwall, R. 1997. Accounts, interviews, and observations. G. Miller,R. Dingwall, eds. Context and Method in Qualitative Research.Sage, London, UK.

Dunne, J. 1996. Beyond sovereignty and deconstruction: The storiedself. R. Kearney, ed. Paul Ricoeur. The Hermeneutics of Action.Sage, London, UK.

Dutton, J., J. Dukerich, C. Harquail. 1994. Organizational images andmember identification. Admin. Sci. Quart. 43 293–327.

Eisenberg, E., P. Riley. 2001. Organizational culture. F. Jablin,L. Putnam, eds. New Handbook of Organizational Communica-tion. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Foucault, M. 1976. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1. Pantheon,New York.

Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and OtherWritings 1972–1977. Pantheon, New York.

Foucault, M. 1988. Technologies of the self. L. H. Martin, H. Gutman,P. H. Hutton, eds. Technologies of the Self. University ofMassachusetts Press, Amherst, MA.


Frost, P. J., L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, J. Martin. 1985. Orga-nizational Culture. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Geertz, C. 1973. Interpretations of Culture. Basic Books, New York.

Gioia, D. A., M. Schultz, K. G. Corley. 2000. Organizational iden-tity, image, and adaptive instability. Acad. Management Rev. 2563–81.

Grey, C. 1994. Career as a project of the self and labour processdiscipline. Sociology 28 479–497.

Guest, D. 1999. Human resource management and performance:A review and research agenda. R. Schuler, S. Jackson, eds.Strategic Human Resource Management. Blackwell, Oxford,UK, 263–276.

Haines, E. L., J. T. Jost. 2000. Placating the powerless: Effects oflegitimate and illegitimate explanation on affect, memory, andstereotyping. Soc. Justice Res. 13 219–236.

Hatch, M. J., M. Schultz. 2002. The dynamics of organizational iden-tity. Human Relations 55 989–1018.

Huselid, M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource managementpractices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial per-formance. Acad. Management J. 38 635–672.

Huselid, M. A., S. E. Jackson, R. S. Schuler. 1997. Technical andstrategic human resource management effectiveness as determi-nants of firm performance. Acad. Management J. 40 171–188.

Iles, P., G. Salaman. 1995. Recruitment, assessment, and selectionJ. Storey, ed. Human Resource Management—A Critical Text.Thomson Learning, London, UK.

Jackall, R. 1988. Moral Mazes. The World of Corporate Managers.Oxford University Press, New York.

Jackson, S., R. Schuler. 1995. Understanding human resource man-agement in the context of organizations and their environment.Annual Rev. Psych. 46 237–264.

Jost, J. T., B. W. Pelham, M. R. Carvallo. 2002. Non-conscious formsof system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences forhigher status groups. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 38 586–602.

Jost, J. T., B. W. Pelham, O. Sheldon, B. N. Sullivan. 2003. Socialinequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalfof the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification amongthe disadvantaged. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 33 13–36.

Keenoy, T., P. Anthony. 1992. HRM: Metaphor, meaning, and moral-ity. P. Blyton, P. Turnbull, eds. Reassessing Human ResourceManagement. Sage, London, UK.

Knights, D., H. Willmott. 1989. Power and subjectivity at work. Soci-ology 23(4) 535–558.

Kunda, G. 1992. Engineering Culture. Control and Commitment in aHigh-Tech Corporation. Temple University Press, Philadelphia,PA.

Legge, K. 2005. Human resource management. S. Ackroyd, R. Batt,P. Thompson, P. S. Tolbert, eds. Oxford Handbook of Work andOrganization Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Lengnick-Hall, C., M. Lengnick-Hall. 1988. Strategic human resourcemanagement: A review of the literature and a proposed typology.Acad. Management Rev. 13(3) 454–470.

Longenecker, C., D. Gioia, H. Sims. 1987. Behind the mask: The pol-itics of employee appraisal. Acad. Management Executive 1(3)183–193.

Löwendahl, B. 1997. Strategic Management in Professional Ser-vice Firms. Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen,Denmark.

MacDuffie, J. P. 1995. Human resource bundles and manufacturingperformance: Organizational logic and flexible production sys-tems in the world auto industry. Indust. Labor Relations Rev.48(2) 197–221.

Maister, D. 1993. Managing the Professional Service Firm. FreePress, New York.

Marchington, M., I. Grugulis. 2000. “Best practice” human resourcemanagement: Perfect opportunity or dangerous illusion? Inter-nat. J. Human Resource Management 11 905–925.

Markus, H., P. Nurius. 1986. Possible selves. Amer. Psychologist 41954–969.

Martin, J. 1992. The Culture of Organizations. Oxford UniversityPress, New York.

Meyer, J., B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formalstructure as myth and ceremony. Amer. J. Sociol. 83 340–363.

Möllering, G. 2001. The nature of trust: From Georg Simmel to atheory of expectation, interpretation, and suspension. Sociology35(2) 403–420.

O’Shea, J., C. Madigan. 1998. Dangerous Firm. Management Con-sultancies and the Businesses They Save and Ruin. Penguin,Harmondsworth, UK.

Pfeffer, J. 1994. Competitive Advantage Through People. HarvardBusiness Press, Boston, MA.

Purcell, J. 1999. Best practice and best fit: Chimera or cul-de-sac?Human Resource Management J. 9(3) 26–41.

Rabinowitz, J. L. 1999. Go with the flow or fight the power? Theinteractive effects of social dominance orientation and perceivedinjustice on support for the status quo. Political Psych. 20 1–24.

Scott, S. G., V. R. Lane. 2000. A stakeholder approach to organiza-tional identity. Acad. Management Rev. 25 43–62.

Sedikides, C., K. W. Campbell, G. D. Reeder, A. J. Elliot. 1998. Theself-serving bias in relational context. J. Personality Soc. Psych.74 378–386.

Smircich, L. 1983a. Studying organizations as cultures. G. Morgan,ed. Beyond Method. Strategies for Social Research. Sage,Beverly Hills, CA.

Smircich, L. 1983b. Implications for management theory. L. Putnam,M. Pacanowsky, eds. Communication and Organizations. AnInterpretive Approach. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Steffy, B., A. Grimes. 1992. Personnel/organizational psychology—Acritique of the discipline. M. Alvesson, H. Willmott, eds. Criti-cal Management Studies. Sage, London, UK.

Sveningsson, S., M. Alvesson. 2003. Managing managerial identities:Organizational fragmentation, discourse, and identity struggle.Human Relations 56(10) 1163–1193.

Swidler, A. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. Amer.Sociol. Rev. 51 273–286.

Tichy, N., C. Fombrun, M. Devanna. 1982. Strategic human resourcemanagement. Sloan Management Rev. 23(2) 47–61.

Townley, B. 1994. Reframing Human Resource Management. Sage,London, UK.

Townley, B. 1999. Practical reason and performance appraisal.J. Management Stud. 36(3) 287–306.

Tyson, S. 1995. Human Resource Strategy: Towards a General Theoryof HRM. Pitman, London, UK.

Van Maanen, J., G. Kunda. 1989. “Real feelings”: Emotional expres-sion and organizational culture. B. M. Staw, L. L. Cummings,eds. Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 11. JAI Press,Greenwich, CT.

Watson, T. 2004. HRM and critical social science analysis. J. Man-agement Stud. 41 447–467.

Documents

Alvesson OrgSci 2007