^ Academy oi Management Review2000, Vol. 25. No. 1, 63-81.

ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY, IMAGE, ANDADAPTIVE INSTABILITY

DENNIS A. GIOIAPennsylvania State University

MAJKEN SCHULTZCopenhagen Business School

KEVIN G. CORLEYPennsylvania State University

Organizational identity usually is portrayed as that which is core, distinctive, andenduring about the character oi an organization. We argue that because oi thereciprocal interrelationships between identity and image, organizational identity,rather than enduring, is better viewed as a relatively fluid and unstable concept. Weiurther argue that instead of destabilizing an organization, this instability in identityis actually adaptive in accomplishing change. The analysis leads to some provoca-tive, but nonetheless constructive, implications for theory, research, and practice.

In recent years identity and image have be-come the subjects of rather intensive organiza-tional study, perhaps because both concepts aremultilevel notions dealing with individual andorganizational issues and because both canlend insight into the character and behavior oforganizations and their members. Whetherthose insights concern personal versus organi-zational identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), threatsto identity (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996), organiza-tional image and identification (Dutton, Duk-erich, & Harquail, 1994), organizational image asan end state (Alvesson, 1990), adaptation (Dutton& Dukerich, 1991), issue interpretation (Gioia &Thomas, 1996), or member commitment (Whet-ten, Lewis, & Mischel, 1992), identity and imagehave acquired the status of key concepts em-ployed to describe and explain individual andorganizational behavior (see Whetten & God-frey, 1998). In this article we focus attention pri-marily on the concepts of organizational identityand image.

Essential to most theoretical and empiricaltreatments of organizational identity is a view,specified by Albert and Whetten (1985), defining

We thank Samia Chreim, AMR special issue editor JaneDutton, Martin Kilduff, Kristian Kreiner, Dave Lepak, MetteMorsing, Gary Weaver, and three anonymous AMR review-ers for constructive comments on earlier versions of thisarticle.

identity as that which is central, enduring, anddistinctive about an organization's character.Scholars have predicated virtually all latertreatments of organizational identity on thesedefinitional pillars. In contrast, scholars haveseen organizational image as a broader con-cept, which includes notions involving the waysorganization members believe others see the or-ganization (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991); fabricated,projected pictures aimed at various constituen-cies (Bernstein, 1984); and the public's percep-tion of a given organization (Berg, 1985).

In this article we argue that there is a closereciprocal relationship between organizationalidentity and various forms of imagea relation-ship that augurs for some reconsideration of thebases for the normally accepted conception ofidentity. We argue further that this reconsidera-tion is important, because the consequences ofadhering to the now taken-for-granted concep-tion have implications not only for our ways ofthinking about organizations and their membersbut especially for the ways in which we thinkabout how organizations change. This is partic-ularly the case as organizations deal with in-creasingly complex and turbulent environmentsand as the role of the media in organizationallife becomes more pronounced.

Our main contention is that organizationalidentity, contrary to most treatments of it in theliterature, is actually relatively dynamic and

63

64 Academy of Management Review January

that the apparent durability of identity is some-what illusory. We argue that the seeming dura-bility of identity is actually contained in thestability of the labels used by organizationmembers to express who or what they believethe organization to be, but that the meaningassociated with these labels changes so thatidentity actually is mutable. Therefore, we re-conceptualize organizational identity as a po-tentially precarious and unstable notion, fre-quently up for redefinition and revision byorganization members. We argue that the insta-bility of identity arises mainly from its ongoinginterrelationships with organizational image,which are clearly characterized by a notabledegree of fluidity. Perhaps most important, weargue further that the instability of identity isactually adaptive in facilitating organizationalchange in response to environmental demands.

Although in recent theory and research on or-ganizational identity one finds acknowledg-ment of its potentially changeable character(see the conversations in Whetten & Godfrey,1998), scholars continue to downplay, underplay,or inadequately develop the implications of re-conceptualizing identity as dynamic. Certainly,the presumption of stability has allowed re-searchers to more easily develop measures ofan organization's identity, but we have come toa point in the theoretical development of theconcept at which we need to account for itsdynamism.

We first offer a brief exploration of the natureof organizational identity by weaving togethermultiple views from the literature; we then offeran overview of multiple forms of organizationalimage, followed by a description of the interre-lationships between identity and image. We de-velop a depiction of the processes by whichidentity becomes unstable and mutable be-cause of its complex interrelationships with im-age. Our initial approach to this depiction hasits roots in realist ontological assumptions (i.e.,it presumes some substantive basis for identity),suggesting a view of identity as changing incre-mentally. We then invoke several alternativeviews that not only help to produce an en-hanced, multiperspective understanding of thenature of identity (Gioia & Pitre, 1990; Schultzand Hatch, 1996) but also serve to clarify anddramatize the degree to which identity can be-come malleable. These two alternative perspec-tives (a revisionist history view and a postmod-

ern view) are predicated on nominalistontological assumptions (i.e., they presume thatidentity is a subjective, socially constructedphenomenon).

Taken together, these three perspectives leadto some provocative implications for our concep-tualization of identityimplications that moti-vate a constructive attempt to reconcile a seem-ing paradox concerning the relationship oforganizations and their environments. On theone hand, the creation and maintenance of anapparently enduring identity are essential tolong-term success (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Col-lins & Porras, 1994); on the other hand, organiza-tions must possess the ability to adapt quicklyto increasingly turbulent environments as anessential condition for well-being and even sur-vival (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; D'Aveni, 1994;Eisenhardt, 1989; Gustafson & Reger, 1995).Given the preference for order and stability inlight of the need for change, one might thusreason that organizations must learn to changeand yet somehow stay the same (cf. Gagliardi,1986). Through the concept of "adaptive instabil-ity," we provide an alternative reading onchange in modern organizations that demon-strates that existence within this paradox is pos-sible and that, in fact, organizations can accom-plish change despite implied threats to theostensibly enduring nature of their identities.The result of our analysis is a heightening of thesense that identity and image are indeed keynotions but that these concepts and their inter-play are much more complex and elusive thancurrent treatments would cast them.

ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY

Organizational identity is typically taken byscholars to be an organization's members' col-lective understanding of the features presumedto be central and relatively permanent, and thatdistinguish the organization from other organi-zations (Albert & Whetten, 1985). Core features ofidentity are presumed to be resistant to ephem-eral or faddish attempts at alteration because oftheir ties to the organization's history. Gagliardiargues that the main strategy of an organizationis usually geared to maintaining its identity,perhaps especially under threatening condi-tions of change (although he also notes thatorganizations "usually change to remain whatthey have always been . . . [they] must change in

2000 Gioia, Schultz, and Corley 65

order to preserve identity" [1986: 124-125]). Yet,this paradoxical statement nonetheless sug-gests that identity is not, and indeed cannot be,enduring in any strict sense, even though it ap-parently retains continuity in its essential fea-tures. There must be fluidity to the notion; oth-erwise, the organization stagnates in the face ofan inevitably changing environment.

In examining the fluid nature of identity, it isuseful to differentiate between an enduringidentity and an identity having continuity.Whereas Ashforth and Mael (1996) see the twoconcepts as synonymous, we believe the differ-ence is subtle, yet theoretically important. Thenotion of an identity that is enduring impliesthat identity remains the same over timethat ithas some permanency. An identity with a senseof continuity, however, is one that shifts in itsinterpretation and meaning while retaining la-bels for "core" beliefs and values that extendover time and context.

Identity is imputed from expressed values, butthe inferpretafion of those values is not neces-sarily fixed or stable. Interpretations change, soinvocations like "We stand for service!" or "Weare an innovating company" mean differentthings to different groups at different times.There is a reassuring continuity for members(and also for interested external constituents) insaying that their mission or central values staythe same, but the representations and transla-tions into action take different forms over time.Thus, even though the core appears stable, it iseffectively in flux because of its practical ambi-guity (allowing for flexible interpretations; seeGioia & Chittipeddi, 1991) and its complexity(allowing a repertoire of values to fit many in-stances; see Reger, Gustafson, DeMarie, & Mul-lane, 1994). A continuous feature of Hewlett-Packard's identity for many decades, forinstance, has been based on the idea of the "H-PWay" as an expression of core values. Yet, themeaning of the specific values and actions as-sociated with the "H-P Way" has changed manytimes over the years (see Collins & Porras, 1994),to arrive at its current form of elaboration (seewTvw.hp.com).

It is also important to recognize that identity,even at the individual level, is a social construc-tion (Gergen & Davis, 1985), deriving from re-peated interactions with others (Cooley, 1902).This feature of identity has been at the heart ofmost theory and research on social and individ-

ual identity (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995; Ash-forth & Mael, 1998). For instance, James, as longago as 1918, noted that people have markedlydifferent identities for different roles and situa-tions. As Weick puts it, "Identities are consti-tuted out of the process of interaction. To shiftamong interactions is to shift among definitionsof the self" (1995: 20). Similarly, Giddens (1991)noted that self-identity presumes reflexiveawareness over time (i.e., identity must be ac-tively created and sustained through interac-tions with others).

Thus, a sense of continuous formulation andpreservation of the self through interaction isessential to notions of individual identity. Thisis an important recognition not only for individ-uals but also for organizations, because organ-izational identity is constructed via similar pro-cesses of interaction with outsidersforinstance, customers, media, rivals, and regula-tory institutions (cf. Ashforth & Mael, 1996; Berg& Gagliardi, 1985; Fombrun, 1996; Gioia, 1998).As Fiol states in her anthropomorphic exampleof an acute care teaching hospital undergoingchange in its identity, "You can no longer askonly me or look inside of me to understand myidentity. You can also no longer take a singlesnapshot of me at one point in time and believeyou have captured my identity" (1998: 68).

All of these views of organizational identitysuggest that it is not only a complex phenome-non but also one that can vary with the contextfor which it is expressed (Fiol, Hatch, & Golden-Biddle, 1998; Wilkins, 1989). A sense of continuityin the self-interpretation of an organization inrelation to its environment might prevail, butidentity is nonetheless inherently dynamic.Such observations raise questions about thetypically assumed durability of identityan as-sumption that becomes more problematic whenwe consider the concept of organizational imageand its relationships with identity.

ORGANIZATIONAL IMAGE

Organizational image has been the subject ofmany different conceptualizations and defini-tional debates. Dutton and Dukerich (1991) ar-gued that organizational image is the way or-ganization members believe others view theorganization (although Dutton et al., 1994, appro-priately relabeled this particular definition ofimage construed external image). Whetten et al.

Academy of Management Review January

(1992) took some issue with this definition andargued instead for defining image as the way"organizational elites" would like outsiders tosee the organization. This orientation highlightstop management's concern with projecting animage of the organization that is based (ideally)on identity. Such a "projected image" could be abona fide attempt to represent essential fea-tures of organizational identity to others. It couldalso take the form of the projection of a desiredfuture image (Gioia & Thomas, 1996) that com-municates to insiders and outsiders a vision tobe achieved.

Projected image, however, might also encom-pass attempts to convey a socially desirable,managed impression that emphasizes selectedaspects of identity; it could even conceal or mis-represent identity. In fact, Bernstein (1984) heldthat image should be defined as a constructionof public impressions created to appeal to anaudience (and not necessarily the attempt torepresent some ostensible reality). All theseviews, however, take image to be essentially aninternal conceptionthat is, perceptions held orcommunicated by insiders.

Berg (1985) took a decidedly more external ap-proach by focusing on perceptions held by out-siders. He defined image as the public's percep-tion or impression of an organization, usuallyassociated with a given action or event (whichwe term an external transient impression). Thisdefinition is related to Fombrun's (1996) defini-tion of reputation as the collective judgments(by outsiders) of an organization's actions andachievements. Reputation can be distinguishedfrom transient impressions in that the concept ofreputation implies a more lasting, cumulative,and global assessment rendered over a longertime period; transient impressions concern morelimited and/or ephemeral events.

To further complicate the conceptualization ofimage and its relationship with identity, in otherdisciplines scholars treat the notions of imageand identity somewhat differently from those inthe field of organizational study. In the fields ofpublic relations and marketing, for instance, re-searchers employ the concepts of corporateidentity, corporate image, and image manage-ment in their attempts to understand a corpora-tion's relationship with its constituents (Brown &Cox, 1997; Grunig, 1993; Van Riel & Balmer, 1997).Corporate identity (actually, a form of projectedimage, despite the label) scholars focus on how

the "central idea" of a corporation is presentedto its various constituents to achieve the corpo-ration's strategic goals (Olins, 1995). Those inthe corporate identity field are most concernedwith visual representations of the corporationemphasized through the design and manage-ment of corporate symbols and logos (Hatch &Schultz, 1997; Olins, 1989). Although the conceptof corporate identity is closely related to Bern-stein's (1984) conception of a projected image, inrecent work on corporate identity, van Riel andBalmer (1997) and Hatch and Schultz (1997) arguethat projection of identity is equally important toboth internal and external constituents. Pro-jected images, however, might be differentiatedfrom corporate identity in that projected imagestypically are associated with specific contexts,events, issues, and audiences; corporate iden-tity usually is taken to include all verbal,graphic, and symbolic representations used bya company in its managed, corporate-level com-munication with various constituents.

We have summarized these multiplesome-times overlapping and even conflictingformsof image in Table 1. These differing notions sug-gest that image is a wide-ranging concept con-noting perceptions that are both internal andexternal to the organization (see also Boorstin,1961), as well as perceptions that are both pro-jected and received. In fact, Grunig usefully ex-plicates such divergent perspectives by makinga distinction between image "as something thata communicator createsconstructs andprojects or gives to other people . . . a messageproduced by the organization" (1993; 126) and analternative notion of image wherein "receiversconstruct meaningimagesfrom their per-sonal observations of reality or from the sym-bols given to them by other people . . . image assome sort of composite in the minds of publics"(1993: 126).

We next employ these various forms of imageto provide a theoretical description of the pro-cesses by which identity and image are interre-lated. These interrelationships (which wepresent in narrative form but also representgraphically as a dynamic process model)strongly suggest the fluidity of identity. Follow-ing the presentation of this process model, webring the revisionist history and postmodernperspectives to bear on the question of how im-age and identity are interrelated, and we ex-

2000 Gioia, Schultz, and Cotley 67

TABLE 1Forms of Image

Label Definition in Literature Representative Examples

Construed external image

Projected image

Desired future image

Corporate identity

Transient impression

Reputation

Organization members' perceptions of howoutsiders perceive the organization

Image created by an organization to becommunicated to constituents; might ormight not represent ostensible reality;singular image of the organization

Visionary perception the organizationwould like external others and internalmembers to have of the organizationsometime in the future

Consistent and targeted representations ofthe corporation emphasized through themanagement of corporate symbols andlogos; strategically planned and opera-tionally applied internal and externalself-representation

Short-term impression constructed by areceiver either through directobservation or interpretation of symbolsprovided by an organization

Relatively stable, long-term, collectivejudgments by outsiders of anorganization's actions and achievements

Dutton & Dukerich (1991)Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail (1994)Alvesson (1990)Bernstein (1984)

Gioia & Chittipeddi (1991)Gioia & Thomas (1996)

Olins (1989)van Riel & Balmer (1997)

Berg (1985)Grunig (1993)

Fombrun (1996)Fombrun & Shanley (1990)

plore the consequences for the reconceptualiza-tion of identity.

IDENTITY-IMAGE INTERRELATIONSfflPS

Image in its multiple guises provides a cata-lyst for members' reflexive examination of theirorganizational self-definition. Image often actsas a destabilizing force on identity, frequentlyrequiring members to revisit and reconstructtheir organizational sense of self. To examinethe processes by which identity becomes inter-related with, and susceptible to, the influence ofimage, we begin with the assumption that or-ganization members (especially top manage-ment members) have developed some sense of"who we are as an organization" (Albert & Whet-ten, 1985) and have communicated that identityto internal and external constituencies. Overtime, organization members receive feedbackabout their organizational portrayal, or someevent occurs that makes identity concerns sa-lient (cf. Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Elsbach &Kramer, 1996). Because organization members

are simultaneously also members of externalgroups (e.g., as customers, as members of spe-cial-interest groups monitoring the organiza-tion's actions, or simply as audiences for mediaportrayals of their company), and thus sensi-tized to outsider views of their own organization,the tendency to compare their views of theirorganization with others' views of the organiza-tion is heightened further (Hatch & Schultz,1997).

Shell Oil's experience with the burgeoningcontroversy over its plan to dispose of the mam-moth Brent Spar offshore storage and loadingplatform by sinking it in the Atlantic provides agood example of these processes in action. Theoriginal plan was opposed by Greenpeace, andeventually by national governments in northernEurope, as environmentally unsound. The con-troversy and negative feedback not only influ-enced Shell ultimately to reconsider and reviseits plan but also to reconsider its own identity.Shell asked a series of self-reflective questions,prompted by the images it projected to the pub-lic and the images conveyed in return in revis-

Academy of Management Review January

ing its identity to that of a more socially respon-sible business practitioner (see www.shellexpro.brentspar.com for a detailed corporate report).

Figure 1 presents a skeletal depiction of theprocesses by which various forms of image arelikely to destabilize and foster changes in iden-tity. As is the case with most process frame-works, however. Figure 1 presents a distilled,somewhat sterile, and even overly rational de-piction of a process that is, in actuality, a richer,more complex, more subtle, and often more tacitprocess. Within this simplified theoretical por-trayal, we have included several representativequestions as a way of highlighting and illustrat-ing some of the key comparisons that membersmake between identity and image.

When information from outsiders conveys anunexpected transient impression (Berg, 1985;Grunig, 1993) or reputation (Fombrun, 1996), or-ganization members are prompted to comparetheir identity and image. Who we believe our-selves to be as an organization is partly basedon how others see us (cf. Cooley, 1902; Gergen &Davis, 1985), so feedback from outsiders con-cerning the impression we are making on themprompts us to look at our own sense of self andto assess the similarity of the two views. Thisassessment specifically involves an explicit orimplicit comparison between identity and con-strued external image (Dutton et al., 1994). Rhe-torically, the comparison might be framed interms of Albert and Whetten's fundamental self-reflective question, "Who are we as an organi-zation?" (although it is theoretically more re-vealing to cast the question as "Who do we thinkwe are?" or even "Who do we think we shouldbe?"), and the parallel other-reflective ques-tions, "Who do they think we are" and "Who dothey think we should be" (see Dutton & Dukerich,1991, for a classic example).

If the outcome of this comparison is a sensethat there is no discrepancy between the twoperceptionsthat the way "we see ourselves"corresponds with how "others see us"thenidentity is affirmed, and no apparent need forchange exists. This was Shell's initial responseafter receiving approval from the British govern-ment to sink the Brent Spar in the North Atlantic.If this comparison, however, results in a sensethat the way "we see ourselves" is inconsistentwith how we think "others see us" (i.e., there is adiscrepancy between identity and construed ex-ternal image), then several implicit or explicit

questions arise (e.g., "Should we be concernedabout this mismatch in perceptions?" "Do weneed to take action to resolve the discrepan-cy?"). One possibility is that organization mem-bers will see the discrepancy as acceptable ornot worthy of the effort needed to reconcile thediffering perceptions (e.g., negative feedbackfrom a stakeholder group not deemed importantto the organization's self-definition or mission);they might therefore elect to do nothing ("Wecan live with it"), with no further considerationsor implications for identity, which was Shell'searly response to Greenpeace's objections.

Alternatively, however, the discrepancy couldbe seen as important by top management and adecision made to take some action to resolve it.This occurred at Shell after Greenpeace occu-pied the Brent Spar, leading to widespread me-dia attention, public awareness, and objectionby the German government. Such a decisionsuggests two major options: (1) change some-thing about the way we see ourselves (i.e.,change aspects of our identity) or (2) attempt tochange the way others perceive us (i.e., changeothers' external impression/reputation). If thediscrepancy is pronounced and consequential, itcan suggest the need to reevaluate and changeaspects of identity, which ultimately occurred atShell. Because direct interventions or exhorta-tions to members to alter their conceptions of theorganization are unlikely to be effective (Regeret al., 1994), a viable alternative for top manage-ment is to project an attractive vision in the formof a desired future image as a precursor to ahoped-for future identity. For instance. Shell cre-ated websites and published a set of revisedguiding principles, the Report to Society, por-traying itself as not only technically competentbut also as socially sensitive. Such desired fu-ture images can serve to "pull" identity into sub-sequent alignment (Gioia & Thomas, 1996). Apublic declaration of that future image also cansignal to outsiders that the organization ischanging; thus, the projection of a compellingfuture image can directly affect both identityand construed external image, as well as exter-nal perceptions of the organization (Figure 1).

If top management members decide, however,that the identity-image discrepancy should beresolved instead by attempting to change howoutsiders perceive the organization ("We need toget them to see us the way we would like"), theycan attempt several tactics. First, they can

2000 Gioia, Schultz, and Cotley 69

FIGURE 1Process Model oi Identity-Image Interdependence

Triggering externalfeedback or event

Identity/image comparison

Identity

Questions ol self-reflectionConstrued external image

Questions of other-reflectionWho do we think we are? Who do they think we are?Who do we think we should be? Who do they think we should be?

Perceiveddiscrepancy?

Yes

Action?Should we do

anything?

Yes

Change identity/image?What should we do?

Changeorganizational identity

Think differentlyabout ourselves

Desired lutureimage

Projectedimages

Transient impressions/Reputation

Changetransient impressions

Change how outsidersperceive us

Corporateidentity

70 Academy of Management Review January

project an image to their outside constituenciesthat more clearly or more strongly conveys theirconception of the organization's identity. Suchan attempt at strategically altering images ofthe organization to better communicate the or-ganization's sense of identitya central func-tion of an organization's corporate identity pro-gramis aimed at influencing outsiders'perceptions to be better aligned with self-definitions. Shell's initial response to the nega-tive publicity, for instance, involved numerouscorporate identity efforts aimed at helping out-siders see who the "real Shell" was.

Second, top management members canproject images aimed not at better communicat-ing identity but at highlighting and emphasiz-ing certain socially desirable aspects of theiridentity, thus attempting to manipulate outsiderperceptions by engaging in organizational im-pression management. For example. Shell pro-jected images aimed at highlighting its engi-neering identity and scientific prowess, as wellas calling repeated attention to its core princi-ples.

Last, in the extreme, the organization canproject patently false images in an attempt tomisrepresent the organization to its publics. Inthe Brent Spar case. Shell did not make a con-certed effort to misrepresent itself to externalaudiences. In an interesting twist, however,GreenpeaceShell's original protagonist in theconflictdid supply misinformation to the me-dia in an attempt to misrepresent Shell's image.This misinformation concerning the alleged vol-ume and toxicity of the Brent Spar's contentswas eventually refuted, enabling Shell to regaincredibility.

Regardless of the initial purpose of the pro-jected images, however, outsiders develop theirown images (transient impressions) of the or-ganization from their idiosyncratic interpreta-tions and from other available information ob-tained from media sources and other agents(Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). Thus, organization-ally projected images are likely to have moreindirect effects via subsequent feedback to theorganization, depending on how the constituen-cies and other intermediaries interpret them. Insome cases the external audience might indeedaffirm the organization's image projection. Morelikely, however, is some alteration of the pro-jected image as intermediaries transmit, distort,add to, and otherwise modify it (into a refracted

image, in Rindova & Fombrun's, 1998, terms) sothat the identity/image comparison process re-curs anew in cyclical fashion. For example.Shell launched a series of conversations withpublic constituenciesa process that promptedrepeated reflection within Shell over the life ofthe Brent Spar saga (1991-1999).

It is important to note that either in trying tochange identity or in trying to change others'perceptions, an organization's projection ofsome altered image for the consumption of in-siders and/or outsiders is likely to influence andalter subsequent conceptions of identity be-cause of the close relationships between imageand identity. Even the projection of an intention-ally false image arguably can influence laterconceptions of identity. The essence of this as-pect of the process is that projected images arereceived, given their own interpretations by con-stituents and intermediaries, and fed back to theorganization, often in modified form, which sub-sequently affects insider perceptions of theirown identity (connoted by the feedback loops inFigure 1; see also Fiol & Kovoor-Misra, 1997). AsHatch and Schultz note, "Who we are is reflectedin what we are doing and how others interpretwho we are and what we are doing" (1997: 54).

There are some summary observations tomake about this description of the process. First,organizational identity is not solely an inter-nally determined concept. Identity involves in-teractions and interrelationships between insid-ers and outsiders and, perhaps especially,insider perceptions of outsider impressions.Construed external image, thus, is key to theprocess of initiating changes in identity; it rep-resents organization members' interpretation ofthe feedback received from outsiders regardingthe organization's fulfillment of expectations. Italso represents the medium through whichmembers determine how outsiders perceive theorganization, thus affording a benchmarkagainst which they can compare their ownsense of the organization. In this way construedexternal image acts as the primary concept link-ing organizational self-definition through self-reflection with self-definition through other-reflection.

Second, the bases for asserting the interrela-tionships between identity and image are wellestablished in the literature. In principle, thosebases reach back at the individual level toCooley (1902) and James (1918), and extend for-

2000 Gioia, Schultz, and Coiley 71

ward at the organizational level to Albert andWhetten (1985), Dutton and Dukerich (1991), Dut-ton et al. (1994), Reger et al. (1994), Elsbach andKramer (1996), Gioia and Thomas (1996), and theinsightful synopses contained in Whetten andGodfrey (1998), among others. Assembling theseessential processes into a coherent frameworkdemonstrates that the relationships betweenidentity and image create the potential, and of-ten the likelihood, for a mutable identity.

In addition to these processes, wherein com-municated image encourages (usually) incre-mental shifts in identity, there are other pro-cesses that tend to exacerbate and evenaccelerate changes in identity. In the followingsections we highlight two perspectivesrevi-sionist history and postmodernismwhich pro-vide alternative views augmenting the argu-ment that identity is dynamic. Each suggestsprovocative conclusions about the effects of im-age on the stability of identity. Revisionist his-tory offers a compelling demonstration thatmembers typically reinterpret the past in light ofcurrent insider beliefs and outsider perceptions,which has the effect of making identity appearstable to perceivers, even as it changes. Thepostmodern perspective offers an unsettling ar-gument for the relentless power of market andmedia images, which implies an extraordinaryinfluence of images on identity over relativelyshort periods of time. Consideration of thesearguments leads to further reflection about thenature of organizational identity and the impli-cations for organizational change.

Revisionist History. Identity, and ImageJust as organizational history is important to

any change process, the revision of that historyis equally important. Plausible change propos-als by top management must be seen as some-how related to "who we have been," yet propos-als for major change usually imply someinconsistency with previous identity. Wheneverthe question comes up about "who we are" or,especially, "who we want to be," not only doorganization members revise their current per-ceptions of their organization (Ashforth & Mael,1996), they also engage in a process of revisingtheir current perceptions of the past (cf. Loftus,1980). The "facts" of the past might not be indoubt, but their meaning always is.

All organizational history, in an importantsense, thus becomes revisionist history. Bothidentity and image sustain only indirect inher-itances from the past; other aspects of that in-heritance are supplied by current orientationsand (re)constructions of the meaning of pastevents. What organization members in earliertimes took as "roots" are subjected to revisedinterpretations, as current needs or desired fu-ture image fuels the reinvention of the past. Thisprocess tends to foster the construction of a par-tially mythological history that modifies previ-ous identity to conform to some image of a cur-rent or a desired future state. As old Hungarianfolk wisdom puts it, "The future is not in doubt; itis the past we worry about." Seen in this light,revisionist history has unavoidable implica-tions; it virtually assures some infidelity to pre-vious conceptions of identity.

When organizations design and launch aplanned change effort, they frequently employ avisionary projected future image as an impetusand a guide for achieving some desired revisionin their structure, process, performance, andprestige (Gioia & Thomas, 1996). Such images,which include symbolic representations ofimagined future states that compromise presentand past views, demand the reexamination ofcurrent identity. If the existing identity cannotbe altered in some way, the change effort isunlikely to be successful.

Biggart's (1977) study of the U.S. Postal Ser-vice's reorganization effort is illustrative of theefficacy of revising the interpretation of the past.She found that executives charged with manag-ing the change process pointedly discreditedpreviously valued attributes of the organization(including former management styles, systems,structures, and even logos that were consideredcentral to the organization's self-definition) infavor of newly espoused attributes. Thus, theyreevaluated organizational history and identityas out of touch with the times, and they reinter-preted it as a way of justifying and motivatingthe need for change (Chreim, 1998).

A related tactic for changing members' waysof understanding their organization is to injectintentional ambiguity into a complacent organi-zation to produce the necessary interpretive in-stability that creates opportunities for changingaspects of identity. When top managers induce"ambiguity-by-design" (Gioia & Chittipeddi,1991), they tend to destabilize existing interpre-

72 Academy ol Management Review Janucay

tations and create a desire for resolution of theambiguity (i.e., a desire for a revised way ofunderstanding that can alter the existing inter-pretations now deemed to be unworkable andyet still connect with the organization's history;cf. Pondy & Huff, 1985). Top management canthen fill the interpretational vacuum by offeringa preferred view that lends structure to theequivocal setting (e.g., see Gioia & Chittiped-di's, 1991, example of a university's ambiguous"top 10" future image, or Barney's, 1998, exampleof Koch Industries' labeling itself as a "discov-ery" company, both of which fostered changeand adaptation). Such revised images require areconsideration of "who we have been" if mem-bers are to maintain their desire for continuity inidentity, so revisions to the current interpreta-tion of past identity occur. Ambiguity-by-designthus fosters consistency with, but departurefrom, the historical identity in need of currentrevision.

The upshot of the revisionist history perspec-tive is the presentation of a view of identity aseven more malleable than our process modelsuggests, simply because historical identity issusceptible to reinterpretation as organizationstry to align their identities with current images.The attempts to maintain continuity with pastunderstandings make identity appear stable toperceivers, even as it changes. The revisionisthistory view suggests that image strongly influ-ences identity; the postmodern view, however,pushes that argument to the limit.

The Postmodern Lens on Identity and ImageThe implications of the blurred distinctions

between identity and image are taken even fur-ther in a postmodern perspective. One finds thesuggestion that image not only influences, butcomes to dominate, organizational sensemakingin its most radical version in postmodern por-traits of contemporary organizational life (Bau-drillard, 1988, 1990; Hassard & Parker, 1993). Inspite of the sophisticated vocabulary, the con-clusion is simple: regardless of the startingpoint, everything ends up as image. More dra-matically, everything ends up as illusion.

According to postmodernists, the usual por-trayal of identity within a modernist tradition isone emphasizing the influence of origin (found-ing) and asserting that the sense of identity isheld at a deep level in the cultural surround of

an organization (Schultz, 1992). In this tradi-tional view there is a relatively fixed notion ofthe historical development of identity that as-sumes the persistence of an essential identity,despite changing events, times, and percep-tions. Modernists, thus, see identity as the centeranchor that endures and preserves its distinc-tiveness, despite the need for organizations tochange. This identity is carefully projected ontothe external environment, where it blends with"cultural capital" (Bourdieau, 1984) in the socialconstruction of an image. Shifting imagesmight, of course, influence the way organization-al members perceive their identity but rarely areassumed to challenge the permanent core of theorganizational identity.

This portrayal is markedly different from thedynamic, ephemeral, artificial, and even super-ficial portrait of organizational life in the post-modern literature, which stresses the processand predominance of image over claims of sub-stantive bases for identity. In short, the relation-ship between identity and image is turned up-side-down when seen through a postmodernlens; instead of emerging from organizationaldepth and origin, identity becomes a chame-leon-like imitation of images prevailing in thepostmodern marketplace. Organizational iden-tity, thus, moves from a stable and distinct ori-gin toward a copy of images of dominating or-ganizations.

In their analyses, Baudrillard (1988) and Per-niola (1982) have pursued this line of thought;they argue that identity is transformed into "im-age without identity" (Perniola, 1982: 59), be-cause identity is replaced by simulations of ex-ternal images (which Baudrillard termssimulacra). Identity no longer holds a distinctand persistent core of its own but becomes areflection of the images of the present moment.These authors see these images largely as con-structed and transmitted by mass media andprofessional communicators within a given con-text.

Thus, images themselves do not originatefrom some basic organizational reality but,rather, have been transformed through the pur-suit of success in an increasingly volatile andhypercompetitive marketplace. Baudrillard(1988) particularly emphasizes this perspective,tracing the progression of image from (1) its be-ginnings as a reflection oi some basic reality, to(2) a means of masking and perverting a basic

2000 Gioia. Schultz. and Corley 73

reality, to (3) masking an absence of reality, to (4)no longer bearing a relation to reality. As radi-cal as such a depiction is, it points to the shiftingnature of image and its distancing from originalcharacter. In this sense, image not only sup-plants identity; image and identity both end upas illusions.

Those holding a postmodern perspective,even in its less radical forms, see identity asmost likely an illusion (Rosenau, 1992), albeit anecessary illusionone required to reassure or-ganization members. We work diligently, if per-haps unconsciously, at constructing identitysimilarly from day to day to maintain the beliefthat we are the same person or organization thatwe were yesterday. Only over the long run, byretrospectively bracketing experience (Weick,1979), do we become aware that progressivechanges have occurred.

Thus, postmodernists hold that given identi-ty's susceptibility to the vagaries of image, thepresumption that organizational identity "ex-ists" and is deeply held by its members is betterconstrued as an illusion. In this view the allegedabiding character of identity is instead cast as acomforting falsification intended to maintain asense of consensuality where none might actu-ally exist, because of the inherent fluidity asso-ciated with the production of an immediate,visible, changeable image. Given the superfici-ality, malleability, and influenceability of im-age in the postmodern view (Baudrillard, 1988;Schultz, 1992), the assertion that either image oridentity is "enduring" is simply dismissed.

Is It Really All Just Image?If one considers the arguments about the in-

terrelationships between identity and image,particularly from revisionist history and post-modern perspectives, one is confronted with in-creasing doubt or even skepticism about the vi-ability of the notion of a stable organizationalidentity. At best, a bona fide identity appears to"exist" only in the first stages of an organiza-tion's history, but it soon becomes subject to thesignificant influence of image, perhaps ulti-mately to be transformed into an illusory image(if one accepts a radical postmodern position).This is a rather provocative portrayal of identityfor scholars and practitioners. Is it accurate? Oris there some intellectual sleight-of-hand oper-ating here? On the one hand, revisionist history

and the processes articulated by postmodernistsconstitute conceptually viable views, so it is im-portant to acknowledge that shifts in identityand image can occur. On the other hand, thereare some limiting reasons why these shifts arenot necessarily carried to their extreme conclu-sions.

First of all, the organizational environmentitself serves to constrain extreme changes inidentity. The same environment that fostersshifts in identity in the first place (by reflectingaltered images of an organization's preferredprojections of identity) simultaneously operatesto limit the degree of those shifts. Agents andinstitutions in the environment work to maintainsome semblance of recognition and stability inthe environment in which they deal. They wouldlike to believe that organizations with whichthey interact are similar to what they were yes-terday, so they seek to affirm stability in theirown perceptions and, consequently, communi-cate a desire for nonradical shifts in identityand image. Organizations cannot construct justany arbitrarily chosen identity. Changes inidentity are constrained within nonspecified,but nonetheless moderating, environmentalbounds. One of the main assumptions in thepopulation ecology perspective, for instance, isthat organizations face strong internal and ex-ternal inertial forces that hinder their attemptsat adapting to environmental changes (Hannan& Freeman, 1977, 1984). Research has shown thatthere are certain conditions under which organ-izational inertia plays an even stronger role(e.g., in times of organizational decline; Cam-eron, Whetten & Kim, 1987; Whetten, 1981), thusmaking a complete shift of identity into imageunlikely for many organizations.

Second, some research on threats to organiza-tional identity implies that elements of identityremain separate from image for organizationmembers, even during times of focused imagemanagement (i.e., when organizations are tryingto achieve some desired image, such as mem-bership in an elite group). Elsbach and Kramer(1996) found that university faculty members feltthat some key aspects of their identity werethreatened even when an esteem-enhancing im-age of the organization was portrayed (i.e., ahigh ranking in the Business Week survey). Sucha ranking "implied that other central and valueddimensions of their organization were unimpor-tant or undervalued" (1996: 468). Receiving the

74 Academy of Management Review laauary

ranking based on the success of the MBA pro-gram, for instance, threatened aspects of iden-tity associated with the Ph.D. program. Thus,even in situations where an organizational im-age positively changes from that originally as-sociated with the organization, identity can re-main a distinct and important concept.

Finally, the fact that organizations have mul-tiple identities in multiple contexts with multi-ple audiences not only undermines the idea of aholistic identity but also implies that neitheridentity nor image changes in a uniform or uni-fied fashion. Identities consist of constellationsof features and labels appropriate for differentcontexts and interactions. Yet, some of the la-bels are shared in common across differentidentities, which implies that meanings for thecommon labels are flexible enough to accommo-date the differing demands of multiple possiblecontexts and audiences (e.g., customers, em-ployees, and competitors). Still, the degree ofchange in meaning is likely to be inhibited, be-cause companion identities are unlikely to beshifting together. Therefore, the multiple identi-ties common in large, complex organizations ac-tually can work to insulate the organizationfrom wholesale alterations in the common corefeatures of identity. Nonetheless, this self-samemultiplicity also implies incremental shifts inthe many facets of identity, thus maintainingidentity in a state of flux and again suggestingthat a stable, common identity cannot endure inany strict sense.

Taken together, the upshot of the argumentsfor the progressive transformation of identityinto image (and perhaps into illusion), as wellas arguments noting limits on such transforma-tions, is that organizational identity is inevita-bly influenced by image but does not necessar-ily become image in some insidious fashion.Nonetheless, the overarching implication is thatboth identity and image are dynamic. The resultof this dynamism and consequent instability isnot as disheartening as it might sound, how-ever. We argue instead that it is this very insta-bility in identity that facilitates organizationaladaptation to changes in internal and externalenvironments.

ADAPTIVE INSTABILITY

The basic concept of adaptive instability inorganizational identity is a straightforward one:

as a consequence of its interrelationships withimage in its various guises, organizational iden-tity becomes dynamic and mutable. This insta-bility in identity actually confers benefit to theorganization, because it allows better adapta-tion to the demands of an environment that isitself undergoing continuous change. This no-tion builds upon the process description offeredearlier, wherein organizational identity formsthe basis for the development and projection ofimages, which are then received by outsiders,given their own interpretations, fed back to theorganization in modified form, and subse-quently affect insiders' perception of their ownidentity.

This reciprocal process of projection and mod-ification accounts for the observations noted byboth revisionist historians and postmodernists,but it is distinct in one critical way: the strongrole of image does not result in the wholesaledissolution of identity over time and replace-ment with image or (in the extreme) illusion but,rather, in a kind of dynamism that fosters ad-justment. With the notion of adaptive instability,we see the interrelationship between identityand image as mutually influencing and ulti-mately useful in aligning an organization'ssense of self-definition with its environment.Without this recursive process, an organizationwould find itself trapped with an inevitablystagnant identity, unprepared to address de-mands that might have survival implications.

Identity change can occur either reactively orproactively. The interpretation of an organiza-tion's projected image(s) by outsiders most oftenresults in a reactive examination of identity. Anobvious, but nonetheless striking, example ex-ists in the relationship organizations currentlyhave with the media. Over time, an organizationis subjected to multiple interpretations of itsidentity and image, most often transmittedthrough the media. This relationship results in aprocess of identity and image change, similar tothe punctuated equilibrium processes describedby Gersick (1991) and exemplified by Dutton andDukerich's (1991) study of the New York/New Jer-sey Port Authority's attempts to reconcile itschanging image with its strongly held identity.

Another example concerns IBM; IBM had bothan identity and a reputation as a single-mindedmainframe company, which hindered its abilityto capitalize on the burgeoning PC market in the1980s. Over a relatively short period of time, IBM

2000 Gioia, Schultz, and Corley 75

responded to its negative public impressionthat of a ponderous giant unable to take advan-tage of a lucrative market exploited by smaller,more adroit companies. It shifted its identity intothat of a multifaceted technology organization,ready to compete with smaller PC companiesthrough advances in PC technology and expan-sion into such businesses as network computingand management consulting. IBM took a sub-stantially new way of approaching business,which, in turn, changed the way it thought ofitself and how others perceived it. The interplayof identity and image worked dynamically tofoster a necessary change in IBM's basic orien-tation toward itself and the market; image influ-enced identity, which, in turn, influenced image.Unexpected disruptions and their associated re-active changes constitute the most obvious ex-amples of identity-image interaction.

Other research, however, has demonstratedthat organizations can also be proactive in in-ducing identity change, even in the absence ofobvious external pressure or crisis. As previ-ously noted, Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) de-scribed a case wherein top managers intention-ally introduced ambiguity into a changesituation to destabilize a strongly held (albeitoutmoded) identity in preparation for a strategicchange effort. In a later study of the same organ-ization, Gioia and Thomas (1996) found that thetop managers sustained the ongoing change ef-fort by projecting and touting a captivating fu-ture image (becoming a "top-10 public researchuniversity") to help guide the organization to-ward a new, desired identity. They projectedthis desirable future image on the assumptionthat the image would channel identity intoalignment.

Such a proactive tack can facilitate change inan organization that is not (or is not likely to be)ready for the changes inevitably occurring inthe environment, and it is based on the beliefthat an organization cannot change if it is com-placent about its self-definitiona self-defini-tion held to be maladaptive. To induce change,the organization must be destabilized and con-vinced that there is a necessity for a differentway of seeing and being. This proactive stanceacts to head off an eventual crisis by self-inducing a more moderate sense of urgency forchange within the organization (a manifestationof Reger et al.'s, 1994, notion of tectonic change).

These two positions on adaptive instabilityreactive and proactiverepresent two sides ofthe same coin. Identity and image are dynami-cally and recursively interrelated; the organiza-tion's self-definition is inherently unstable, yetthis instability is adaptive for the organization.The difference is one of agency; reactive changestems from the actions of outsiders, and proac-tive change is self-induced. Regardless of thenature of the change, these arguments suggest areconceptualization of identity that has boththeoretical and practical implications.

Implications of a Mutable Identity for Theoryand Research

In most writings on organizational identity,scholars use Albert and Whetten's (1985) defini-tion, typically invoking the main dimensions ofidentity as that which is core, distinctive, andenduring. This definition has served us well as agood first approximation and point of departurefor explorations into organizational identity.Yet, even as this definition has furthered inves-tigations, it also has tended to impose limits onour ability to explore the concept's richness anddynamism. The foregoing discussion stronglysuggests that because of the close relationshipsbetween identity and image, the characteriza-tion of identity as an enduring or stable notionbecomes problematic, especially under condi-tions of change. Recognizing the socially con-structed nature of organizational identity, andaccounting for the implications of revisionisthistory processes and postmodernist consider-ations, imply the need for some alteration in theconceptualization of identity. The theoretical im-plication of acknowledging a socially con-structed (and reconstructed) organizationalidentity is that even though we might use thesame labels to describe the elements of a coreidentity, those elements are nonetheless subjectto multiple and variable interpretations, whichimplies that identity changes with changing in-terpretations. Because we use the same labelsover time to describe core elements of identity, itis deceptively easy to presume that identity isstable or enduring. The durability is in the la-bels, howevernot in the interpretation of themeanings that make up the ostensible core.

We seem to have operated on an assumptionthat if some aspect of identity is core, it is, bydefinition, stable, and conversely, that if some

76 Academy of Management Review January

aspect is changing, it is almost, by definition,peripheral. We need to be careful of this pre-sumption; because of the processes describedearlier, even the core can shift, not only becauseof altered beliefs and values but also because ofchanging interpretations of persistent labels.Although we maintain a belief in "core" ele-ments of identity, that belief does not imply thatthe core is some tangible entity. Because iden-tity is not a "thing" but, rather, a concept con-structed and reconstructed by organizationmembers, it is theoretically important to avoidits reification.

All these considerations tend to render thetraditional definition of organizational identityas too static to capture the pace of change ofmodern organizations. The guiding notion of astable identity encourages researchers to con-tinue to frame organizational identity as endur-ing, even as it becomes more apparent thatidentity changes over relatively short periods.Ironically, researchers continue to invoke thedurability criterion, even as they acknowledgeand produce evidence that identity is malle-ablefor example, Ashforth and Mael (1996),Dutton and Dukerich (1991), and Dutton et al.(1994). We would encourage researchers to bemore open to the idea of a changeable identity.For cross-sectional studies, it is possible to actas if identity is stable. Such an assumptionmakes for parsimony, simplicity, clarity, andconvenience in research reportingand it hasserved us well. For longitudinal studies andmore complex portrayals, however, we need tohave the theoretical wherewithal to account forthe dynamism of identity.

Another way to make this important point is tonote that theoretical conceptions need to keepup with the changing character and form ofmodern organizations. Unless we revise and ex-pand our theoretical assumptions, how mightwe account for "virtual organizations" (i.e., thosetemporary networks of people or organizationsthat come together quickly to accomplish a taskand then dissolve, such as the temporary organ-izations assembled to make movies)? Such organ-izations are ephemeral by design, but they havea distinct identity. Similarly, how might we ac-count for "hollow corporations" that outsourcemany of their operations, or organizations oper-ating in volatile, hypercompetitive environ-ments that seem to incorporate changeabilityinto the definitions of themselves (e.g., Silicon

Valley companies)? How do we examine theidentity of an organization like the Florida Mar-lins baseball team, which won the 1997 WorldSeries and then was decimated in the space ofmonths by the trading of key players? All theseexamples point to new ways of organizing, inwhich impermanence is a hallmark, and even asource of pride. Because these kinds of organi-zations are burgeoning, it becomes imperativeto develop theoretical concepts that might moreappropriately represent them.

The defining portrayal of identity is no longerrepresented by the assertion "This is who we areas an organization!" nor even by the question"Who are we as an organization?" Capturing theambiguity and mutability of identity instead re-volves around such questions as "Is this who wereally are as an organization?" or, more provoc-atively, "Is this who we are becoming as anorganization?" or even "Is this who we want tobe?" These latter questions more adequatelycapture the important features of organizationalidentity as a negotiated, interactive, reflexiveconcept that, at its essence, amounts to an or-ganizational work-in-progress.

It should be clear that identity will be calledinto question with increasing frequency in themodern and postmodern environment of organi-zations. Consequently, we believe that it is nec-essary to encourage the study of identity assomething other than an enduring, reified con-cept. We need to study how organization mem-bers adapt to frequent information that suggestsreconsideration of their organization's identity.We also need to better understand the interrela-tionships among different projections of identityand the feedback received by organizationmembers. In particular, we need to investigatethe processes by which discrepancies betweenidentity and different types of image are recon-ciled (Corley & Gioia, 1999). In addition, we needto study how organization members work tomaintain continuity in the interpretation of iden-tity in the face of the increasing influence ofimage in a media-dominated environment(Alvesson, 1990)for example. Canon Camera's"Image is Everything" ad campaign. Althoughwe are skeptical of a radical postmodern viewthat identity soon becomes transformed into im-age and, ultimately, into illusion, we nonethe-less believe that identity can shift relativelyquickly because of its interrelationship with im-age. The mutability of identity demands not only

2000 Gioia, Schultz. and Corley 77

revised theoretical concepts but also revisedempirical approaches.

Implications of a Mutable Identity forManagers and Consultants

These theoretical considerations also havepractical manifestations. They suggest that astrategic concern for organizations might be themanagement of instability in identity, ratherthan the more frequently touted idea of trying tomaintain an identity perceived as fixed. Ofcourse, the attempt to balance stability and in-stability in identity is both delicate and danger-ous. In its most risky form, it can lead to theunintended substitution of faddish image forkey values and can unwittingly produce thepostmodern picture of identity as illusion (ifmanagers are overly attuned to popular but po-tentially fleeting images in the media). Yet, suc-cessful accomplishment of this balance createsa sense of adaptiveness, affording the organiza-tion increased capacity for change, while main-taining a continuing sense of connection to cen-tral values.

Do we really believe that intentionally desta-bilizing identity for the sake of instigatingchange is a viable recommendation for top man-agers? Yes, as long as that attempt is guided bya compelling future image that remains sensi-tive to the maintenance of continuity in ele-ments of identity that provide the necessarysecurity to accomplish change. Such a recom-mendation stems from the recognition that iden-tity change is not always triggered by events inhigh-velocity environments (Gioia & Chitti-peddi, 1991; Gustafson & Reger, 1995), by envi-ronmental jolts (Meyer, 1982), or by stigma (Fiol& Kovoor-Misra, 1997; Sutton & Callahan, 1987),but also by proactive preparation for envisionedchange to maintain viability.

We find two striking examples in the transfor-mations of a former computer peripherals man-ufacturing firm in Pittsburgh and of the Danishhearing-aid manufacturer, Oticon. In the case ofthe computer peripherals manufacturer, the vicepresident of operations described how, in meremonths, they transformed the organization froma hardware manufacturer into an Internet pub-lishing firm by changing not only what theyoffered their customers but also their self-definition: "We had to think differently of our-selves in order to change from a product-

oriented company to a service-oriented firm"(personal conversation with vice president ofoperations. The Internet Group, May 1997).

At Oticon, the CEOLars Kolindundertookthe task of transforming the organization from aproduction-focused company to a service-focused company. Under the slogan "think theunthinkable," the company communicated anew identity through the use of "The SpaghettiOrganization" metaphor and through the keysymbols of a paper-free organization with flexi-ble working environments (Morsing & Eiberg,1998). The company shared this future imagewith the local media, who were then invited totalk with Oticon employees about their feelingstoward the company's new image. Over the nextseveral months, the projected Oticon imagemade international headlines. This intense ex-ternal interest served to shake loose the oldidentity held by the organization's members andto move the company toward achieving theCEO's vision for an altered identity (Morsing &Eiberg, 1998).

Both firms, then, accomplished their transfor-mations by projecting a new image of them-selves and then working toward that image totransform identity (see Abratt, 1989; Balmer,1995; and Dowling, 1994, for discussions of re-lated issues in the corporate image literature).

If we take seriously the tenet that organiza-tions must change, and if we take seriously theidea that bona fide change requires an alter-ation in some core beliefs about the character ofthe organization, then our conceptual represen-tations, as well as our practical recommenda-tions, must also specifically account for the mal-leability of identity. As is the case with manyaspects of organizational change, consultantsoften play key roles in an organization's at-tempts to deal with identity change. Recastingidentity as a more dynamic concept holds sev-eral implications for identity and image consult-ants, who deal primarily in the realm of "corpo-rate identity." Their main intent is to project animage that captures the "central idea" of a cor-poration, expressing the core values of the com-pany mainly through visual representationsthat also aid the corporation in achieving itsstrategic goals.

Given their vanguard role in corporate iden-tity management, consultants are now begin-ning to recognize that the traditional, sequentialprocess of identity management (identifying the

78 Academy of Management Review January

core beliefs, forming a visual image of the core,obtaining internal consensus for that image,launching the symbolic representation to thepublic, and, finally, "making it stick"; Olins,1995: 63) becomes problematic when trying toaccount for the fluid and dynamic identity nowcharacterizing many client organizations. Nolonger can they rely on the organization havinga single, stable identity that can be identified,agreed upon, and easily projected. Instead,identity management now must involve the si-multaneous formation of identity and image bylinking internal preferences with internal andexternal projections and perceptions in a dy-namic process. Here, the consultant's task is notonly to figure out the corporate identity (or atleast the identity that the corporation wants toproject) but, concurrently, to assess what will besuccessful in the marketplace as a projectedrepresentation.

Thus, consultants find themselves in the oftenawkward position of trying to tell top managerswhat they would like to hear while also express-ing what others would like the organization tobe. Therefore, we argue that identity consultantsnow operate in a world that requires them tohelp define or even transform an identity in away that simultaneously connotes stability andcontinuity with an adroit adaptiveness to thepreferences and demands of multiple audiencesand different situations. In other words, identityconsultants find themselves at the crossroads ofthe paradox that organizations must execute thedelicate balancing act of simultaneously chang-ing while staying the same.

British Airways (BA) is an example of a com-pany that has transformed its corporate identityand image with the assistance of identity con-sultants. As of the early 1990s, BA had become arunning joke in the airline industry ("BA =Bloody Awful"). Its consulting firm confrontedtop management with the uncomfortable con-clusion that BA harbored an identity that in-cluded a misplaced pride in the traditional Brit-ish disdain for customer service (and wastherefore suffering in a competitive businesstravel world that emphasized service). BA thentransformed its expression of corporate identityby adopting a dynamic logo and a new slogan("the world's favorite airline"), aimed at bothinsiders and outsiders, while also touting thosenonproblematic features of identity that employ-ees held dear. Along with other substantive and

symbolic changes, both audiences came to ac-cept the projection; as of 1998, BA was the num-ber one rated international business travel air-line.'

The now more apparent relationships be-tween corporate identity and image also haveimplications for the kinds of services offered byidentity and image consultants and desired byorganizations. Traditionally, identity and imagemanagement have developed as two separatetypes of professional services. Identity serviceswere provided specifically by corporate identityconsultants, whereas image management hasbeen the purview of advertising and public re-lations (Fombrun, 1996). Consultants now arecrossing the boundaries between identity andimage management, however, by creating newservices that necessarily integrate the concernsfor both identity and image. These new servicesfocus on integrating internal and external com-munication practices, while creating new formsof interactive relations between customers andorganizational members. Fundamental to thesechanges is the recognition by consultants thatshifting and multiple interpretations of identitymust be reflected in the creation of the identityprogram itself. Taking a fluid approach to iden-tity change implies that a "central" characteris-tic of identity might be its ability to shift andtransform according to the context in which it isbeing expressed.

CONCLUSION

With our questioning of the alleged endur-ing character of organizational identity, wehave attempted to advance its conceptualiza-tion in a way that better represents the essen-tial nature of perceptual life in organizations.The concept of identity is key to understandingmodern organizations. In fact, acknowledging

' It also is interesting to note that BA more recently intro-duced yet another alteration in its corporate identity thatcan be seen as an attempt to balance stability and change.This new program symbolizes the multicultural diversity of"the world's favorite airline" in its use of a series of distincttailfin designs, each created by leading designers from dif-ferent countries and each clearly referring to a differentnational heritage. Stability is symbolized in a BA logo on thefront of each airplane; change and multiple identities in thedistinctive tailfins. The international attention devoted tothe corporate identity campaign has clearly led to the in-creasing globalization of a formerly very British identity.

2000 Gioia, Schultz, and Coiley 79

the interrelationships among identity and im-age allows the recognition that it is the veryfluidity of identity that helps organizationsadapt to changes. Accordingly, a concern oftheorists and researchers is no longer solelythe study of a durable organizational identitybut also a concern for the implications of amutable identity.

The necessity to change in order to adapt,but nonetheless to retain a sense that identitystays the same, has been argued by Gagliardi(1986). In his view, to preserve the character ofidentity, organizations, paradoxically, mustchange. We argue instead that the project ofmanagement is now different, because of theinfluential interrelationships between identityand image, and also because of the rise toprominence of image in the current era. Thestrategic concern of management is no longerthe preservation of a fixed identity but theability to manage and balance a flexible iden-tity in light of shifting external images. Main-tenance of consistency becomes the mainte-nance of dynamic consistency. Instabilityfosters adaptability.

R E F E R E N C E S ^'}' -^- ^''^^'f-^^-!^ Abratt, R. 1989. A new approach to the corporate image

management process. Journal of Marketing Manage-ment, 5(1): 63-76.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. 1985. Organizational identity. In L. L.Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organization-al behavior, vol. 7: 263-295. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Alvesson, M. 1990. Organization: From substance to image?OrganizaJion Studies, U: 373-394.

Ashforth, B., & Humphrey, R. H. 1995. Labeling processes inthe organization: Constructing the individual. In L. L.Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organization-al behavior, vol. 17: 413-461. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ashiorth, B., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and theorganization. Academy of Management Review, 14:20-39.

Ashforth, B., & Mael, F. 1996. Organizational identity andstrategy as a context for the individual. In J. A. C. Baum& J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Advances in strategic management,vol. 13: 19-64. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Balmer, J. M. T. 1995. Corporate branding and connoisseur-ship. Journal of General Management, 21(1): 22-46.

Barney, J. 1998. Koch industries: Organizational identity asmoral philosophy. In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.),Identity in organizations: Developing theory throughconversations: 106-109. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baudrillard, J. 1988. Simulacra and simulations. In M. Poster

(Ed.), Jean Baudrillard: Selected writings: 166-184. Stan-ford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Baudrillard, J. 1990. Cool memories. London: Verso.Berg, P. O. 1985. Organization change as a symbolic trans-

formation process. In P. Frost, L. Moore, M. R. Louis,C. Lundberg, & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organization-al culture: 281-300. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Berg, P. C, & Gagliardi, P. 1985. Corporate images: A sym-bolic perspective of the organization-environment inter-face. Paper presented at the SCOS Conference on Cor-porate Images, Antibes.

Bernstein, D. 1984. Company image and reality: A critique ofcorporate communications. Eastbourne, UK: Holt, Rine-hart & Winston.

Biggart, N. W. 1977. The creative destructive process oi or-ganizational change: The case of the post office. Admin-istrative Science QuarteWy, 22: 410-425.

Boorstin, D. J. 1961. The image. New York: Harper & Row.Bourdieau, P. 1984. Distinctions: A social critique of the judg-

ment of taste. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 1997. The art of continuous

change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evo-lution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administra-tive Science QuarteWy, 42: 1-34.

Brown, T. J., & Cox, E. L. 1997. Corporate associations inmarketing and consumer research: A review. CorporateReputation Revienr, 1(1): 34-39.

Cameron, K. S., Whetten, D. A., & Kim, M. U. 1987. Organiza-tional dysfunctions of decline. Academy of ManagementJournal, 30: 126-138.

Chreim, S. 1998. Continuity and change in organizationaJidentity: A process perspective. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Academy of Management, SanDiego.

Collins, J. C, & Porras, J. I. 1994. BuiJt to last: Successfulhabits of visionary companies. New York: HarperCollins.

Cooley, C. H. 1902. Human nature and the sociaJ order. NewYork: Scribner.

Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. 1999. Reconciling scatteredimages: The consequences of reputation managementfor insider audiences. Paper presented at the Third In-ternational Conference on Reputation, Identity, & Com-petitiveness, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

D'Aveni, R. A. 1994. Hypercompetition: Managing the dynam-ics of strategic maneuvering. New York: Free Press.

Dowling, G. R. 1994. Corporate reputations: Strategies fordeveloping the corporate brand. London: Kogan Page.

Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. 1991. Keeping an eye on themirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation.Academy of Management Journal, 34: 517-554.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organi-zational images and member identification. Administra-tive Science QuarteWy, 39: 239-263.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Making fast strategic decisions inhigh-velocity environments. Academy of ManagementJournal, 32: 543-576.

80 Academy of Management Review January

Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. 1996. Members' responses toorganizational identity threats: Encountering and coun-tering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 41: 442-476.

Fiol, C. M. 1998. The identity of organizations. In D. Whetten& P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizafions: Deveiopingtheory through conservations: 66-68. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Fiol, C. M., Hatch, M. J., & Golden-Biddle, K. 1998. Organiza-tional culture and identity: What's the difference any-way? In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in or-ganizations; Developing theory through conversations:56-59. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fiol, C. M., & Kovoor-Misra, S. 1997. Two-way mirroring:Identity and reputation when things go wrong. Corpo-rate Reputation Review. 1(2): 147-152.

Fombrun, C. J. 1996. Reputation: Realizing value from thecorporate image. Boston: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. 1990. What's in a name? Rep-utation building and corporate strategy. Academy ofManagement Journal 33: 233-258.

Gagliardi, P. 1986. The creation and change of organization-al cultures: A conceptual framework. Organization Stud-ies, 7: 117-134.

Gergen, K. J., & Davis, K. E. (Eds.). 1985. The social construc-tion of the person. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Gersick, C. J. 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multi-level exploration of the punctuated equilibrium para-digm. Academy of Management Review, 16: 10-36.

Giddens, A. 1991. Modernity and self-identity: Self and soci-ety in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gioia, D. A. 1998. From individual to organizational identity.In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organiza-tions: Developing theory through conversations: 17-31.Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. 1991. Sensemaking and sense-giving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Manage-ment Joumal. 12: 443-448.

Gioia, D. A., & Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives ontheory building. Academy of Management Review, 15:584-602.

Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. 1996. Image, identity and issueinterpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change inacademia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 370-403.

Grunig, J. E. 1993. Image and substance: From symbolic tobehavioral relationships. Public Relations fleview, 19(2):121-139.

Gustafson, L. T., & Reger, R. K. 1995. Using organizationalidentity to achieve stability and change in high velocityenvironments. Academy of Management Proceedings:464-468.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecologyof organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82:929-964.

Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. 1984. Structural inertia andorganizational change. American SocioJogicai Review,49: 149-164.

Hassard, J., & Parker, M. (Eds.). 1993. Postmodernism andorganizations. London: Sage.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. 1997. Relations between organiza-tional culture, identity and image. European Joumal ofMarketing, 31: 356-365.

James, W. 1918. The principles of psychology. New York: Holt.Loftus, E. 1980. Memory. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Meyer, A. D. 1982. Adapting to environmental jolts. Adminis-

trative Science Quarterly, 27: 515-537.Morsing, M., & Eiberg, K. (Eds.). 1998. Managing the unman-

ageable for a decade: Oticon. Working paper, Copenha-gen Business School.

Olins, W. 1989. Corporate identity: Mating business strategyvisible through design. Boston: Harvard Business SchoolPress.

Olins, W. 1995. The new guide to identity. London: Gower.Perniola, M. 1982. Dazzling images. Aarhus, Denmark:

Sjakalen.Pondy, L. R., & Huff, A. S. 1985. Achieving routine in organi-

zation change./oumaJ o/Management, 11: 103-116.Reger, R. K., Gustafson, L. T., DeMarie, S. M., & MuUane, J. V.

1994. Reframing the organization: Why implementingtotal quality is easier said than done. Academy of Man-agement Review, 19: 565-584.

Reger, R. K., Barney, J. B., Bunderson, J. S., Foreman, P.,Gustafson, L. T., Huff, A. S., Martins, L. L., Sarason, Y., &Stimpert, J. L. 1998. A strategy conversation on the topicoi organizational identity. In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey(Eds.), identity in organizations: Deveioping theorythrough conversations: 99-168. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Rindova, V. P., & Fombrun, C. J. 1998. The eye of the beholder:The role of corporate reputation in defining organiza-tional identity. In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), identityin organizations: Deveioping theory through conversa-tions: 62-66. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rosenau, P. M. 1992. Post-modernism and the social sciences:Insights, inroads, and intrusions. Princeton, NJ: PrincetontJniversity Press.

Schultz, M. 1992. Postmodern pictures of culture, interna-tional Studies of Management and Organization, 22(2):15-35.

Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. 1996. Living with multiple para-digms: The case of paradigm interplay in organizationculture studies. Academy of Management Review, 21:529-557.

Sutton, R. I., & Callahan, A. L. 1987. The stigma of bank-ruptcy: Spoiled organizational image and its manage-ment. Academy of Management Joumal, 30: 405-436.

van Riel, C. B., & Balmer, J. M. T. 1997. Corporate identity: Theconcept, its measurement, and management. EuropeanJoumal of Marketing, 31: 341-355.

2000 Gioia, Schultz. and Corley 81

Weick, K. 1979. The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.).Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Weick, K. 1995. Sensemaiing in organizations. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Whetten, D. A. 1981. Organization responses to scarcity-exploring the obstacles to innovative approaches to re-trenchment in education. Educational AdministrationQuarterly. 17(3): 80-97.

Whetten, D. A., & Godfrey, P. (Eds.). 1998. Identity in organi-zations: Developing theory through conversations. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Whetten, D. A., Lewis, D., & Mischel, L. J. 1992. Towards anintegrated modei of organizational identity and membercommitment. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe Academy of Management, Las Vegas.

Wilkins, A. L. 1989. Developing corporate character: How tosuccessfully change an organization without destroyingit. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

www.hp.com

www.shellexpro.brentspar.com

Dennis A. Gioia is professor of organizational behavior in the Smeal College ofBusiness Administration, Pennsylvania State University. He received his doctoratefrom Florida State University. His primary theory and research interests focus oncognitive processes in organizations and the ways in which these processes areinvolved with sensemaking, influence, and organizational change. Recent concernscenter on organizational identity, image, and reputation.

Majken Schultz is a full professor in the Department of Intercultural Communicationand Management at Copenhagen Business School. She received her Ph.D. in organi-zation theory from the Copenhagen Business School. She currently is heading a 4-yearresearch project on the interrelations between organizational culture, identity, andimage. Her research interests include the relations between organizational culture,identity, and image, as well as corporate branding and reputation management.

Kevin G. Corley is a doctoral candidate studying organizational behavior and organ-izational theory at the Smeal College of Business Administration, Pennsylvania StateUniversity. His current research interests involve organizational reputation and imagemanagement, as well as multilevel and cross-level issues in the study of identity.