Purposive Organizational Identity Change

Author:

Tibor van Bekkum, MSc; BR*ND Positioneringsgroep;

bekkum@positioneringsgroep.org; T: 0031(0)610939326

About the author:

Tibor van Bekkum is senior consultant at BR*ND Positioneringsgroep, a European

branding agency. His main focus is on positioning issues (strategy and change) for

corporate brands. Currently he is involved in a Phd project on purposive

organizational identity change.

Changing organizational identity - members’ core beliefs about the organization - is a

critical task for leaders aspiring to transform their organizations. Our understanding

of how these beliefs can purposively be changed, however, is limited. To our opinion,

the literature lacks: (1) a comprehensive overview of the aspects that make up this

change process, and (2) guiding principles that general management can adopt to

navigate the multifaceted process of purposive organizational identity change.

Together, the overview and principles form a more comprehensive framework than

the literature currently provides for when it comes to purposive change of

organizational identity.

Organizational identity is defined as members’ collective understanding of who the

organization is, defined by its central, distinctive and enduring features (Albert &

Whetten, 1985). It is that what’s in members’ heads (and hearts) concerning the

questions ‘who are we as an organization?’ and ‘who do we want to be?’.

Organizational identity – together with identification - is central to organizational life

and functioning (Haslam, Postmes and Ellemers, 2003; Albert, Ashforth and Dutton,

2000). For, organizational identity helps explain why individuals act on behalf of the

organization and thus explain the persistence and direction of organizational

behavior (Albert, et. al. 2000). Moreover, as a form of social identity, organizational

identity helps members perceive and interpret their world in similar ways (Haslam et.

al. 2003; Weick, 1995). And organizational identity facilitates processes of mutual

social influence which allows members to coordinate their actions (Haslam et. al.

2003). Not surprisingly, due to its constituting character, researchers have registered

organizational identity to impact upon a great variety of issues amongst which:

environmental adaptation (Dutton & Duckerich, 1991; Fox-Wolffgram, Boal & Hunt,

1998), role enactment of board members (Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997), capability

development and resource allocation (Glynn, 2000), choice for strategic benchmarks

(Labianca et. al. (2001), the intention to leave a company (Cole & Bruch, 2006),

knowledge management (Willem, Scarborough & Buelens, 2008) or for example

campaigning tactics (Balser & Carmin, 2002). The centrality of organizational identity

to organizational life and functioning, make it a concept of specific interest to those

in positions to lead organizations. As Haslam et. al. (2003) state:

“… - rather than being ‘just another’ analytical and managerial tool - organizational

identity and organizational identification should be of particular interest to those who are

seeking to structure and harness the collective energies of organizations. Indeed, in this

vein, Reicher and Hopkins (1996a, 2001) characterize effective leaders as ‘entrepreneurs

of identity’ whose primary project is to create, coordinate and control a shared vision of

‘who the organization is’ and ‘what it wants to be’ (see also Fiol, 2002; Haslam, 2001)”

(p. 365)

Moreover, organizational identity should be of specific interest to leaders when it

comes to change (Van Tonder, 2004; Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003). First, because

organizational identity can sway organizational behaviors. If organizational identity

influences the persistence and direction of organizational behavior, than changing

organizational identity is instrumental to changing these behaviors (Van Tonder,

2004). Furthermore, organizational sensemaking is grounded in identity

construction. By defining who we are, we accordingly define ‘what’s out there’

(Weick, 1995). Organizational identity shapes the way people view their world, frame

issues and act accordingly (see for case study descriptions e.g. Dutton & Duckerich,

1991; Fox-Wolfgramm, Boal & Hunt, 1998). Members’ core beliefs about the

organization impact a companies’ ability to adapt to changing circumstances,

especially when such beliefs are strongly held. Therefore, as some authors have

suggested, organizations need to constantly engage in development and change of

their organizational identity to maintain a healthy external fit and prevent myopia

(Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000; Hatch & Schultz, 2002). Finally, members’ core

beliefs about the organization emerge from complex, dynamic and reciprocal

interactions among managers, members and stakeholders outside the organization

(Scott & Lane, 2000; Hatch & Schultz, 2008). Within these relations, psychological,

economic and political interests play a major role. When organizational change is

perceived to impact members’ core beliefs and their associated interests, resistance

to the change effort is likely to occur (e.g. Gioia, Thomas, Clark & Chittipeddi, 1994;

Nag, Gioia & Corley, 2007) and the effort may fail. Or external stakeholders may

oppose to such organizational change, because their interest associated with the

outcomes of the current identity are threatened (Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003). In

sum, managing the organizational identity change process is a promising activity

when it comes to organizational change.

Purposive organizational identity change

Although our knowledge of organizational identity construction and change has

advanced in recent years, the literature still has some serious shortcomings. This is

especially true when we adopt the perspective of ‘purposive change’ (Bower, 2000).

Purposive change refers to the perspective of the general manager or the top

management team who is responsible for defining ‘what it should be’ and ‘how it

should be accomplished’. In relation to organizational identity change, we perhaps

better speak of ‘who we should be’ and ‘how we should become it’. Grounding for the

perspective of purposive change is the idea that the general manager has to account

for the cognitive, economic, organizational and emotional aspects of the change

process. Therefore, as Bower argues, for the general manager it is unproductive to

adopt either an economic (e.g. Jensen, 2000) or a learning (e.g. Senge, 2000)

perspective to change. We belief this is also true for organizational identity change.

The institutional perspective to organizational identity is grounded in the idea that

organizational identity resides in institutional claims available to members. By

defining and explicating such claims, leaders provide members with an organizational

self-definition. The social constructivist perspective, on the other hand, views

organizational identity as residing in members’ shared beliefs. The institutional

perspective emphasizes sensegiving by leaders, where as the social constructivist

perspective emphasizes sensemaking by members. Following Ravasi and Schultz

(2006), these perspectives “…represent different aspects of the construction of

organizational identities.” (pp. 436). This is especially true, because when it comes

to purposive change sensegiving and sensemaking are inextricably connected (Gioia

& Chittipeddi, 1991). Therefore, we define purposive organizational identity change

as: an attempt of top management to change members collectively shared beliefs

about ‘who the organization is’ and ‘what it wants to be’ and strives for members to

identify themselves with the aspired organizational identity.

In June 2008 we performed a structured literature search in two databases (Social

Sciences Citation Index and Business Source Premier/Ebscohost) on the issue of

organizational identity; using terms like ‘organizational identity’, ‘corporate identity’,

‘organization identity’, ‘organizational/organization identity change’, ‘identity

change’, and ‘organizational/organization identity AND change’. Many thousands of

hits were registered. Three rounds of information reduction followed. First, all hits

were excluded that contained non relevant content. Secondly, all articles were

excluded that didn’t fully centre on the issue of organizational identity. This implies

that all articles that referred to organizational identity as one of the dimensions of

influence on the subject matter of the article were excluded. As recently noticed by

many key scholars, the definition of organizational identity has been used too freely;

mistaking it for corporate identity, reputation, image, construed external image, and

culture (Whetten, 2006; Corley, Harquail, Pratt, Glynn, Fiol & Hatch, 2006; Brown,

Dacin, Pratt & Whetten, 2006). Therefore, finally, all articles were excluded that

didn’t define organizational identity as members’ beliefs about the central, distinctive

and enduring characteristics of the organization. The three rounds of information

reduction resulted in a list of 77 key scholarly contributions on the subject matter.

Reviewing the literature from the perspective of purposive organizational identity

change reveals three gaps. First, many contributions discuss critical aspects of the

identity change process: language use by leaders (Fiol, 2002), managing ego-

defenses (Brown & Starkey, 2000), the relation between identity, practices and

knowledge (Nag, Corley & Gioia, 2007), the way in which culture functions as a

source for sensemaking and sensegiving for leaders in identity change processes

(Ravasi and Schultz, 2006), identity ambiguity as a critical step in processes of

organizational identity change (Corley & Gioia, 2004), or for example the effects of

hierarchical differences on organizational identity change (Corley, 2004). Yet, from a

purposive perspective to organizational identity change, the literature lacks a

comprehensive framework displaying the dimensions that come into play and top

management has to account for – or can make use of – when aiming to change

members core beliefs about the organization.

Secondly, little attention has been bestowed to the question ‘how we should really

become it?’. We have little understanding of the processes by which management

sways that new understandings of the organizational identity become shared,

internalized and densely articulated by members (except for example Scott & Lane,

2000 or Corley, 2004). That is, the dynamics that lay behind a successful

organizational identity change process are firmly overlooked. Scholars have rather

primarily focused on the processes that ground the development of an answer to the

question ‘who should we be?’ (e.g. Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Hatch & Schultz, 2002;

Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000; Corley & Gioia, 2004). And thus, when it comes to

organizational identity change, the literature primarily focuses on manners in which

management develops its’ aspired organizational identity or focuses on ‘abstract’

processes that describe the way in which organizational identity is defined. How such

new identity conceptualizations are successfully implemented, is a somewhat fallow

terrain.

Finally, although attention has been given to the ‘who should we be’ component, the

literature mainly focused on the processes that (should) constitute this development

(e.g. Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000;

Corley & Gioia, 2004). Less attention has been given to the development of criteria

to define whether or not an aspired organizational identity by top management is the

right one in relation to realizing the change. The literature reveals little

comprehensive ideas on ‘who we should really be’.

This paper presents a more comprehensive framework for purposive organizational

identity change than the literature currently provides for. Herewith we make a start

filling the gaps signaled above. First we present a widespread inventory of the

concepts the literature associates with organizational identity change. As our analysis

shows, changing organizational identity is indeed a multifaceted endeavor that

involves multiple levels and aspects to account for in the change process. Secondly,

we will propose a framework for purposive organizational identity change. However,

managing such a multifaceted endeavor is quite a challenging task. Therefore we

present two managerial heuristics critical to purposive organizational identity

change: relevance and centrality. These managerial heuristics are substantiated by

several propositions that define these heuristics and help promote the desired

organizational identity change. Relevance refers to the idea that a new defined

organizational identity is most likely to be successfully adopted, enacted and

developed when it has: (1) broad relevance, (2) psychological-, instrumental- and/or

strategic relevance, and (3) situational relevance. Centrality refers to the idea that

any new defined organizational identity is most likely to be successfully adopted,

enacted and developed, when it is ubiquitous: (1) management uses the aspired

organizational identity to direct internal and external activities, (2) management

uses the aspired organizational identity to direct expressive-communicative acts and

organizational practices, and (3) management designs organizational identity change

processes in which multiple intelligences are consistently spoken to. The relevance

hypothesis applies to the criterion that can define the adequacy of an aspired

organizational identity to the change process. The centrality hypothesis applies to

the ‘how we should really become it’ aspect of purposive change. Finally, this paper

discusses the implications for further research on the subject matter.

Concepts: defining concepts, sensemaking sources and personality traits

What do we encounter and should we account for when aiming to change

organizational identity? Our study reveals ten concepts that relate to changing

members core beliefs about the organization. These concepts fall into three distinct

categories. The first category contains two concepts that define the change process

itself: (1) organizational identity strength and (2) organizational identification.

Decreasing identity strength and identification with the current identity and

increasing identity strength and identification with the aspired organizational identity,

is what the process of purposive organizational identity change ultimately comes

down to. The second category contains six concepts that function as organizational

identity sensemaking sources for members: (3) aspired organizational identity (4)

culture, (5) construed external image, (6) reputation, (7) individual context and (8)

individual disposition. In concerted effort, these concepts sway identity construction

and identification processes and organizational identity strength. The third category

refers to actor based (individual and organizational) personality traits required for

purposive organizational identity change: (9) wisdom and (10) expressiveness.

These traits are associated with processes that constitute organizational identity

construction and change. Together these ten concepts provide a managerial

framework for organizational identity change, which we will discuss in the next

paragraph. But first we will discuss these concepts individually and explain how they

relate to purposive organizational identity construction and change.

Defining concepts

Organizational identity strength

Organizational identity is a prerequisite for any kind of organization. At least some

people must share a common idea of who the organization is and what it wants to

be. Yet, not all organizations have equally clear or strong identities. The strength of

organizational identity can be defined as the extent to which members’ individual

beliefs about the identity of the organization are shared and densely articulated (Cole

& Bruch, 2006). Organizational identity strength is categorized as a defining concept

because it expresses what organizational identity change focuses on: (a) weakening

the current collective understanding and articulation density of who the organization

is and wants to be, and (b) building a new collective understanding of who the

organization is and strengthening articulation density.

Organizational identification

The stronger the identity of an organization is, the stronger the potential for

identification and disidentification with that specific identity (Ashforth, Harrison &

Corley, 2008). The enactment of any organizational identity is related to the extent

that people identify with it. When people identify with a specific organizational

identity, this organizational identity becomes a (partial) definition of the individual

self (Albert et. al., 2000). In this manner, identification can connect the individual to

the organization at the cognitive, affective and behavioral level (Ashforth et. al.

2008). Aiming for change in the persistence and direction of organizational behaviors

and outcomes is, from an identity perspective, thus strongly related to the concept of

identification. Disidentification, as the opposite, is typified as: a cognitive separation

between the own identity and the identity of the organization and a negative

categorization of the relation between ‘I’ and the ‘organization’ (Elsbach &

Bhattacharya, 2001). Managing the processes of disidentification with the current

organizational identity and identification with the aspired organizational identity, are

of central concern to leaders and managers in change trajectories (Empson, 2004;

Fiol, 2002).

Identification has many formulations as Ashforth et al. (2008) conclude from their

extensive literature review. They unravel three levels of identification. The first level

they label ‘the core of identity’. At this level, identification is defined as a persons’

cognitive notion that he or she is a member of the organization and his or her

evaluative notion that this membership has some value connotations. This doesn’t

refer, however, to identification with particular central, distinctive and enduring

characteristics of the organization. One can thus acknowledge the membership of an

organization, without identifying with its’ specifics. For example because these

attributes are not always densely articulated, or may be unclear, emergent or in flux

(2008). Identification at the first level alone, thus, doesn’t necessarily influence the

direction of organizational behavior, because of the absence of guiding referents. The

second level of identification is labeled ‘the content of identity’ and refers to a

persons’ acceptance of the central, enduring and distinctive characteristics (like

values, goals, beliefs, traits, knowledge / skills) of the organization as one’s own.

Here, a persons’ self definition is (made) congruent with that persons definition of

the organization. In contrast to first level identification, now members are likely and

able to enact the organizational identity. Together, first level and second level

identification promote third level identification which is labeled ‘the behaviors of

identity’. The third level of identification refers to congruency between the

characteristic behaviors of an organization and the person who identifies with it: “I

do X, because X is what the organization does”. Yet, it also works the other way

around. By creating congruency between behaviors of the organization and the

individual, one can also work its’ way into identification with the organizations

identity (2008). Ultimately, if one aims to change the direction of organizational

behavior and outcomes by interfering at the level of organizational identity, this

inevitably involves interventions that affect the second and third level of

identification.

Organizational identification is considered defining concept for purposive

organizational identity change, because ultimately managing organizational identity

change requires managing disidentification with the current organizational identity

and identification with the aspired organizational identity. The aspired organizational

identity can only become a source for changing and guiding the behaviors and

outcomes of the organization, if members identify.

Sensemaking sources

Aspired organizational identity

Purposive organizational identity change focuses on the ways in which general

managers can lead organizational identity change efforts. In this view, it is the CEO’s

responsibility to define ‘what is should be’ and ‘how it should be accomplished’. It is

then overtly clear, that the ‘aspired organizational identity’ by top management is

central to purposive change (Hatch & Schultz, 2008; Lerpold, Ravasi, Van Rekom &

Soenen, 2007; Empson, 2004; Corley, 2004; Gioia & Thomas, 1996). For, top

management aspirations are the point of reference against which organizational

identity strength and identification are to be evaluated. Purposively managing the

organization identity change process inevitable leads managers to the following two

questions: ‘To what extent is the aspired organizational identity shared and densely

articulated?’, ‘and to what extent do members’ identify with the aspired

organizational identity?’ Finally, the enactment and institutionalization by top

management of the aspired organizational identity – for example in institutional

claims (Ran, 2007; Gioia & Corley, 2004), projected images (Kärreman & Rylander,

2008; Gilpin, 2008; Gioia & Corley, 2004; Gioia & Thomas, 1996), or modeled

managerial behavior (Gioia & Corley, 2004) – functions as a sensemaking source for

members and external stakeholders.

Culture

A second sensemaking source for members is organizational culture (Hatch &

Schultz, 2008, 2002, 1997; Jack & Lorbieki, 2007; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Corley,

2004; Fiol, 2001; Dutton & Duckerich, 1991). Let us first make a clear distinction

between organizational culture and organizational identity for these concepts are

often confused (Corley et. al., 2006; Brown et. al., 2006). Organizational culture is

mainly associated with the tacit understandings of the organization on the one hand

(e.g. assumptions, values, beliefs) and the concrete manifestations of these tacit

understandings on the on the other hand (e.g. artifacts, symbols, behaviors) (Fiol,

2002; Hatch & Schultz, 2002). Yet, organizational identity is first and foremost

associated with the more or less deliberate sensemaking process of members, when

looking for an answer to the question ‘who are we as an organization?’ (Albert &

Whetten, 1985; Whetten, 2006; Fiol, 1991). Therefore, when compared to

organizational culture, organizational identity can be characterized as more textual

than contextual, more explicit than tacit, and more instrumental than emergent

(Hatch & Schultz, 2002). Organizational culture refers to the context in which

meaning is made, where organizational identity refers to the meaning and meaning

making process itself. That is, when members are looking for an answer to the

question ‘who are we as an organization?’, their tacit understandings of the

organization and the concrete manifestations of these tacit understandings

contextualize (and therefore influence) the sensemaking process (see for case study

examples on this process: Dutton & Duckerich, 1991; Corley, 2004; Ravasi &

Schultz, 2006). Although culture contextualizes the organizational identity

construction process, the meaning that cultural elements have is not straight

forward. Our understanding of these cultural elements ultimately is a socially

constructed interpretation of our observations. The inferences that we draw from our

culture to define ‘who we are’ are moldable; either because a certain artifact can

contain different meanings, or because we selectively focus on those artifacts that

‘fit’ or ‘fuel’ our aspired organizational identity. As Ravasi and Schultz (2006) showed

in their case study of Bang & Olufsen, managers referred to specific products from

the past to guide the aspired organizational idenitty. By doing so, organizational

identity also influence organizational culture. If organizational identity is partly based

on the meaning members draw and explicate from their culture - and that meaning

guides members’ cognition, affect and behavior - than organizational identity also

creates organizational culture. That is, assumptions, values, symbols and behaviors

are reinterpreted an enacted accordingly and culture is recreated (Hatch & Schultz,

2002; Fiol, 1991).

Construed external image

Next to looking inside the organization for identity cues, members beliefs about the

organization are also influenced by the so called ‘construed external image’: what

members think outsiders think about their organization (Dutton & Duckerich, 1991;

Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000; Dutton, Duckerich & Harquail,

1994; Elsbach & Kramer, 1996; Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001; Brown, Dacin, Pratt

& Whetten, 2006). A perceived incongruence between members own organizational

identity conceptualization and the conceptualizations of external others, stimulates

members to engage in sensemaking processes searching for identity cues (Hatch &

Schultz, 2002; Dutton & Duckerich, 1991). Such incongruence can be perceived

because different characteristics are attributed to the organization, or because a

different value is placed upon an agreed characteristic. Confirmation of a

characteristic or value placed upon a characteristic strengthens members’ beliefs

about and identification with the organization (Dutton, Duckerich & Harquail, 1994).

This is especially true when ‘the other’ is held in high regard (Smidts, Pruyn & Van

Riel, 2001). By deliberately explicating (in)congruence, top management can thus

influence the organizational identity construction process. One should notice here

however, that different parts of the organization may be confronted with different

external others or place a different value upon external others.

Reputation

When engaging in the purposive change of organizational identity, next to construed

external image, the actual image and reputation of the organization plays an

important role. For, as Fombrun and Van Riel (2004) explain: “Reputation involves

the assessment that multiple stakeholders make about the company’s ability to fulfill

their expectations (……) Reputation affects the likelihood of supportive behaviors

from all of the brand’s stakeholders.” Reputation is thus all about the “predictability

of behavior and the likelihood that a company will meet these expectations”

(Sandberg 2002:3 in Whetten and Mackay, 2002). Because identity guides members

behavior - for manager and employee tend to act in ways consistent with an

organizations identity - identity is the backbone for reputation (Fombrun, 1996).

Changing organizational identity changes the persistence and direction of

organizational behavior. This disrupts current expectations external stakeholders

have of a company. Herewith, the psychological (Aaker, 20..), political or economic

(Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003) interests they have associated with the current

organizational identity can become threatened. Support for or opposition against

such changes may occur. Managing reputation is critical when leading organizational

identity change trajectories, because reputation and the resulting external

stakeholders behaviors fuel ‘construed external image’ and are therefore of influence

on members’ conceptualizations of the organization and their respective

identification. Moreover, practices associated with reputation management (e.g.

Branding, PR) leave identity impressions on members as well (Gilpin, 2008;

Kärreman & Rylander, 2008).

Individual context

Although organizational identity irrevocably is an attribute of the organization,

ultimately it is created, sustained and altered by members who enact it. From an

institutional perspective, members are representatives of the organization as a social

actor and act on behalf of it. Therewith creating images about the organization upon

which others evaluate the organization. From a social constructivist perspective, it is

members’ beliefs about the identity of the organization that influence the persistence

and direction of organizational behavior. In any case, aiming to sustain or alter

organizational identity ultimately concerns members’ individual understanding and

enactment of that organizational identity.

While ‘individual context’ is not a term used in the literature like culture or construed

external image, we choose to use this generic term to refer to the idea that different

work contexts within the organization give different identity conceptions. Were

‘culture’ thus addresses the collectively shared internal context by which members

make sense of organizational identity, ‘individual context’ refers to those contexts in

which members make sense of organizational identity that are not shared by the

collective. Think of a unit, position, department, function, et cetera. As research

shows, identity conceptions are amongst others influenced by hierarchical position

(Corley, 2004), role (Simpson & Carroll, 2008; Chreim, 2006), work processes and

daily practices (Alvesson & Empson, 2008; Nag, Corley & Gioia, 2007; Kilduff, Funk

& Mehra, 1997), content of knowledge with which we deal (Alvesson & Empson,

2008; Nag, Corley & Gioia, 2007), the products we produce (Kilduff, Funk & Mehra,

1997) and the confrontation with external others in a specific organizational context

(see paragraph on construed external image). As Fiol (2002) argues, members build

identity ties in their concrete settings. The generic term ‘individual context’, herewith

explains to some extend the concept of ‘ideographic multiplicity’. Ideographic

multiplicity refers to the idea that organizations can have multiple identities that are

associated with different collectives within the organization (Pratt & Foreman, 2000).

When work contexts differ, identity conceptualizations can differ. Managing

identification and organizational identity strength therefore involves adaptation to

individual context (Fiol, 2002).

Personal disposition

Next to differences in individual contexts, also differences in personal disposition

explain different organizational identity conceptualizations. Because members’ beliefs

are ultimately individually held and influence members’ sensemaking, we define

current organizational identity beliefs as part of an individuals’ disposition that

influences members sensemaking. Moreover, personal disposition is defined by

members’ individual values, goals, beliefs, traits, knowledge and skills. For, they

influence identification with the organization (Ashforth et. al., 2008). That is, the

level of congruence perceived by the individual between his/her own characteristics

and the characteristics of the organization influences peoples’ identification with the

organization. Furthermore, peoples’ individual identity also influences sensemaking

about the organization by the individual. Glynn (2000), for example, showed how

professional identity differences within an orchestra, led to conflict over

organizational identity. Where musicians had their ambitions focused on developing

artistic excellence, administrators had their ambitions focused on economic utility.

Both defined the desired future development of the organization congruent with their

professional individual values. Accounting for personal disposition seems highly

relevant because ultimately it is the individual who makes sense of and identifies

with the aspired organizational identity.

Personality traits

Wisdom

Next to ‘defining concepts’ and ‘concepts that function as sensemaking sources’, we

also uncovered personality traits (or perhaps attitudes) as a central element in

purposive organizational identity change processes. Of which the first one is ‘wisdom’

(Brown & Starkey, 2000). If current organizational identity conceptions are

threatened, ego-defenses (like denial, rationalization, idealization or for example

fantasy) can occur to preserve a sense of collective self-esteem and self-continuity

(2000; Gloud, Ebers, Clinchy, 1999). For example, Dutton and Duckerich (1991)

case study of the New York Port Authority (NYPA) shows how the homeless issue,

that the NYPA was confronted with in it’s terminals, was denialed between ‘82 and

‘86. Only after this denial resulted in such fierce negative images about the NYPA in

the press that the collective self-esteem was threatened, the issue was addressed.

Such ego-defenses are barriers to organizational adaptation, learning and ultimately

organizational identity change. Adopting an attitude of wisdom by engaging in critical

self-reflexivity and making dialogues on future identity an integral feature of

strategic management, enables organizations to master ego-defenses. As Brown and

Starkey state:

“The wise individual or organization is one who accepts that a willingness to explore ego-

threatening matters is a prerequisite for developing a more mature individuality and identity.

Negotiating such identity change requires a process of profound self-questioning.

Wise individuals and organizations shape and reshape identity through the ongoing construction

and reconstruction of self.” (pp.113)

Interesting to notice, is that Brown and Starkey explicitly refer to individuals and

organizations. Within a purposive organizational identity change effort both entities

probably come into play. On the one hand, critical self-reflexivity should be an

attribute of the organization, for it is wise to institutionalize processes that facilitate

information gathering on ego-threatening matters. Yet, on the other hand, it’s

ultimately top management and members that have to be self-reflexive. For in the

end, purposive organizational identity change is about members beliefs about the

organization and their individual willingness to identify.

The idea that processes of self-reflexivity are crucial in organizational identity

development and change is widely recognized (e.g. Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Corley,

Schultz & Gioia, 2000; Brown et al. 2006). Hatch and Schultz (2002) break down the

self-reflexivity process into two components: one with internal focus labeled

‘reflection’ and one with external focus labeled ‘mirroring’. Reflection refers to

members sensemaking of the identity of their organization by reflecting on their

organizational culture. Reflection connects identity and identification to culture.

Mirroring is the external component and refers to the process where organizations

engage into self-reflexivity by mirroring external opinions and views on the

organization. Mirroring connects identity and identification to reputation and

construed external image. Although self-reflexivity is a widely acknowledged aspect

of organizational identity construction and change, Hatch and Schultz didn’t explicitly

term them ‘personality traits’ (or attitude). They, however, did refer to the psycho-

analytical property of self-reflexivity by arguing that organizations that do not

critically reflect on their identity in relation to external stakeholders can be labeled

‘narcists’ (a personality trait).

Expressiveness

Finally, we detect the concept of ‘expressiveness’ as a critical personality trait (or

attitude) to the development of organizational identity. Expressiveness refers to the

extent to which an organization (or individual) expressions of its own cultural

understandings have emotional appeal and invite us into orbit (Hatch & Schultz,

2002). From a viewpoint of building reputation, Fombrun and Van Riel (2004) define

expressiveness as the extent to which an organization is: visible, transparent,

distinctive, consistent and authentic. Being expressive, they reason, helps

organizations build a collective understanding of the organization by all its’

stakeholders (internal and external). This is also recognized by Hatch and Schultz

(2002), who argue that cultural expressions leaf impressions on the members of that

culture and external stakeholders. Being expressive helps organizations to manage

the desired fit between internal beliefs about the organization and external

expectations of the organization. First, because it sends one clear massage to all.

Secondly, because it enables internal and external stakeholders to asses the identity

of the organization more easily and provide the organization with feedback on the

desirability of its identity. Together with wisdom, expressiveness is a crucial

personality trait for purposively changing organizational identity.

Changing organizational identity: managing it all

Table 1 presents an overview of the concepts discussed, categorized by their

typology and the level(s) at which they operate. First of all, the overview points our

attention to the fact that to fully understand the interaction dynamics in a purposive

organizational identity change effort, one needs to involve the different levels of the

process: the individual (level 1), the work context (level 2), the organization at large

(level 3), and the organizations’ context (level 4). The necessity to account for all

levels (both for the researcher, and the general manager) seems especially

important, because the dynamics in the process of organizational identity change are

partly explained by interactions between these levels. As Corley (2004) describes in

his case study of a corporate spin-off, a perceived incongruence by top management

between culture (level 3) and reputation (level 4) urged top management to define a

new organizational identity (level 3). Yet, members’ organizational identity

conceptualization and their identification (level 1) didn’t change, because their

concrete settings didn’t provide cues that signaled the aspired organizational identity

(level 2). Something similar has been registered by Nag, Corley and Gioia (2007)

who observed how an attempt to transform a high-tech R&D department to a market

oriented organization (level 3) stranded, because of the interplay between practices

(level 2), knowledge (level 1 and 2) and professional identification (level 1).

[INSERT TABLE 1 HERE]

Secondly, because all levels need to be included, we ought to be aware that

changing organizational identity potentially involves interventions of various kinds:

institutional interventions (e.g. reputation, aspired organizational identity),

organizational interventions (e.g. developing strategic management processes that

account for reflection, developing work contexts that provide cues for the aspired

organizational identity), cultural interventions (e.g. symbolically expressing culture),

behavioral interventions (e.g. training members may help them work their way into a

new organizational identity, modeling managerial behavior), cognitive interventions

(e.g. explaining strategic rationales behind a chosen aspired organizational identity),

emotional interventions (e.g. being expressive invites members into orbit), and

psychodynamic interventions (e.g. making sure people reflect on culture, work

context, and external stakeholders views). Within organizational identity change

processes these interventions are not clearly separable. Rather, they are mutually

related. For example, building reputation (institutional), benefits from being

expressive to external stakeholders (emotional). Yet, externally addressed reputation

practices, have their effect on members sensemaking (cognitive) (Fombrun & Van

Riel, 2004; Gilpin, 2008). Another example. People may work their way into

identification with the aspired organizational identity (Ashforth et. al., 2008). Yet,

interventions in members work contexts (organizational) need to go had in hand with

explaining the link to the aspired organizational identity (cognitive) to stimulate re-

identification (Fiol, 2002).

When it comes to members’ sensemaking processes on the identity of the

organization, much seems to go hand in hand. Successful management of these

sensemaking processes thus requires top management to take a broad view and

manage it all. This, however, is a sizable and difficult task. We believe, therefore,

that a framework for purposive organizational identity change is most productive

when it describes core managerial activities and heuristics that help promote the

desired change. This we will elaborate in the next paragraph.

A framework for purposive organizational identity change

Purposive organizational identity change is defined here as an attempt of top

management to change members shared understandings of the organization and

stimulating members’ identification with the aspired organizational identity. Such

understandings are socially constructed, for meaning ultimately is a socially-

constructed phenomenon (Berger & Luckman; Weick; in: Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991).

Taking a stakeholder perspective to purposive organizational identity change is

essential (Scott & Lane, 2000), for managers, members and external stakeholders

are the participants of the process in which meaning is made. This puts forward an

extra argument for the general manager to involve all levels of the process, for

together these levels account for all relevant stakeholders. Engaging in the purposive

change of organizational identity poses the question for top management ‘under

what conditions are we most likely to redefine organizational identity and stimulate

members identification with the aspired organizational identity?’. To this end, we will

first present an overview of the purposive organizational identity change process

(see figure 1). This overview is subsequently followed by two key managerial

heuristics by which management can navigate the process of purposive

organizational identity change: relevance and centrality.

Aiming to change members’ beliefs about the organization can be defined as a

process of sensegiving. For sensegiving is “…the process of attempting to influence

the sensemaking and meaning construction of others towards a preferred redefinition

of organizational reality” (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, pp. 442). Following Fiol (2002)

we believe that current identity beliefs need to be broken down first before new

identity beliefs can arise. Merely presenting an attractive alternative future identity

will not be enough, because current beliefs form the frame of reference by which

members make sense of their world. The stronger these beliefs are held and

members’ identification with these beliefs, the less likely it is that members are

receptive to new frames of reference. Top management will thus first need to engage

in sensebreaking, before engaging in sensegiving. Sensebreaking is defined as an

attempt to “…question existing understandings of others, causing them to experience

their views of reality as incoherent, insensible and untenable.” (Lawrence & Maitlis,

in: Vlaar, Fenema & Tiwari, 2008). Without sensebreaking, new information will be

incorporated in existing understandings, which will prevail, and the basis for

members’ information processing and behavior will not be fundamentally challenged

and changed (2008).

A situation in which members’ are in doubt of ‘who the organization is’, is referred to

as organizational identity ambiguity (e.g. Corley & Gioia, 2004; Ravasi & Shultz,

2006). Ambiguity rises when members perceive incongruence between different

sensemaking sources. For, ambiguity may be produced by: (1) a situation in which

organizational identity strength is low (Cole & Bruch, 2006; Ashforth, 2008);

different sensemaking sources provide different cues; (2) a situation in which

members perceive identity cues that contrast with current identity beliefs (e.g.

Dutton et. al., 1994; Dutton & Duckerich, 1991; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006); personal

disposition is incongruent with other sensemaking sources from a content

perspective; or (3) a situation in which members psychological interests derived

from the current organizational identity are threatened (e.g. Dutton et. al., 1994;

Fiol, 2002; Dutton & Duckerich, 1991); a situation in which personal disposition is

incongruent with other sensemaking sources from a value perspective. Incongruence

leads members to perceive organizational identity ambiguity, the need to engage in

sensemaking processes on the identity of the organization, and therefore weakens

identification with the current organizational identity. Rebuilding new beliefs, we

argue, is supported by perceptions of congruence between sensemaking sources.

Congruence is defined as the exact opposite of incongruence: (1) a situation in which

members perceive consistent and strongly articulated identity cues form different

sensemaking sources, (2) as a situation in which members perceive identity cues

that confirm aspired identity beliefs, or (3) as a situation in which members perceive

cues that serve their psychological interest derived from the aspired organizational

identity. By managing incongruence and congruence top management can influence

organizational identity strength and identification.

Finally, incongruence and congruence are managed by being wise and expressive. By

being wise, top management designs and engages in practices and processes that

help members critically reflect on the identity of their organization. Within such

processes, perceived (in)congruence can purposively be organized. Think for

example about disseminating market research or stakeholder surveys, company wide

employee surveys on the current and desired identity of the organization (as did IBM

with its Value JAM), or strategic management processes in which identity reflection is

incorporated. By engaging in expressive practices top management can deliberately

create (in)congruence between sensemaking sources. For example, by using

negative rhetoric in relation to the current organizational identity (Fiol, 2002), or by

branding practices that signal the aspired organizational identity (Kärreman &

Rylander, 2008).

Proposition 1a: managers that design organizational identity change

processes in which reflective and expressive practices are purposively used to

increase members’ perceived incongruence between sensemaking sources,

decrease organizational identity strength and identification.

Proposition 1b: managers that design organizational identity change

processes in which reflective and expressive practices are purposively used to

increase members perceived congruence between sensemaking sources,

increase organizational identity strength and identification

[INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE]

Relevance

Next to managing members’ perceived incongruence and congruence between

sensemaking sources, defining an aspired organizational identity that is perceived as

‘relevant’ by critical stakeholders is essential to changing members’ core beliefs

about the organization. Building on a social constructivist point of view, framing is an

essential task for top management (Smircich and Morgan, 1982). From the

perspective of organizational identity, framing focuses on questions like: what labels

do we (as a company) choose to describe who we aspire to be? And, what meanings

do we attach to these labels? Moreover, from a purposive perspective top

management may wonder: ‘what criteria underlie labels that are likely to be adopted

by management, members and external stakeholders as the … point of reference

against which a feeling of organization and direction can emerge?’. We believe that

the contours of such a frame need to be defined by the interests of the stakeholders

involved. For if a desired organizational identity or the expected outcomes of that

identity apply to these interests it is more likely that one identifies, behaves

congruently, and behaves supportively. This is suggested for managers judging an

organizational identity strategically (Pratt & Foreman, 2000), members and

managers judging the aspired organizational identity from a psychological

perspective (Ashforth, et. al. 2008), managers and members judging the aspired

organizational identity instrumentally (Corley & Gioia, 2004), and external

stakeholders judging organizational identity from an instrumental perspective and

psychologically (Van Riel & Fombrun, 2004; Aaker, 1991). Vice versa, if a new

proclaimed organizational identity or the associated outcomes opposes any of these

stakeholders’ interests this may result in conscious or unconscious resistance to

change (Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003; Brown & Starkey, 2000), with the

(unfortunate) probability of failure of the effort as a result. Moreover, members’ core

beliefs and identification are strengthened when they perceive positive external

feedback (Dutton, et. al., 1994; Smidts et. al., 2001), for that serves their

psychological interests. Appealing to the interests of a broad array of stakeholders is

desirable, because it will stimulate members’ identification with the aspired

organizational identity directly and indirectly via positive external feedback.

Proposition 2a: managers that define a new organizational identity with labels

and meanings that have ‘broad relevance’ are more likely to change

members’ core beliefs about the organization

As indicated above, we recognize three types of relevance in the literature:

psychological-, instrumental- and strategic relevance. First, psychologically, people

are likely to identify with the organization when it appeals to motives related to the

self, like self-expression, self-distinctiveness, self-enhancement, and self-continuity

(Ashforth et. al. 2008). Although the organizational identity literature primarily

focuses on members self-related motives, also external stakeholders like consumers

can have strong psychological interests in the identity of an organization or brand

(Aaker, 1991). Think for example about the consumers’ uproar when the Body Shop,

known for its animal friendly tested products, was sold to L’Oreal who didn’t take

animal friendly testing as serious as the Body Shop. Secondly, stakeholders are likely

to give support to the identity of the organization when they experience its relevant

outcomes: instrumental relevance. Instrumental relevance relates to a stakeholders’

economic, social or political interests (Gioia, Thomas, Clark & Chittipeddi, 1994;

Bouchikhi & Kimberly, 2003). The third type of relevance we label ‘strategic

relevance’ and refers to the idea expressed by Pratt & Foreman (2000), that

managers are likely to support an organizational identity when they perceive it has

future strategic value for the organization: economic, political, social, and what

more. The difference between instrumental value and strategic value is the

perspective taken. Strategic value refers to a future value for the organization and is

judged by management responsible for defining strategy. Instrumental value refers

to the relevance for the individual or the stakeholder (group) and is judged

accordingly.

Top management, members and external stakeholders can all experience different

types of relevance at the same time. When using ‘innovative’ as label to define the

aspired organizational identity, top management may experience strategic relevance

and psychological relevance at the same time. Being innovative may have strategic

value for the organization and it may at the same time tickle their need for self-

enhancement, self-expression, and self-differentiation. And for clients of top tier

consulting firms, being ‘bright’ may encapsulate instrumental relevance (bright

people bring the best solution) and psychological relevance (the safety of the

brightest people and the best solution). Speaking to more than one type of relevance

is not the issue. This will only stimulate identification and supportive behavior for the

aspired organizational identity. The issue comes in when a label appeals on the one

hand but revolts on the other. This we experienced in our consulting practice, when

we helped define a new identity for a technology company. Strategically it was

broadly recognized that the best option was to become a ‘consortium organization’,

engaging in organizing networks for open ICT innovation. This however meant that

the focus on ‘engineering’ solutions by the organization itself would be left behind.

Being engineers themselves (like all other management team members), two

managers felt strong opposition against this scenario arguing that they didn’t want to

become business administrators (something they strongly associated with being an

organizer of innovation networks). Although strategic relevance was covered,

psychological relevance wasn’t.

Proposition 2b: managers that define a new organizational identity with labels

and meanings that appeal to at least one kind of relevance for a stakeholder

and do not revolt another are more likely to change members’ core beliefs

about the organization.

Besides differences in aspirations between stakeholder groups and different types of

relevance at the scene to account for, changing members’ beliefs also involves

attuning a label to members’ individual context. The aspired organizational identity

has to have the property of ‘situational relevance’. That is, the labels used and

meanings chosen need to be relevantly translatable to members’ individual context.

Members need to be able to recognize the identity of a company in their direct work

context. In the first place, because members sensemaking on the identity of the

organization is strongly attached to individual context (Fiol, 2002). Secondly,

because members can work their way into a new organizational identity (Ashforth et.

al., 2008). Actively engaging in activities that help clarify the link between the

organizational identity and ones individual work context, is likely to help change

members’ core beliefs about the organization.

Proposition 2c: managers that define a new organizational identity with labels

and meanings that have situational relevance, and invest in explicating the

link to members’ individual context, are more likely to change members’ core

beliefs about the organization.

Centrality

Centrality refers to the idea that an aspired organizational identity is most likely to

be translated into beliefs about the organization and accordingly enactment of the

aspired identity, when it is ubiquitously applied. That is, when the aspired

organizational identity is used by top management as their own frame of reference

by which they project images, make decisions, participate in dialogues, develop

processes, make investments, model behaviors, etc. However, centrality is

conditioned by relevance, for ubiquitously applying an aspired organizational identity

that fails on relevance will only stimulate opposition against the aspired change. We

identified two pillars on which we base the centrality hypothesis: institutionalization

and multiple intelligences.

Institutionalization

Ultimately purposive organizational identity change is aimed at internalization of the

aspired organizational identity in the hearts and minds of members. For, then, it can

become a source for managing the direction and persistence of organizational

behavior. Internalization refers to the process by which new understandings become

part of people’s internal world (Aronson, 1992). Critical for internalization, is

institutionalization. Institutionalization refers to the process of making a new self-

understanding a formal part of one’s external social world (Fiol, 2002).

Institutionalization is assumed to be an important process in relation to purposive

organizational identity change, because members’ new identity conceptions need to

be ‘confirmed’ by institutional social structures. That is, new identity conceptions

tend to stay tentative until people experience congruence between their new identity

conceptions and the perceived institutional social structures (Czarniawska & Wolff,

In: Fiol, 2002). It needs to be taken for granted that it is socially legitimate and

normal to adapt and express a new organizational identity (Aldrich & Fiol, In: Fiol,

2002). Institutionalization of the aspired organizational identity is thus a prerequisite

for members to internalize the new aspired organizational identity and enact it. On

the other hand, institutionalizing the aspired organizational identity is in itself a form

of enactment by (top) management.

First and for most such institutionalization processes are referred to in the literature

as expressive and communicative acts (e.g. Hatch & Schultz, 2002; Empson, 2004;

Alvesson & Robertson, 2006). Practices that are associated with these processes are

for example corporate branding (Kärreman & Rylander, 2008; Corley & Gioia, 2004;

Olins, 1989), PR (Gilpin, 2008), language use by management (Fiol, 2002), modeling

managerial behavior (Corley & Gioia, 2004), mission statements (Ran & Duimering,

2007), corporate architecture, corporate dress, corporate rituals (see Hatch &

Schultz, 2002). Expressive and communicative acts project desired images, explicate

desired values by top management and symbolize the desired organizational identity.

It is useful to notices that these expressive practices can primarily be directed to

insiders (e.g. corporate rituals, managerial behavior) or primarily to outsiders (e.g.

corporate branding, PR). Changing members’ beliefs about the central, distinctive

and enduring characteristics of the organization is more likely to succeed when

expression of the aspired organizational identity is addressed to insiders and

outsiders. For two reasons: (1) members take notice of expressive acts directed to

outsiders (Gilpin, 2008; Kärremann & Rylander, 2008) and these form extra cues for

understanding the aspired organizational identity; and (2) the impressions left on

external stakeholders are a basis for image formation and thus a source for feedback

to the organization that fuels the construed external image.

Proposition 3a: managers that are expressive about the desired organizational

identity to members and external stakeholders are more likely to change

members’ core beliefs about the organization

Not all members’ sensemaking on the identity of the organization is based on the

expressive and communicative acts of top management. That is, members

particularly also make sense of organizational identity based on organizational

structures, task structures, reward structures (Brickson, 2000), daily routines / work

processes (Kilduff, Funk, Mehra, 1997; Alvesson & Empson, 2008), knowledge

(Alvesson & Empson, 2008; Nag, Corley & Gioia, 2007), their role (Chreim, 2006;

Simpson & Carroll, 2008), or for example the institutional form of the organization

(e.g. co-operative versus commercial; Foreman & Whetten, 2002). In short, as Fiol

(2002) points out, members build identity ties in their concrete settings. Thus, next

to institutionalizing the desired identity in expressive and communicative acts ‘about’

the organization, top management should also focus on institutionalizing the desired

organizational identity ‘in’ the organizations practices. Changing organizations may

benefit from changing organizational identity, changing organizational identity surely

also benefits from changing organizations.

Proposition 3b: managers that institutionalize the desired organizational

identity in organizational practices that make up members’ individual context,

are more likely to change members’ core beliefs about the organization

Of course, what we might call ‘about’ or respectively ‘in’ is a bit arbitrary. For, as an

example, rituals take place within the organization and work practices can become

expressed as symbols of a desired organizational identity. Yet, we focus on this

distinction to argue that in the case of purposive organizational identity change, top

management needs to combine expressive and communicative acts with acts

directed towards the concrete settings in which these expressions take place. The

more ambiguous the sensemaking context is for members, the harder it is for

members to clearly decode what management aspires. Creating ambiguity about the

organizational identity can be valuable step in letting go of the old organizational

identity (e.g. Corley & Gioia, 2004). Yet, if we aim to give sense to a new

organizational identity ambiguity is a burden.

Proposition 3c: managers that combine expressiveness about the desired

organizational identity with anchoring the desired organizational identity in

organizational practices are more likely to change members’ core beliefs

about the organization

Changing organizational identity is inextricably linked to reputation management.

First, because external stakeholders can oppose to changing organizational identity

because they have political, economic or psychological interests in the current

organizational identity. Or they can support the desired organizational identity if it

fits their interests. Secondly, because the feedback they provide an organization with

is potentially a powerful mechanism to manage the construed external image. For

sensegiving to external stakeholders holds the same as for sensegiving to members.

Being expressive about the organizations identity needs to go hand in hand with

anchoring the desired organizational identity in organizational practices. For, external

stakeholders draw inferences about a companies’ identity on what is says and what it

does. After all, reputation is all about the predictability of behavior (Fombrun & Van

Riel, 2004; Sandberg 2002:3 in Whetten and Mackay, 2002). Building a strong

reputation thus requires being expressive about ‘who you are’ and substantiating the

handed frame with proof. The claim needs to be materialized. ‘Substantiating the

claim’, however, requires building an organization with practices that themselves

signal the desired identity (Google for example is known for it’s work environment

that fits our expectation of Google as a creative and young organization) or produce

outcomes that signal the desired identity (Philips innovation process incorporates

mechanisms that ensures that new products fit their identity claim ‘sense &

simplicity’) (Kreutzer, 2009).

Proposition 3d: managers that are expressive to external stakeholders about

the desired organizational identity and materialize this claim are more likely

to change members’ core beliefs about the organization

Multiple intelligences

The study of organizational identity focuses on members’ understandings of the

unique and differentiating characteristics of the organization. Central to the discourse

of organizational identity, therefore, is the question ‘how do people come to

understand the identity of their organization?’. As this paper has already shown,

members come to understand the identity of their organization by drawing inferences

about the organization from different sensemaking sources, residing at different

levels of the organization. And from the perspective of internalization and

institutionalization we have formulated some hypotheses that focus on the necessity

to engage in symbolic-communicative acts and materialization of the desired

organizational identity to successfully change members’ beliefs.

We have not yet, however, formulated an answer to this question from the cognitive

perspective of an individual’s information processing. To do so - as did Harquail &

King, (2002) and Oliver & Roos, (2007) - we draw on the theory of multiple

intelligences (Gardner, 1993, 1999). The idea is that people use different

informationprocessing capacities to understand and experience their world. Gardner

distinguishes mathematical-logical, linguistic, visual-spatial, musical-rhythmic,

bodily-kinesthetic, and emotional capacities. Following Harquail and King (2002), we

also assume that members use all six capacities to construe their organization’s

identity. That means that members come to understand the organizational identity

by the building and room they work in, the logo’s they see, the language that is

used, the pace of our work, the logic by which arguments are made, the quantitative

measures used and presented, the emotions displayed and the non verbal bodily

signals perceived, et cetera.

Members categorize information based on the mental model that is generated and

activated by a specific capacity touched upon. This opens up six channels through

which a new organizational identity can be become present for members. Although

this might be an attractive observation at first hand - for it opens up six ways for

members to relate to and identify with the organization, Harquail and King (2002) -,

it also bears the serious risk of evoking confusing conceptualizations of the aspired

organizational identity. For, if different intelligences categorize identity information

differently and point in different directions, than ‘who are we becoming?’. For

example, developing or maintaining an amateurish logo and office, will weaken or

confuse the aspired claim of ‘professionalism’. As well as becoming ‘caring’ for clients

or patients will be a difficult challenge, when one preaches ‘caring’ (verbal

intelligence) on the one hand but maintains work processes and reward systems that

push members to high patient or client turnover (rhythmic) or have managers that

manage by ‘running around’ (bodily). Avoiding contrary signals and managing

consistency across intelligences will be a central task for leaders in purposive

organizational identity change processes. However, if one manages to arrive at the

point of consistency, than this opens up six channels that can fuel organizational

identity strength. For, the perceived articulation of a new organizational identity will

be denser, and therefore stronger, if multiple capacities are activated. The stronger

the identity of the organization, the stronger the potential for identification (Ashforth,

et. al., 2008).

Proposition 3e: managers that account for consistency and design

organizational identity change processes in which members can experience

the aspired organizational identity via multiple intelligences are more likely to

change members’ core beliefs about the organization.

Discussion

The impact of organizational identity on organizations is indisputable. And managing

organizational identity is a critical task for top management when it comes to

organizational change. By taking a purposive perspective, it has been our attempt to

provide a more comprehensive picture of what managing organizational identity

change involves. We argue that purposively changing members core beliefs about

the organization involves (1) accounting for multiple levels (individual, work context,

organization at large, and the organizations context), (2) a great variety of potential

interventions (institutional, organizational, cultural, behavioral, cognitive, emotional,

and psychodynamic), (3) managing incongruence and congruence between different

sensemaking sources by being wise and expressive to influence organizational

identity strength and identification, (4) defining an aspired organizational identity

that has relevance (broad relevance, types of relevance, and situational relevance),

and (5) ubiquitously applying the aspired organizational identity (internal and

external, communicative-expressive and organizational practices, and consistently

speaking to multiple intelligences).

Clearly this study didn’t go into process detail itself, or made a widespread inventory

of the practices organizations use in organizational identity change processes. We

aimed to construct a framework - more comprehensive than the literature currently

provides for – that can be a useful starting point for empirically studying purposive

organizational identity change. Moreover, we believe that this framework can be

useful to general management when engaging in purposive change of members’ core

beliefs about the organization.

Literature

Aaker, D. A. (1991) ‘Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of the

Corporate Brand Name’, New York: The Free Press

Albert, S., Ashforth, B.E. and Dutton, J.E. (2000) ‘Organizational Identity and

Identification: Charting New Waters and Building New Bridges’, Academy of

Management review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 13-17

Albert, S and Whetten, D. A. (1985) ‘Organizational identity’ In: L.L. Cummings and

Barry M. Staw (eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior 7: 263-295. Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.

Alvesson, M. and Empson, L. (2008) ‘The Construction of Organizational Identity:

Comparative Case Studies of Consulting Firms’, Scandinavian Journal of

Management, Vol. 24, pp. 1-16

Alvesson, M. and Robertson, M. (2006) ‘The Best and the Brightest: The

Construction, Significance and Effects of Elite Identities in Consulting Firms’,

Organization, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 195-224

Aronsen, E. (1999) ‘The Social Animal’, New York: Worth Publishers

Ashforth, B.E., Harrison, S.H. and Corley, K.G. (2008) ‘Identification in

Organizations: An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions’, Journal of

Management, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 325-374

Balser, D. B., Carmin, J. (2002) ‘The Interpretative Basis of Action: Identity and

Tactics in Environmental Movement Organizations’, Academy of Management

Proceedings

Bouchikhi, H. and Kimberly, J.R. (2003) ‘Escaping the Identity Trap’, MIT Sloan

Management Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 20-26

Bower, J.L. (2000) ‘The Purpose of Change: A Commentary on Jensen and Senge’ In:

Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (Eds), Breaking the Code of Change, Boston: Harvard

Business School Press

Brickson, S. (2000) ‘The Impact of Identity Orientation on Individual and

Organizational Outcomes in Demographically Diverse Settings’, Academy of

Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 82-101

Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, G. and Whetten, D. A. (2006) ‘Identity, Intended

Image, Construed Image, and Reputation: An Interdisciplinary Framework and

Suggested Terminology’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, Vol. 34, No.

2, pp. 99-106

Brown, A.D. and Starkey, K. (2000) ‘Organizational. Identity and Learning: A

Psychodynamic Perspective’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.

102 - 120

Chreim, S. (2006) ‘Postscript to change: Survivors’ Retrospective Views of

Organizational Changes’, Personnel Review, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 315-335

Cole, M. S. and Bruch, H. (2006) ‘Organizational Identity Strength, Identification,

and Commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: Does Organizational

hierarchy matter?’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, pp. 585-605

Corley, K.G. (2004) ‘Defined by Our Strategy or Our Culture? Hierarchical Differences

in Perceptions of Organizational Identity and Change’, Human Relations, Vol. 57, No.

9, pp. 1145 - 1177

Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A. (2004) ‘Identity Ambiguity and Change in the Wake of a

Corporate Spin-off’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 173 - 208

Corley, K. G., Harquail, C. V., Pratt, M. G., Glynn, M., Fiol, C. M. and Hatch, M. J.

(2006) ‘Guiding Organizational Identity Through Aged Adolescence’, Journal of

Management Inquiry, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 85-99

Dutton, J.E. and Dukerich, J.M. (1991) ‘Keeping an Eye in the Mirror: Image and

Identity in Organizational Adaptation’, Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517-

554

Dutton, J. E., Duckerich, J. M. and Harquail, C. V. (1994) ‘Organizational Images and

Member Identification’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 239-263

Elsbach, K. D. and Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001) ‘Defining Who You Are By Defining

What You're Not: Organizational Disidentification and The National Rifle Association’,

Organization Science, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 393-413

Empson, L. (2004) ‘Organizational Identity Change: Managerial Regulation and

Member Identification in an Accounting Firm Acquisition’, Accounting, Organizations

and Society, Vol. 29, pp. 759-781

Fiol, C. M. (1991) ‘Managing Culture as a Competitive Resource: An Identity-based

View of Sustainable Competitive Advantage’, Journal of Management, Vol. 17, No. 1,

pp. 191-211

Fiol, C. M. (2002) ‘Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of Language in Transforming

Organizational Identities’, Organization Science, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 653-666

Fox-Wolfgramm, S. J., Boal, K. B., Hunt, J. G. (1998) ‘Organizational Adaptation to

Institutional Change: A Comparative Study of First-order Change in Prospector and

Defender Banks’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 87-126

Fombrun, C. J. (1996) ‘Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image’,

Boston: Harvard Business School Press

Fombrun, C. J. and Van Riel, C. M. B. (2004) ‘Fame and Fortune: How Successful

Companies built Winning Reputations’, Upper Saddle River: Financial Times prentice

Hall Books

Gardner, H. (1993) ‘Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice’, New York: Basic

Books

Gilpin, D. R. (2008) ‘Narrating the Organizational Self: Reframing the Role of News

Release’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 34, pp. 9 - 18

Gioia, D. A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991) ‘Sensegiving and Sensemaking in Strategic

Change Initiation’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 433-448

Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M. and Corley, K. G. (2000) ‘Organizational Identity, Image,

and Adaptive Instability’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 63-81

Gioia, D. A. and Thomas, J. B. (1996) ‘Identity, Image and Issue Interpretation:

Sensemaking during Strategic Change in Academia’, Administrative Science

Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 370-403

Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M. and Chittipeddi, K. (1994) ‘Symbolism and

Strategic Change in Academia: The Dynamics of Sensemaking and Influence’,

Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 363-383

Glynn, M. A. (2000) ‘When Cymbals Become Symbols: Conflict Over organizational

Identity Within a Symphony Orchestra’, Organization Science, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.

285-298

Gloud, L. J., Ebers, R. and Clinchy, R. M. (1999) ‘The Systems Psychodynamics of a

Joint Venture: Anxiety, Social Defenses, and the Management of Mutual

Dependence’, Human Relations, Vol. 52, No. 6, pp. 697-722

Golden-Biddle, K. and Rao, H. (1997) ‘Breaches in the Boardroom: Organizational

Identity and Conflicts of Commitment in a Nonprofit Organization’, Organization

Science, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 593-611

Harquail, C. V. and King, A. W. (2002) ‘We Know More than We Say: A Typology for

Understanding A Manifold Organizational Identity’, Academy of Management

Proceedings

Haslam, S.A., Postmes, T. and Ellemers, N. (2003) ‘More than a Metaphor:

Organizational Identity Makes Organizational Life Possible’, British Journal of

Management, Vol. 14, pp. 357 - 369

Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (1997) ‘Relations Ships between Organizational Culture,

Identity and Image’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, No. 5/6, pp. 356-365

Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2002) ‘The dynamics of Organizational Identity’,

Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 8, pp. 989-1018

Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2008) ‘Taking Brand Initiative: How Companies can

Align Strategy, Culture and Identity through Corporate Branding’, San Francisco: A

Wiley Imprint

Jack, G. and Lorbiecki, A. (2007) ‘National Identity, Globalization and the Discursive

Construction of Organizational Identity’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp.

79-94

Jensen, M.C. (2000) ‘Value Maximization and the Corporate Objective Function’ In:

Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (Eds), Breaking the Code of Change, Boston: Harvard

Business School Press

Kärreman, D. and Rylander, A. (2008) ‘Managing Meaning through Branding: the

Case of a Consulting Firm’, Organization Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 103-125

Killduff, M., Funk, J. L. and Mehra, A. (1997) ‘Engineering Identity in a Japanese

Factory’, Organization Science, Vol. 8, No. 6, pp. 579-592

Kreutzer, L. (2009) ‘Philips Sense and Simplicity: Establishing and Embedding Brand

Strategy into Our Organization’, Presentation Given at the Science-Practice Meeting

of SWOCC, University of Amsterdam

Labianca, G., Fairbank, J. F., Thomas, J. B., Gioia, D. A. and Umphress (2001)

‘Emulation in Academia: Balancing Structure and Identity’, Organization Science, Vol.

12, No. 3, pp. 312-330

Lerpold, L., Ravasi, D., Van Rekom, J. and Soenen, G. (2007) ‘Organizational

Identity in Practice’, New York: Routledge

Nag, R., Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A. (2007) ‘The Intersection of Organizational

Identity, Knowledge, and Practice: Attempting Change via Knowledge Grafting’,

Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 821 - 847

Pratt, M. G. and Foreman, P. O. (2000) ‘Classifying Managerial Responses to Multiple

Organizational Identities’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 18-

42

Olins, W. (1989) ‘Corporate Identity’, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press

Oliver, D. and Roos, J. (2007) ‘Beyond Text: Constructing Organizational Identity

Multimodelly’, British Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 342-358

Ran, B. and Duimering, P. R. (2007) ‘Imaging the Organization: Language Use in

Organizational Identity Claims’, Journal of Business and Technical Communication,

Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 155 - 187

Ravasi, D. and Schultz, M. (2006) ‘Responding to Organizational Identity Threats:

Exploring the Role of Organizational Culture’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.

49, No. 3, pp. 433 - 458

Senge, P.M. (2000) ‘The Puzzles and Paradoxes of How Living Companies Create

Wealth: Why Single Valued Objective Functions Are Not Quite Enough’ In: Beer, M.

and Nohria, N. (Eds), Breaking the Code of Change, Boston: Harvard Business

School Press

Scott, S.G. and Lane, V.R. (2000) ‘A Stakeholder Approach to Organizational

Identity’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 43-62

Simpson, B. and Carroll, B. (2008) ‘Re-viewing ‘Role’ in Processes of Identity

Construction’, Organization, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 29-50

Smircich, L. and Morgan, G. (1982) ‘Leadership: the management of meaning’,

Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 18, 257 -273.

Van Tonder, C. L. (2004), ‘Below-the-Surface and Powerful: The Emerging Notion of

Organization Identity’, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.68-78

Vlaar, P. W. L., Van Fenema, P. C. and Tiwari, V. (2008) ‘Co-creating Understanding

and Value in Distributed Work: How Members on Onsite and Offshore Vendor Teams

Give, Make, Demand and Break Sense’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 227-255

Weick, K. E. (1995) ‘Sensemaking in Organizations’, London: SAGE Publications, Inc

Whetten, D. A. (2006) ‘Albert and Whetten Revisited: Strengthening the Concept of

Organizational Identity’, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 219-234

Whetten, D. A. and Mackay, A. (2002) ‘A Social Actor Conception of Organizational

Identity and Its Implications for the Study of Organizational Reputation’, Business

Society, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 393-414

Willem, A., Scarborough, H. and Buelens, M. (2008) ‘Impact of Coherence versus

Multiple Identities on Knowledge Integration’, Journal of Information Science, Vol.

34, No. 3, pp. 370-386

Tables and Figures

Table 1

Defining concepts of organizational identity change

Members sensemaking sources for organizational identity

Personality traits motivating processes for organizational identity change

Organizations’ context

(Level 4) Reputation

Organization at large

(Level 3)

Organizational

identity strength

Aspired org. identity

Culture

Construed external image

Wisdom

Expressiveness

Work context

(Level 2)

Individual context

(role, hierarchical

position, work processes,

practices, job

knowledge, what we

produce, external

others)

Individual (Level 1)

Identification Individual disposition

(values, goals, beliefs,

traits, skills)

Wisdom

Expressiveness

Table 1: Overview of concepts

Figure 1

Figure 1: the purposive organizational identity change process