Beyond Constraint - How Institutions Enable Identities

The SAGE Handbook ofOrganizational Institutionalism

Beyond Constraint: HowInstitutions Enable Identities

Contributors: Royston Greenwood & Christine Oliver & Roy Suddaby & Kerstin SahlinPrint Pub. Date: 2008Online Pub. Date: October 01, 2010Print ISBN: 9781412931236Online ISBN: 9781849200387DOI: 10.4135/9781849200387Print pages: 413-431

This PDF has been generated from SAGE knowledge. Please note that the paginationof the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

New York University

Copyright ©2013 SAGE knowledge

of 33 The SAGE Handbook of OrganizationalInstitutionalism: Beyond Constraint: How Institutions

Enable Identities

10.4135/9781849200387.n17

[p. 413 ↓ ]

Chapter 16: Beyond Constraint: HowInstitutions Enable Identities

Introduction

In this chapter, I take a perspective on institutional theory that moves beyondconstraint. I look at how institutions enable organizational identity construction bysupplying a set of possible legitimate identity elements with which to construct, givemeaning to, and legitimize identities and identity symbols. Institutionalism offers aprocess model of transformational mechanisms that explicates how macro-level,interorganizational influences situate and shape organizational identities. It can accountfor the regularity or patterning of identity markers (or symbols) across organizationswithin an organizational field. As well, it offers a dynamic framework on organizationalidentity construction which explains how organizations may adapt their identities soas to align with sanctioned norms and practices so as to secure legitimacy. I explorehow institutionalism expands the current theorization of identity by deepening ourunderstanding of the essence of identity, offering a reconceputalization of organizationalidentity as a form of institutional bricolage, and by ex-planing how the logic of identitymotivates and governs organizational performance. Finally, implications for futureresearch are offered.

Identity is a construct that has long been central to institutional theorizing. A half-century ago, Selznick (1957) postulated that institutionalization - the infusion of value inorganizations - ‘produces a distinct identity for the organization’ (p. 40) and, moreover,that ‘maintaining this distinctive identity is integral to institutional survival’ (p. 63).Institutional approaches that focus on the cognitive-normative context of organizations(DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Zucker, 1983) have emphasized the importance of socialidentities (Scott, 1995: 44) as well as their vitality. And yet, in spite of this acknowledged

http://www.sagepub.com

http://knowledge.sagepub.com

New York University



Enable Identities

relationship, the link between institutional theorizing and organizational identity remainsrelatively unexplored. The gap is surprising, for the two theories have much in common.Both institutionalism and identity have meaning at their core; as well, both theoriesoffer accounts of the creation and role of meaning in the constitution and practices oforganizations. How then can two theories so similar in their focus be so different in theirtrajectories?

[p. 414 ↓ ]

In the current literature, there is little integration of the two perspectives; worse, theyare often depicted as almost antithetical. For instance, institutional theory appears toprivilege sameness and isomorphism, while organizational identity theory advantagesdistinctiveness and polymorphism; and, while institutional theory focuses on the inter-organizational level of organizational fields or industries, identity theory tends to begrounded in the organizational level (Pedersen & Dobbin, 2006).

And yet, in spite of these obvious differences, there are subtle points of connection thatoffer opportune sites where institutional-ism can broaden theories of organizationalidentity. For instance, institutionalism offers a process model of transformationalmechanisms that explicate how macro-level, inter-organizational influences situateand shape organizational identities. Moreover, through transformational processesof isomorphic conformity and mimesis, institutionalism offers an account for theregularity or patterning of identity markers (or symbols) across organizations within anorganizational field. And, institutionalism offers a dynamic framework on organizationalidentity construction which explains how organizations may adapt their identities so asto align with sanctioned norms and practices in order to secure legitimacy.

Institutionalism can move the study of identity beyond the organizational level ofanalysis to locate identity in broader frames of meaning that arise from industry, culturaland societal institutions. And, although isomorphic pressures can constrain the choicesof elements that organizations use to construct their identities, institutional forces alsoenable the process of identity construction itself. The institutional environment suppliespossible and legitimated meanings and symbols that constitute the ‘raw materials’ whichorganizations appropriate to construct their identities. By grafting these institutional



New York University



Enable Identities

elements onto their identities, organizations attempt to garner legitimacy which enablesresource flows favorable to their enterprises.

In this chapter, I initiate an exploration of the linkage between institutions andorganizational identity. Because the limiting effects of institutional isomorphism are wellrecognized, I seek to move beyond this model of constraint to explore an alternativemodel of how institutions enable organizational identity. Essentially, I propose thatinstitutional-ism enables organizational identity formation by supplying a set of possiblelegitimate identity elements with which to construct, give meaning to, and legitimize firmidentities and symbolization.

Even though institutional structures and environments tend to sanction some kinds ofmeanings and elements over others, they are nonetheless complex and multi-texturedin meaning, thereby making some variation in identities possible. Swidler (2001)illustrates the wealth of meanings that are attached to, and legitimated in, a singleinstitution: marriage. Weber and Glynn (2006) extend this reasoning to the employmentcontract, arguing that sense-making occurs with institutions, not in spite of them. AndPedersen and Dobbin (1997: 432) apply this argument to their discussion of institutionsand organizational culture; similarly, they see institutions as having a dual role in theconstruction of organizational cultures, one that is both constraining and enabling:

… modern collective actors seek formal isomorphism with other actorsto classify themselves and informal distinctiveness to enumeratethemselves. Enumeration … as integral to this process as wasclassification … the naming of the bright planet Venus to distinguishit from the star Polaris and of Halley's Comet to distinguish it fromplanets…. the method called for naming or numbering particularisomorphic units to the end of identifying and differentiating them forstudy… Enumeration established the empirical cases from whichgeneralizations could be drawn. (434).

Pedersen and Dobbin (2006) offer an integration of the competing and contradictoryforces that are implicated by institutionalism and identity construction. In their view,conformity occurs at the more macro-level of social classification, resulting in broadsimilarities and regularities in patterns of organizational identities that, in the aggregate,



New York University



Enable Identities

[p. 415 ↓ ] constitute a classification system for identities. This is apparent, for instance,in organizational naming patterns over time (within historical periods) and in dominantindustry naming practices; First Federal Bank is preferred to (and legitimated) ratherthan Tony's Bank (Glynn & Abzug, 2002; Glynn & Marquis, 2005). And yet, institutionsare not perfectly replicated in organizational adoption and practices; variations arisefrom the slippage that occurs as institutions adapt to local conditions or are interpretedin particular contexts to reflect specific organizational meanings. Within the bankingcategory, for instance, not only is First Federal Bank legitimate, but also Bank ofAmerica, Citizens Bank and Sun Trust Bank. Thus, variations arise even from amore standardized set of constitutive rules that define identities. Thus, as Pedersenand Dobbin (2006) might predict, there are broad boundaries that circumscribethe appropriate elements of identities within social categories (such as bankingorganizations), but enumeration processes within categories that serve to distinguishone bank from another. Thus, organizations construct stylized identities from distinctiveinstitutions in their business, social and cultural environments.

In this chapter, I explore how institutions enable organizational identities. I startby reviewing the relevant literature to discover how organizational identity hasbeen conceptualized and opportunities where institutionalism might inform currenttheorization. Next, I elaborate some specific ways in which institutions enable identities;these include a deepening of our understanding of essential elements of identity,a reconceptualization of organizational identity as a form of institutional bricolage,and a consideration of how institutional logics encourage identity performance inorganizations.

Theorizations of Organizational Identity

Although the construct of identity has had a long intellectual history in several differentdomains of scholarship, inquiry into organizational identity was launched with vigorwhen Albert and Whetten published their influential Research in OrganizationalBehavior article in 1985. Their theorization of identity has been quite impactful, receivingnearly 500 citations as of this writing. My search on widely used databases (e.g., ABIInform; Google Scholar) did not yield any articles on organizational identity in majormanagement or organizational journals prior to this 1985 publication. The first article



New York University



Enable Identities

of significance to management researchers appeared five years later in the Academyof Management Journal: Dutton and Dukerich's (1990) influential (and award-winning)case study of the NY Port Authority (also with about 500 citations, as of this writing).

Research on organizational identity has demonstrated its significance for a numberof key organizational symbols, processes, and behaviors. Organizational symbolsand structures have been shown to reflect organizational identity globally (e.g., Glynn& Abzug, 2002) and stakeholder interests more specifically (e.g., Pratt & Foreman,2000; Scott & Lane, 2000; Brickson, 2005), to compartmentalize different or antitheticalaspects of identity, by functional or professional differentiation (e.g., Glynn, 2000;Golden-Biddle & Rao, 1997; Pratt & Rafaeli, 1997; Pratt, Rockmann & Kaufmann,2006) or hierarchy (Corley & Gioia, 2004), to motivate the choice of organizationalaspiration and emulation (e.g., LaBianca et al., 2001), and to be constructed as astoried account of organizational history and biography through language and rhetoric(e.g, Czarniawska & Wolff, 1998; Fiol, 2001, 2002). As well, researchers have alsofocused on individuals' identification with the organization, which is at least partlyconstrued by their perceptions of the organizational identity, particularly in terms of itsdistinctiveness and prestige (e.g., Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Bhattacharya, Rao & Glynn,1995; Brickson, 2005; Bartel, 2001).

[p. 416 ↓ ]

Through these twenty years of research, the original definition of organizational identityarticulated by Albert and Whetten (1985) persists, reverberating through other studiesand models. Albert and Whetten described organizational identity as consisting ofthree claims: ‘the criterion of claimed central character … the criterion of claimeddistinctiveness … [and] the criterion of claimed temporal continuity’ (Albert & Whetten,1985: 265). The dominant approach models organizational identity as a claim-makingprocess that centers on three core attributes: the central, distinctive and enduringcharacter of the organization (Glynn, 2000). Researchers have focused as much onthe particular attributes themselves as the processes that underlie them. Moreover,while the attribute-based perspective has commanded the focus of researchers, it doesnot have consensual affirmation (e.g., Corley et al., 2006). Although the model itselfis rarely contested, its three core attributes are, particularly in terms of their degree ofcentrality, distinctiveness and durability over time (e.g., Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000).



New York University



Enable Identities

And yet, reflecting on these two decades of identity research, post-Albert and Whetten(1985), Corley and colleagues (2006) find some convergence around the nature ofthese attributes. In addition, they note the persistence and dominance of the Albert andWhetten (1985) formulation of organizational identity in the literature.

To get a more nuanced understanding of current models of organizational identity, andto examine what, if any, linkages to institutionalism are evident, I reviewed the relevantmanagement and organizational literature from 1985 on. I searched for articles whoseprimary focus was organizational identity using several electronic data bases (e.g.,ABI inform, ProQuest, Google scholar, Business Source Complete), as well as my ownreading of the literature. I began with work published in 1985 and continued through2006, identifying relevant publications using keyword searches on ‘organization identity’and its variants, e.g., organizational identity or simply identity (checking to see that thelatter focused on the level of the organization). This yielded a total of 32 articles, ofwhich roughly one-quarter are empirical.

As I read (and re-read) these articles, two distinctive approaches to identity clearlyemerged. One of these follows directly from the Albert and Whetten (1985) definition:identity as ‘essentialist’ and attribute-based, i.e., reflecting some underlying or ‘true’organizational character. A second approach tends to focus on how identity functionsas a strategic resource, being deployed to competitive advantage and functioningas a guide to firm decision-making and strategic choice. I categorized the articles onorganizational identity using these two dominant approaches: identity as attribute-based and identity as strategic orientation. And, because I was interested in linkingorganizational identity to institutional theory, I added a third category: an institutionalapproach to organizational identity. I categorized articles as having an institutionalapproach when they invoked any institutional elements or explanations (explicitly orimplicitly) in accounting for organizational identity, such as ideological fault lines thathybridize identity, status groupings and emulation/mimesis, or roles for the professionsand elites in identity dynamics (e.g., a family-oriented firm, a religious organization).

More generally, in categorizing work on organizational identity as institutional inapproach, I looked for any indications of what Cerulo (1997: 387) describes as asociological approach. This centers on the social construction of identity such that:‘every collective becomes a social artifact - an entity molded, refabricated, and



New York University



Enable Identities

mobilized in accord with reigning cultural scripts and centers of power.’ Cerulo (1997)and others (e.g., Czarniawski & Wolff, 1998) have categorized this perspective as anti-essentialist, in that it places less emphasis on the unique character or attributes oforganizations and more on organizations' constructions of their position in the socialorder or institutional field.

[p. 417 ↓ ]

The results of my literature review, with lists of the relevant articles, publication datesand their primary approaches, are presented in Table 16.1. Of the 32 published articlesI located on organizational identity, three-quarters (24 articles or 75 percent) use anattribute-based perspective. One-third of the identity articles (11 articles or 34 percent)took a strategic perspective on identity; of these, nearly two-thirds (7 articles or 64percent) also used an essentialist approach.

Finally, there was some evidence of an institutional perspective on organizationalidentity, but it was clearly in the minority; only seven articles (22 percent) explicitlyadopted an institutional perspective while another five (16 percent) seemed to useinstitutional ideas implicitly (indicated by in the Table).

Thus, it seems that organizational identity researchers have emphasized an attribute-based construal of identity in terms of its core ‘essence,’ i.e., the central, distinctive [p.418 ↓ ] and enduring elements that Albert and Whetten (1985) proposed. This dominantapproach seems to be consistent with what psychologists label a ‘personal’ identity,one that tends to be more individualistic, unique, and idiosyncratic rather than a ‘social’identity that classifies identities using socially constructed systems of meaning. Theemphasis on the more individualistic aspects of organizational identity seems to haveemerged in spite of explicit theorizing about the relevance of social identity theory toorganizations (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989).



New York University



Enable Identities

With regard to the strategic approach, researchers have theorized organizationalidentity as an ‘imitable strategic resource’ that lends competitive advantage (Fiol, 1991).Scholars have shown empirically that organizational identity functions as a filter forinterpreting and responding to strategic issues and environmental changes (e.g., Dutton& Dukerich, 1991; Elsbach & Kramer, 1996; Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Gusftafson &Reger, 1995; Fox-Wolfgramm, Boal & Hunt, 1998), shapes organizational units andprofessional groups' claims to strategic resources (Glynn, 2000), affects strategicresponse to institutional (regulatory) change (e.g., Fox-Wolfgramm et al., 1998), andis the result of strategic change, such as mergers (e.g., Corley & Gioia, 2005). Thestrategic approach seems to have found a basis in the notion of identity ‘claim’: Ashforthand Mael (1996) explicitly state that ‘claim’ relates organizational identity to strategy,and Porac, Wade and Pollock's (1999) definition of identity construction as ‘an explicitclaim that an organization is of a particular type.’

Only infrequently has organizational identity been theorized explicitly in terms of theinstitutional dynamics and environment which embed organizations. This work tends topaint institutional forces in terms of broad strokes (e.g., Glynn, 2000; Czarniawska &Wolff, 1999) that emphasize isomorphic pressures towards conformity and constraint



New York University



Enable Identities

(Fox-Wolfgramm et al., 1998; Glynn & Abzug, 2002). Less evident are the moreenabling aspects of institutionalism in crafting identity (e.g., Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001).

The relatively less attention given to institutional theory in the organizationalidentity literature is ironic, because these two perspectives are intertwined. Severalinstitutionalists recognize this connection. For instance, Pedersen and Dobbin (2006:897) observe: ‘Formation of identity through uniqueness and construction of legitimacythrough uniformity are two sides of the same coin.’ Scott (1995: 22) remarks that‘identity theory’ (at the individual level) emerged as a corrective to an over-socializedview, modeling an active and reflective self that creates, sustains, and changes socialstructures; he writes ‘Identities are viewed as “shared social meanings that personsattribute to themselves in a role” … (they) are socially produced by actors who locatethemselves in social categories and interact with others in terms of these categories’;‘self-meanings’ that are acquired in specific situations, and symbolically defined andreflexively managed. In the next section, I try to rebuild this connection by offering ideason how institutional theory might inform research on organizational identity.

Institutions and Identity in Organizations

It seems that the central question of identity - Who are we as an organization? - hasbeen answered in the existing literature primarily in terms of an individuated anddistinctive constellation of attributes (see Table 16.1). The focus is on naming thecentral, distinctive and enduring attributes that define the ‘essence’ of the organization.Organizational identity thus becomes a claim of uniqueness and a point of strategicdifferentiation from other organizational actors in a field or market. Cerulo (1987), in herreview of the literature on the sociology of identity, cogently describes the essentialistapproach:

‘natural’ or ‘essential’ characteristics [are those] qualities emergingfrom physiological traits, [p. 419 ↓ ] psychological predispositions,regional features, or the properties of structural locations. A collective'smembers were believed to internalize these qualities, suggesting aunified, singular social experience, a single canvas against which socialactors constructed a sense of self (Cerulo, 1997: 386–387).



New York University



Enable Identities

An institutional answer to the identity question (posed above) would not be in termsof an organization's essence but, rather, in terms of an organization's membership ina social category. Identity, according to institutionalists, is a set of claims to a socialcategory, such as an industry grouping, a status ranking or an interest set. And so, anorganization might be identified as a Top 20 school, a Fortune 500 firm, or a hospital(and not a bank), for instance. Thus, institutionalists focus on claimed similarity (to othercategory members) as the basis of identity and institutional alignment with the prevailingconstitutive rules that are used to define identity.

A number of organizational identity researchers offer some telling glimpses into howinstitutions - and processes of institutionalization - might surface more fully in thedynamics of identity construction, change, and performance. For instance, Czarniawskaand Wolff (1998) contrast the essentialist (psychologically-grounded) approach withmore sociological or structuralist approaches. These authors conducted case studiesof two universities and concluded that identities (and their successes or failures) areshaped in institutional fields. Their work supports the central tenet of institutional theory,that isomorphism legitimates but allows for limited cases of organizational deviancefrom institutionalized and legitimated templates.

Fox-Wolfgramm et al. (1998) conducted a longitudinal case study of two banks,examining the organizational response to regulatory change in banking. They found thatorganizational identity, which was linked to strategic posture (Defender or Prospector),affected an organization's compliance or resistance to the institutional change;they proposed that ‘Organizations whose identity and image are inconsistent withinstitutional pressures for change will resist change attempts’ (Proposition 1) and, inturn, that ‘Evidence of organizational success will be used to reinforce and justify anorganization's identity’ (Proposition 2).

In their studies of organizational names, Glynn, with Abzug (1998, 2002) andwith Marquis (2004; 2006), showed how key markers of organizational identity(organizational names) are embedded within institutional fields. Additionally, theyshowed that identity isomorphism legitimates - names that closely resemble theinstitutionalized template tend to be more comprehensible (Glynn & Abzug, 1998,2002) - but that external changes in institutional environments can change legitimacydynamics and, in turn, affect organizational survival (Glynn & Marquis, 2004). In an



New York University



Enable Identities

extension, Glynn and Marquis (2006) show that isomorphism may not have universalappeal; rather, that individuals have differing preferences for conformity and differ in theextent to which they see institutionally isomorphic names as legitimate.

Structural accounts of organizational identity direct attention to the relational, positionaland embedded influences that can stem from institutional environments. Here, identityis conceptualized as an actor's position or role within an established set of categoriesthat define an industry, social network or labor market, rather than a set of essentialattributes. For instance, Zuckerman, Kim, Ukana, and von Rittmann (2003) defineidentities in terms of a movie actor's abilities or skills to signal their membership in oneparticular film genre (a simple or ‘focused’ identity) or several genres (a complex or‘robust’ identity). Rao, Monin, and Durand (2003) studied how identity movements,which they define as arising ‘in opposition to the dominant cultural codes, [and] consistof a “we-feeling” sustained through interactions among movement participants’ (p.796), drove changes in French cuisine over time by [p. 420 ↓ ] generating identity-discrepant cues that led chefs to abandon the old institutional logics and role identitiesand embrace the new.

Thus, from the few studies that do attend to how institutions surface in organizationalidentity, we can see that they shift the focus and dynamics of theorizing identity.Viewing organizational identity through an institutional lens directs attention to the socialmeanings and structures that embed organizational identities and induce conformity.This perspective offers a counterpoint to the prevailing theories of identity that tend tocharacterize it in terms of essential central, distinctive, and enduring attributes (e.g.,Albert & Whetten, 1985). A focus on institutional isomorphism is particularly salient fornon-instrumental or symbolic aspects of organizations (Oliver, 1991), especially identity(Glynn & Abzug, 1998, 2002; Glynn & Marquis, 2004). And, because it complements theessentialist and strategic approaches to organizational identity, it offers the promise of amore comprehensive approach to organizational identity.

For the remainder of this chapter, I focus on three distinct ways in which institutionscan enable organizational identity. First, in theorizing identity, institutionalism suppliesa complementary explanation to essentialism that is not entirely organization-centric.Rather, institutional suggests that it is the social embeddedness of the individualidentity elements that accounts for why these elements matter, when they matter,



New York University



Enable Identities

how they might develop, evolve and change over time, and how they complement (orconflict with) each other. Thus, institutional theory can deepen dominant theories oforganizational identity by illuminating the processes by which organizations constructthe essence of their identity, i.e., their central, distinctive, and enduring character (Albert& Whetten, 1985).

Second, institutions (and associated institutional meanings and symbols) providethe raw material from which organizational identities are constructed. And so,organizational identity construction becomes a form of institutional bricolage,where an identity is cobbled together from existing elements or bits of meaning,symbols or values: Organizations appropriate bits of institutional understandings butcombine (and recombine) them in institutionally sanctioned ways so as to introducevariations. Organizations combine similar institutionally-based identity elements indifferent configurations so as to make their identities distinct from each other withinorganizational fields but similar enough within a field so as to make their membershipclaims (to the field) legitimate. Thus, organizational identities function in ways that aresimilar to those of individuals in that they seek ‘optimal distinctiveness’ (Brewer, 1993)within institutionally-bounded social categories.

Third, institutions enable not only organizational claims of identity but also theirenactment or implementation. The institutional elements that organizations appropriateto construct their identities embed not only meanings but also performance scripts,i.e., normative guidelines on organizational appropriateness that inform action andinstitutional logics that rationalize action. Thus action can be as much a part of identitydynamics as meaning, symbolism and strategizing; this is an important way in whichinstitutions can extend current theorizations of identity, which tend to focus more onmeaning and change rather than the action or performance imperatives of identity. Idiscuss each of these three aspects whereby institutions enable identity.

Institutionalizing the Essence of Identity

Building from the identity framework that has dominated the literature (Albert & Whetten,1985), I examine how institutional theory might be useful in deepening the individualelements of organizational identity. Albert and Whetten (1985) treat organizational



New York University



Enable Identities

identity as a trinity, composed of three [p. 421 ↓ ] key criteria, that ‘of central character,distinctiveness, and temporal continuity’ with ‘each necessary, and as a set sufficient’ asan adequate statement of identity (p. 265). I consider each of these three elements inturn.

Identity as Central

The first of the three identity elements, that of claimed central character, describes thevery ‘essence’ of an identity and is used by leaders ‘as a guide for what they shoulddo and how other institutions should relate to them’ (Albert & Whetten, 1985: 267,emphases added). Thus, even the essential-ism of centrality, it seems, implies an inter-organizational (and perhaps institutional) environment which enrobes the organization.

A more explicit statement on central character is made by Brickson (2005) in her modelof identity orientation. She describes this as a particular posture towards individualism,relationalism or collectivism; she contends that this attribute will always be one of thecharacteristics defined as central, distinctive and continuous as an identity element.Note how this typology of identity orientations, with its ‘isms,’ has ideological rootsthat position the actor (the self or the organization) both in a social environment and inrelation to others.

Even the core element of centrality seems to hinge the organizational identity to theinter-organizational or institutional environment. Albert and Whetten (1985) suggest thatidentity locates organizations in social or institutional space. Their fundamental notionof identity as an organizational claim hints at a collective's basic struggle to self-name,self-characterize and assert social prerogative and raise questions about the viabilityof ‘essentialism’ in identity construction (Cerulo, 1997); Cerulo (1997) writes of an anti-essentialist perspective, which implies institutionalism:

Recent treatments of collective identity question the essentialism ofcollective attributes and images. Anti-essentialist inquiries promotethe social construction of identity … every collective becomes a socialartifact - an entity molded, refabricated, and mobilized in accord withreigning cultural scripts and centers of power. (387)



New York University



Enable Identities

In a study of identity claim-making during the musicians' strike at the Atlanta SymphonyOrchestra, Glynn (2000) showed how the core of organizational identity was contestedby the two major professional groups in the orchestra: musicians and administrators.Each advanced claims to a particular identity, each attached to identity a differentcore ideology, i.e., aestheticism (in musical performance) versus economics (in fiscalresponsibility). The study highlights how identity can be a source of mobilization, ratherthan just a product of it; this differs from the dominant view which tends to model theorganization's central character as emerging from its founding, historical trajectory anda shared or collective view of the organization. Hybridization of identity, in complexorganizations like a symphony, shows how a single organization may have a multiplicityof claims on its central character.

In many ways, then, even the core character of organizational identities impliesinstitutional space and a set of social categories that offer meaningful ways ofdescribing organizations (e.g., as a church or a business, as Albert and Whettensuggest). These categories (or their typifications) are defined by a set of symbolicboundaries that function in the construction of valued identities (Lamont, 1992).Moreover, boundary strength, i.e., only those boundaries firmly grounded in widelyshared meaning, prove sufficiently strong to generate hierarchy and confer value tocollective identities (Lamont, 1992).

Thus, institutionally-based categories can describe cultural repertoires of meaning thatorganizations can appropriate to address the question of ‘who we are.’ The responsesimultaneously characterizes their central character but also classifies them as amember of one organizational field and not of others; category partitions (or boundaries)distinguish them from other organizations or social communities. Even as a claimed[p. 422 ↓ ] central character may reflect core organizational values or strengths (e.g.,integrity, fair trade, technology leader, customer-oriented, family friendly, etc.), itnonetheless implicates a set of institutional categories and boundaries from which thischaracter draws meaning. In many ways, then, this seems to have been an under-specified aspect of organizational identity that institutionalism might help to explain.



New York University



Enable Identities

Identity as Distinctive

Identity distinctiveness and prestige surface in several studies conducted at theindividual level of analysis that examine organizational members' perceptions of,and identification with, their organizations. Mael and Ashforth (1992) studied theantecedents of alumni's identification with their organization, a religious college,and found that it was positively influenced by their perceptions of organizationaldistinctiveness and prestige. They concluded:

In general, symbolic management can be directed towards increasingthe salience of the institution as an institution, complete with a uniqueand compelling mission and a reputation for fulfilling that mission. (Mael& Ashforth, 1992: 14, emphasis in the original)

Similarly, Bhattacharya, Rao and Glynn (1995), in a survey of art museum membership,found that fee-paying members' identification is positively related to perceivedorganizational prestige. Thus, as much as distinction serves to differentiateone organization from another, it also seems to function as a touchstone forindividuals' identification with the organization and its identity; for both individuals andorganizations, such distinctiveness can enhance perceptions of the self.

Organizational identity researchers have examined how identities respond to statusrankings, particularly those by external third parties. Elsbach and Kramer (1996) showhow business schools can shift the bases of their distinctive character to preservetheir prestige and esteem in response to a drop in the Business Week rankings; thedistinctiveness that is claimed is relative to a particular category of organizations(e.g., Top 20 Business Week list). Other scholars have shown how identities havea reciprocal relationship with the external image of the organization (e.g., Dutton,Dukerich & Harquail, 1994; Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000; Gioia & Corley, 2002), withidentities shifting so as to enhance their reputation with important stakeholders. Workingat a different level of analysis, organizational ecologists also attest to how identities are‘conferred by an audience’ (Hsu & Hannan, 2005: 478) in an effort to garner stakeholderacceptability.



New York University



Enable Identities

Implicit in identity distinctiveness is not only the enhancement of the reputation orimage of the organization, but also cues that enable external audiences to perceive theorganization as legitimate and appropriate; if organizations are perceived to conform todesirable identity categories, then stakeholders tend to sanction that organization andresource flows are beneficial. The process of identity distinctiveness is the flip side ofisomorphism (or conformity to institutional forces), as Pedersen and Dobbin (1997: 432)have pointed out in their description of enumeration.

Institutionalists ground the notion of identity distinctiveness within processes ofisomorphism; distinctiveness (or enumeration) occurs within identity categories, asorganizations distinguish themselves from other members of the class. However,distinctiveness does not occur in an institutional vacuum; isomorphism not onlylegitimates but it encourages differentiation and the distinctiveness which can follow.Further, this institutional explanation of identity distinctiveness can illuminate therelationship among the three core identity elements, suggesting a possible hierarchy ofdistinctiveness embedded within claims of central character.

Identity as Enduring

Of the three identity elements articulated by Albert and Whetten (1985), the claimedtemporal continuity or durability of identity has [p. 423 ↓ ] perhaps been the mostcontested by other researchers. Gioia, Schultz and Corley (2000) characterizedorganizational identity as having ‘adaptive instability,’ changing in response toothersapos images of the organization. They argue that identity continuity impliesflexibility (instability) with regard to a core central character, as external audiences candestabilize identity, causing the organization to reconsider the framing or constitution ofits identity. Subsequent work by two of these authors (Corley & Gioia, 2004) examinesidentity change processes during the strategic change of a corporate spin-off; they findthat identity change does occur and that the organizational leadership has to managethat change.

Other challenges to the enduring nature of identity arise from Biggart's (1977) studyof the US Postal Service and Fiol's (2002) study of a high technology company.Both of these researchers demonstrate that previously valued aspects of the



New York University



Enable Identities

organization's identity had to be discredited before employees could buy into a new wayof approaching their business, thus requiring a changing identity. Similarly, Reger et al.(1994) observed that a fundamental organizational change, such as the implementationof a total quality initiative, required a fundamental change in how the organizationthought of itself. Rao, Monin and Durand (2003) demonstrated how identity movementsthat opposed the old institutional logics were essential to the construction of new roleidentities. And Hatch and Schultz (2002) proposed a model of organizational identitydynamics that specified processes by which organizational identity emerges from theunending conversations that occur between members of an organizational culture andits many stakeholders.

Researchers have challenged Albert and Whetten's (1985) identity element of temporalcontinuity and have done so by mapping changes that arise from the organization'sstrategic, industry and institutional environments. However, as much as institutionalchange may prompt organizational change, it does tend to set the limits on the scopeand scale of this change. Pedersen and Dobbin (1997: 436) note that the notion ofchange and differentiation itself has been institutionalized and so identity change tendsto occur within narrowly defined categorical boundaries: ‘Presidents and kings activelydistinguished their nation-states from others, but they did so in routine ways. Thedimensions of identity were clearly institutionalized.’

The preceding section illuminated some of the ways in which institutions are implicatedin current theories of organizational identity and particularly in each of its core identityelements - central character, distinctiveness and temporal continuity. The constructionof the organization's identity also implies the construction of a social actor through aprocess of categorization (that form the basis of claimed central character), enumeration(that forms the basis of distinctiveness), and isomorphic alignment that legitimates (thatforms the basis of continuity and change).



New York University



Enable Identities

Organizational Identity as a Form ofInstitutional Bricolage

Although organizations can construct identities that reflect their central and distinctiveattributes, they typically do so with components available in their institutionalenvironment, i.e., the industry, organizational field, societal culture and/or the nation-state. For instance, Glynn and Abzug (2002) found that organizations changing theirnames made choices that aligned them with prevailing institutional practices andtemplates; Fred's Bank was as unlikely a choice to name an organization's identity asFirst Federal Pizza. In narrating the identity of their new ventures, Lounsbury and Glynn(2001) found that entrepreneurs employ elements from widespread identity storiesas ‘raw material’ when negotiating their emerging identities. More generally, peoplecan be artful in their mobilization of different institutional logics to serve their purpose(Westenholz, 2006).

[p. 424 ↓ ]

Symbols that ‘mark’ an organization's core identity as central (or even unique) ironicallyare often composed of common components established within organization fields.Glynn and Abzug (1998; 2002) demonstrated this in their studies of the names thatorganizations chose to adopt when they changed their name; they examined theexplanatory power of an institutional view (predicting symbolic isomorphism) anda strategic view (predicting uniqueness). They found robust effects for institutionalpredictions.

Relatedly, in work on organizational cultures, Martin, Feldman, Hatch and Sitkin(1983) make a similar point: ‘Organizations claim uniqueness, but at any point in time,organizations claim similar sorts of uniqueness’ (p. 901). These authors observed that‘Building blocks of conscious organizational culture often come from the environment,with the result that distinctive organizational cultures can be surprisingly similar to oneanother at any point in time’ (p. 901). A similar view is echoed in work describing theuniqueness paradox in organizational stories (e.g., Martin, Feldman, Hatch & Sitkin,



New York University



Enable Identities

1983); organizations may claim a central and unique narrative, but they tend to besimilar (or isomorphic) to other organizations in the very claim that they make.

Future research on organizational identity might advance our understanding onthe wider models in the institutional field from which organizational identities areconstructed. It would be of interest to examine whether organizations draw theiridentity's central, distinctive and enduring characters from more local environments(such as industry or geographic clusters), from more distal or universal environments(such as nation-states or global trends), or from some combination of both. Someof these cultural models available are what Pedersen and Dobbin (2006) describe:‘The appropriate cultural artifacts of identity formation were traditions (e.g., language,couture, cuisine) and newly created symbols (e.g., flags, anthems, constitutions).’ AsSwidler (1986) reminds us, culture serves as a kind of ‘toolkit’ from which organizationscan draw identity elements. Thus, the process of identity construction becomes theprocess of institutional bricolage, where organizations incorporate cultural meanings,values, sentiments and rules into their identity claims.

Identities can thus be bricolaged or cobbled together from shared cultural elementsand symbols and it is in this way that they can come to resemble each other. Althoughthere may be shared elements, they are nonetheless combined in fairly unique anddistinctive ways. In this manner, then, organizations can accommodate both central anddistinctive elements by claiming uniqueness but doing so with innovative combinationsof institutionalized elements. Moreover, although identities are constructed from sharedcultural models, they are negotiated in the organization and in the organizational field(Westenholz, Pedersen & Dobbin, 2006). Moreover, the very process of bricolage,whereby different elements are conjoined, carries implications for the both thedistinctive and enduring aspects of identities. When organizations appropriateinstitutional elements from different - and especially oppositional categories - theycan erode the boundaries that compartmentalize these elements and thus bluntdistinctiveness. Rao, Moniin and Durand (2005) describe such erosion in the contextof nouvelle and classical cuisinesapos boundaries becoming undermined by innovativeappropriation. Glynn and Lounsbury (2005) similarly provide an account of suchblending processes for the symphony's repertoire in appropriate pieces from both thetraditional musical canon as well as more contemporary art forms. Thus, the process



New York University



Enable Identities

of identity construction comes to resemble a process of institutional bricolage, theelements and processes of which invite closer scrutiny by future identity researchers.

Identity not only as Claims, butPerformance

Although the focus in the organizational identity literature has been on claim-making,[p. 425 ↓ ] institutionalism alerts us to another dimension of identity construction:identity-driven performance and action. Institutionalized identities and frames come withexpectations about how actors should perform an identity in specific situations (Eliasoph& Lichterman, 2003). When social identities and frames are put to use in practicalperformance, their meaning and relevance is reaffirmed as subjective experience.Institutions are thus ‘embodied in personal experience by means of roles’ (Berger &Luckmann, 1966: 74).

The identity literature comes closest to this view in its articulation of strategic identities,which are viewed as resources leveraged for competitive advantage. Although identitiescan certainly guide strategic behavior, they may do more than that; they can ensureorganizational survival. Selznick (1956: 63) expresses it directly: ‘Institutional survival,properly understood, is a matter of maintaining values and distinctive identity.’

Organizational fields are characterized by institutional logics, which Meyer, Boli andThomas (1987) define as cultural accounts; logics endow the actors and actions inthe field with meaning and legitimacy. Thornton and Ocasio (1999: 804) offer a similardefinition, but draw out more explicitly the production of actions consistent with thislogic; they define logics as ‘the socially constructed, historical pattern of materialpractices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce andreproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning totheir social reality.’

In his compelling book and video, showcasing Don Quixote as a model for leadership,Jim March focuses on identity. As March tells it, Quixote balances passion withdiscipline, which stems from Quixote's identity, his precise sense of himself. Not only



New York University



Enable Identities

is Quixote aware of the consequences of his actions (which are governed by the logicof consequence), but is also very aware of the demands of his identity, his role in theworld. He asks himself: Who am I? What situation am I in? What does a person likeme do in a situation like this? Thus, passions are disciplined not by incentives, but byidentity. Thus, the logic of identity offers a counterpoint to the logic of consequence thattypically dominates organizational thought.

Identity, then, can function as kind of institutional logic (Friedland & Alford, 1991) thatgoverns organizational behavior and choice; although it can at times limit choices, italso enables and advances action because identities are performed. They function as akind of institutional logic, a set of ‘shared rules and typifications that identify categoriesof social actors and their appropriate activities or relationships’ (Barley & Tolbert, 1997:96). Action is implicated and, in the performance of identity, institutions themselvescan be transformed. Thus, institutionalists alert us to a relatively unexplored aspect oforganizational identity: its performance.

Potential Contributions of InstitutionalTheory to the Study of OrganizationalIdentity

At first blush, theories of institutions and theories of identity seemed to be almostantithetical. They operate at different levels of analysis and seek different explanationsfor organizational sameness and differentiation. Institutionalists look for similaritiesamong organizations in a field; organizational identity theorists look for similaritiesamong individuals in an organization. More generally, as Pedersen and Dobbin (2006:900) observed in their study of institutions and organizational cultures: ‘institutionalistslook for interorganizational convergence, isomorphism, and meaning constructionthrough interorganizational paradigm construct; organizational culture researcherslook for organizational divergence, polymorphism, and identity construction throughcollective sensemaking.’ And yet, they are fundamentally circular in their effects; two [p.426 ↓ ] sides of the same coin, as Pedersen and Dobbin (2006) remind us.



New York University



Enable Identities

A useful approach to relating these two perspectives is that of mechanism-basedtheorizing; this approach relates variables at one level of analysis to those at a differentlevel of analysis. It suggests a bridge that could be built between institutionalists'emphasis on the inter-organizational environment and identity's emphasis on the intra-organizational environment. As Davis and Marquis (2005: 335) explain: ‘If regressionsreveal the relationship (wind a watch and it keeps running), mechanisms pry the backoff the watch and show how.’

The framework of Hedstrom and Swedberg (1998) maps two mechanisms that moveacross levels of analysis and are relevant to institutions and identity: situationalmechanisms, that explain how variables at a macro-level affect those at more micro-levels (e.g., effects of regulatory law on employment practices; new market pressureson industries such as education or health care; an organization's layoffs on employeemotivation) and transformational mechanisms that explain how micro-level actions orvariables alter macro-level patterns at a higher level of analysis (e.g., diffusion of one'sorganizational HR practices to the field; the activism of social movements that changescivil law or organizational policies on environmentalism). And, although I have focusedon situational mechanisms where institutions enable identities, surely transformationalmechanisms alter fields by aggregating or leveraging potent organizational-levelidentities.

Institutional theory implies three basic sets of situational mechanisms that operateon organizations: the normative (or value-laden) expectations of institutional fields orindustries; cognitive ‘guidance systems’ that supply abstract structures of meaning; andregulatory or coercive forces that can limit identity choices. (e.g., prescribing the useof terms like ‘Incorporated’ in a name or trademarking unique organizational logos). Inthis chapter, I have focused on the first two of these mechanisms: socio-normative andcognitive. And, although institutional mechanisms have been typified as constraints thatnarrow possibilities for identity construction and choice, I have argued that institutionsenable organizational identities in three basic ways: by formulating the essential identityelements (centrality, distinctiveness and durability); by supplying the ‘raw’ culturalmaterials that organizations assemble in a process of institutional bricolage to achieve‘optimal distinctiveness’ (Brewer, 1993) within institutional fields; and by motivatingperformance in organizations in a way that is governed by the institutional logics of



New York University



Enable Identities

identity. In all these processes, I have acknowledged how institutions can inducevariations, as well as temper them.

More generally, I have tried to show how identity-making processes are shaped both bywider cultural accounts circulating in broader fields of meaning (industry; nation-state)as well as more specific (and perhaps historical) accounts of organizational characterthat reflect the essential aspects of the firm. Despite the fact that organizationsassemble similar institutionalized identity elements, variations are possible becauseof the transposability (Sewell, 1992), mutuability (Clemens & Cook, 1999), andrecombinatory possibilities of institutional scripts (Powell, 1991).

Institutions serve up the resources for identity-work in organizations by supplyingcognitive templates for both the form (grammar) and content (meanings; symbols)of organizational identities. Further, by sanctioning (or legitimating) some particularidentity representations (or symbols) over others, an institutional perspective on identitysuggests that some identities may be more potent than others in particular historicalperiods.

Thus, in demonstrating their social fitness, organizational identities can resonate withaudiences and develop cultural power, i.e., ‘the capacity of certain works to linger inthe mind … to enter the canon’ (Griswold, 1987: 1105). Ironically, cultural power stems[p. 427 ↓ ] less from organizational individuation and distinctiveness and more fromits institutional situatedness, as Griswold (1987: 1105) explains: ‘A powerful work …locates itself within a set of conventions that it strains, plays with, perhaps inverts, butdoes not totally ignore … intrigues or disturbs its recipients without utterly mystifying orfrustrating them.’ In this way, then, institutions can enable not only identity constructionbut also identity legitimacy and potency. Further, when identities are potent, theypersist. Persistence (over time) may arise not only because of organizational strategyor inertia, but because institutional pressures sanction certain types of identity symbolsand practices as potent. Identities thus can strike such a resonant chord that theyendure in their vibration, becoming almost indestructible.

Issues of identity potency and resonance, derived from institutional alignment, raiseseveral intriguing questions for future researchers to pursue. One question againchallenges the enduring nature of identity, but focuses less on shortening its lifespan



New York University



Enable Identities

and more on lengthening it: Is there more continuity in organizational identity thanone might expect? Do cultures (or societies or nation-states) have a preference forremembered identities such that they press for persistence, in spite of identity threats?Other questions introduce a more active role for the institutional environment andkey institutional actors. We can redirect current leanings towards explaining identitypreferences and sanctioning by organizational members. An institutional approachmight lead us to a different question: Do cultures (or societies or nation-states) sanctioncertain types of identities at different points in time?

Finally, although the focus of this chapter has been on how institutional theory caninform models of organizational identity, the reverse is also true: organizationalidentity theories can inform institutionalism. For instance, a widespread critique ofneo-institutionalism points to its overemphasis on exogenous models of change(Barley & Tolbert, 1997; Farjoun, 2002). However, when organizational identities areconceptualized as part of a particular institutional field or industry, attention is redirectedtowards modeling institutions as endogenous, the result of organizational appropriationof shared institutional elements and logic but with a multiplicity of variations. Andfinally, identity construction can afford a way of introducing agency into institutionalaccounts of change. By modeling how organizations actively craft identities fromavailable cultural toolkits (Swidler, 1986), combining (or recombining) identity elementsto achieve both sameness (with appropriate cultural scripts) and differentiation (fromother organizations), theorists introduce aspects of organizational choice, and creativedeviation that are institutionally informed but not necessarily mandated. Such aperspective would take the institutionalism of identity beyond a model of constraint toone that enables and enriches identity construction in organizations.

Mary Ann Glynn

References

Albert, S. & Whetten, D. 1985. Organizational identity . In L. L. Cummings, ed. &B. M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 7 , pp. pp. 263–295).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.



New York University



Enable Identities

Ashforth, B. E. Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization . Academy ofManagement Review vol. 14 pp. 20–39. 1989.

Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, 1996. Organizational identity and strategy as a contextfor the individual . In Baum, J., ed. , & Dutton, J. E. (eds.), Advances in StrategicManagement , (Vol. 13 , pp. pp. 19–64).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Barley, S. R. Tolbert, P. Institutionalization and structuration: studying the linksbetween action and institution . Organization Studies vol. 18 pp. 93–117. 1997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800106

Bartel, Caroline A. Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects ofcommunity outreach on members' organizational identity and identification .Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 46 pp. 379–414. 2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3094869

Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. 1966. The Social Construction of Knowledge: A Treatisein the Sociology of Knowledge . New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday.

Biggart, N. W. The creative-destructive process of organizational change: The caseof the post office . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 22 pp. 410–426. 1977. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392181

Bhattacharya, C. B. Rao, H. Glynn, M. A. Understanding the bond of identification: Aninvestigation of its correlates among art museum members . Journal of Marketing vol.59 pp. 46–57. 1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252327

Brewer, M. Social identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity . Social Cognitionvol. 11 pp. 150–164. 1993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.1993.11.1.150

Brickson, S. L. Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizationalidentity and organizations' relations with stakeholders . Administrative Science Quarterlyvol. 50 pp. 576–609. 2005.

Cerulo, K. A. Identity construction: New Issues, new directions . Annual Review ofSociology vol. 23 pp. 385–409. 1997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.385



http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800106

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800106

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3094869

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3094869

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392181

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392181

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252327

http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.1993.11.1.150

http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.385

New York University



Enable Identities

Clemens, E. S. Cook, J. M. Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining durabilityand change . Annual Review of Sociology vol. 25 pp. 441–466. 1999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.441

Corley, K. Defined by our strategy or our culture? Hierarchical differences in perceptionsof organizational identity and change . Human Relations vol. 57 pp. 114–1177. 2004.

Corley, K. G. Gioia, D. A. Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 49 pp. 173–206. 2004.

Corley, K. Harquail, C. V. Pratt, M. G. Glynn, M. A. Fiol, M. Hatch, M. J. Guidingorganizational identity through aged adolescence Journal of Management Inquiry vol.15 pp. 85–99. 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492605285930

Czarniawska, B. Wolff, R. Constructing new identities in established organizationalfields . International Studies of Management & Organization vol. 28 pp. 32–56. 1998.

Davis, G. F. Marquis, C. Prospects for organizational theory in the early 21st century:Institutional fields and mechanisms . Organization Science vol. 16 pp. 332–343. 2005.http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0137

DiMaggio, P. Powell, W. W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism andcollective rationality in organizational fields . American Sociological Review vol. 48 pp.147–160. 1983. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095101

Dutton, J. E. Dukerich, J. M. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity inorganizational adaptation . Academy of Management Journal vol. 34 pp. 517–554.1991. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256405

Dutton, J. E. Dukerich, J. M. Harquail, C. V. Organizational images and memberidentification . Administrative Science Quarterly pp. 239–262. 1994.

Eliasoph, N. Lichterman, P. Culture in interaction . American Journal of Sociology vol.108 pp. 735–794. 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/367920





http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492605285930

http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0137

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095101

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256405

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/367920

New York University



Enable Identities

Elsbach, K. Kramer, R. members' responses to organizational identity threats:Encountering and countering the Business Week Rankings . Administrative ScienceQuarterly vol. 41 pp. 442–476. 1996. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393938

Farjoun, M. The dialectics of institutional development in emerging and turbulentfields . Academy of Management Journal vol. 45 pp. 848–874. 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069318

Fiol, C. M. Frevisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitiveadvantage . Journal of Management vol. 27 pp. 691–699. 1991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700606

Fiol, C. M. Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitiveadvantage . Journal of Management vol. 27 pp. 691–699. 2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700606

Fiol, C. M. Capitalizing on paradox: The role of language in transforming organizationalidentities . Organization Science vol. 13 pp. 653–666. 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.6.653.502

Fox-Wolfgramm, S. J. Boal, K. B. Hunt, J. G. Organizational adaptation toinstitutional change: A comparative study of firstorder change in prospector anddefender banks . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 43 pp. 87–126. 1998. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393592

Friedland, R. & Alford, R. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices andinstitutional contradictions . In W. W. Powell, ed. & P. J. Dimaggio (eds.), The NewInstitutionalism in Organizational Analysis . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gioia, D. A. Thomas, J. B. Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking duringstrategic change in academia . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 41 pp. 370–403.1996. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393936

Gioia, D. Corley, K. Being good versus looking good: business school rankings and theCircean transformation from substance to image . Academy of Management Learningand Education vol. 1 pp. 107–121. 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2002.7373729



http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393938

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069318

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069318

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700606

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700606

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700606

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700606

http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.6.653.502


http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393592

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393592

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393936

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2002.7373729

New York University



Enable Identities

Gioia, D. Schultz, M. Corley, K. Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability .Academy of Management Review vol. 25 pp. 63–81. 2000.

Glynn, M. A. When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identitywithin a symphony orchestra . Organization Science vol. 11 no. (3) pp. 285–298. 2000.http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.3.285.12496

Glynn, M. A. & Abzug, R. A. 1998. Isomorphism and competitive differentiationin the organizational name game . In J. A. C. Baum (ed.). Advances in StrategicManagement , Vol. 15 , pp. pp. 105–128. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Glynn, M. A. Abzug, R. Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism andorganizational names . Academy of Management Journal vol. 45 pp. 267–280. 2002http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069296

Glynn, M. A. Lounsbury, M. From the critics' corner: Logic blending, discursive changeand authenticity in a cultural production system Journal of Management Studies vol. 42pp. 1031–1055. 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00531.x

Glynn, M. A. & Marquis, C. 2004. When good names go bad: OrganizationalIllegitimacy and the Dotcom Collapse . In C. Johnson (ed.), Research in the Sociologyof Organizations , vol. 22 , pp. pp. 147–170. NY: JAI/Elsevier Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0733-558X%2804%2922005-5

Glynn, M. A. & Marquis, C. 2006. Fred's Bank: How institutional norms and individualpreferences legitimate organizational names . In A. Rafaeli, ed. , & M. Pratt (eds.),Artifacts and Organizations , pp. pp. 223–239. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Golden-Biddle, K. Rao, H. Breaches in the boardroom: Organizational identity andconflicts of commitment in a nonprofit organization . Organizational Science vol. 8 pp.593–611. 1997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.6.593

Griswold, W. The fabrication of meaning: Literary interpretation in the US, Great Britain,and the West Indies . AJS vol. 92 pp. 1077–1117. 1987.




http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069296

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00531.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0733-558X%2804%2922005-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0733-558X%2804%2922005-5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.6.593

New York University



Enable Identities

Hatch, M. J. Schultz, M. The dynamics of organizational identity . Human Relations vol.55 pp. 989–1018. 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726702055008181

Hedstrom, Peter and Swedberg Richard. 1998. Social Mechanisms: An AnalyticalApproach to Social Theory . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663901

Hsu, G. Hannan, M. Identities, genres and organizational forms . OrganizationalScience vol. 16 pp. 474–490. 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0151

Labianca, G Fairbank, J. Thomas, J. Gioia, D. Umphress, E. Emulation in academia:Balancing structure and identity . Organizationational Science vol. 12 pp. 312–330.2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.3.312.10101

Lamont, M. 1992. Money, Morals and Manners . Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.

Lounsbury, M. Glynn, M. A. Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and theacquisition of resources . Strategic Management Journal vol. 22 pp. 545–564. 2001http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.188

Lounsbury, M. D. & Glynn, M. A. 2005. Entrepreneurial stories and legitimacy . In M.Hitt, ed. and D. Ireland (eds.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management (2nd edn),Vol. III Entrepreneurship (pp. pp. 117–120). Blackwell.

Mael, F. Ashforth, B. Alumni and their alma maters: A partial test of the reformulatedmodel of organizational identification . Journal of Organizational Behavior vol. 13 pp.103–123. 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202

Martin, J. Feldman, M. S. Hatch, M. J. Sitkin, S. B. The uniqueness paradox inorganizational stories . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 28 pp. 438–453. 1983.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392251

Oliver, C. Strategic responses to institutional processes . Academy of ManagementReview vol. 16 pp. 145–179. 1991.



http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726702055008181

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663901

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663901

http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0151


http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.188

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392251

New York University



Enable Identities

Pedersen, J. S. Dobbin, F. The social invention of collective actors .American Behavioral Scientist . vol. 40 pp. 431–444. 1997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764297040004006

Pedersen, J. S. Dobbin, F. In search of identity and legitimation . American BehavioralScientist vol. 49 pp. 897–907. 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764205284798

Porac, J. Wade, J. Pollock, T. Industry categories and the politics of the comparablefirm in CEO compensation . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 44 pp. 112–144.1999. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667033

Powell, Walter W. 1991. “Expanding the Scope of Institutional Analysis.” Pp. pp. 183–203 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis , edited by W. W. Powell, ed.and P. J. DiMaggio, ed. . Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

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

Pratt, M. G. Rafaeli, A. Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered socialidentities . Academy of Management Journal vol. 40 no. (4) pp. 862–898. 1997. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256951

Pratt, M. Rockmann, K. Kaufmann, J. Constructing professional identity: The roleof work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medicalprofessionals . Academy of Management Journal vol. 49 pp. 235–262. 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786060

Rao, H. Davis, G. F. Ward, A. Embeddedness, social identity and mobility: Why firmsleave the NASDAQ and join the New York stock exchange . Administrative ScienceQuarterly vol. 45 pp. 268–292. 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667072

Rao, H. Monin, P. Durand, R. Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as anidentity movement in French gastronomy . American Journal of Sociology vol. 108 pp.795–843. 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/367917



http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764297040004006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764297040004006

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764205284798

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667033

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256951

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256951

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786060


http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667072

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/367917

New York University



Enable Identities

Ravasi, D. Schultz, M. Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the roleof organizational culture . Academy of Management Journal vol. 49 pp. 433–458. 2006.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794663

Reger, R. K. Gustafson, L. T. Demaric, S. M. Mullane, J. V. Reframing the organization:Why implementing total quality is easier said than done . The Academy of ManagementReview vol. 19 pp. 565–584. 1994.

Scott, W. R. 1995. Institutions and Organizations . Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,CA.

Scott, S. G. Lane, V. R. A stakeholder approach to organizational identity . Academy ofManagement Review vol. 25 pp. 43–62. 2000.

Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in Administration . Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Sewell, W. A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation . American Journalof Sociology vol. 98 pp. 1–30. 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/229967

Swidler, A. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies . American Sociological Reviewvol. 51 pp. 273–86. 1986. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095521

Swidler, A. 2001. Talk of Love: How Culture Matters . Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Thornton, P. H. Oscasio, W. Institutional logics and the historical contingency ofpower in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishingindustry . American Journal of Sociology vol. 105 pp. 801–844. 1999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/210361

Weber, K. Glynn, M. A. Making sense with Institutions: The role of context in KarlWeick's sensemaking perspective . Organization Studies, Special Issue in Honour ofKarl Weick vol. 27 pp. 1639–1660. 2006.




http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/229967

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095521

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/210361

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/210361

New York University



Enable Identities

Westenholz, A. Identity work and meaning arena . American Behavioral Scientist vol. 49pp. 1015–1029. 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764205285183

Westenholz, A. Pedersen, J. S. Dobbin, F. Institutions in the making: Identity, power,and the emergence of new organizational forms . American Behavioral Scientist vol. 49pp. 889–896. 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764205284796

Zucker, L. G. 1983. Organizations as institutions . S. B. Bacharach (ed.), Research inthe Sociology of Organizations . Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 1–42.

Zuckerman, E. W. Kim, T. Ukanwa, K. von Rittman, J. Robust identities or nonentities?Typecasting in the feature film labor market . American Journal of Sociology vol. 108 pp.1018–1074. 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/377518

10.4135/9781849200387.n17



http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764205285183

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764205284796

http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/377518

Beyond Constraint - How Institutions Enable Identities

Documents

Transcript of Beyond Constraint - How Institutions Enable Identities