Beyond Constraint - How Institutions Enable Identities

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism
Beyond Constraint: How Institutions Enable Identities
Contributors: Royston Greenwood & Christine Oliver & Roy Suddaby & Kerstin Sahlin Print Pub. Date: 2008 Online Pub. Date: October 01, 2010 Print ISBN: 9781412931236 Online ISBN: 9781849200387 DOI: 10.4135/9781849200387 Print pages: 413-431 This PDF has been generated from SAGE knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.
New York University Copyright 2013
SAGE knowledge
10.4135/9781849200387.n17 [p. 413 ]
Chapter 16: Beyond Constraint: How Institutions Enable Identities Introduction

In this chapter, I take a perspective on institutional theory that moves beyond constraint. I look at how institutions enable organizational identity construction by supplying a set of possible legitimate identity elements with which to construct, give meaning to, and legitimize identities and identity symbols. Institutionalism offers a process model of transformational mechanisms that explicates how macro-level, interorganizational influences situate and shape organizational identities. It can account for the regularity or patterning of identity markers (or symbols) across organizations within an organizational field. As well, it offers a dynamic framework on organizational identity construction which explains how organizations may adapt their identities so as to align with sanctioned norms and practices so as to secure legitimacy. I explore how institutionalism expands the current theorization of identity by deepening our understanding of the essence of identity, offering a reconceputalization of organizational identity as a form of institutional bricolage, and by ex-planing how the logic of identity motivates and governs organizational performance. Finally, implications for future research are offered. Identity is a construct that has long been central to institutional theorizing. A halfcentury ago, Selznick (1957) postulated that institutionalization - the infusion of value in organizations - 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 social identities (Scott, 1995: 44) as well as their vitality. And yet, in spite of this acknowledged
Page 2 of 33 The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: Beyond Constraint: How Institutions Enable Identities
SAGE knowledge
relationship, the link between institutional theorizing and organizational identity remains relatively 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 theories offer accounts of the creation and role of meaning in the constitution and practices of organizations. How then can two theories so similar in their focus be so different in their trajectories? [p. 414 ] In the current literature, there is little integration of the two perspectives; worse, they are often depicted as almost antithetical. For instance, institutional theory appears to privilege sameness and isomorphism, while organizational identity theory advantages distinctiveness and polymorphism; and, while institutional theory focuses on the interorganizational level of organizational fields or industries, identity theory tends to be grounded in the organizational level (Pedersen & Dobbin, 2006). And yet, in spite of these obvious differences, there are subtle points of connection that offer opportune sites where institutional-ism can broaden theories of organizational identity. For instance, institutionalism offers a process model of transformational mechanisms that explicate how macro-level, inter-organizational influences situate and shape organizational identities. Moreover, through transformational processes of isomorphic conformity and mimesis, institutionalism offers an account for the regularity or patterning of identity markers (or symbols) across organizations within an organizational field. And, institutionalism offers a dynamic framework on organizational identity construction which explains how organizations may adapt their identities so as to align with sanctioned norms and practices in order to secure legitimacy. Institutionalism can move the study of identity beyond the organizational level of analysis to locate identity in broader frames of meaning that arise from industry, cultural and societal institutions. And, although isomorphic pressures can constrain the choices of elements that organizations use to construct their identities, institutional forces also enable the process of identity construction itself. The institutional environment supplies possible and legitimated meanings and symbols that constitute the raw materials which organizations appropriate to construct their identities. By grafting these institutional
Page 3 of 33
The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism: Beyond Constraint: How Institutions Enable Identities
SAGE knowledge
elements onto their identities, organizations attempt to garner legitimacy which enables resource flows favorable to their enterprises. In this chapter, I initiate an exploration of the linkage between institutions and organizational identity. Because the limiting effects of institutional isomorphism are well recognized, I seek to move beyond this model of constraint to explore an alternative model of how institutions enable organizational identity. Essentially, I propose that institutional-ism enables organizational identity formation by supplying a set of possible legitimate identity elements with which to construct, give meaning to, and legitimize firm identities and symbolization. Even though institutional structures and environments tend to sanction some kinds of meanings and elements over others, they are nonetheless complex and multi-textured in meaning, thereby making some variation in identities possible. Swidler (2001) illustrates the wealth of meanings that are attached to, and legitimated in, a single institution: marriage. Weber and Glynn (2006) extend this reasoning to the employment contract, arguing that sense-making occurs with institutions, not in spite of them. And Pedersen and Dobbin (1997: 432) apply this argument to their discussion of institutions and organizational culture; similarly, they see institutions as having a dual role in the construction of organizational cultures, one that is both constraining and enabling: modern collective actors seek formal isomorphism with other actors to classify themselves and informal distinctiveness to enumerate themselves. Enumeration as integral to this process as was classification the naming of the bright planet Venus to distinguish it from the star Polaris and of Halley's Comet to distinguish it from planets. the method called for naming or numbering particular isomorphic units to the end of identifying and differentiating them for study Enumeration established the empirical cases from which generalizations could be drawn. (434). Pedersen and Dobbin (2006) offer an integration of the competing and contradictory forces that are implicated by institutionalism and identity construction. In their view, conformity occurs at the more macro-level of social classification, resulting in broad similarities and regularities in patterns of organizational identities that, in the aggregate,
SAGE knowledge
[p. 415 ] constitute a classification system for identities. This is apparent, for instance, in organizational naming patterns over time (within historical periods) and in dominant industry naming practices; First Federal Bank is preferred to (and legitimated) rather than Tony's Bank (Glynn & Abzug, 2002; Glynn & Marquis, 2005). And yet, institutions are not perfectly replicated in organizational adoption and practices; variations arise from the slippage that occurs as institutions adapt to local conditions or are interpreted in particular contexts to reflect specific organizational meanings. Within the banking category, for instance, not only is First Federal Bank legitimate, but also Bank of America, Citizens Bank and Sun Trust Bank. Thus, variations arise even from a more standardized set of constitutive rules that define identities. Thus, as Pedersen and Dobbin (2006) might predict, there are broad boundaries that circumscribe the appropriate elements of identities within social categories (such as banking organizations), but enumeration processes within categories that serve to distinguish one bank from another. Thus, organizations construct stylized identities from distinctive institutions in their business, social and cultural environments. In this chapter, I explore how institutions enable organizational identities. I start by reviewing the relevant literature to discover how organizational identity has been conceptualized and opportunities where institutionalism might inform current theorization. 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 in organizations.
Theorizations of Organizational Identity

Although the construct of identity has had a long intellectual history in several different domains of scholarship, inquiry into organizational identity was launched with vigor when Albert and Whetten published their influential Research in Organizational Behavior article in 1985. Their theorization of identity has been quite impactful, receiving nearly 500 citations as of this writing. My search on widely used databases (e.g., ABI Inform; Google Scholar) did not yield any articles on organizational identity in major management or organizational journals prior to this 1985 publication. The first article
SAGE knowledge
of significance to management researchers appeared five years later in the Academy of 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 number of key organizational symbols, processes, and behaviors. Organizational symbols and 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 antithetical aspects 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 organizational aspiration and emulation (e.g., LaBianca et al., 2001), and to be constructed as a storied account of organizational history and biography through language and rhetoric (e.g, Czarniawska & Wolff, 1998; Fiol, 2001, 2002). As well, researchers have also focused on individuals' identification with the organization, which is at least partly construed by their perceptions of the organizational identity, particularly in terms of its distinctiveness 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 identity articulated by Albert and Whetten (1985) persists, reverberating through other studies and models. Albert and Whetten described organizational identity as consisting of three claims: the criterion of claimed central character the criterion of claimed distinctiveness [and] the criterion of claimed temporal continuity (Albert & Whetten, 1985: 265). The dominant approach models organizational identity as a claim-making process that centers on three core attributes: the central, distinctive and enduring character of the organization (Glynn, 2000). Researchers have focused as much on the particular attributes themselves as the processes that underlie them. Moreover, while the attribute-based perspective has commanded the focus of researchers, it does not have consensual affirmation (e.g., Corley et al., 2006). Although the model itself is rarely contested, its three core attributes are, particularly in terms of their degree of centrality, distinctiveness and durability over time (e.g., Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000).
SAGE knowledge
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 of these attributes. In addition, they note the persistence and dominance of the Albert and Whetten (1985) formulation of organizational identity in the literature. To get a more nuanced understanding of current models of organizational identity, and to examine what, if any, linkages to institutionalism are evident, I reviewed the relevant management and organizational literature from 1985 on. I searched for articles whose primary focus was organizational identity using several electronic data bases (e.g., ABI inform, ProQuest, Google scholar, Business Source Complete), as well as my own reading of the literature. I began with work published in 1985 and continued through 2006, identifying relevant publications using keyword searches on organization identity and its variants, e.g., organizational identity or simply identity (checking to see that the latter focused on the level of the organization). This yielded a total of 32 articles, of which roughly one-quarter are empirical. As I read (and re-read) these articles, two distinctive approaches to identity clearly emerged. 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 functions as a strategic resource, being deployed to competitive advantage and functioning as a guide to firm decision-making and strategic choice. I categorized the articles on organizational identity using these two dominant approaches: identity as attributebased and identity as strategic orientation. And, because I was interested in linking organizational identity to institutional theory, I added a third category: an institutional approach to organizational identity. I categorized articles as having an institutional approach when they invoked any institutional elements or explanations (explicitly or implicitly) in accounting for organizational identity, such as ideological fault lines that hybridize identity, status groupings and emulation/mimesis, or roles for the professions and elites in identity dynamics (e.g., a family-oriented firm, a religious organization). More generally, in categorizing work on organizational identity as institutional in approach, I looked for any indications of what Cerulo (1997: 387) describes as a sociological approach. This centers on the social construction of identity such that: every collective becomes a social artifact - an entity molded, refabricated, and
SAGE knowledge
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 antiessentialist, in that it places less emphasis on the unique character or attributes of organizations and more on organizations' constructions of their position in the social order or institutional field. [p. 417 ] The results of my literature review, with lists of the relevant articles, publication dates and their primary approaches, are presented in Table 16.1. Of the 32 published articles I located on organizational identity, three-quarters (24 articles or 75 percent) use an attribute-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 64 percent) also used an essentialist approach. Finally, there was some evidence of an institutional perspective on organizational identity, but it was clearly in the minority; only seven articles (22 percent) explicitly adopted an institutional perspective while another five (16 percent) seemed to use institutional ideas implicitly (indicated by in the Table). Thus, it seems that organizational identity researchers have emphasized an attributebased 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 dominant approach 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. The emphasis on the more individualistic aspects of organizational identity seems to have emerged in spite of explicit theorizing about the relevance of social identity theory to organizations (e.g., Ashforth & Mael, 1989).
Page 8 of 33
SAGE knowledge
With regard to the strategic approach, researchers have theorized organizational identity as an imitable strategic resource that lends competitive advantage (Fiol, 1991). Scholars have shown empirically that organizational identity functions as a filter for interpreting 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 and professional groups' claims to strategic resources (Glynn, 2000), affects strategic response to institutional (regulatory) change (e.g., Fox-Wolfgramm et al., 1998), and is the result of strategic change, such as mergers (e.g., Corley & Gioia, 2005). The strategic approach seems to have found a basis in the notion of identity claim: Ashforth and Mael (1996) explicitly state that claim relates organizational identity to strategy, and Porac, Wade and Pollock's (1999) definition of identity construction as an explicit claim that an organization is of a particular type. Only infrequently has organizational identity been theorized explicitly in terms of the institutional dynamics and environment which embed organizations. This work tends to paint institutional forces in terms of broad strokes (e.g., Glynn, 2000; Czarniawska & Wolff, 1999) that emphasize isomorphic pressures towards conformity and constraint
Page 9 of 33
SAGE knowledge
(Fox-Wolfgramm et al., 1998; Glynn & Abzug, 2002). Less evident are the more enabling aspects of institutionalism in crafting identity (e.g., Lounsbury & Glynn, 2001). The relatively less attention given to institutional theory in the organizational identity literature is ironic, because these two perspectives are intertwined. Several institutionalists recognize this connection. For instance, Pedersen and Dobbin (2006: 897) observe: Formation of identity through uniqueness and construction of legitimacy through 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-socialized view, modeling an active and reflective self that creates, sustains, and changes social structures; he writes Identities are viewed as shared social meanings that persons attribute to themselves in a role (they) are socially produced by actors who locate themselves in social categories and interact with others in terms of these categories; self-meanings that are acquired in specific situations, and symbolically defined and reflexively managed. In the next section, I try to rebuild this connection by offering ideas on 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? - has been answered in the existing literature primarily in terms of an individuated and distinctive constellation of attributes (see Table 16.1). The focus is on naming the central, distinctive and enduring attributes that define the essence of the organization. Organizational identity thus becomes a claim of uniqueness and a point of strategic differentiation from other organizational actors in a field or market. Cerulo (1987), in her review of the literature on the sociology of identity, cogently describes the essentialist approach: natural or essential characteristics [are those] qualities emerging from physiological traits, [p. 419 ] psychological predispositions, regional features, or the properties of structural locations. A collective's members were believed to internalize these qualities, suggesting a unified, singular social experience, a single canvas against which social actors constructed a sense of self (Cerulo, 1997: 386387).
SAGE knowledge
An institutional answer to the identity question (posed above) would not be in terms of an organization's essence but, rather, in terms of an organization's membership in a social category. Identity, according to institutionalists, is a set of claims to a social category, such as an industry grouping, a status ranking or an interest set. And so, an organization 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 other category members) as the basis of identity and institutional alignment with the prevailing constitutive rules that are used to define identity. A number of organizational identity researchers offer some telling glimpses into how institutions - and processes of institutionalization - might surface more fully in the dynamics of identity construction, change, and performance. For instance, Czarniawska and Wolff (1998) contrast the essentialist (psychologically-grounded) approach with more sociological or structuralist approaches. These authors conducted case studies of two universities and concluded that identities (and their successes or failures) are shaped in institutional fields. Their work supports the central tenet of institutional theory, that isomorphism legitimates but allows for limited cases of organizational deviance from 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 that organizational 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 with institutional pressures for change will resist change attempts (Proposition 1) and, in turn, that Evidence of organizational success will be used to reinforce and justify an organization's identity (Proposition 2). In their studies of organizational names, Glynn, with Abzug (1998, 2002) and with Marquis (2004; 2006), showed how key markers of organizational identity (organizational names) are embedded within institutional fields. Additionally, they showed that identity isomorphism legitimates - names that closely resemble the institutionalized template tend to be more comprehensible (Glynn & Abzug, 1998, 2002) - but that external changes in institutional environments can change legitimacy dynamics and, in turn, affect organizational survival (Glynn & Marquis, 2004). In an
SAGE knowledge
extension, Glynn and Marquis (2006) show that isomorphism may not have universal appeal; rather, that individuals have differing preferences for conformity and differ in the extent to which they see institutionally isomorphic names as legitimate. Structural accounts of organizational identity direct attention to the relational, positional and embedded influences that can stem from institutional environments. Here, identity is conceptualized as an actor's position or role within an established set of categories that define an industry, social network or labor market, rather than a set of essential attributes. For instance, Zuckerman, Kim, Ukana, and von Rittmann (2003) define identities in terms of a movie actor's abilities or skills to signal their membership in one particular 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] consist of a we-feeling sustained through interactions among movement participants (p. 796), drove changes in French cuisine over time by [p. 420 ] generating identitydiscrepant cues that led chefs to abandon the old institutional logics and role identities and embrace the new. Thus, from the few studies that do attend to how institutions surface in organizational identity, we can see that they shift the focus and dynamics of theorizing identity. Viewing organizational identity through an institutional lens directs attention to the social meanings and structures that embed organizational identities and induce conformity. This perspective offers a counterpoint to the prevailing theories of identity that tend to characterize it in terms of essential central, distinctive, and enduring attributes (e.g., Albert & Whetten, 1985). A focus on institutional isomorphism is particularly salient for non-instrumental or symbolic aspects of organizations (Oliver, 1991), especially identity (Glynn & Abzug, 1998, 2002; Glynn & Marquis, 2004). And, because it complements the essentialist and strategic approaches to organizational identity, it offers the promise of a more comprehensive approach to organizational identity. For the remainder of this chapter, I focus on three distinct ways in which institutions can enable organizational identity. First, in theorizing identity, institutionalism supplies a complementary explanation to essentialism that is not entirely organization-centric. Rather, institutional suggests that it is the social embeddedness of the individual identity elements that accounts for why these elements matter, when they matter,
SAGE knowledge
how they might develop, evolve and change over time, and how they complement (or conflict with) each other. Thus, institutional theory can deepen dominant theories of organizational identity by illuminating the processes by which organizations construct the essence of their identity, i.e., their central, distinctive, and enduring character (Albert & Whetten, 1985). Second, institutions (and associated institutional meanings and symbols) provide the 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 but combine (and recombine) them in institutionally sanctioned ways so as to introduce variations. Organizations combine similar institutionally-based identity elements in different configurations so as to make their identities distinct from each other within organizational fields but similar enough within a field so as to make their membership claims (to the field) legitimate. Thus, organizational identities function in ways that are similar 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 their enactment or implementation. The institutional elements that organizations appropriate to construct their identities embed not only meanings but also performance scripts, i.e., normative guidelines on organizational appropriateness that inform action and institutional logics that rationalize action. Thus action can be as much a part of identity dynamics as meaning, symbolism and strategizing; this is an important way in which institutions can extend current theorizations of identity, which tend to focus more on meaning and change rather than the action or performance imperatives of identity. I discuss 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 individual elements of organizational identity. Albert and Whetten (1985) treat organizational
SAGE knowledge
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 as an adequate statement of identity (p. 265). I consider each of these three elements in turn.
Identity as Central
The first of the three identity elements, that of claimed central character, describes the very essence of an identity and is used by leaders as a guide for what they should do 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 interorganizational (and perhaps institutional) environment which enrobes the organization. A more explicit statement on central character is made by Brickson (2005) in her model of identity orientation. She describes this as a particular posture towards individualism, relationalism or collectivism; she contends that this attribute will always be one of the characteristics defined as central, distinctive and continuous as an identity element. Note how this typology of identity orientations, with its isms, has ideological roots that position the actor (the self or the organization) both in a social environment and in relation to others. Even the core element of centrality seems to hinge the organizational identity to the inter-organizational or institutional environment. Albert and Whetten (1985) suggest that identity locates organizations in social or institutional space. Their fundamental notion of 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 viability of essentialism in identity construction (Cerulo, 1997); Cerulo (1997) writes of an antiessentialist perspective, which implies institutionalism: Recent treatments of collective identity question the essentialism of collective attributes and images. Anti-essentialist inquiries promote the social construction of identity every collective becomes a social artifact - an entity molded, refabricated, and mobilized in accord with reigning cultural scripts and centers of power. (387)
SAGE knowledge
In a study of identity claim-making during the musicians' strike at the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra, Glynn (2000) showed how the core of organizational identity was contested by the two major professional groups in the orchestra: musicians and administrators. Each advanced claims to a particular identity, each attached to identity a different core ideology, i.e., aestheticism (in musical performance) versus economics (in fiscal responsibility). The study highlights how identity can be a source of mobilization, rather than just a product of it; this differs from the dominant view which tends to model the organization's central character as emerging from its founding, historical trajectory and a shared or collective view of the organization. Hybridization of identity, in complex organizations like a symphony, shows how a single organization may have a multiplicity of claims on its central character. In many ways, then, even the core character of organizational identities implies institutional space and a set of social categories that offer meaningful ways of describing organizations (e.g., as a church or a business, as Albert and Whetten suggest). These categories (or their typifications) are defined by a set of symbolic boundaries that function in the construction of valued identities (Lamont, 1992). Moreover, boundary strength, i.e., only those boundaries firmly grounded in widely shared meaning, prove sufficiently strong to generate hierarchy and confer value to collective identities (Lamont, 1992). Thus, institutionally-based categories can describe cultural repertoires of meaning that organizations can appropriate to address the question of who we are. The response simultaneously characterizes their central character but also classifies them as a member 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.), it nonetheless implicates a set of institutional categories and boundaries from which this character draws meaning. In many ways, then, this seems to have been an underspecified aspect of organizational identity that institutionalism might help to explain.
Page 15 of 33
SAGE knowledge
Identity as Distinctive
Identity distinctiveness and prestige surface in several studies conducted at the individual level of analysis that examine organizational members' perceptions of, and identification with, their organizations. Mael and Ashforth (1992) studied the antecedents of alumni's identification with their organization, a religious college, and found that it was positively influenced by their perceptions of organizational distinctiveness and prestige. They concluded: In general, symbolic management can be directed towards increasing the salience of the institution as an institution, complete with a unique and 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 perceived organizational prestige. Thus, as much as distinction serves to differentiate one organization from another, it also seems to function as a touchstone for individuals' identification with the organization and its identity; for both individuals and organizations, such distinctiveness can enhance perceptions of the self. Organizational identity researchers have examined how identities respond to status rankings, particularly those by external third parties. Elsbach and Kramer (1996) show how business schools can shift the bases of their distinctive character to preserve their prestige and esteem in response to a drop in the Business Week rankings; the distinctiveness that is claimed is relative to a particular category of organizations (e.g., Top 20 Business Week list). Other scholars have shown how identities have a reciprocal relationship with the external image of the organization (e.g., Dutton, Dukerich & Harquail, 1994; Gioia, Schultz & Corley, 2000; Gioia & Corley, 2002), with identities shifting so as to enhance their reputation with important stakeholders. Working at 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 stakeholder acceptability.
Page 16 of 33
SAGE knowledge
Implicit in identity distinctiveness is not only the enhancement of the reputation or image of the organization, but also cues that enable external audiences to perceive the organization as legitimate and appropriate; if organizations are perceived to conform to desirable identity categories, then stakeholders tend to sanction that organization and resource flows are beneficial. The process of identity distinctiveness is the flip side of isomorphism (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 of isomorphism; distinctiveness (or enumeration) occurs within identity categories, as organizations distinguish themselves from other members of the class. However, distinctiveness does not occur in an institutional vacuum; isomorphism not only legitimates but it encourages differentiation and the distinctiveness which can follow. Further, this institutional explanation of identity distinctiveness can illuminate the relationship among the three core identity elements, suggesting a possible hierarchy of distinctiveness embedded within claims of central character.
Identity as Enduring
Of the three identity elements articulated by Albert and Whetten (1985), the claimed temporal continuity or durability of identity has [p. 423 ] perhaps been the most contested by other researchers. Gioia, Schultz and Corley (2000) characterized organizational identity as having adaptive instability, changing in response to othersapos images of the organization. They argue that identity continuity implies flexibility (instability) with regard to a core central character, as external audiences can destabilize identity, causing the organization to reconsider the framing or constitution of its identity. Subsequent work by two of these authors (Corley & Gioia, 2004) examines identity change processes during the strategic change of a corporate spin-off; they find that identity change does occur and that the organizational leadership has to manage that change. Other challenges to the enduring nature of identity arise from Biggart's (1977) study of 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
SAGE knowledge
organization's identity had to be discredited before employees could buy into a new way of approaching their business, thus requiring a changing identity. Similarly, Reger et al. (1994) observed that a fundamental organizational change, such as the implementation of a total quality initiative, required a fundamental change in how the organization thought of itself. Rao, Monin and Durand (2003) demonstrated how identity movements that opposed the old institutional logics were essential to the construction of new role identities. And Hatch and Schultz (2002) proposed a model of organizational identity dynamics that specified processes by which organizational identity emerges from the unending conversations that occur between members of an organizational culture and its many stakeholders. Researchers have challenged Albert and Whetten's (1985) identity element of temporal continuity and have done so by mapping changes that arise from the organization's strategic, industry and institutional environments. However, as much as institutional change may prompt organizational change, it does tend to set the limits on the scope and scale of this change. Pedersen and Dobbin (1997: 436) note that the notion of change and differentiation itself has been institutionalized and so identity change tends to occur within narrowly defined categorical boundaries: Presidents and kings actively distinguished their nation-states from others, but they did so in routine ways. The dimensions of identity were clearly institutionalized. The preceding section illuminated some of the ways in which institutions are implicated in current theories of organizational identity and particularly in each of its core identity elements - central character, distinctiveness and temporal continuity. The construction of the organization's identity also implies the construction of a social actor through a process of categorization (that form the basis of claimed central character), enumeration (that forms the basis of distinctiveness), and isomorphic alignment that legitimates (that forms the basis of continuity and change).
Page 18 of 33
SAGE knowledge
Organizational Identity as a Form of Institutional Bricolage

Although organizations can construct identities that reflect their central and distinctive attributes, they typically do so with components available in their institutional environment, i.e., the industry, organizational field, societal culture and/or the nationstate. For instance, Glynn and Abzug (2002) found that organizations changing their names made choices that aligned them with prevailing institutional practices and templates; Fred's Bank was as unlikely a choice to name an organization's identity as First Federal Pizza. In narrating the identity of their new ventures, Lounsbury and Glynn (2001) found that entrepreneurs employ elements from widespread identity stories as raw material when negotiating their emerging identities. More generally, people can 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) ironically are often composed of common components established within organization fields. Glynn and Abzug (1998; 2002) demonstrated this in their studies of the names that organizations chose to adopt when they changed their name; they examined the explanatory power of an institutional view (predicting symbolic isomorphism) and a strategic view (predicting uniqueness). They found robust effects for institutional predictions. 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 one another at any point in time (p. 901). A similar view is echoed in work describing the uniqueness paradox in organizational stories (e.g., Martin, Feldman, Hatch & Sitkin,
Page 19 of 33
SAGE knowledge
1983); organizations may claim a central and unique narrative, but they tend to be similar (or isomorphic) to other organizations in the very claim that they make. Future research on organizational identity might advance our understanding on the wider models in the institutional field from which organizational identities are constructed. It would be of interest to examine whether organizations draw their identity'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. Some of 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). As Swidler (1986) reminds us, culture serves as a kind of toolkit from which organizations can draw identity elements. Thus, the process of identity construction becomes the process 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 elements and symbols and it is in this way that they can come to resemble each other. Although there may be shared elements, they are nonetheless combined in fairly unique and distinctive ways. In this manner, then, organizations can accommodate both central and distinctive elements by claiming uniqueness but doing so with innovative combinations of institutionalized elements. Moreover, although identities are constructed from shared cultural 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 the distinctive and enduring aspects of identities. When organizations appropriate institutional elements from different - and especially oppositional categories - they can erode the boundaries that compartmentalize these elements and thus blunt distinctiveness. Rao, Moniin and Durand (2005) describe such erosion in the context of nouvelle and classical cuisinesapos boundaries becoming undermined by innovative appropriation. Glynn and Lounsbury (2005) similarly provide an account of such blending processes for the symphony's repertoire in appropriate pieces from both the traditional musical canon as well as more contemporary art forms. Thus, the process
Page 20 of 33
SAGE knowledge
of identity construction comes to resemble a process of institutional bricolage, the elements and processes of which invite closer scrutiny by future identity researchers.
Identity not only as Claims, but Performance

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 with expectations about how actors should perform an identity in specific situations (Eliasoph & Lichterman, 2003). When social identities and frames are put to use in practical performance, 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 identities can certainly guide strategic behavior, they may do more than that; they can ensure organizational 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 and Thomas (1987) define as cultural accounts; logics endow the actors and actions in the field with meaning and legitimacy. Thornton and Ocasio (1999: 804) offer a similar definition, but draw out more explicitly the production of actions consistent with this logic; they define logics as the socially constructed, historical pattern of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their 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 with discipline, which stems from Quixote's identity, his precise sense of himself. Not only
SAGE knowledge
is Quixote aware of the consequences of his actions (which are governed by the logic of consequence), but is also very aware of the demands of his identity, his role in the world. He asks himself: Who am I? What situation am I in? What does a person like me do in a situation like this? Thus, passions are disciplined not by incentives, but by identity. Thus, the logic of identity offers a counterpoint to the logic of consequence that typically dominates organizational thought. Identity, then, can function as kind of institutional logic (Friedland & Alford, 1991) that governs organizational behavior and choice; although it can at times limit choices, it also enables and advances action because identities are performed. They function as a kind of institutional logic, a set of shared rules and typifications that identify categories of social actors and their appropriate activities or relationships (Barley & Tolbert, 1997: 96). Action is implicated and, in the performance of identity, institutions themselves can be transformed. Thus, institutionalists alert us to a relatively unexplored aspect of organizational identity: its performance.
Potential Contributions of Institutional Theory to the Study of Organizational Identity

At first blush, theories of institutions and theories of identity seemed to be almost antithetical. They operate at different levels of analysis and seek different explanations for organizational sameness and differentiation. Institutionalists look for similarities among organizations in a field; organizational identity theorists look for similarities among individuals in an organization. More generally, as Pedersen and Dobbin (2006: 900) observed in their study of institutions and organizational cultures: institutionalists look for interorganizational convergence, isomorphism, and meaning construction through interorganizational paradigm construct; organizational culture researchers look for organizational divergence, polymorphism, and identity construction through collective 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.
Page 22 of 33
SAGE knowledge
A useful approach to relating these two perspectives is that of mechanism-based theorizing; this approach relates variables at one level of analysis to those at a different level of analysis. It suggests a bridge that could be built between institutionalists' emphasis on the inter-organizational environment and identity's emphasis on the intraorganizational environment. As Davis and Marquis (2005: 335) explain: If regressions reveal the relationship (wind a watch and it keeps running), mechanisms pry the back off the watch and show how. The framework of Hedstrom and Swedberg (1998) maps two mechanisms that move across levels of analysis and are relevant to institutions and identity: situational mechanisms, that explain how variables at a macro-level affect those at more microlevels (e.g., effects of regulatory law on employment practices; new market pressures on industries such as education or health care; an organization's layoffs on employee motivation) and transformational mechanisms that explain how micro-level actions or variables alter macro-level patterns at a higher level of analysis (e.g., diffusion of one's organizational HR practices to the field; the activism of social movements that changes civil law or organizational policies on environmentalism). And, although I have focused on situational mechanisms where institutions enable identities, surely transformational mechanisms alter fields by aggregating or leveraging potent organizational-level identities. Institutional theory implies three basic sets of situational mechanisms that operate on organizations: the normative (or value-laden) expectations of institutional fields or industries; cognitive guidance systems that supply abstract structures of meaning; and regulatory or coercive forces that can limit identity choices. (e.g., prescribing the use of terms like Incorporated in a name or trademarking unique organizational logos). In this chapter, I have focused on the first two of these mechanisms: socio-normative and cognitive. And, although institutional mechanisms have been typified as constraints that narrow possibilities for identity construction and choice, I have argued that institutions enable organizational identities in three basic ways: by formulating the essential identity elements (centrality, distinctiveness and durability); by supplying the raw cultural materials that organizations assemble in a process of institutional bricolage to achieve optimal distinctiveness (Brewer, 1993) within institutional fields; and by motivating performance in organizations in a way that is governed by the institutional logics of
Page 23 of 33
SAGE knowledge
identity. In all these processes, I have acknowledged how institutions can induce variations, as well as temper them. More generally, I have tried to show how identity-making processes are shaped both by wider cultural accounts circulating in broader fields of meaning (industry; nation-state) as well as more specific (and perhaps historical) accounts of organizational character that reflect the essential aspects of the firm. Despite the fact that organizations assemble similar institutionalized identity elements, variations are possible because of the transposability (Sewell, 1992), mutuability (Clemens & Cook, 1999), and recombinatory possibilities of institutional scripts (Powell, 1991). Institutions serve up the resources for identity-work in organizations by supplying cognitive templates for both the form (grammar) and content (meanings; symbols) of organizational identities. Further, by sanctioning (or legitimating) some particular identity representations (or symbols) over others, an institutional perspective on identity suggests that some identities may be more potent than others in particular historical periods. Thus, in demonstrating their social fitness, organizational identities can resonate with audiences and develop cultural power, i.e., the capacity of certain works to linger in the mind to enter the canon (Griswold, 1987: 1105). Ironically, cultural power stems [p. 427 ] less from organizational individuation and distinctiveness and more from its institutional situatedness, as Griswold (1987: 1105) explains: A powerful work locates itself within a set of conventions that it strains, plays with, perhaps inverts, but does not totally ignore intrigues or disturbs its recipients without utterly mystifying or frustrating them. In this way, then, institutions can enable not only identity construction but also identity legitimacy and potency. Further, when identities are potent, they persist. Persistence (over time) may arise not only because of organizational strategy or inertia, but because institutional pressures sanction certain types of identity symbols and practices as potent. Identities thus can strike such a resonant chord that they endure in their vibration, becoming almost indestructible. Issues of identity potency and resonance, derived from institutional alignment, raise several intriguing questions for future researchers to pursue. One question again challenges the enduring nature of identity, but focuses less on shortening its lifespan
SAGE knowledge
and more on lengthening it: Is there more continuity in organizational identity than one might expect? Do cultures (or societies or nation-states) have a preference for remembered identities such that they press for persistence, in spite of identity threats? Other questions introduce a more active role for the institutional environment and key institutional actors. We can redirect current leanings towards explaining identity preferences and sanctioning by organizational members. An institutional approach might lead us to a different question: Do cultures (or societies or nation-states) sanction certain types of identities at different points in time? Finally, although the focus of this chapter has been on how institutional theory can inform models of organizational identity, the reverse is also true: organizational identity theories can inform institutionalism. For instance, a widespread critique of neo-institutionalism points to its overemphasis on exogenous models of change (Barley & Tolbert, 1997; Farjoun, 2002). However, when organizational identities are conceptualized as part of a particular institutional field or industry, attention is redirected towards modeling institutions as endogenous, the result of organizational appropriation of shared institutional elements and logic but with a multiplicity of variations. And finally, identity construction can afford a way of introducing agency into institutional accounts of change. By modeling how organizations actively craft identities from available cultural toolkits (Swidler, 1986), combining (or recombining) identity elements to achieve both sameness (with appropriate cultural scripts) and differentiation (from other organizations), theorists introduce aspects of organizational choice, and creative deviation that are institutionally informed but not necessarily mandated. Such a perspective would take the institutionalism of identity beyond a model of constraint to one 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. 263295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Page 25 of 33
SAGE knowledge
Ashforth, B. E. Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization . Academy of Management Review vol. 14 pp. 2039. 1989. Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, 1996. Organizational identity and strategy as a context for the individual . In Baum, J., ed. , & Dutton, J. E. (eds.), Advances in Strategic Management , (Vol. 13 , pp. pp. 1964).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Barley, S. R. Tolbert, P. Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links between action and institution . Organization Studies vol. 18 pp. 93117. 1997. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800106 Bartel, Caroline A. Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects of community outreach on members' organizational identity and identification . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 46 pp. 379414. 2001. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/3094869 Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. 1966. The Social Construction of Knowledge: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge . New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday. Biggart, N. W. The creative-destructive process of organizational change: The case of the post office . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 22 pp. 410426. 1977. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392181 Bhattacharya, C. B. Rao, H. Glynn, M. A. Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members . Journal of Marketing vol. 59 pp. 4657. 1995. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252327 Brewer, M. Social identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity . Social Cognition vol. 11 pp. 150164. 1993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.1993.11.1.150 Brickson, S. L. Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations' relations with stakeholders . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 50 pp. 576609. 2005. Cerulo, K. A. Identity construction: New Issues, new directions . Annual Review of Sociology vol. 23 pp. 385409. 1997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.23.1.385
SAGE knowledge
Clemens, E. S. Cook, J. M. Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining durability and change . Annual Review of Sociology vol. 25 pp. 441466. 1999. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.441 Corley, K. Defined by our strategy or our culture? Hierarchical differences in perceptions of organizational identity and change . Human Relations vol. 57 pp. 1141177. 2004. Corley, K. G. Gioia, D. A. Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spinoff . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 49 pp. 173206. 2004. Corley, K. Harquail, C. V. Pratt, M. G. Glynn, M. A. Fiol, M. Hatch, M. J. Guiding organizational identity through aged adolescence Journal of Management Inquiry vol. 15 pp. 8599. 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492605285930 Czarniawska, B. Wolff, R. Constructing new identities in established organizational fields . International Studies of Management & Organization vol. 28 pp. 3256. 1998. Davis, G. F. Marquis, C. Prospects for organizational theory in the early 21st century: Institutional fields and mechanisms . Organization Science vol. 16 pp. 332343. 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0137 DiMaggio, P. Powell, W. W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields . American Sociological Review vol. 48 pp. 147160. 1983. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095101 Dutton, J. E. Dukerich, J. M. Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation . Academy of Management Journal vol. 34 pp. 517554. 1991. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256405 Dutton, J. E. Dukerich, J. M. Harquail, C. V. Organizational images and member identification . Administrative Science Quarterly pp. 239262. 1994. Eliasoph, N. Lichterman, P. Culture in interaction . American Journal of Sociology vol. 108 pp. 735794. 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/367920
Page 27 of 33
SAGE knowledge
Elsbach, K. Kramer, R. members' responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week Rankings . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 41 pp. 442476. 1996. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393938 Farjoun, M. The dialectics of institutional development in emerging and turbulent fields . Academy of Management Journal vol. 45 pp. 848874. 2002. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069318 Fiol, C. M. Frevisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitive advantage . Journal of Management vol. 27 pp. 691699. 1991. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700606 Fiol, C. M. Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitive advantage . Journal of Management vol. 27 pp. 691699. 2001. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700606 Fiol, C. M. Capitalizing on paradox: The role of language in transforming organizational identities . Organization Science vol. 13 pp. 653666. 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ orsc.13.6.653.502 Fox-Wolfgramm, S. J. Boal, K. B. Hunt, J. G. Organizational adaptation to institutional change: A comparative study of firstorder change in prospector and defender banks . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 43 pp. 87126. 1998. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393592 Friedland, R. & Alford, R. 1991. Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions . In W. W. Powell, ed. & P. J. Dimaggio (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gioia, D. A. Thomas, J. B. Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 41 pp. 370403. 1996. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393936 Gioia, D. Corley, K. Being good versus looking good: business school rankings and the Circean transformation from substance to image . Academy of Management Learning and Education vol. 1 pp. 107121. 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2002.7373729
SAGE knowledge
Gioia, D. Schultz, M. Corley, K. Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability . Academy of Management Review vol. 25 pp. 6381. 2000. Glynn, M. A. When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra . Organization Science vol. 11 no. (3) pp. 285298. 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.3.285.12496 Glynn, M. A. & Abzug, R. A. 1998. Isomorphism and competitive differentiation in the organizational name game . In J. A. C. Baum (ed.). Advances in Strategic Management , Vol. 15 , pp. pp. 105128. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Glynn, M. A. Abzug, R. Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organizational names . Academy of Management Journal vol. 45 pp. 267280. 2002 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069296 Glynn, M. A. Lounsbury, M. From the critics' corner: Logic blending, discursive change and authenticity in a cultural production system Journal of Management Studies vol. 42 pp. 10311055. 2005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00531.x Glynn, M. A. & Marquis, C. 2004. When good names go bad: Organizational Illegitimacy and the Dotcom Collapse . In C. Johnson (ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations , vol. 22 , pp. pp. 147170. 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 individual preferences legitimate organizational names . In A. Rafaeli, ed. , & M. Pratt (eds.), Artifacts and Organizations , pp. pp. 223239. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Golden-Biddle, K. Rao, H. Breaches in the boardroom: Organizational identity and conflicts of commitment in a nonprofit organization . Organizational Science vol. 8 pp. 593611. 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. 10771117. 1987.
Page 29 of 33
SAGE knowledge
Hatch, M. J. Schultz, M. The dynamics of organizational identity . Human Relations vol. 55 pp. 9891018. 2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726702055008181 Hedstrom, Peter and Swedberg Richard. 1998. Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663901 Hsu, G. Hannan, M. Identities, genres and organizational forms . Organizational Science vol. 16 pp. 474490. 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. 312330. 2001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.3.312.10101 Lamont, M. 1992. Money, Morals and Manners . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lounsbury, M. Glynn, M. A. Cultural entrepreneurship: stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources . Strategic Management Journal vol. 22 pp. 545564. 2001 http://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. 117120). Blackwell. Mael, F. Ashforth, B. Alumni and their alma maters: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification . Journal of Organizational Behavior vol. 13 pp. 103123. 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202 Martin, J. Feldman, M. S. Hatch, M. J. Sitkin, S. B. The uniqueness paradox in organizational stories . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 28 pp. 438453. 1983. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392251 Oliver, C. Strategic responses to institutional processes . Academy of Management Review vol. 16 pp. 145179. 1991.
Page 30 of 33
SAGE knowledge
Pedersen, J. S. Dobbin, F. The social invention of collective actors . American Behavioral Scientist . vol. 40 pp. 431444. 1997. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764297040004006 Pedersen, J. S. Dobbin, F. In search of identity and legitimation . American Behavioral Scientist vol. 49 pp. 897907. 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764205284798 Porac, J. Wade, J. Pollock, T. Industry categories and the politics of the comparable firm in CEO compensation . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 44 pp. 112144. 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 organizational identities . Academy of Management Review vol. 25 pp. 1842. 2000. Pratt, M. G. Rafaeli, A. Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered social identities . Academy of Management Journal vol. 40 no. (4) pp. 862898. 1997. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/256951 Pratt, M. Rockmann, K. Kaufmann, J. Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical professionals . Academy of Management Journal vol. 49 pp. 235262. 2006. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.20786060 Rao, H. Davis, G. F. Ward, A. Embeddedness, social identity and mobility: Why firms leave the NASDAQ and join the New York stock exchange . Administrative Science Quarterly vol. 45 pp. 268292. 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667072 Rao, H. Monin, P. Durand, R. Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy . American Journal of Sociology vol. 108 pp. 795843. 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/367917
Page 31 of 33
SAGE knowledge
Ravasi, D. Schultz, M. Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture . Academy of Management Journal vol. 49 pp. 433458. 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 Management Review vol. 19 pp. 565584. 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 of Management Review vol. 25 pp. 4362. 2000. Selznick, P. 1957. Leadership in Administration . Berkeley: University of California Press. Sewell, W. A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation . American Journal of Sociology vol. 98 pp. 130. 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/229967 Swidler, A. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies . American Sociological Review vol. 51 pp. 27386. 1986. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095521 Swidler, A. 2001. Talk of Love: How Culture Matters . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Thornton, P. H. Oscasio, W. Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry . American Journal of Sociology vol. 105 pp. 801844. 1999. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1086/210361 Weber, K. Glynn, M. A. Making sense with Institutions: The role of context in Karl Weick's sensemaking perspective . Organization Studies, Special Issue in Honour of Karl Weick vol. 27 pp. 16391660. 2006.
Page 32 of 33
SAGE knowledge
Westenholz, A. Identity work and meaning arena . American Behavioral Scientist vol. 49 pp. 10151029. 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. 49 pp. 889896. 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764205284796 Zucker, L. G. 1983. Organizations as institutions . S. B. Bacharach (ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations . Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 142. 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. 10181074. 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/377518 10.4135/9781849200387.n17
Page 33 of 33

Beyond Constraint - How Institutions Enable Identities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beyond Constraint - How Institutions Enable Identities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism

Beyond Constraint: How Institutions Enable Identities

New York University Copyright 2013

10.4135/9781849200387.n17 [p. 413 ]

Chapter 16: Beyond Constraint: How Institutions Enable Identities Introduction

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

Theorizations of Organizational Identity

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

Institutions and Identity in Organizations

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

Institutionalizing the Essence of Identity

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

Organizational Identity as a Form of Institutional Bricolage

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

Identity not only as Claims, but Performance

New York University Copyright 2013

Potential Contributions of Institutional Theory to the Study of Organizational Identity

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

New York University Copyright 2013

You might also like