No abstract

For better or worse, contemporary society places immense value on achievement and performance. What are the consequences of this emphasis on (if not obsession with) performance for people’s sense of self, and relatedly, their mental health and well-being? We develop a theoretical lens for exploring such questions by introducing the concept of performance-based identity—a form of identity that we propose arises when performance (at work or in another setting) becomes personally meaningful to the extent that it acts as a basis for self-definition. We argue that many individuals are likely to develop performance-based identities in a world where performance is increasingly emphasized as important, and where other identities (e.g. those derived from particular groups, organizations, and cultures) are being destabilized by fundamental shifts in the nature of work and society. We explain the similarities and differences between performance-based identity and related constructs, present a theoretical account of how people construct performance-based identities, and discuss how acknowledging and studying performance-based identities could yield valuable new insights into how people experience their work and life in general.

There has long been a dominant logic in the international business literature that multinational corporations should adapt business practices to “fit” host cultures. Business practices that are congruent with local cultural norms have been advocated as effective and desirable, while practices that are incongruent have been deemed problematic. We examine and challenge this persistent assumption by reviewing the literature showing evidence for both benefits and acceptance of countercultural practices (i.e., practices that are seemingly incongruent with local cultural norms or values), and disadvantages and rejection of local practices. Drawing on the literature reviewed, we offer four types of theoretical (ontological, epistemological, causal, and functional) explanations as to why and when countercultural business practices might be preferred. Finally, we provide a springboard for a future research agenda on countercultural practices, centered around understanding the circumstances under which businesses and local stakeholders might benefit from the use of countercultural practices based on such factors as strategic intent, local preferences, institutional drivers, and social responsibility.

No abstract

For decades, scholars in organizational and social psychology have distinguished between two types of identity: social and personal. To what extent, though, is this dichotomy useful for understanding identities and their dynamics, and might a different approach facilitate deeper insight? Such are the guiding questions of this article. I begin by reviewing framings of the social/personal identity dichotomy in organizational psychology, and tracing its origins and evolution in social psychology. I then evaluate the strengths and limitations of this dichotomy as a tool for understanding identities. In an attempt to retain the dichotomy’s strengths and overcome its limitations, I present a modified conceptualization of the social and personal dimensions of identity, one that defines these dimensions based on psychological experience (not identity content), and treats them as two independent continua (not two levels of a dichotomy, or opposing ends of a continuum) that any given identity varies along across contexts. Plain language summary A single person can identify with lots of different aspects of their life: their family, community, job, and hobbies, to name but a few. In the same way it helps to group different items in a shop into sections, it can be helpful to group the different identities available to people into categories. And for a long time, this is what researchers have done: calling certain identities “social identities” if based on things like race and culture, and “personal identities” if based on things like traits and habits. In this paper, I explain that for various reasons, this might not be the most accurate way of mapping identities. Instead of categorizing them based on where they come from, I suggest it’s more helpful to focus on how identities actually make people feel, and how these feelings change from one moment to the next. I also point out that many identities can make someone feel like a unique person and part of a broader group at the same time. For this reason, it’s best to think of the “social” and “personal” parts of an identity not as opposites—but simply different aspects of the same thing.