Individuals need a situated identity, or a clear sense of “who they are” in their local context, to function. Drawing largely on interpretivist research, we describe the process of identity construction in organizations. Organizations set the stage for members to construct their identities through sensebreaking, rendering individuals more receptive to organizational cues conveyed via sensegiving. Individuals utilize sensemaking to construe their situated identity as they progress toward a desired self. Affect (feeling “this is me”), behavior (acting as “me”), and cognition (thinking “this is me”) are each viable and intertwined gateways to a situated identity that resonates with one's desired self and a given context. Individuals formulate identity narratives that link their past and present to a desired future, providing direction. If their identity enactments and narratives receive social validation, individuals feel more assured, fortifying their emergent identities. The result of these dynamics is a visceral understanding of self in the local context, facilitating adjustment.

Despite recognizing the importance of personal identification in organizations, researchers have rarely explored its dynamics. We define personal identification as perceived oneness with another individual, where one defines oneself in terms of the other. While many scholars have found that personal identification is associated with helpful effects, others have found it harmful. To resolve this contradiction, we distinguish between three paths to personal identification-threat-focused, opportunityfocused, and closeness-focused paths-and articulate a model that includes each. We examine the contextual features, how individuals' identities are constructed, and the likely outcomes that follow in the three paths. We conclude with a discussion of how the threat-, opportunity-, and closeness-focused personal identification processes potentially blend, as well as implications for future research and practice.

No abstract

The social sciences, including management, are at a crossroads. Globally, scholars are increasingly pressured to publish in top journals, compelling editorial boards to recruit more individuals-including those with less experience-to meet the demand. Furthermore, the validity of the social sciences is under scrutiny in light of ethical violations, article retractions, and calls for more relevant research. At the epicenter of this conundrum lie journal editors, those who adjudicate the quality and potential of submitted research. With these issues as backdrop, we report an inductive study of how journal editors come to understand the notion of theoretical contribution. Working with a data set of editorial decision letters and interviews with editors at two top management journals, we provide critical insight into how new editors, despite not yet having the requisite experience or knowledge to make expert judgments, experience being labeled experts by their scholarly community-a phenomenon we label "novice experts." We find that the process of making sense of theoretical contribution differs for novice experts than for those with more experience. Given the rise in less experienced editors, our data suggest that now is the time to rethink the hows and whys of knowledge dissemination at the heart of our profession.Sometimes I noticed that I sent off a letter, and my immediate reaction is, "Oh, thank goodness, phew, that was a really tough letter to write; it has been weighing on me for several days. So glad to get that off." And then within about 30 minutes after I got my celebratory coffee or something, I'm thinking, "Oh, God, did I make the right choice? Was that the right thing?" (New editor at a top management journal) 4Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder's express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. 2017 5 Corley and Schinoff 2017 7 Corley and Schinoff 8 February Academy of Management Perspectives

No abstract