Understanding how, why, and when individuals create particular self-meanings has preoccupied scholars for decades, leading to an explosion of research on identity work. We conducted a wide-ranging review of this literature with the aim of presenting an overarching framework that comprehensively summarizes and integrates the vast amount of recent research in this domain. Drawing on our analysis of the empirical literature, we present an enhanced conceptual understanding of identity work.We then summarize the four dominant theoretical approaches researchers have used to explain how, when, and why individuals engage in identity work. This side-by-side comparison of these theoretical perspectives allows us to parse out the unique contribution of each theoretical lens and highlights how these theories can be integrated into a holistic view of an inherently multifaceted concept. Lastly, we critically analyze the state of the field and lay a detailed roadmap for future researchers to draw from to expand our current understanding of how individuals work on their identities in occupations and organizations.

To understand how people cultivate and sustain authenticity in multiple, often shifting, work roles, we analyze qualitative data gathered over five years from a sample of 48 plural careerists-people who choose to simultaneously hold and identify with multiple jobs. We find that people with multiple work identities struggle with being, feeling, and seeming authentic both to their contextualized work roles and to their broader work selves. Further, practices developed to cope with these struggles change over time, suggesting a two-phase emergent process of authentication in which people first synchronize their individual work role identities and then progress toward harmonizing a more general work self. This study challenges the notion that consistency is the core of authenticity, demonstrating that for people with multiple valued identities, authenticity is not about being true to one identity across time and contexts, but instead involves creating and holding cognitive and social space for several true versions of oneself that may change over time. It suggests that authentication is the emergent, socially constructed process of both determining who one is and helping others see who one is.

Work interruptions are ubiquitous in today’s workplaces as a result of the proliferation of technology and a growing emphasis on collaboration and open workspaces. Although a large body of research on interruptions has accumulated over the last two decades, this research is scattered across disciplines with little integration. While this fragmentation indicates the complex nature of interruptions, it has also led to inconsistencies in how interruptions are defined and studied. Such differences reduce generalizability of results, lead to conflicting findings, and hinder knowledge development. We present here an integrative review of prior research on work interruptions based on an analysis of 247 publications. As part of the review, we examine prior definitions of interruption and advance a new integrative definition that can anchor a range of future research. We also discuss and summarize the assumptions and implications of the different investigative approaches used to study interruptions. An awareness of these approaches can help scholars better align their theory and investigative approach to adequately capture constructs/relationships of interest. We then synthesize theory and research, across disciplines, to present a process-based model that comprehensively captures our current understanding of how, when, and why work interruptions affect employees in different ways. Lastly, we highlight several avenues in need of more research attention and provide recommendations on how to advance the work interruption literature ahead meaningfully. Our review can act as an important reference for scholars new to interruption research, as well as for established interruption researchers looking to move their research in new directions.

Scholars are increasingly interested in understanding the content and process of employee identification. In this paper, I contribute to this discussion by performing a qualitative case study investigating the accounts employees provide as they make sense of their identification with their workgroup, organization, and profession. Analyses of accounts from 31 members of an architecture firm reveal nine explanations individuals use to make sense of their identifications, which can be categorized using four sensemaking logics: similarity, familiarity, benefits, and investment. The explanations that informants provided differed markedly across targets. Whereas individuals relied heavily on personal relationships, and that their work actually happens in their workgroup in their accounts of workgroup identification, organizational identification was often explained based on the ideology of the organization, the support provided by the organization, the prestige of the organization, and the input the individual had into the organization. In further contrast, accounts of professional identification rested on explanations based in professional archetypes, the enjoyment informants found in their work, and professional norms about the work/life interface. These findings suggest that individuals may construct their identifications differently across targets. I theorize that these patterns are a function of target proximity and the characteristics that distinguish between targets. These findings open up the black box of identification by providing insight into how individuals interpret information about workplace targets. In doing so, the findings illustrate how sensemaking about identification is the result of firsthand experiences with a target in addition to sensegiving.