Not All Identifications Are Created Equal: Exploring Employee Accounts for Workgroup, Organizational, and Professional Identification

Abstract

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.

Looking intra-organizationally for identity cues: Whether perceived organizational support shapes employees’ organizational identification

“…Eisenberger and Stinglhamber (2011) suggested that employees are well aware of and concerned about the care and value their organizations extended to them. In her qualitative study, Vough (2012) found that during the development of organizational identification, employees were sensitive to support (i.e. organization's concern for employees and willingness to act on their interests) in addition to organizational prestige.…”

“…Vough (2012) inferred that employees rely on several sensemaking logics to establish their identification. She proposed that organizational identification stems from organizational ideology, prestige, support (i.e.…”

“…Thus, we encourage future research to examine the relationships among these intra-organizational identity cues and their impacts on organizational identification (e.g. Vough, 2012). George and Chattopadhyay (2005) proposed that social relations within organizations are also important for organizational identification.…”

Paradoxical identity: The changing nature of architectural work and its relation to architects’ identity

“…Data were collected through observations, informal interactions and shadowing (Vough 2012). Observation included meetings with consultants and stakeholders, as well as internal team meetings, participation in site visits, design meetings, presentations and management meetings.…”

Navigating Multiple Identities Across Multiple Boundaries

“…The complexity introduced by a multiple-identity perspective on the identification process is further complicated by activities that organizations engage in to sustain and promote a hybrid identity. Organizational sense-giving activities (Ashforth et al, 2008;Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991;Vough, 2012) promoting one identity over another or designed to integrate or synthesize identities and thus influence an individual's organizational identification create a risk of generating fault lines (Lau & Murnighan, 1998 within the organization or even factions (Li & Hambrick, 2005) that may polarize subgroups within the organization and negatively influence performance outcomes.…”