Organizational Identity: An Ambiguous Concept in Practical Terms

Abstract

Albert and Whetten defined organizational identity (OI) as the central, distinctive and enduring characteristics of an organization. Scholars found OI to be a difficult construct to apply to organizations and, over time, they defined it from functionalist, social constructionist, postmodernist and psychodynamic perspectives. All of these perspectives made great theoretical contributions to the field, but they were largely unable to integrate practice and theory in a way that could benefit organizations. Hatch and Schultz's work is exceptional in this regard: they provided a theory that has the promise of practical implications for organizations in regard to organizational continuity. They perceived organizational continuity as existing in the balanced/responsible behavior of an organization's members, among themselves and with key external stakeholders. They provided an effective model in this regard, but they overlooked how individuals' political interests overshadow balanced behavior. Politics that arise as a result of individuals' identity are generally considered to be psychological in origin and link OI to organizational learning (OL) as a co-evolving process. The present research hence operationalizes Hatch and Schultz's model by reference to a Winnicottian framework to understand how OI is socially constructed and psychologically understood in the political interests of the management and employees, among themselves and with key external stakeholders. In doing so it explores the political implications of OI for OL, as perceived in an organization's continuity. The context of the research is the Pakistani police.

The implication of organizational culture for building organizational identity strategy (Case study of PPID Ministry of Finance)

“…Organizational identity theory explains that organizational identity works independently and can be used to see the combined benefits of organizational theory practice (Mujib, 2017). Furthermore, Maier uses corporate communication theory described by Van Riel and Fombrun, which theorizes that organizations without a strong sense of identity striving to develop a coherent brand will be impossible to build and maintain a strong reputation in the long term (Maier, 2016).…”

“…The concept of organizational identity focuses on patterns of meaning and reason among members of an organization that lead to general values that exist in the organization, identification of the organization, and a sense of belonging (Cornelissen, 2014). Organizational identity will depend on the meaning given to it by organizational members, this has made previous researchers understand that organizational identity is seen from a social constructionist perspective (Mujib, 2017;He & Brown, 2013).…”

An Integrated Organisational Culture for Sustainable Environmental Performance in the Nigerian Context

“…A distinctive identity influences and maintains the standard for performance and competitive advantage [76]. However, organisations with a distinctive identity have little or no emphasis on status or hierarchy; this is because employees with high performances are celebrated, and the company accommodates failure for better future performance [77]. Moreover, due to the flexibility to changes of this type of organisation, there is a high tendency for the management to opt for better ways of carrying out their processes, and this is at the detriment of environmental management.…”

Organizational identity: components and construction

“…From this perspective, and according to Alvesson and Willmott (2002), even though the management wants to manage, control, and define employees' and mms' identity, it cannot do it because they are not passive individuals who can be easily molded to a particular oi. It is therefore understood that managing identity control is not necessarily something feasible that is easily achievable; however, oi regulation can be considered a relevant and influential aspect that has not been studied sufficiently and is increasingly important in the organizational field (Deetz, 1992;Gonzales-Miranda, 2016;Knights & Willmott, 1989;Kunda, 1992;Mujib, 2017). This desire to establish a specific oi in the individuals expresses the predominance of a positivist epistemology and a view that articulates and legitimizes the functionalist forms of organizational analysis (Burrel & Morgan, 1979).…”