IN
DEGREE PROJECT INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT,
SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS ,
STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2020
The Locked-In Identity?
A case study of the management of multiple
organizational identities in a dependent partner
organization
SOFIA ALM
KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
The!Locked*In!Identity?
!
!
by!
!
Sofia!Alm!
!
!
!
! Master!of!Science!Thesis!TRITA*ITM*EX!2020:266! KTH!Industrial!Engineering!and!Management! Industrial!Management! SE*100!44!STOCKHOLM!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Den!Instängda!Identiteten?!
!
!
!
!
Sofia!Alm!
!
!
!
! Examensarbete!TRITA*ITM*EX!2020:266! KTH!Industriell!teknik!och!management! Industriell!ekonomi!och!organisation! SE*100!44!STOCKHOLM!! ! ! ! Master!of!Science!Thesis TRITA3ITM3EX!2020:266! ! The!Locked3In!Identity?! ! ! ! ! ! Sofia!Alm! Approved! 2020*06*02! Examiner! Anna!Wahl! Supervisor! Johann!Packendorff! ! Commissioner! ! Contact!person! ! ! Abstract! For!decades’!researchers!as!well!as!business!managers!have!deliberated!on!the!matter!of!what! constitutes!an!organization’s!core!and!identity.!This!paper!investigates!the!management!of! multiple!identities!in!a!dependent!partner!organization,!defined!as!an!organization)with) products)or)services)dependent)on,)and/or)with)a)business)derived)from,)a)mother) organization’s)products)or)services.!For!managers,!managing!organizational!identity!in! organizations!with!an!increasing!part!of!their!business!value!dependent!on!partnering!with! another!organization,!this!becomes!a!question!of!managing!multiple!identities.!As!an!aid!for! managers!in!determining!the!relevant!managerial!response,!Pratt!and!Foreman!developed!a! framework!classifying!four!different!responses,!presented!in!an!article!in!the!year!2000.! However,!in!limiting!the!scope!of!their!research!to!not!include!an!organization’s!perception!of! the!identity!of!the!external!network!in!which!it!resides,!the!framework!is!not!sufficient!for! managers!of!a!dependent!partner!organization.!!! ! The!current!research!has!analyzed!and!further!developed!how!the!managerial!response! framework!for!multiple!identities!could!be!used!in!such!a!dependent!partner!organizational! setting.!The!perception!of!how!a!mother!organization!is!reflected!in!a!dependent!partner! organization!identity!is!investigated!through!interviews!in!a!single!case!study!at!a!specific!type! of!dependent!partner!organization,!namely!a!dealer!organization.!The!analysis!of!the!data!was! deductive,!based!on!the!theoretical!construct!of!organizational!identity,!and!followed!a! theoretical!thematic!analysis!methodology.!! ! The!findings!from!the!research!reveal!how!different!perceptions!of!the!mother!organization!is! reflected!in!every!criterion!of!the!dependent!partner’s!organizational!identities.!Also,!results! show!how!these!organizations!are!high!in!synergy,!as!the!mother!organization!creates!a! standard!frame!of!reference!for!all!units!of!the!dependent!partner.!The!results!further!develop! the!managerial!framework!by!Pratt!and!Foreman!for!such!an!organizational!setting!by! suggesting!two!responses!from!the!framework!as!particularly!suitable.!For!managers!of!a! dependent!partner!organization!the!risk!of!the!high!presence!of!the!mother!organization!in!the! own!organizational!identity!is!also!coupled!with!decreased!member!identification.!To!manage! this,!it!is!suggested!to!engage!in!internal!employee!education!and!activities.!Furthermore,!an! increased!focus!on!fostering!a!strong!leadership,!capable!of!consciously!managing!the!constant! construction!of!organizational!identity!in!the!blurred!lines!between!the!partner!and!the!mother! organization,!is!needed.!Due!to!the!positioning!of!organizational!identity!as!constructed!in!the! interaction!between!two!parts,!social!constructionism!is!further!suggested!to!be!an!appropriate! epistemological!view!when!studying!the!dependent!partner!organization.!! Key3words: organizational!identity,!multiple!organizational!identities,!management!of!multiple! organizational!identities,!dependent!partner!organizations,!member!identification
! ! ! ! Examensarbete!TRITA3ITM3EX!2020:266! ! Den!Instängda!Identiteten?!! ! ! ! ! ! Sofia!Alm! Godkänt! 2020*06*02! Examinator! Anna!Wahl! Handledare! Johann!Packendorff! ! Uppdragsgivare! ! Kontaktperson! ! ! Sammanfattning! I!årtionden!har!akademiker!och!chefer!brottats!med!frågan!om!vad!som!är!en!organisations! kärna!och!identitet.!Denna!uppsats!undersöker!hanteringen!av!multipla!identiteter!i!en!beroende! partnerorganisation,!här!definierad!som!en)organisation)vars)produkter)eller)tjänster)är) beroende)av,)och/eller)sprunget)från,)en)moderorganisations)produkter)eller)tjänster.) Hanteringen!av!en!organisations!identitet!är!en!del!av!chefers!huvudsakliga!syfte!och!i! organisationer!där!grundaffären!alltmer!beror!av!en!partnerorganisation!blir!detta!en!fråga!om! att!hantera!multipla!identiteter.!Pratt!och!Foreman!presenterade!i!en!artikel!år!2000!ett!ramverk! för!chefer!som!klassificerar!fyra!olika!responser!i!hanteringen!av!multipla!identiteter.!Studien!är! dock!avgränsad!till!att!inte!innefatta!organisationers!uppfattning!om!identiteten!av!det!externa! nätverk!inom!vilken!organisation!är!en!del,!i!den!egna!organisatoriska!identiteten.!Denna! avgränsning!gör!ramverket!otillräckligt!för!chefers!bedömning!av!hanteringen!av!multipla! identiteter!i!beroende!partnerorganisationer.!!!! ! Den!nuvarande!studien!har!analyserat!och!vidareutvecklat!ramverket!för!hantering!av!multipla! identiteter!utifrån!den!beroende!partnerorganisationens!position.!Hur!moderorganisationen! uppfattas!och!reflekteras!i!den!beroende!partnerorganisationens!identitet!har!undersökts!genom! intervjuer!i!en!enfallsstudie!hos!en!specifik!typ!av!beroende!partnerorganisation,!nämligen!en! återförsäljare.!Analysen!av!data!har!varit!deduktiv,!baserad!på!teorin!om!vad!som!utgör!en! organisatorisk!identitet,!och!har!följt!en!teoretisk!tematisk!analysmetod.!!! ! Resultaten!från!studien!visar!hur!uppfattningar!om!moderorganisationen!reflekteras!i!varje! kriterium!av!den!beroende!partnerorganisationens!identitet!och!hur!dessa!typer!av! organisationer!har!möjlighet!till!höga!synergieffekter,!som!en!följd!av!att!moderorganisationen! skapar!en!gemensam!grund!att!stå!på.!Resultaten!leder!till!en!vidareutveckling!av!Pratt!och! Foremans!ramverk!för!hanteringen!av!multipla!identiteter!genom!att!föreslå!två!av!responserna! som!mer!anpassade!för!den!specifika!organisationstypen.!För!chefer!i!en!beroende! partnerorganisation!är!risken!med!den!starka!närvaron!av!moderorganisationen!i!den!egna! identiteten!att!medlemsidentifieringen!minskar.!För!att!hantera!detta!föreslås!att!bygga!upp!en! intern!utbildning!samt!uppmuntra!interna!aktiviteter.!Det!föreslås!också!att!fokusera!på!att!fostra! ett!starkt!ledarskap!som!är!kapabelt!till!att!medvetet!hantera!den!konstanta!konstruktionen!av! den!egna!organisatoriska!identiteten!i!gråzonen!mellan!moderorganisationen!och!den!beroende! partnerorganisationen.!Vidare!är!också!socialkonstruktionismen!identifierad!att!vara!en!lämplig! epistemologisk!ståndpunkt!vid!studien!av!en!beroende!partnerorganisation,!givet!att!den! organisatoriska!identiteten!konstrueras!i!relation!till!en!annan!part.! Nyckelord: organisatorisk!identitet,!multipla!organisatoriska!identiteter,!hanteringen!multipla! organisatoriska!identiteter,!beroende!partnerorganisationer,!medlemsidentifiering!!
Table&of&Content&&
1.&Introduction&...&1! 1.1!Background&...&1! 1.2&Problem&Statement&...&2! 1.3&Purpose&&&Research&Questions&...&3! 1.4&Contribution&...&3! 1.5&Disposition&of&Report&...&4! 2.&The&Concept&of&Organizational&Identity&...&6! 2.1&Organization&as&an&Identity&Base&...&6! 2.2&Ontological&Views&within&the&Field&of&Organizational&Identity&...&7! 2.3&Epistemological&Views&within&the&Field&of&Organizational&Identity&...&8! 2.4&The&Three&Criteria&of&Organizational&Identity&...&10! 2.5&Organizational&Identity,&Image&and/or&Culture?&...&13! 3.&Approaching&an&Organization's&Identity&...&15! 3.1&Who&is&“The&Righteous&One”?&...&15! 3.2&Organizational&Identity&Through&Direction,&Time&and&Space&...&16! 3.3&The&Dependent&Partner&Organization&...&18! 4.&Multiple&Identities&...&21! 4.1&Defining&Multiple&Identities&...&21! 4.2&Managing&Multiple&Identities&Y&The&Theoretical&Framework&...&23! 5.&Methodology&...&27! 5.1&The&Origins&of&the&Research&...&27! 5.2&Research&Design&...&28! 5.3&Data&Collection&...&29! 5.4&Data&Analysis&...&32! 5.5&Research&Quality&...&33! 6.&The&Case&Organization&...&37! 6.1&A&Brief&Background&...&37! 6.2&The&Creation&of&the&Case&Organization&Group&Function&...&37! 7.&Findings&and&Analysis&...&39! 7.1&An&Organizational&Identity&Reflecting&the&Mother&Organization&...&39! 7.2&Partner&Organizations&Y&High&Synergy&Organizations&...&45!8.&Discussion&...&47! 8.1&Adapting&the&Framework&...&47! 8.2&Approaching&a&Dependent&Partner&Organization’s&Identity&...&50! 8.3&Strengthening&the&Member&Identification&...&52! 8.4&Organizational&Identity&and&Image&...&54! 8.5&Social&Actor&Vs&Social&Constructionism&...&55! 9.&Conclusion&...&58! 9.1&Returning&to&the&Research&Purpose&and&Contributions&...&58! 9.2&Limitations&of&The&Research&...&59! 9.3&Suggestions&for&Further&Research&...&60! References&...&61! Appendix&I&Interview&Guide&...&69! & & &
&
Acknowledgements&
! Firstly,&I&would&like&to&thank&my&supervisors&at&the&case&organization&for&welcoming& me&back&to&conduct&my&master&thesis&this&spring,&for&supporting&me&as&well&as& providing&me&with&valuable&knowledge&and&broadening&my&perspective&throughout& this&entire&process.&Also,&I&am&very&grateful&for&all&the&informants&in&the&study&who& took&of&their&time&to&participate&in&the&interviews,&contributing&by&sharing&their& perception&of&their&organization&with&me.& I&want&to&direct&a&huge&thank&you&to&my&supervisor&Johann&Packendorff&at&KTH&for& listening&to&my&thoughts&and&reflections,&challenging&and&guiding&me&in&this&process& with&encouragement&and&competence.& Furthermore,&I&would&like&to&direct&a&big&thank&you&to&my&family&for&their&love&and& support&as&well&as&feedYback&and&proofreading.&Given&the&special&situation&with& Corona&during&this&period,&the&entire&thesis&was&conducted&and&written&from&home.& Due&to&this&I&would&like&to&direct&a&special&thank&you&to&my&husband&Jacob,&who&made& that&possible&by&taking&the&vast&majority&of&the&daycare&issues&and&dinner&and& bedtime&struggles&with&our&daughter,&thank&you!& & Sofia&Alm& & Stockholm,&June&2020! &1.&Introduction&&
In#this#chapter#the#setting#for#this#research#is#presented.#The#scope#of#the#project#with# the#guiding#purpose#and#research#questions#as#well#as#the#contributions#are#outlined.# Finalizing#the#chapter#is#a#section#describing#the#disposition#of#the#report.##1.1& Background&&
“When#the#world#becomes#global,#a#very#strong#identity#is#the#allA encompassing#goal#—#what#we#call#the#company#DNA”# YCEO&Bang&&&Olufsen&(Ravasi&and&Schultz,&2006,&p.&120).& & As&expressed&above,&the&company&DNA,&what&constitutes&the&core&of&an& organization,&has&long&been&a&source&for&discussion&and&reflection.&In&academia&the& concept&of&organizational&identity&has,&since&its&breakthrough&in&1985&(Albert&&& Whetten,&1985),&risen&to&become&a&highly&significant&and&widely&researched&concept& in&organizational&and&management&theory&(Pratt,&Schultz,&Ashforth&&&Ravasi,&2016).& Within&the&corporate&environment,&organizational&identity,&or&the&less&theoretical& question&of&“who&we&are”,&is&at&the&core&of&the&management’s&purpose&(Haslam,& Postmes&&&Ellemers,&2003i&Pratt&&&Foreman,&2000).&Studies&have&shown&how&poorly& managed&organizational&identity&can&cause&inertia&and&resistance&to&vital&strategic& changes&(Bouchikhi&&&Kimberly,&2003i&Ashforth&&&Mael,&1996i&Pratt&&&Kraatz,&2009i& Corley&&&Gioia,&2004),&cause&difficulties&in&motivation&and&engagement&of&employees& (Ashforth&&&Mael,&1996i&Corley&&&Gioia,&2004)&and&affect&the&organization's&overall& performance&(Voss,&Cable&&&Voss,&2006i&Pratt&&&Corley,&2007).&On&the&other&hand,&a& wellYmanaged&identity&can&create&a&flexible&organization&able&to&manage&multiple& stakeholders&(Pratt&&&Foreman,&2000i&Brickson,&2005),&be&used&in&riskYmitigation& (Fumasoli,&Pinheiro&&&Stensaker,&2015),&for&optimizing&organizational&solutions& (Brunninge,&2005)&and&increasing&employee&identification&(Voss&et&al.,&2006i&Ashforth& &&Mael,&1996).&Discussions&on&the&essence&of&an&organization,&in&terms&of&specific& characteristics&and&distinguishing&features,&were&prevalent&long&before&1985& (Brunninge,&2005).&However,&the&dominant&definition&of&the&concept&“Organizational& Identity”,&as&used&today,&was&presented&in&a&seminal&paper&1985&by&Stuart&Albert&and& David&Whetten.&The&original&definition&revolves&around&what&is¢ral,&distinctive&and& continuous&in&an&organization&(Albert&&&Whetten,&1985).& & Modern&organizations&face&a&highly&complex&environment&(Brickson,&2005)&and&it&is& rather&the&rule&than&the&exception&that&organizations&find&themselves&positioned&in&the& nexus&of&being&local&and&global&(Pratt&&&Kraatz,&2009i&Salzer,&1994),&having&to&be& socially&responsible&and&highly&profitable&(Brickson,&2005),&with&an&even&more& extended&list&of&demands,&and&at×,&conflicting&commitments.&In&such&an& environment,&can&there&really&exist&only&one&organizational&identity?&Already&in&the&seminal&paper&by&Albert&and&Whetten&(1985)&the&existence&of&multiple&perceptions&of& identity&was&acknowledged&and&today&this&is&a&coherent&perception&within&the&field&of& organizational&identity&(Brunninge,&2005i&Pratt&&&Foreman,&2000i&Pratt,&2016).&The& plurality&of&identities&facilitates&for&organizations&to&meet&the&expectations&and& demands&of&various&stakeholders&(Brickson,&2005i&Pratt&&&Foreman,&2000i&Pratt,& 2016).&The&impacts,&both&positive&and&negative,&of&organizational&identity&implies&that&& how&to&manage&these&multiple&identities&is&a&key&challenge&for&a&management&team& (Pratt&&&Corley,&2007i&Pratt&&&Kraatz,&2009i&Hsu&&&Elsbach,&2013).& & A&type&of&organization,&in&which&managing&multiple&identities&becomes&apparent,&is& the&dependent&partner&organization,&defined&here&as&organizations*with*products* or*services*dependent*on,*and/or*with*a*business*derived*from,*a*mother* organization’s*products*or*services.&A&specific&type&of&dependent&partner& organization&is&the&independent&dealer&organization&who&is&described&as&both& independent&and&autonomous&yet&at&the&same&time&subordinate&and&highly& dependent&on&a&manufacturer&(Rideway,&1957).&Rideway&(1957)&describe&the&two& organizations&as&having&independent&identities&yet&being&part&of&one&system&where& the&manufacturer&is&the&primary&actor&in&the&system.&A&similar&situation&where&multiple& organizations&comprise&one&unit,&where&multiple&identities&are&intertwined,&is&through& the&strategic&group&identity,&as&defined&by&Peteraf&&&Shanley&(1997).&The&strategic& group&identity&is&described&as&a&substructure&in&an&industry&and&could&comprise&of& competing&businesses&yet&with&similarities&and&relational&ties&through&which&the& members&identify&with&the&group&and&align&activities.&A&specific&resemblance&to&the& power&structure&of&the&manufacturerYdealer&system&lies&in&the&existence&of&a&highY status&organization&in&the&strategic&group,&who&alone&will&set&the&primary&direction&for& the&identity&of&the&entire&group&(Peteraf&&&Shanley,&1997).&&
1.2&Problem&Statement&&
Organizations&residing&in&an&extensive&network&of&relationships&(Brickson,&2005)&are& increasingly&relying&on&partners&for&building&their&business&value&(Hagel&&&Brown,& 2005).&Research&on&organizational&identity&in&partner&relationships,&with&and&between& nonprofit&or&public§or&organizations&exists&(Berger,&Cunningham&&&Drumwright,& 2006i&Tomlinson,&2008),&however&lacking&the&perspective&of&revenue&driven&business& organizations.&Furthermore,&even&within&the&available&research,&management&of& identity&in&the&boundary&between&partners&is&claimed&to&be&a&research&area&which& needs&to&be&further&investigated&(Berger,&Cunningham&&&Drumwright,&2006).&Another& possible&stream&of&literature&within&organizational&identity&discussing&multiple&identity& management&in&the&interYrelationship&between&organizations,&is&that&of&mergers&&& acquisitions.&However,&there&is&an&inherent&aspect&of&integration&in&this&growth& strategy,&where&the&organizations&are&to&be&merged.&The&management&then&focuses& on&managing&an&integrated&identity&which&is¬&necessarily&the&case&with&a&partner& organization,&who&resides&in&the&intersection&between&autonomous&yet&dependent.& With&this&said,&there&is&a&trend&within&growth&and&expansion&of&rather&managing&acquired&organizations&as&partners,&retaining&their&individual&identity,&than&to&integrate& them&(Kale,&Singh&&&Raman,&2009).&The&research&by&Peteraf&and&Shanley&(1997)&on& the&cognitive&strategic&group&identity&with&highYstatus&organizations,&provides&valuable& insights&and¶llel&learnings&in&understanding&the&dependent&partner&organization& situation.&However,&the&research&does¬&focus&on&managerial&aspects&nor&is&the& cognitive&strategic&group&identity&the&same&matter&as&the&single&dependent&partner& organizations&identity.&& & Pratt&and&Foreman’s&(2000)&framework&for&classifying&managerial&responses&to& multiple&identities&is&a&valuable&starting&point.&The&framework&defines&four&responses& depending&on&number&of&identities&and&synergies&between&them.&Pratt&and&Foreman& acknowledge&the&impact&of&external&stakeholders&on&an&organizations&identity&and& mention&externally&embodied&identities&and&how&these&can&be&a&potential&cost&when& managing&multiple&identities.&They&even&describe&it&as&a&CatchY22&situation&which&can& paralyze&the&development&of&a&company.&& However,&in&delimiting&the&scope&of&the&research,&Pratt&and&Foreman&(2000)&do¬& include&multiple&identities&stemming&from&different&perceptions&of&the&network&in&which& the&organization&belongs,&such&as&a&strategic&group.&For&a&dependent&partner& organization,&the&dependency&to&the&mother&organization,&the&understanding&of&the& external&network&and&relationship,&is&presumably&an&important&aspect&of&who&the& organization&is.&Multiple&perceptions&of&the&mother&organization&could&reflect&back&on& the&own&identity&thus&impact&the&management&of&this.&Adding&the&organizational& setting&of&the&dependent&organization&could&shed&light&on&how&the&framework&could& be&adapted&to&include&organizational&identities&impacted&by&the&perceived&relationship& to&an&external&stakeholder.&&&
1.3&Purpose&&&Research&Questions&
The&purpose&of&the&thesis&is&to&investigate&the&phenomena&of&managing&multiple& identities&in&a&dependent&partner&business&organization.&The&objective&is&to&analyze& and&further&develop&how&the&managerial&response&framework&for&multiple&identities& could&be&used&in&such&a&dependent&partner&organizational&setting.&The&purpose&is& operationalized&by&answering&the&following&research&questionsi& & RQ1:&How&is&the&mother&organization&reflected&in&the&dependent&partner& organization’s&identity?&& & RQ2:&How&can&a&framework&of&managerial&responses&to&multiple&identities&be& adapted&to&the&dependent&partner&organizational&setting?&&1.4&Contribution&&
The&contribution&of&this&research&is&twofold,&both&theoretical&and&practical.&The& theoretical&contribution&lies&in&suggesting&two&propositions&specific&for&dependent&partner&organizations,&which&are&used&to&further&develop&the&framework&by&Pratt&&& Foreman&(2000)&on&managerial&responses.&The&specific&organizational&setting&and&its& implication&for&multiple&organizational&identity&management&is,&to&the&authors& knowledge,&so&far&scarcely&studied.&The&results&of&the&study&also&add&to&the&larger& discussion&of&the&organizational&identity&construct.&The&practical&contribution&comes& from&the&implications&of&what&the&dependency&to&the&mother&organization&entails&for& the&management&of&the&partner&organization&identity.&This&is&a&practical&contribution& as&this&business&model&and&type&of&organization&is&increasingly&common&(Hagel&&& Brown,&2005)&and&managerial&suggestions&within&this&is&therefore&relevant.&&
1.5&Disposition&of&Report&&
The&thesis&will&fulfill&its&purpose&as&followsi& & ●& Chapter&1&is&an&introductory&chapter&to&create&an&overview&of&the&research& space&and&thus&provide&an&argument&for&the&relevance&of&the&thesis&and& provide&the&purpose&of&the&research.& ●& Chapter&2&and&3&serve&as&a&theoretical&background&to&give&the&reader&a&more& profound&understanding&for&the&prevailing&definitions&and&discussions&found& within&the&field&of&organizational&identity.&Emphasis&in&Chapter&2&is&on&the& definitions&and&discussions&around&such,&as&well&as&providing&an& understanding&for&different&phenomenological&views&on&the&subject&and&is&used& in&the&analysis&of&the&empirical&data.&Chapter&3&instead&presents&different& dimensions&of&approaching&an&understanding&of&an&organization's&identity,& included&in&the&report&as&the&interview&guide&was&inspired&by&these&theories.&& ●& Chapter&4&introduces&a&discussion&on&how&to&make&sense&of&multiple&identities,& as&well&as&presenting&the&theoretical&framework,&the&managerial&response& framework&by&Pratt&&&Foreman,&which&is&developed&using&the&propositions& derived&from&the&analysis&of&the&empirical&data.& ●& Chapter&5&outlines&the&research&design&of&the&study&in&more&detail&and& provides&legitimacy&to&the&analysis&of&the&empirical&data&as&well&as&presenting& a§ion&on&research&quality.&& ●& Chapter&6&is&aimed&at&supporting&the&understanding&of&the&findings&in&chapter&7& and&functions&as&a&description&of&the&case&organization&which&contextualizes& the&findings&and&the&resulting&themes&and&propositions.&& ●& Chapter&7&is&the&presentation&of&the&themes&from&the&interviews,&which&being&a& qualitative&case&study&will&be&done&integrated&with&the&analysis&of&the&results& and&answers&to&RQ1.&The&themes&then&create&the&basis&for&the&two& propositions&used&in&the&discussion&on&how&to&adjust&the&framework&in&the& following&chapter.& ●& The&discussion&in&chapter&8&presents&a&suggestion&on&how&the&framework&can& be&developed,&thus&responding&to&RQ2.&Furthermore,&the&definition&of& organizational&identity&in&a&partner&organization&is&discussed&in&relation&to&other& aspects&from&the&theoretical&background.&●& Chapter&9&then&concludes&the&findings&and&ends&with&a&discussion&on&further&
2.&The&Concept&of&Organizational&Identity&&&
This#chapter#presents#the#construct#‘organizational#identity’#as#well#as#the#most# prevalent#phenomenological#views#in#the#field.#These#are#needed#to#understand#the# perspective#of#the#current#paper,#based#on#a#social#constructionism#view,#as#this# impacts#the#final#analysis#of#the#empirical#data#and#the#development#of#the# framework.##2.1&Organization&as&an&Identity&Base&
The&concept&of&identity&is&a&fundamental&part&of&philosophy,&psychology&and&social& science&(Pratt&et&al,&2016)&with&a&long&history,&an&ancient&phenomenon&(Puusa,&2006).& Identity&can&be&studied&differently&depending&on&the&choice&of&identity&base&and& theoretical&background,&with&many&different&influences&found&in&the&field&of& organizational&identity&(Ravasi&&&Van&Rekom,&2003).&The&original&definition&from&the& seminal&paper&of&Albert&and&Whetten&(1985)&was&derived&from&psychology&and& personal&identity&theories&(Ravasi&&&Van&Rekom,&2003i&Albert&&&Whetten,&1985).& Here&the&individual&is&the&identityYbase,&and&is&the&understanding&of&the&self&that& causes&a&recognizable&difference&to&others&(Brickson,&2005i&Albert&&&Whetten,&1985i& Erikson,&1968).&Given&this&base&there&is&a&focus&on&the&individual&knowledge& structures&(Ravasi&&&Van&Rekom,&2003).&Another&theoretical&background&is&that&of& Social&identity&theory&where&individuals&categorize&themselves&as&members&of&groups& (Brunninge,&2005i&Cornelissen,&2006),&changing&the&base&to&a&collective&level& (Brunninge,&2005i&Ashforth,&2016).&This&theory&is&based&on&the&existence&of&groups& offering&a&sensation&of&having&a&distinctive&frame&of&reference&from&other&groups,& changing&the&focus&from&the&‘I’&to&‘us’&(Tajfel&&&Turner,&1985i&Cornelissen,&2006i& Brunninge,&2005),&from&““I#think”#to#“We#Think””&(Ashforth,&2016,&p.82).&The&focus&in& this&theory&is&the&individual’s&membership&in&the&group,&the&collective,&and&the& member&identification&(Ravasi&&&Van&Rekom,&2003).&Identity&theory,&Symbolic& constructionism&(Ravasi&&&Van&Rekom,&2003)&or&Social&learning&theory&(Peteraf&&& Shanley,&1997)&instead&looks&at&the&creation&of&identity&in&relationship&and& comparison&to,&as&well&as&learning&from,&others&(Ravasi&&&Van&Rekom,&2003i&Pratt&&& Kraatz,&2009i&Brickson,&2005i&Peteraf&&&Shanley,&1997).&The&different&relationships& imply&different&demands&creating&many&roles&which&are&brought&forward&depending&on& commitments&and&expectations&of&others&for&that&role&(Pratt&&&Kraatz,&2009).&& & The&terminology&“organizational&identity”&is&derived&from&Albert&and&Whetten,& although&similarities&are¬ed&with&concepts&created&prior&to&that,&such&as&Selznick´s& “organizational&character”&(Albert&and&Whetten,&1985i&Brunninge,&2005,&Pratt&et&al,& 2016).&Also&after&Albert&and&Whetten,&other&terms&have&been&created,&drawing&on& their&definition&yet&with&slight&changes,&such&as&Brunninge´s&(2005)&“Organizational& selfYunderstanding”.&Using&the&term&“self”&is&also&something&Pratt&and&Kraatz&(2009)& do&in&their&attempt&to&develop&the&study&of&organizational&identity&with&the&metaphor&of& an&organizational&self,&which&in&turn&embraces&many&identities.&Yet&the&most&commonly&used&definition&and&term&referred&to&within&this&subject&is&that&of&Albert&and& Whetten&(Ravasi&&&Van&Rekom,&2003i&Brunninge,&2005).&Organizational&identity&is& then&what&answers&the&question&of&“who&are&we”&as&an&organization&and&meets&all&of& the&following&criteria:& & 1.&The&answer&points&to&features&that&are&somehow&seen&as&the&essence&of&the& organization:&the&criterion&of&claimed¢ral&character.& 2.&The&answer&points&to&features&that&distinguish&the&organization&from&others& with&which&it&may&be&compared:&the&criterion&of&claimed&distinctiveness.& 3.&The&answer&points&to&features&that&exhibit&some°ree&of&sameness&or& continuity&over&time:&the&criterion&of&claimed&temporal&continuity.! & (Albert&and&Whetten,1985,&p.265)& & The&definition&has&its&theoretical&background&in&psychology&and&the&individual&identityY base&and&when&translating&this&to&an&organizational&base&it&describes&an&organization& as&an&individual&actor,&a&self.&However,&since&an&organization&is&based&on&a&collective& of&individuals,&social&identity&could&also&be&used&as&a&theoretical&foundation.&This&is&a& choice&of&perspective&and&depends&on&the&epistemological&view&of&the&holder&of&the& definition&(Cornelissen,&Haslam&&&Balmer,&2007).&Hence&in&order&to&study& organizational&identity&theory&the&different&phenomenological&views&must&be& considered.&To&discuss&the&main&views&within&the&field,&the&academic&journal&by&He&&& Brown&(2013),&the&book&chapter&by&Gioia&&&Hamilton&(2016)&as&well&as&the& dissertation&by&Brunninge&(2005)&will&form&the&point&of&departure&for&the&theoretical& frame&of&reference.&&
2.2&Ontological&Views&within&the&Field&of&Organizational&Identity&&
The&ontology&speaks&of&the&nature&of&what&is&being&researched.&Within&organizational& identity&the&distinction&mainly&lies&in&the&view&of&organizational&identity&as&either&“an& entity&or&a&process”,&or&described&as&“a&noun&or&a&verb”.&The&difference&mainly&lies&in& the&contradiction,&static&versus&dynamic,&or&put&in&other&frequently&used&terms,&“fixed& or&fluid”&(Gioia&&&Hamilton,&2016).&In&a&paper&from&Gioia&et&al&(2000)&the& organizational&identity&criterion&“enduring”,&or&continuous,&is&questioned.&The&authors& question&the&static&nonYmovement&embedded&in&the&term&enduring&and&rather&argues& for&the&impact&of&image&over&time&to&create&a&certain°ree&of&change.&Hence&giving& organizational&identity&an&unstable&nature&and&a&certain&fluidity&defined&as&“adaptive& instability”&(Gioia&et&al.,&2000).&Once&creating&his&own&definition,&organizational&selfY understanding,&also&Brunninge&argues&for&a&dynamic&concept&having&to&cope&with&the& simultaneous&existence&of&stability&and&change&(Brunninge,&2005),&being&in&a&context& inseparable&from&both&the&past,&present&and&the&future.&This&in&accordance&with& Ashforth&and&Mael&(1996)&who&discuss&continuity&as&a&“bedrock&quality”,&a&stable& foundation&with&depth&and&breadth&yet¬&uniformly&smooth&over&time.&Brunninge& (2005)&also&states&that&most&empirical&research&shows&identity&as&relatively&stable&over&time&which&limits&the°ree&of&instability&in&the&dynamic&concept.&This&limited& degree&of&change&is&also&shared&by&Ashforth&and&Mael&(1996)&who&claim&change&is& inevitable,&yet&should&rather&be&done&incrementally&than&radically.&If&the&identity&in&fact& changes&with&organizational&change&the&original&question&by&Albert&&&Whetten&shifts& from&focusing&on&“being”&to&“becoming”&(Ravasi&&&Van&Rekom,&2003),&which&is&in& accordance&with&Ashforth&and&Mael’s&idea&of&organizational&identity&(1996).&Yet&this& also&raises&the&question,&as&stated&by&Ravasi&&&van&Rekom&(2003,&p.127)#“Is# everything#changing#or#is#there#something#that#is#not#changing#in#a#transition?#Is#it#not# that#identity#is#that#which#does#NOT#change,#even#during#a#transition”?#&
2.3&Epistemological&Views&within&the&Field&of&Organizational&
Identity&&
The&concept&of&identity&is&a&subject&of&much&depth&and&complexity&(Albert,&Ashforth&&& Dutton,&2000)&and&the&field&of&organizational&identity&has&been&studied&based&on& many&different&theoretical&backgrounds&(Ravasi&&&Van&Rekom,&2003)&such&asi&social& identity&theory&(Ashforth&&&Mael,&1996),&symbolic&interactionism&and&identity&theory& (Dutton&&&Dukerich,&1991i&Gioia&et&al.,&2000)&and&shared&mental&models&(Pratt,& 2003).&Pratt&et&al&(2016)&talk&about&the&issue&as&a&nexus&concept&“linking&together”& different&theories&spanning&a&large&area&such&as&power&and&politics,&culture,&strategy,& decisionYmaking&and&leadership.&However,&so&many&adaption&possibilities&have& created&a&sense&of&uncertainty&to&what&the&concept&really&entails&(Pratt,&2003i&He&&& Brown,&2013i&Brunninge,&2005i&Puusa,&2006)&and&if&it&is&even&an&applicable&concept& in&reality&(Mujib,&2017).&Yet&Albert,&Ashforth&and&Dutton&discuss&evident&differences&in& the&use&of&the&concept&as¬&necessarily&being&negative,&but&simply&“serving#different# purposes”&and&to&be&understood&as&part&of&an&evolving#“creative#process”&(2000,& p.15).&Understanding&epistemology&can&be&a&way&in&overcoming&the&difficulties&with& the&many&uses&and&explanations&of&organizational&identity,&as&it&is&the&foundation&for& understanding&how&knowledge&is&created.&&2.3.1&Social&constructionism&Y&Organizational&identity&constructed&in&the&
social&interaction&with&others&
All&three&sources&mention&social&constructionism,&although&He&and&Brown&(2013)& name&it&Interpretivism,&as&a&possible&epistemological&view.&This&perspective&entails& organizational&identity&is&in&the&“eye#of#the#beholder”&(Brunninge,&2005,&p.17)&where&a& focus&therefore&must&be&on&how&such&identity&has&been&constructed.&He&and&Brown& (2013)&therefore&differentiate&between&social&constructionism&as&a&summation&of& views&or&as&one&collective&view,&something&which&is&also&mentioned&by&Gioia&&& Hamilton&(2016).&This&constructionist&approach&is&interested&in&claims&of&identity& rather&than&an&accurate&“one”&truth&as&there&is&no&independent&benchmark&(Kenny,& Whittle&&&Willmott,&2016)&given&all&existing&claims&are&created&subjectively&by& someone&(Brunnige,&2005).&This&then&raises&the&question&of&the&impact&of&power,& politics&and&different&interests&have&on&the&claims&and&subjective&reasoning&(Kenny,&Whittle&&&Willmott,&2016).&Considering&a&partner&organization,&where&the&power&is& tilted&towards&one&part&(Rideway,&1957i&Tomlinson,&2008),&Kenny,&Whittle&and& Wilmott’s&(2016)&reasoning&implies&there&might&be&an&external&impact&on&the&identity& construction&of&the&dependent&partner&organization.&This&also&connects&to&the& discussion&on&who&has&the&right&to&define&an&organization's&identity&(Kenny,&Whittle&&& Willmott,&2016i&Brunninge,&2005).&Kenny,&Whittle&&&Willmott&(2016)&raises&a&critique& towards&constructionist&views&in&organizational&identity&research&to&have&too&“thingY like”&and&robust&definitions&hence&more&resembling&the&social&actor&view.&There&is&a& need&to&be&openYminded&and&interpretationYsensitive&creating&discursive&based& identities&in&the&constructionist&view&(Kenny,&Whittle&&&Willmott,&2016).&&
2.3.2&Social&actor&Y&Organizational&identity&as&an&objective&fact&
Brunninge&(2006)&and&He&and&Brown&(2013)&discuss&the&functionalist&view,&claimed&to& be&the&most&common&viewpoint&in&the&field.&This&is&comparable&to&the&view&of& organizational&identity&as&a&social&actor&(Gioia&&&Hamilton,&2016).&This&means& organizational&identity&is,&in&terms&of&functionalism,&an&objective&fact,&a&reality&with& “construct&validity”&(Whetten,&2006).&Descriptions&of&the&social&actor&is&found&in& consistently&communicated&claims,&internally&and&externally.&The&identity&is&that&of&an& own&entity&with&its&own&rightful&place&in&the&social&space.&A&clear&difference&however,& between&He&and&Brown’s&(2013)&description&and&Gioia&and&Hamilton’s&(2016)&is&in&the& existence&of&tangible&features.&The&former&speaks&about&“often&tangible”&facts&whilst& the&latter&states&that&most&authors&understand&organizational&identity&as¬&being& able&to&have&any&”tangible”&features.&The&social&actor/functionalist&view&and&the&social& constructionism/interpretivist&view&are&those&mentioned&by&all&three&sources&who&in& turn&have&studied&many&public&research&articles.&Apart&from&these&both&He&and&Brown& (2013)&and&Brunninge&(2005)&discuss&postmodernism,&although&the&former&does&this& in&the&same§ion&as&discussing&other&nonYstandard&viewpoints&while&the&latter& treats&this&as&a&separate&topic.&&2.3.3&Postmodernism&Y&Organizational&identity&as&linguistics&
The&postYmodernist&does&what&the&name&reveals,&it&questions&the&previous& understandings&of&what&organizational&identity&is.&He&&&Brown&(2013)&discuss&the& notion&of&postmodern&organizational&identity&to&be&understood&through&subtler& linguistics&whilst&Brunninge&(2005)&describes&this&viewpoint&as&questioning&whether& there&can&even&exist&a&concept&such&as&organizational&identity.&This&questioning&of& the&concept’s&existence&is&also&described&as&a&viewpoint&by&He&&&Brown&(2013)&but& with&a&new&frame,&more&suited&within&the&psychodynamic&perspective.&This&rather& supports&identity&in&the&unconscious&processes&thus&questioning&the&realism&of& organizational&identity.&When&taken&to&its&extreme&however,&this&resembles&the& description&of&Brunninge&(2005),&in&questioning&the&organizational&identity’s&very& existence.&An&additional&perspective&discussed&by&Gioia&and&Hamilton&(2016)&is&that& of&the&institutional&view.&Here&the&organizational&identity&is&viewed&upon&in&the&light&of& similarity&to&its&institutional&context&rather&than&distinctiveness&as&the&social&actor,&thus&incorporating&more&of&the&external&perspective.&However,&focusing&on&the&similarity&in& the&institutional&context&is&in&one&sense&in&direct&contradiction&to&the&defining&attribute& “distinctiveness”,&being&part&of&the&original&definition&of&organizational&identity.&&
2.4&The&Three&Criteria&of&Organizational&Identity&
The&three&criteria&of&Albert&and&Whetten&are&based&on&a&view&of&organizational&identity& as&a&social&actor&with&its&own&unique&and&distinguished&social&space&(Whetten,&2006i& Schultz,&2016).&Although&being&widely&adopted,&the&criteria&and&the&concept&have& been&questioned®arding&the&strength&of&the&proclaimed&defined&construct&with&the& argument&of&being&inconsistently&treated&(Whetten,&2006i&Brunninge,&2005i& Cornelissen&et&al.,&2007).&As&a&response&to&this&Whetten&wrote&a&paper&with&the& objective&to&clarify&the&concept&in&2006&(Whetten,&2006).&This&by&creating&a&framework& for&classifying&what&claims&could&actually&be&considered&organizational&claims,& creating&a&unique&social&space,&and&which¬.&& & & &Table!1.!Enhanced!Definition!of!the!Organizational!Identity!Construct!(Whetten,! 2006,!p.222)! &
2.4.1&Criteria:&Centrality&
The&criterion&of¢rality&speaks&of&a&core&feature,&implying&a&hierarchical&order& amongst&the&possible&characteristics&(Ashforth&&&Mael,&1996).&Although&the&criterion& is&mentioned&as&a&separate&criterion&in&the&original&definition&(Albert&&&Whetten,& 1985),&it&is&treated&together&with&continuity,&and&expressed&as&enduring,&in&the& construct&validity&table&in&the&paper&from&2006&(Whetten,&2006i&Araci,&2019),&see& Table&1.&Here&they&are&referred&to&as&an&altogether&structural&dimension&describing& “...that#organizations#are#best#known#by#their#deepest#commitments—what#they# repeatedly#commit#to#be,#through#time#and#across#circumstances.”&(Whetten,&2006,&p.&224).&This&assumes&the&existence&of&a&shared&set&of¢ral&features&of&an& organization&which&are&then&to&be&considered&to&form&the&identity.&Alvesson&and& Robertsson&(2016)&start&by&questioning&this&existence&arguing&that&this&might&be&more& ambiguous&in&real&life&and&the&reason&for&researchers&finding&such¢ral&claims&lies& in&their&own&wish&to&do&so.&Also&the&authors&argue&for¢rality&claims&to&simply&be& descriptions&of&the&organization&and&thus&questioning&the&necessity&of&speaking&of&an& organization's&“identity”.&Also&Gioia,&Patvardhan,&Hamilton&&&Corley&(2013)&speak&of& the&difficulty&in&distinguishing&which&claims&of&an&organization&is&in&fact¢ral.&This&is& a&dilemma&discussed&already&in&the&seminal&paper&by&Albert&and&Whetten&(1985)& through&the&analogy&of&individuals&identifying&themselves&with&different&“core”&features& depending&on&recipient&and&context.&However,&in&an&attempt&to&meet&this&challenge& Albert&and&Whetten&speak&of&the&crucial¢ral&claims&to&be&the&“focus#of#important# decisionAmaking#activities”&as&an&indication&for&where&to&find&and&distinguish&the& central&claims&from&general&claims&(Albert&&&Whetten,&1985,&p.&267).&&
2.4.2&Criteria:&Enduring&
The&criterion&enduring&is&the&term&used&in&the&revised&construct&definition&by&Whetten& (2006)&although&Whetten&also&claims&the&former,&continuity,&and&enduring&can&be& used&interchangeably&(Whetten,&2006).&However,&Gioia&et&al.&(2000)&argue&against& the&interchangeable&usage&of&the&terms,&pointing&to&the&difference&in&the&former& shifting&slightly&in&meaning&over&time&whereas&the&latter&remains&unchanged.&They& instead&introduce&a&new&term,&“adaptive&instability”,&to&express&how&an&organizational& identity&can&be&characterized&to&manage&partial&changes&in&meaning&of&identity&claims& without&losing&its&essence.&Whereas&Albert&and&Whetten&(1985)&treat&anything&which& is&in&fact&lost&during&change&as¬&being&part&of&the&identity,&leaving&identity&to&be&the& claims&which&persists&change&(Schultz,&2016).&Ashforth&and&Mael&(1996)&speaks&of& identity&being&unable&to&stay&uniform&over&time,&instead&changing&following&deepened& insights&yet&describing&a&sustained&core,&a&“bedrock&quality”.&The&stable&versus& changing&aspect&of&identity&has&been&an&ongoing&discussion&(Whetten&&&Foreman,& 2016i&Schultz&&&Hernes,&2013)&involving&many&researchers.&Salzer&(1994)&questions& the&static&tone&of&continuity,&as&does&Hatch&and&Schultz&(2002),&Ravasi&&&Schultz& (2006)&and&Dutton&and&Dukerich&(1991)&discussing&identity&as&an&ongoing&process.&A& process&of&construction&interacting&dynamically&with&other&aspects&such&as&image&and& culture.&Furthermore,&Schultz&and&Hernes&(2013)&uses&a&temporal&perspective&placing& identity&in&a&constantly&moving&present&time,&always&in&relation&to&the&past&and&the& present,&thus&advocating&for&an&ongoing&construction&of&identity.&2.4.3&Criteria:&Distinctiveness&
Distinctiveness&is&about&knowing&the&boundaries&and&legitimizing&the&organization's& existence&(Ashforth&&&Mael,&1996i&Albert&&&Whetten,&1985).&Whetten&(2006,&p.221)& further&describes&this&as&distinguishing&the#“unique#social#space”.&However,& highlighting&distinctive&features&is&questioned&by&Oertel&and&Thommes&(2018)&who’s& study&rather&suggests&that&depending&on&context&certain&business&clusters&rather&gain&from&highlighting&similarities.&Once&again&Gioia&et&al.&(2013)&discuss&how&distinctive& characteristics&are&rarely&seen&meaning&the&criterion&of&distinctiveness&is&rather& understudied.&Also&Martin&et&al&(1983)&questions&the&existence&of&“uniqueness”&in& organizations&by&rather&implying&that&the&foundation&of&all&identity&claims&and&stories& are&essentially&based&on&the&same&content,&simply&twisted&differently&to&fit&the& organization.&&
2.5&Organizational&Identity,&Image&and/or&Culture?&&
There&is&no&coherent&view&on&how&to&distinguish&between&what&can&be&considered& identity&versus&culture&and&image.&However,&in&an&attempt&to&grasp&the&differences,& the&external&and&internal&perspective&is&commonly&used&(Ravasi,&2016),&also&depth&in& terms&of&what&is&the&foundation&of&what&(Gioia&et&al,&2013i&Ashforth&&&Mael,&1996)&as& well&as&scope&(Brunninge,&2005).&Image&is&considered&to&be&an&external&view&of&the& organization&whilst&organizational&identity&only&concerns&the&internal&view&when& considering&“who&one&is”&(Whetten,&2006i&Gioia&et&al.,&2000i&Brown,&Dacin,&Pratt&&& Whetten,&2006,&Salzer,&1994i&Hatch&and&Schultz,&2002).&This&is&used&as&a&common& way&to&distinguish&between&corporate&identity&and&organizational&identity.&Where& corporate&identity&includes&that&of&the&communicated&image&in&the&eyes&of&external& stakeholders&whilst&organizational&identity&only&entails&the&internal&selfYunderstanding& (Brunninge,&2005i&Ravasi&&&Philips,&2011i&Brown&et&al.,&2006i&Ravasi,&2016).& Although&Cornelissen&et&al.&(2007)&use&a&different&distinction&where&organizational& identity&is&viewed&upon&as&the&identity&within&a&department&in&a&corporation&and& corporate&identity,&the&identity&of&the&entire&corporation.&Yet&the&more&common& distinction&is&whether&the&external&perspective&through&image&is&included&or¬.& Although&the&theoretical&difference&can&be&formulated&in&such&a&way,&identity&and& image&are¬&clear&separate&concepts&in&real&life&and&they&rather&have&a&reciprocal& relationship&(Gioia,&et&al,&2000i&Salzer,&1994i&Hatch&&&Schultz,&2002).&The&marketing& functions&and&use&of&branding&consultants&show&the&close&connection,&where&“the# projection#of#one's#identity#to#external#audiences#is#a#management#of#impressions”# (Salzer,&1994,&p.&4).&Also,&reflecting&identity&in&the&external&environment&is&needed&to& confirm&the&identity,&and&it&is&this&confirmation&(or&the&opposite)&which&creates&an& intertwined&relationship&(Hannan,&2005i&Salzer,&1994i&Gioia&et&al.,&2000i&Dutton&&& Dukerich,&1991).&Salzer&(1994)&even&mentions&the&mirroring&of&identity&and&action&as& one&of&the&three&processes&in&understanding&and&constructing&an&organizational& identity.&& & The&“who”&in&the&question&of&“who&are&we”&instead&of&“what”&gives&a&sense&of&life,&of& having&a&“spirit”&(Gioia&&&Hamilton,&2016)&which&is&supported&by&Ashforth&and&Mael,& using&the&term&“soul”&(1996).&However,&Salzer&(1994,&p.8)&contrasts&this&view&by& claiming&an&organization#“do#not#have#souls,#brains#or#spirits”#based&on&her& metaphorical&approach&to&studying&the&subject.&The&discussion&however&does&bring& up&the&question&of&what&the&difference&is&between&the&concept&of&organizational& culture&and&organizational&identity.&There&exist&many&definitions&on&the&difference&between&the&two&concepts&(Brunninge,&2005)&and&when&comparing&to&the&original& definition&of&OI,&Whetten&(2006)&claims&that&organizational&culture&can&be&part&of&the& identity&if&it&is¢ral,&distinctive&and&enduring.&If¬,&it&is&simply&a&characteristic&of&the& organization&yet&without&fully&answering&the&question&of&“who&we&are”&(Brunninge,& 2005i&Ashforth&and&Mael,&1996).&& & In&contrast&to&this,&Alvesson&and&Robertsson&(2016)&argue&in&their&critical&paper&on& organizational&identity&that&organizational&identity&could&be&reYlabeling,&a&more& fashionable&way&of&researching,&what&is&in&fact&organizational&culture.&If&the&study&of& organizational&identity&is¬&to&define&measurable&characteristics&of&what&is¢ral,& distinctive&and&enduring,&but&rather&the&deeper&meaning&behind,&they&argue&that& organizational&culture&is&in&fact&what&is&studied.&Returning&to&the&use&of&external&and& internal&views,&Hatch&and&Schultz&(2002)&claim&culture&is&the&content&of&the&internal& perspective&of&organizational&identity.&This&is&based&on&Meads&individualYidentity& theory&of&the&‘me’&and&the&‘I’.&Where&the&‘me’&is&created&with&the&reciprocal& relationship&between&image&and&identity&and&the&‘I’&is&created&through&the&reciprocal& relationship&between&culture&and&identity.&Corley&(2004)&instead&distinguishes&identity& and&culture&by&connecting&the&former&to&the&strategicYhighYlevelYdirection&of&the& company&and&the&latter&to&the&internal&everyday&lived&operational&company&life.&In& terms&of&hierarchy&that&implies&the&former&is&a&matter&for&management&and&the&latter& for&employees.&Brunninge&(2005)&emphasizes&that&both&organizational&identity&and& culture&are&based&on&cognitive&schemes&and&describes&how&the&difference&is&rather&in& their&scope.&This&is&similar&to&Gioia&et&al.&(2013)&who&mean&they&are&both&cognitive& schemes&yet&that&identity&is&rather&the&foundation&of&the&culture,&thus&going&deeper,&to& the&roots,&than&culture.&Supporting&this&hierarchy&between&the&two&is&Ashforth&and& Mael&(1996,&p.&20)&who&claim&that&different&from&culture#“...identity#goes#to#the#core#of# what#something#is,#what#fundamentally#defines#that#entity.”.&Also&Dutton&and&Penner& (1993)&believe&the&culture&is&built&from&identity&attributes,&thus&making&the&identity&the& foundation.&& & Alvesson&and&Robertsson&(2016)&contrasts&this&thinking&and&points&towards&the& different&prevalent&research&methodologies&between&the&two&subjects&as&an&indication& of&culture&being&at&the&core&of&the&organization.&Research&on&organizational&identity&is& described&as&conducted&on&a&more&superficial&level,&through&interviews&and&textY based&analysis,&whereas&organizational&culture&is&studied&through&inYdepth&field&work& and&participation,&revealing&a&deeper&meaning&(Alvesson&and&Robertsson,&2016).& Brunninge&(2005)&adds&a&different&perspective&by&arguing&that&the&two&subjects&are& not&comparable&in&such&a&way&as&they&do¬&have&the&same&purpose&and&scope.&The& difference&being&that&identity&is&selfYreferential&whilst&the&culture&can&deal&with&a& broader&array&of&issue&such&as&customer&preferences&(Brunninge,&2005).&Ravasi& (2016,&p.74)&sums&up&the&interplay&between&identity,&culture&and&image&as&a&“result#of# the#interaction#between#the#destabilizing#influence#of#external#images#(Gioia#et#al.,# 2000)#and#the#stabilizing#influence#of#culture#(Ravasi#and#Schultz,#2006)”.&&
