Organizational learning in action

IAEME PUBLICATION, 2020

This paper highlights the origin of organizational identity. Most studies tackle the issues of identity during organizational change. This paper particularly focuses on the formation of organization identity. A dynamic view of organizational identity is presented in the paper, wherein, the labels of organizational identity could be static but the interpretation of the meaning of organizational identity as a collective negotiated exercise of the stakeholders. Thus, this paper posits the idea that organizational identity as both a sense making and a sense giving process.

British Journal of Management, 2003

Recent papers by Cornelissen (2002a, 2002b) and Gioia, Schultz and Corley (2002a, 2002b) have debated the utility of organizational identity as a metaphor for understanding organizational life. In the present paper we argue that this debate is limiting because it frames issues of organizational identity purely in metaphorical terms and fails to explore the social psychological basis and consequences of the discontinuity between personal and organizational identity. Extending this debate, we argue that the power of organizational identity as a theoretical and applied construct derives from the fact that it has the capacity to be both an externally shared and negotiated product and an internalized aspect of the collective self. Consistent with recent research informed by the social identity approach to organizational psychology, we discuss how an appreciation of the identity-based dynamic between the social facts of organizations and the socially-structured psychology of organizational members is essential for both theoretical and practical understanding of organizational life.

Scandinavian Journal of Management, 2017

Academy of Management Review, 2000

Identity and icJentification are powerful terms. Because they speak to the very definition of an entity-an organization, a group, a personthey have been a subtext of many strategy sessions, organization development initiatives, team-building exercises, and socialization efforts. Identity and identification, in short, are root constructs in organizational phenomena and have been a subtext of many organizational behaviors.

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.

This paper presents the results of a data research on the issue of organizational identity, the aim of which was to explore the current state of the discussion on organizational identity based on the analysis of papers published in 10 of the world's leading organizational and management journals between 2000 and 2011, in order to identify paradigms, subjects, and trends. After a first selection of 5509 papers, 92 articles dealing with the specific issue of organizational identity were classified for analysis. Identity is not only an important perspective of study within the organizational field, but it has also become a relevant reference to bear in mind in order to understand phenomena related to organizations. The concept of identity is not new in the human and social sciences. Philosophy has approached it from different perspectives and in different historical contexts. Identity seems to be the result of a certain line of reasoning that reduces what is real to what is identical, that is, to sacrifice the multiplicity of identity in order to explain it and to use it as a base for any theorization on the human condition. Additionally, during the last century, psychology and psychoanalysis gave identity a crucial role in the study of individual processes, and it became a key element in understanding the development of personality. Anthropology has had to produce a body of theory regarding the issue of social identity. Of course, it is also important to consider the contributions of other disciplines such as sociology, political science, and linguistics. Identity has played an important role in the theorizing of the social and human sciences, which contribute to and have an effect on organizational studies (Corley et al., 2006), the field of knowledge of this paper. Notwithstanding the academic interest the term arouses, its study in the organizational field is relatively recent (Hatch & Schultz, 2004). The conceptualization proposed by Albert and Whetten (1985), who claimed that organizational identity (OI) implied organizational aspects meeting the criteria of centrality, distinctive character, and continuity in time, has given way to new approaches. This influential work has inspired a wave of research and theorizing continuing to the present. Nevertheless, a little more than a quarter of century after its conceptualization, the definition of the term OI is not complete, and the discussion on its scope and proposed models is far from finished. Within the organizational field, definitions have abounded, ranging from the individual level to perceptions of what an organization actually is, based on institutionalist or essentialist perspectives aimed at identifying the features

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2003

In this paper, we build on a longitudinal study of three different attempts at managing identity change within the same organization over a period of 25 years. The purpose of the paper is to develop an interpretative model that investigates how organizations may promote periodic renewal and redefinition of identity claims, while preserving at the same time a sense of continuity. We argue that continuity in organizational identity may rest on collective practices that form the distinctive competencies of the organization, while adaptation takes place as managers periodically select a subset of values, consistent with external expectations and contingent strategic factors. Evidence from our study suggests that selection does not only mirror external perceptions, but is also driven by a reflection on the collective heritage and the distinctive practices of the organization. The emerging framework is underpinned by the argument that the formation and dynamics of organizational identity rest on the interplay between the domains of social cognition and social practice. Most research on organizational identity has been conducted in universities, hospitals or other public organizations: ours is a rare case of research on identity change in a business firm. Potential implications of the nature of the research setting on our results are discussed in the conclusions.

2020

The objective of this research was to understand the identity construction process of the middle managers (MMs) of a Colombian multilatina. From the research question, i.e., what are the components involved in the identity construction process of MMs?, it was established that MMs are those individuals whose level in the organization is below top managers and above first-level supervisors. The theoretical framework used was organizational identity (OI). To this end, literature review focused on the discussion of research works whose epistemological basis considered OI as a process, not as an invariant or static element. The case study used a qualitative approach. Identity construction processes are made up of three categories: recognition, transcendence and security. The research was conducted under the case study method and targeted a relatively new organi­zation that is in an unfinished and immature process of adopting a specific OI. The components explain the process and make it p...

2006

The first paragraph is missing, unfortunately, in the printed version. It has been added, however, to the online version. Here it is: What does it mean to be a community and to be in a community? Can this social phenomenon be analogized to an individual person with her interwoven opinions, wants, and desires? Or is a community a phenomenon sui generis that requires its own methods and tools for research? Concretely: What does it mean that a community may achieve certain acts? And what about the intentional object of such an act, which (following the Husserlian school) has also been referred to as “social act”? These questions raise the methodological ones: how is it even possible to characterize a community, such that it can be said to issue social acts? And how can such an inquiry be carried out, does it require an outside perspective or one from within a community, or can it be done by both?