chreim_2000_the evolution of organizational identity_a discursive study

8/3/2019 Chreim_2000_The Evolution of Organizational Identity_a Discursive Study

1/196

cole des Hautes tudes Commerciales

The Evolution of Organizational Identity:A Discursive Study

par

Samia Chreim

Service de la direction et gestion des organisations

Thse prsente lcole des Hautes tudes Commercialesen vue de lobtention du grade de

Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D) en Administration

Juin, 2000

Samia Chreim, 2000


2/196

ii

Identification du jury

Prsident-rapporteur : Alain Chanlatcole des HEC

Prsident du Comitde surveillance : Jean-Marie Toulouse

cole des HEC

Membre du jury : Nicole GirouxUniversit de Montral

Examinateur externe : Karen Golden-BiddleUniversity of Alberta


3/196

iii

Rsum

La notion didentit organinisationnelle a suscit beaucoup dintrt dans la

littrature sur les organisations ces dernires annes. Cet intrt concide avec les

changements qui se passent dans les organisations et autour de celles-ci. Lidentit

organisationnelle fournit une rponse la question, qui sommes nous ? Plusieurs

auteurs suggrent que la rponse donne cette question indique ce qui est central,

distinctif et persistant pour lorganisation (Albert et Whetten, 1985; Dutton et

Dukerich, 1991; Scott et Lane, 2000). Dautres auteurs, par contre, ont indiqu que

lidentit organisationnelle nest pas forcment persistante; elle peut changer avec le

temps (Gioia et Thomas, 1996; Fiol, Huff et Sarason, 1996). Ces derniers auteurs

numrent les changements qui se passent dans les organisations. Lors deschangements, les organisations tournent leur attention vers des questions ontologiques

et les rponses donnes a ces questions ne dmontrent pas toujours une compatibilit

avec le passe, do la remise en question des notions de continuit et persistance

dans lidentit.

Cette tude vise a explorer le dveloppement de lidentit dans un contexte de

changement. Les questions de recherche adoptes sont les suivantes : quels aspects de

lidentit organisationnelle sont remis en question dans un contexte de changement?

Est-ce que lidentit volue dans un contexte de changement ? et Comment? Quels

sont les facteurs contextuels associs avec lvolution?

Le cadre thorique adopt dans cette tude met laccent sur limportance du

discours des dirigeants dans llaboration de lidentit organisationnelle. En

prsentant lidentit aux auditoires, les dirigeants expriment et construisent lidentit

de lorganisation (Scott et Lane, 2000). Comme macroacteurs (Callon et Latour,

1985), ils possdent plus de povoir que les autres groupes dintrt (stakeholders)

dans la dfinition de cette identit. Ceci est surtout le cas dans un contexte de

changement o les stakeholders accordent beaucoup dattention au discours des

dirigeants (Schweiger et DeNisi, 1991).


4/196

iv

Cette recherche vise a tudier le dveloppement de lidentit organisationnelle

dans le discours des dirigeants. La littrature sur lidentit organisationnelle ne fournit

pas de rponses claires la question concernant la continuit ou le changement dans

cette identit. Cest pourquoi nous avons choisi deffectuer une tude exploratoire qui

utilise lapproche de la thorie ancre (grounded-theory approach) propose par

Glaser et Strauss (1967) et Strauss et Corbin (1990). Dans cette approche, la thorie

merge des donnes. Le chercheur part dune question large qui dfinit le sujet

dintrt mais qui ne vise pas a tablir le lien entre une variable dpendante et une

variable indpendante (Strauss et Corbin, 1990). Cette approche est pertinente pour

ltude des donnes qualitatives qui sont bien les donnes tudies dans cette

recherche. Ltude du discours doit tenir compte de la richesse du contexte (Hanks,

1989), et cette richesse se cerne mieux partir des donnes qualitatives (Miles andHuberman, 1994).

Pour effectuer ltude du dveloppement de lidentit dans le discours, deux

entreprises qui ont vcu des changements des dernires annes ont t choisies

comme sujets de recherche : la Banque Royale et la Banque de Montral. Le discours

identitaire de ces deux entreprises dans les rapports annuels des annes 1985 1997

(inclusivement) a t trac. Plus prcisment une tude des thmes identitaires a

t effectue. Ltude suit le dveloppement des thmes dans le discours de ces

entreprises, ainsi que le contexte dans lequel ce discours est nonc. Les facteurs

contextuels associs avec le dveloppement de ces thmes identitaires sont alors

tracs.

Lanalyse des donnes dmontre quil y a des aspects de lidentit

organisationnelle de ces deux entreprises qui voluent avec le temps, et dautres qui

persistent. Ltude met en vidence quen general, lidentit dans le discours volue

de faon incrmentale avec le temps. Dune anne lautre, on remarque des petits

changements dans les thmes identitaires mais lagrgation de ces petits changements

rsulte en un changement de taille. Les thmes centraux et la constellation quils

forment avec les aspects diffrents de lorganisation changent avec le temps. Les

aspects distinctifs qui sont mis en vidence dans le discours changent eux aussi. Ces

changements sont associs avec trois facteurs : 1) les acteurs - les dirigeants - qui


5/196

v

influencent les traits par lesquels les entreprises sont dfinies, 2) les chagements

stratgiques entrepris par les organisations, et 3) le contexte externe, notamment la

faon dont lorganisation est perue par les publics externes. Dautre part, la

continuit dans lidentit est maintenue dans le discours par lutilisation de mots clefs

identititaires qui eux persistent mme si le sens quon vient donner ces mots-l

change avec le temps.

Une contribution majeure de cette tude est le fait de mettre en vidence les

aspects de lidentit organisationnelle qui changent avec le temps et ceux qui

demeurent. Jusqu maintenant les chercheurs taient diviss en deux coles de

pense : ceux qui affirment la persitance de lidentit et ce qui affirment quelle

change. Cette tude dmontre quau lieu de faire des gnralisations sur la persitance

ou le changement de lidentit, il vaut mieux essayer de cerner les aspects delidentit qui changent et ceux qui persistent avec le temps.


6/196

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ixLIST OF FIGURES xLIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xi

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW 52.1 What is organizational identity? 5

2.2 Identity in organizational theory 62.2.1 Macro level organizational identity 72.2.2 Identity, social interaction, and communication 82.2.3 The role of top managers in the elaboration of identity 102.3 Centrality 122.3.1 Centrality and management discourse 142.4 Distinctiveness 162.4.1 Distinctiveness and management discourse 172.5 Temporal continuity 172.5.1 Continuity, change and management discourse 192.6 Organizational identity, strategy and culture 222.6.1 Identity and culture 222.6.2 Identity and strategy 24

3. RESEACH QUESTIONS, CONCEPTS AND APPROACH 263.1 Research questions 263.2 Definition of organizational identity 273.3 Top management discourse 273.3.1 Written discourse 273.3.2 Content 273.3.3 Context 283.4 Approach used 28

4. METHODOLOGY 314.1 Research questions and approach 324.2 The organizations 324.3 Research design 334.4 Units of analysis 344.4.1 Operationalizations of organizational identity in the literature 354.4.2 Proposed measures of organizational identity 39


7/196

vii

4.5 Sources of data 414.5.1 Annual reports 414.5.2 Other organizational and industrial information 424.6 Data analysis, presentation and discussion 434.6.1 Data coding 43

4.6.2 Presentation, analysis and discussion 444.7 Reliability and validity 454.7.1 Reliability 454.7.2 Validity 45

5. DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS 475.1 Royal Bank 485.1.1 Historical overview 485.1.2 Identity themes 495.1.2.a Quality service to customers 495.1.2.b Fee-and-income generating ability 57

5.1.2.c Bank-financial institution 605.1.2.d Large 645.1.2.e Leader 685.2 Bank of Montreal 715.2.1 Historical overview 715.2.2 Identity themes 725.2.2.a First 725.2.2.b Oldest bank 735.2.2.c Innovative 775.2.2.d North American 835.2.2.e Commitment to stakeholders 885.2.2.f The Identity Paradox 116

6. DISCUSSION 1206.1 Royal Bank 1216.1.1 Quality service to customers 1216.1.2. Fee-and-income generating ability 1266.1.3 Bank-financial institution 1316.1.4 Large 1346.1.5 Leader 1356.2 Bank of Montreal 1406.2.1 First 1406.2.2 North American 1466.2.3 Commitment to stakeholders 1516.3 General discussion 1576.3.1 Shifts in distinctiveness 1586.3.2 Projected, realized and unrealized identity 1606.3.3 Shifts in centrality 1636.3.4 Continuity and change 165


8/196

viii

7.CONCLUSION 1707.1 Contributions 1707.2 Limitations and future research directions 1727.3 Conclusion 173

8. REFERENCES 175


9/196

ix

LIST OF TABLES

PageTable 1. Quality service to customers 50Table 2. Fee-and-income generating ability 57Table 3. Bank-FI 60Table 4. Large 64Table 5. Leader 68Table 6. First 73Table 7. BMOs age 74Table 8. Quotations from the 1991 MTS 75Table 9. Innovative 77

Table 10. North American 84Table 11. Commitment to stakeholders 89Table 12. Commitment to customers 94Table 13. Commitment to shareholders 101Table 14. Commitment to employees 107Table 15. Commitment to the community 113Table 16. The identity paradox 117Table 17. Central themes and their constellations 129


10/196

x

LIST OF FIGURES

PageFigure 1. Quality service as a core theme 124Figure 2. Quality service developmental trajectory 125Figure 3. Quality service: From normative & core to instrumental & peripheral 125Figure 4. Fee-and-income generating ability developmental trajectory 128Figure 5. FI theme developmental trajectory 132Figure 6. Increasing complexity in identity 133Figure 7. Leadership as an umbrella theme 137Figure 8. The two meanings of the first theme 140Figure 9. First as an umbrella theme 143

Figure 10. North American theme developmental trajectory 149Figure 11. Increasing complexity of geographic scope 150Figure 12. Institutionalization/Erosion/Abortion of identity attributes 162Figure 13. Factors that influence the evolution of organizational identity 164


11/196

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BMO: Bank of Montreal

FI: Financial institution

MTS: Message to shareholders

RB: Royal Bank


12/196

xii

I would like to thank Alain Chanlat, Christiane Demers, Nicole Giroux, Ann Langleyand Jean-Marie Toulouse who, at different stages of my studies, provided enormoussupport and constructive feedback.


13/196

xiii

To Gary, Grace and Christina who showed unfailing patience, support andencouragement throughout my studies.


14/196

1. INTRODUCTION

Identity is a subject which evokes images of persistence and stability through time.

Organizational identity is said to refer to the central, distinctive and enduring attributes of an

organization (Albert and Whetten, 1985; Ashforth and Mael, 1996; Dutton and Dukerich,

1991; Scott and Lane, 2000).

The notion of organizational identity as persistent can leave an observer quite

perplexed. When we look around us, we see government agencies around the world resorting

to privatizing services that were initially considered to be part and parcel of the public

service identity. Telephone companies previously considered as utilities have come to

redefine themselves as integrated communication services companies. Banks, traditionally

recognized for their branches where tellers offered clients a relatively limited number of

financial services, have been moving into offering comprehensive financial services through

virtual banking operations. As these examples indicate, changes can lead to an erosion of the

attributes by which organizations have traditionally defined themselves. Organizations indifferent industrial sectors are increasingly turning their attention to ontological issues and

addressing questions such as "Who are we?" and "What do we want to be?" As organizations

face major and rapid-paced changes deriving from globalization, deregulation, downsizing,

mergers and acquisitions, technological breakthroughs and other events, they may attempt a

re-elaboration of their self-definition. It is thus not surprising that interest in organizational

identity has been rekindled in recent years. This interest coincides with the occurrence of

major changes in organizations and their environments.

These observations prompt the following question: How is the self-definition

elaborated in a context of change? If we find that the re-elaboration places emphasis on past

attributes, the notion of organizational identity as persistent would still hold. If, however, we

find the self-definition to be built on elements which did not prevail in the past, we need to

answer more questions: How different is the new identity from the past? How is the new


15/196

2

identity elaborated? Does it build slowly into a difference from the past? Or are the relations

with the past abruptly severed?

To answer these questions, one needs to study how organizational identity develops(changes or remains stable) over a longitudinal period of time. This is what this research

attempts to achieve. It traces how two organizations self-definition evolved over a period of

thirteen years during which major changes occurred in the organizations internal and

external environments. It explores how change and continuity in identity themes in the

organizations formal discourse were elaborated and how shifts in the centrality and

distinctiveness of these themes occurred.

Formal discourse provides rich information on the persona and attributes that an

organization seeks to portray (McMillan, 1987), and therefore provides excellent

information on organizational identity. Of particular relevance and significance is top

managements discourse on identity. Top management is invested with authority to speak

on behalf of the organization; the elaboration of identity reflects the preferences of such

powerholders (Ashforth and Mael, 1996). This study thus traces the development of identity

themes as revealed in top management discourse. It also reports on contextual factors that

appeared to be associated with the development.

It is important to understand how identity is elaborated with time. The way an

organization defines what it is and what it would like to be impacts the legitimacy it can

secure from its different stakeholders (Scott and Lane, 2000). As the context changes, so

does the organizations self-definition, which allows legitimacy to be maintained. In

addition, the self-definition affects what the organization sees as an opportunity or threat

(Daft and Weick, 1984; Meyer, 1982) as well as what strategic alternatives are considered

and how they are evaluated (Fox-Wolfgramm, Boal and Hunt, 1998; Carpenter, 1994).

Thus, environmental jolts may be perceived as dilemmas, opportunities or aberrations

(Meyer, 1982) and the strategic fit of an organizational unit may be seen as positive or

negative depending largely on how the organization defines itself (Carpenter, 1994).

The evolution of the self-definition also has major implications for implementation

of strategy (Ashforth and Mael, 1996). Nutt (1997) proposes that top managers can facilitate


16/196

3

the implementation of major change in an organization by providing a compelling vision of

the organization - that is, by providing a compelling projected identity. This future-oriented

identity becomes the basis for actions taken at the organization. Understanding the evolutionof the self-definition provides clues for understanding the development of interpretation and

action at the organization.

Yet we know little about how business organizations self-definition evolves with

time. A few studies (for example, Czarniawska-Jorges, 1994; Czarniawska and Wolff, 1998;

Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991) have been conducted on organizational identity in a context of

change, but these studies relate to non profit institutions and not business organizations.

Furthermore, they did not trace the systematic evolution of identity themes over a

longitudinal period of time. Systematic tracking of different identity themes should allow us

to look at the components of identity, and to determine if different components develop in

different ways. We can then make more accurate statements regarding the aspects of identity

that change or persist with time.

- x x -

The purpose of this thesis is to explore how identity develops in a context of change

in an organizations formal discourse. The research involves a longitudinal study of identity

elaboration in top management discourse for two Canadian financial institutions for a period

of 13 years. To explore this issue, the grounded theory approach is adopted.

This thesis is organized as follows: In the next section, I will present a review of the

relevant literature on organizational identity. In Section 3, I address the research questions

and the central approach I use to answer these questions. Section 4 provides a discussion of

the methodology used. Data and analysis are presented in Section 5. In Section 6 the findings

are discussed and Section 7 concludes with the contributions and limitations of the study.

Before reading on, please note that throughout the thesis I use a number of

expressions - such as identity evolution, identity construction strategies used by

management over time and identity elaboration in management discourse - to denote the


17/196

4

same phenomenon or process. As will be discussed later, top managements presentation of

the organization reflects and creates identity (Barr and Huff, 1997; McMillan, 1987; Scott

and Lane, 2000). Furthermore, it is of no consequence to the discussion whether or notintentional construction strategies were used by organizational authors. The fact is that some

strategies were used, whether intentionally or not, and the purpose of this thesis is to uncover

these strategies and not to determine the degree of intentionality that lies behind them. In

addition, it should also be remarked that although the discussion often refers to how

organizations speak about themselves, organizations are social constructions and abstract

entities which do not, in fact, speak. Rather organizational messages are composed by human

actors bestowed with the power to speak on behalf of the organization.


18/196

5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

In this section, I provide an overview of the concept of organizational identity. I

describe briefly the origin of the term "identity," after which I review its use in the

organizational literature. I argue that identity is expressed and elaborated through discourse

and communication and that top management plays a major role in this communication.

This is followed by a detailed discussion of the dimensions of centrality, distinctiveness andtemporal continuity which, Albert and Whetten (1985) indicate, define the aspects of

identity. After I address the limitations of these dimensions, I elaborate on how each is

manifested in management discourse. I argue that although identity has been conceived to be

persistent, it can also evolve and this evolution is elaborated in top management discourse.

This section concludes with a discussion of the differences between the concepts of identity,

culture, and strategy.

2.1 WHAT IS ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY?

Cheney (1991), following W. Mackenzie, indicates that the origin of the term

"identity" can be traced to Aristotle who coined the word tautotes - identitas in Latin - to

speak about sameness in different individuals. To Aristotle, brothers born of the same

parents are identical with each other; they are the same thing, but in separate individuals.

Mackenzie found the term to appear later in Roman and Medieval thought in connection

with the Trinity. With the romantic poets, identity took on the meaning of essence - "an

essential element in the continuity of personality" (Mackenzie, 1978, quoted in Cheney and

Tompkins, 1987:4). By the beginning of this century, "the new meaning of 'identity' was

established as primary, and the old metaphor in effect 'died'" (Cheney and Tompkins,

1987:4). Since then, identity has become a central term in the study of social life and has

received attention from different thinkers. It was seen as being rooted in unconscious


19/196

6

processes and emotional attachments by S. Freud, as being socialized by G. Mead, and as

being politicized by H. Lasswell (Cheney, 1991).

Identity today, is a concept which is typically associated with the individual person(Christensen and Cheney, 1994) and which provides an answer to the question "Who am I?"

(Ashforth and Mael, 1989). Like other terms that describe an individual person's activities or

attributes, it has been appropriated by organizational scholars to denote particular aspects of

the organization. In the same sense that we have come to speak about organizations as

acting, transacting, owning, planning and communicating, we have come to see

organizations as having identities. Levitt and Nass (1994) indicate that societies are anxious

to assign an identity or identities to the entities they deal with, whether these entities be of an

individual or a collective nature. Assignment of an identity, these authors argue, allows

placement of the entity within a social category which enables prediction of behavior and

definition of what constitutes legitimate conduct.

Identity, however, is not only assigned by the external world. It is also an integral

element of all human systems (Tannenbaum and Hanna, 1985) - including organizations -

which allows them to maintain a sense of self and an ontological distinction from the

environment (Christensen and Cheney, 1994).

2.2 IDENTITY IN ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY

Identity has been researched at the level of the individual from the perspectives of

developmental psychology, psychodynamics, social psychology and symbolic

interactionism, as well as at the level of the group from different social perspectives that

examine collective identity based on gender, race, ethnicity and nationality (Ashforth and

Mael, 1996). Increased interest in the organizational level of analysis has been manifested

during the last few years, although some earlier organizational theorists also dealt with this

concept (for example, Selznick, 1957).

What the identity literature offers, as Albert and Whetten (1985) indicate, is not a

single concept or theory but a diverse set of ideas, modes of analysis, and propositions. In


20/196

7

fact, a review of the literature indicates that organizational identity has been utilized to

denote two different concepts, one at a micro level and the other at a macro level.

At the micro level, reference has been made to the organizational identity for theindividual. For example, Ashforth and Mael (1989) indicate that the organization can

provide one answer to an individual's question regarding who he or she is, and Van Maanen

speaks of an individual's organizational identity in relation to a change situation. "In some

cases, a shift into a new work situation may result in a dramatically altered organizational

identity for the person" (1978:20).

2.2.1 Macro Level Organizational Identity

At the macro level, which is the level of interest in this research, a widely accepted

conceptualization of identity is provided by Albert and Whetten (1985). These two authors

indicate that a statement of organizational identity provides an answer to the question "Who

are we?" Identity becomes investigated when questions of information and expected utility

do not provide satisfactory answers, thus leading to a discussion of goals and values. It

refers to what is of centrality, distinctiveness, and temporal continuity for an organization

(Albert and Whetten, 1985).

Building on Albert and Whetten's conceptualization, some authors define

organizational identity as a set of constructs organizational members believe to be the

central, enduring, and distinctive character of their organization (Ashforth and Mael, 1996;

Dutton and Dukerich, 1991; Reger, Gustafson, Demarie and Mullane, 1994; Sarason, 1995).

Stoecker (1995), also placing emphasis on the members' perspective, indicates that

collective identity constitutes the universe of members' frames that are often linked together.

To emphasize that identity refers to the attributions made specifically by organizational

members, Dutton and Dukerich distinguish it from "image" which they define as the way

organizational members "believe others see the organization" (1991:520).

The development of organizational identity is highly influenced by communication.


21/196

8

2.2.2 Identity, Social Interaction, and Communication

Communication is a principal element in the formation of identity. At the level of

the individual, a young person's interactions and communications with other significantindividuals and groups constitute a major factor in the shaping of identity (Laing, 1971).

Through communication, an individual presents or affirms self-identity and confirms or

disconfirms the other's identity. By relying on communication, an individual, embedded in a

broader social system, is able to articulate his/her similarity to, and distinctiveness from, this

system (Christensen and Cheney, 1994).

Communication plays a major role in the social construction of organizational

identity as well. Communication precedes every organization since it is the foundation of

agents' interactions and transactions (Hawes, 1974; Johnson, 1977; Putnam and Pacanowsky,

1983; Taylor, Cooren, Giroux and Robichaud, 1996). Basically, it is through interactions that

organizational identity develops. In fact, identity is established with time, as a system

(individual, group or organization) interacts with its environment (Tannenbaum and Hanna,

1985). Interactions can become patterned, giving rise to interpretations that are bracketed

(Weick, 1979) and sustained. The system develops meanings and interpretations that

emerge from its attempt to assert itself and to cope with the world surrounding it. As Gray,

Bougon and Donnellon indicate,

"Social interactions, and communication in particular, are the primary vehicles bywhich coincident interpretations of reality are created, transmitted and sustained.Through communication, concepts come to embody similar meanings for two ormore individuals, that is they become coincident" (1985:85).

These coincident interpretations include a representation of the organization.

Selznick (1957) argues that, as a result of their adaptive experiences, organizations take on a

distinctive character. The distinctive and central aspects of the organization become the

subject of a cognitive representation which is broadly shared by the collectivity (Dutton and

Dukerich, 1991). This is the organizational identity. In other words, the notion of

organizational identity implies a convergence onto a representation of the organization.

The maintenance or evolution of this representation of the organization is highly

influenced by the formal discourse on the organization. In formal discourse, the organization


22/196

9

is presented to internal and external constituents. In fact, for organizations, as for

individuals, communication about identity becomes a major input into identity itself. "The

telling of one's own story, particularly at points when identity is challenged from the'outside', becomes an important contributor to identity itself" (Christensen and Cheney,

1994:229). Giddens talks about individuals "forging their self-identities" (1991:2). To him,

the self is a reflexive project consisting "in the sustaining of coherent, yet continuously

revised, biographical narratives" (p.5). Self-identity involves a reflexive understanding by

the person of his or her biography. A person's identity is to be found

"in the capacity to keep a particular narrative going. The individual's biography, ifshe is to maintain regular interaction with others in the day-to-day world, cannot be

wholly fictive. It must continually integrate events which occur in the externalworld, and sort them into the ongoing 'story' about the self" (Giddens, 1991:54).

At the organizational level, identity is elaborated through narratives told by

organizational authors (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1994). As Levitt and Nass point out,

"...organizations can, to a large extent, construct their own identities. In afragmented and atomized society, an entity has unique claims to knowledge of itsprevious behavior and the meanings of those behaviors...; society does not have adetailed knowledge, memory or understanding of the behaviors of each individual ororganization... Furthermore, an entity's presumed superior knowledge of its own

behaviors gives a priori authoritativeness to its own constructions of its history.Although the society must eventually accept the claim to identity - identity is alwaysexternally granted - the entity can have a great deal of involvement..." (1994:242).

Through its formal discourse, the organization reflects and constitutes its persona or

identity (McMillan, 1987). Yet claiming that an organization plays a major role in the

construction of its identity through its discourse, impels us to look for the author(s) of

organizational identity presentation messages. As McMillan indicates, "there is a human

being behind each organizational message" (1987:42). Some individuals or groups in the

organization are invested with the authority to speak on behalf of the organization or to

represent it. No group is more prominently invested with this authority than the top

managers of the organization. As Ashforth and Mael (1996) point out, the elaboration of

organizational identity is strongly influenced by the preferences of powerholders like top

management. Top managers are the macro-actors who have "authority to speak or act on


23/196

10

behalf of" the other actors in the organization (Callon and Latour, 1985:279). By presenting

the organization to stakeholders, these actors engage in the expression and construction of

organizational identity (Scott and Lane, 2000). As I will point out below, these actors play aparticularly significant role in the elaboration of identity in a context of change.

2.2.3 The Role of Top Managers in the Elaboration of Identity

Numerous authors have emphasized the role of leaders in creating meaning for

organizations (Barnard, 1938; Selznick, 1957; Lyles and Schwenk, 1992; Pettigrew, 1979;

Pfeffer, 1981; Pondy, 1978; Smircich and Morgan, 1982). Top management can influence

the cognitive representations people have of the organization through its interpretation of

environmental events and organizational capabilities (Dutton and Jackson, 1987; Lyles and

Schwenk, 1992) and through its translation of cues into meaning (Daft and Weick, 1984).

The role of top managers in the construction of identity is particularly significant

during times of change. Change constitutes a context of high ambiguity in organizations

(Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991; Schweiger and DeNisi, 1991). People who experience

ambiguity often look for clues in the environment that may help them interpret the situation

(Weick, 1985). As Watzlawick points out "confusion triggers off an immediate search for

meaning or order to reduce the anxiety inherent in any uncertain situation" (1976:27).

During organizational change, individuals and groups affected by the change attempt to

reduce the experienced ambiguity and become highly attentive to communication from

management (Schweiger and DeNisi, 1991).

Pfeffer (1981) indicates that frequent communication by management, through

informational social influence, leads to the development of a common set of understandings

about the organization and the environment. These understandings, these shared meanings,

provide organizational participants with a sense of belonging and identity as well as

demarcating the organization from its environment and assisting in the control and

commitment of those within the organization (1981:13). Communications from

management are particularly important in a context of change since stakeholders previous

knowledge and understanding of the organization and its environment may no longer apply.

However, top management cannot control completely the meanings which


24/196

11

stakeholders will attribute to its statements of identity. Symbolic resources are subject to

interpretations (Christensen and Cheney, 1994). This, nevertheless, should not divert

attention from the fact that top management can carefully choose labels and expressions thatare evocative of particular desired images of the organization. Pondy (1978) indicates that

when a groups experience can be put into words, the meaning of the groups action

becomes a social fact. He further argues that an individual who can make sense of things

and put them into language meaningful to other people is in a position to gain enormous

leverage. Language is a major tool of social influence and one of the least visible of

(such) influences (Pondy, 1978:91-92). Through the careful use of language, top

management may be able to influence how different stakeholders view the organization and

their relationship to it.

Weick argues that people who can find labels that bring order into ambiguous

situations are able to direct organizational action. Labels carry their own implications for

action, and that is why they are so successful in the management of ambiguity (Weick,

1985:128). People who can resolve ambiguities in an organization gain power. The values

of these powerful people often affect what the organization becomes (Weick, 1985:125).

As mentioned above, a situation of change in the organization is one of high ambiguity and

is one where top management is looked at for explanations. In general, the socially accepted

role of top management as a strategist and macro actor, as well as the ambiguity of the

situation, grant particular importance to managements representation of the organizations

identity. As top management is best placed to propose labels to define the situation, it can

set the stage - and manage the context - for the discussion of identity. Thus, despite

constraints, top management remains, in general, the more influential actor in the

representation of organizational identity. Yet, despite the importance of top management

discourse about the organizational identity, no study has attempted to systematically track

how this identity is presented in top management discourse for a business organization. The

purpose of this thesis is to explore the identity elaboration processes in a context of change

through the study of top management discourse.


25/196

12

- x - x -

Organizational literature has indicated that organizational identity is defined by anumber of dimensions, some central, some expressing distinctiveness, some persistent

(Albert and Whetten, 1985; Ashforth and Mael, 1996; Dutton and Dukerich, 1991; Gioia,

Schultz and Corley, 2000; Sarason, 1995; Scott and Lane, 2000) and others changing over

time (Gioia and Thomas, 1996; Fiol, Huff and Sarason, 1996). In what follows, I will

discuss these dimensions and how they are reflected in management discourse.

2.3 CENTRALITY

Tannenbaum and Hanna indicate that with time, a system develops a number of

attributes which may range from the boundary of the system to its center - what the authors

call "the system's core of identity" (1985:102). The peripheral attributes are minor and

solitary in comparison to the core elements which are fundamental and strongly

interconnected. In a similar vein, Lyles and Schwenk (1992) indicate that in organizations

there are both core and peripheral "shared beliefs". The core aspects are subject to

widespread agreements and "facilitate understanding about the firm's general purpose,

mission and competitors" (p.160). These core aspects are supported by peripheral ones

which may not be subject to widespread consensus and which relate to subgoals. Thus, we

can think of organizational attributes as being located on a continuum ranging from the

central to the peripheral. Ashforth and Mael indicate that the notion of centrality implies the

positioning of an attribute in a hierarchy of attributes. These two authors also draw a parallel

between individual identity and organizational identity:

"Research on individual identity suggests that central self-conceptions tend to bewell-elaborated and densely connected, providing strong cues for cognition, behaviorand affect... Similarly, organizational identity refers to the focal or core set ofattributes that denote the essence of the organization... In sum, the central characterrefers to a self-contained cosmology, a more or less internally consistent system ofpivotal beliefs, values, norms - typically anchored to the organizational mission - thatinforms sense-making and action. This character often reflects the needs andpreferences of organizational powerholders" (Ashforth and Mael, 1996).


26/196

13

As the above indicates, a central aspect of the organization is derived from its line of

business. McMillan argues that the central determinant of identity in organizations is

technology; "in short, we are what we do" (1987:38). In a study of a work group in aJapanese factory, Kilduff, Funk and Mihra (1997) observed how the process of producing a

high tech machine was enmeshed with the construction of the group's identity. This led the

authors to conclude that the technologies - utilized here in the wide sense of the word -

which structure time and space helped shape the collective identity; "technologies sustain the

crafting of selves" (p. 591).

In another vein, the notion of centrality as involving self-conceptions that are densely

connected, implies a consistency between the components of identity. In his study of a

social movement organization, Stoecker remarked that consistency in the frames composing

identity is important. Over time, constituent groups "may emphasize, alter, or replace

various subsets of frames, which may create contradictory frame subsets within the

collective identity and lead to identity disputes" (1995:113). For organizational members,

lack of consistency can create dissonance.

Nevertheless, an organization may persist despite its possession of inconsistent, and

possibly contradictory central attributes. Thus, Albert and Whetten (1985), and Whetten and

Foreman (1994) talk about "hybrid organizations" or organizations with "multiple identities"

in referring to institutions that reflect a mixed heritage or "multiple organizing logics". Such

is the case of agricultural cooperatives and universities that demonstrate both, a normative

character and a utilitarian one, which in principle, are at odds. And although most

organizations cannot be said to be hybrid or to reflect multiple identities according to the

definition given above, they may nevertheless, present themselves differently depending on

the context. Thus, organizations can resort to selective categorizations, highlighting

alternate attributes depending on the issue requiring an affirmation of identity (Elsbach and

Kramer, 1996).


27/196

14

2.3.1 Centrality and Management Discourse

Albert and Whetten (1985) point out that managers resort to a classification of the

central attributes when called upon to answer the identity question, and the classificationscheme evoked depends on the purpose underlying the need for a statement of identity. In

Albert and Whetten's view, there may be no one best statement of identity, but multiple and

equally valid statements:

"We treat the problem of imprecise, possibly redundant, or even inconsistentmultiple classifications at different levels of analysis not as a methodologicalproblem to be solved, nor as a deficiency of the concept of identity, but as adescription of the facts of self-classification to be examined and explained"(1985:268).

Expression of different identity attributes corresponds to the enactment of different

roles in diverse social scenes (Dubar, 1995). Given the multiple interests that must be heeded

by the organization, it is likely that top management's presentation of the organization will

vary with the aim for which a self-definitional statement is required. For example, in

justifying the undertaking of an unconventional merger and acquisition, an organization's top

management may evoke the aspects of identity which speak of the organization's strategic

orientation, such as being an innovator or prospector. In addressing the reasons for

implementing flexible workplace policies, managers may make reference to the organization

being a progressive employer.

Cheney (1991) argues that organizations are able to operate in different - and

sometimes contradictory - domains partly because of their ability to manage rhetorically

their identity. He states that different identities in organizations are associated with diverse

domains of discourse or fields of argument. More importantly however, Cheney notes that

organizations that produce seemingly contradictory statements of identity may reveal their

core when questioned. In other words, affirming that an organization has an identity which is

central to it, is not inconsistent with the notion that this organization produces different

statements of identity. Here again Cheney's arguments are pertinent. In his study of the U.S.

Catholic Bishops' drafting ofThe Challenge of Peace, a document that speaks against the

expansion of nuclear weapons, he indicates that:


28/196

15

"(The bishops) struggled to speak both as moral-theological leaders and as technical-political leaders without embracing the "identity" of technical-politicalspokespersons. As the bishops participated in both domains of discourse - using

terms of the Church as well as those of secular interest groups - they were pushedand pulled by groups who wanted them either to stick to one set of terms (in the caseof the political right) or work with both sets (in the case of the left). Ultimately thebishops argued in both fields but clung to their moral-theological identity when theywere challenged by critics" (1991:178).

For most organizations, we are less likely to find contradictory themes in different

statements of identity articulated by top management, and more likely to find variations on

particular themes. Holland (1978:452), following Lichtenstein, points out that identity can

be thought of as a "theme with variation". The central aspects are there, but these may be

expressed or presented in various ways.

In communicating with different publics, organizational authors take advantage of

the equivocality inherent in words and labels to project different meanings, while at the same

time maintaining the appearance of being consistent. Because of this equivocality, a key

term or expression used to describe an organization - such as 'efficient' or 'socially

responsible' - can be used with different connotations depending on the context. By relying

on the flexibility of symbolic resources, organizations adapt the self-referential discourse to

different audiences, while at the same time appearing consistent (Christensen and Cheney,

1994).

In fact, top managers may intentionally refrain from providing very clear and precise

statements of identity. "Precise classification may be impossible and more importantly,

undesirable" (Albert and Whetten, 1985:268). This is consistent with Eisenberg's (1984)

argument that engaging in strategic ambiguity in organizational communication may be a

political necessity since it allows different stakeholders to apply different interpretations to

the symbols used.

In brief, the literature indicates that central attributes may be hierarchically ordered

in alternative ways. However, the literature does not indicate how attributes can increase or


29/196

16

decrease in centrality with time and what implications such shifts have for the structure of

identity. Neither does it tell us how possible shifts in central aspects are presented to

stakeholders.

2.4 DISTINCTIVENESS

Christensen and Cheney (1994, following Morin) state that identity is a center of

knowledge about the self as separate from the environment. They view identity as an

essential drive of living systems to specify a world of their own by which the boundaries

between the self and the environment are delineated. "Being on the one hand open and

indissolubly connected with the environment, the living system on the other hand articulates

ontological separations between the self and the nonself, between sense and nonsense"

(Christensen and Cheney, 1994:228). By maintaining a distinction between the self and

others, the system is able to persist as a relatively autonomous entity whose relationship with

the environment is confirmed through communication (Christensen, 1995).

However, the inner drive to establish a distinctiveness from the surroundings is in

constant interplay with forces external to the organization. While human systems may be

actively involved in the management of their distinctive identities, their attempts are partly

shaped by the external forces of socialization (Christensen and Cheney, 1994). In fact,

organizations need to affirm their adherence to established social norms and values since this

confers legitimacy upon them and helps them secure necessary resources (Meyer and

Rowan, 1977). Coercive, mimetic and normative pressures in the institutional environment

act as mechanisms leading to the isomorphism of organizations (DiMaggio and Powell,

1983). Furthermore, industry recipes are likely to emerge in strategic groups which are

followed by organizations within a group, making them quite similar (Huff, 1982). Carpenter

(1994) indicates that organizations that belong to the same sector share industry

characteristics that may contribute to the content of the statement of identity. Thus, there are

institutional and industrial forces that lead organizations to converge on a set of attributes.

Declarations of distinctiveness are often evident in organizational stories. But here

again, an organization can only draw on a limited number of categories which are available


30/196

17

to other organizations as well. As Martin, Feldman, Hatch and Sitkin (1983) argue, an

organization's claim to uniqueness is paradoxically expressed through manifestations which

are not unique. In their study of seven types of stories which make claims to uniqueness,they demonstrate that such stories occur in identical form in a variety of organizations. Still,

the uniqueness is reinforced with the company-specific details provided, such as the names

of individuals involved, what badges were worn, where the action took place and so on.

What contributes to the distinctiveness of an organization is basically the unique

combination of the different attributes that have been reinforced with time (Nizard, 1983).

To Selznick (1957), an organization's character is the result of the historical patterning of its

responsive interaction and reflects its specific experiences. A "distinct identity" evolves as

an organization becomes infused with values and develops unique outlooks and habits. This

identity "reflects the irreversible element in experience and choice" (Selznick, 1957:40).

2.4.1 Distinctiveness and Management Discourse

Organizational literature tells us that management resorts to selective categorizations

of identity attributes and comparison groups in order to maintain the organization's

distinctiveness when faced with an identity threat (Elsbach and Kramer, 1996). Managers

often choose to address those identity attributes, and to compare the organization with those

groups, that allow it to appear distinctive. The more positively distinct identity is made to

appear with reference to a comparison group, the more attractive it may seem to

organizational stakeholders (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail,

1994; Kramer, 1993). However, more research is needed to investigate how the distinctive

aspects of identity shift with time and how management presents the erosion or building up

of distinctiveness in its self-definitional discourse.

2.5 TEMPORAL CONTINUITY

I had pointed out previously that organizational identity emerges from interactions

which are bracketed, leading to the convergence on a collective representation of the

organization. When an organization is attributed central and distinctive traits, these traits are


31/196

18

drawn on continuously in the further interactions and transactions of members. Thus, Dutton

and Dukerich (1991) found out, in their study of the Port Authority, that organizational

members evoke the organizational identity in making decisions and in defining the basis fortheir transactions within the organization and with external groups. By doing so, members

perpetuate the organizational identity.

A good example of the identity perpetuation process is provided by the Memorial

Hospital case in Meyer's (1982) study. Memorial was a hospital that cherished self-reliance,

stability and commitment to employees. When this hospital had to face an environmental

jolt - namely a doctors' strike - it "absorbed the strike's impact and protected socially

embedded organizational attributes by opting to deplete financial reserves rather than lay off

employees" (p. 530). Memorial's actions constituted a re-affirmation of the attributes of

reliance, stability, and care for employees. "The administrators' benevolence was further

emulated by physicians" (p. 533) who cooperated during the strike, further reinforcing the

organizational attributes. Organizational identity was evoked in making decisions regarding

actions to be taken. These actions, in turn, helped reinforce the identity and perpetuate it.

In other words, organizational identity, like other bracketed interpretations or

meanings, can take on enduring or structural properties and thus exert influence on further

interactions (Giddens, 1979; Ranson, Hinings and Greenwood, 1980) specially when these

meanings emerge from past organizational successes (Miller, 1990). Tannenbaum and

Hanna indicate that "as constructed or developed by a system through time, identity is

defined by a number of system attributes, or fixities" (1985:101). The term "fixities"

captures well the crystallization of identity attributes with the passage of time.

Similarly, Gagliardi (1986) indicates that organizations' primary strategy involves the

maintenance of their cultural identity, implying that identity and change are incompatible.

The antithetical relationship between identity and change is clearly reflected in the

expression "identity crisis". To Erikson (1968), this expression is used to denote a situation

of loss of personal sameness and historical continuity. At the organizational level, firms can

be said to experience an identity crisis when they have to face the prospect of a "new"

identity which is not consistent with their history (Levitt and Nass, 1994).


32/196

19

2.5.1 Continuity, Change and Management Discourse

The above issues compel us to ask what happens to identity in a context of change.Can identity change? To start with, it should be noted that affirming that identity tends to

endure does not mean that it remains static. Identity is never completely fixed. It is

constantly subject to revision as the context shifts. Nevertheless, organizational identity can,

and does, maintain its core content as long as the context within which it is embedded calls

for no major re-evaluation. If we cast Levitt and March's (1988) argument in the terms used

in the present discussion, we can say that the organizational identity can be flexible enough

to allow change in operational routines without altering the core of identity itself. This is

consistent with Fox-Wofgramm et al's contention that "organizations can change without

necessarily changing their identities" (1998:121). These authors talk about "plasticity" in

identity to refer to the fact that identity can be expanded without breaking or changing in

essence. One can still question, however, how far an identity can be expanded before we can

talk about a change in identity.

A number of authors who have studied organizations in a context of major change

have challenged the notion of temporal continuity as one of the basic dimensions of

organizational identity. Gioia and Thomas (1996) - in their study of change in academic

institutions - indicate that a key question is whether identity can be enduring if strategic

change is to occur. A similar question is asked by Fiol et al (1996).

In general, identity tends to endure despite some changes in the organization. These

are incremental or first order changes (Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch, 1974). More

fundamental changes in the system, or second-order changes, are likely to entail major

modifications in identity itself. We would expect such changes in identity to occur in cases

of reorientations which involve discontinuous shifts in most aspects of the organization

(Tushman and Romanelli, 1985) or when the organization changes from one archetype to

another (Greenwood and Hinings, 1993).

If we consider again the notion of "identity crisis", we will note that while it suggests

the difficulty of changing, it also carries within itself allusions to a possible turning point. A


33/196

20

"loss of... sameness" also implies possibilities for change (Erikson, 1968:16). Today's

organizations carry out their operations in increasingly complex environments and with

increasingly sophisticated management options that offer them multiple opportunities forself-redefinition.

Giddens (1979 and 1984) affirms that a fundamental element of human agency is

reflexivity. Agents are capable of monitoring and adjusting their actions. Through their

creativity, human actors can produce changes in established structures (Poole, Seibold, and

McPhee, 1985). Reflexivity and creativity are manifested when a major change is initiated

by agents in an organization. Such a change could imply a transformation in identity.

Planned major changes in organizations are undertaken by top managers (Tushman

and Romanelli, 1985). As mentioned previously, top managers are the macro-actors invested

with authority to speak and act on behalf of the organization (Callon and Latour, 1981).

They exert a high influence on the new course for the organization, and the attributes by

which it should come to be defined.

When they plan major changes for the organization, top managers introduce new

themes into the organizational discourse. They provide a statement of vision (Gioia and

Chittipeddi, 1991) or future identity. This statement provides a projected identity for the

organization. In other words, it provides a future image of the organization (Gioia and

Thomas, 1996), or a future representation to be fulfilled through implementation of the

proposed changes. This vision can help propel organizational action in the direction of

implementation of the needed changes to achieve the vision.

Since major change may threaten identity and induce resistance, most articulations of

a "new" identity by top management seldom sever completely the ties with the past. In his

longitudinal study of Imperial Chemical Industries, Pettigrew (1985) found that even when

major changes are desired, they are often sought in a context of some continuity. Whiting

indicates that "only when certain matters can be depended upon to stay in place will

resources become available to modify others" (1976:197).


34/196


35/196

22

used by management in a context of change. Research should also address how persistence

in identity is established in discourse.

- x - x -

The above constituted a review of what the literature says and does not say regarding

centrality, distinctiveness and temporal continuity of identity and how these dimensions are

expressed or created through top management discourse. I will move on to discuss the

differences between organizational identity, culture and strategy.

2.6 ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY, STRATEGY AND CULTURE

When the subject of organizational identity is evoked, frequently asked questions

which arise revolve around the difference between identity and other concepts that may seem

similar to it. Authors who have written about organizational identity often attempt to

distinguish it - with more or less success - from related concepts such as organizational

culture and organizational strategy. In the following, I discuss the distinctions between

identity and culture as well as identity and strategy.

2.6.1 Identity and Culture

Several reviews of the literature point out that there are numerous perspectives to

organizational culture and each defines the concept differently (Allaire and Firsirotu, 1984;

Smircich, 1983). Establishing a distinction between identity and culture depends on the

definition adopted of each of these two concepts. The difference between the two has not

been the subject of a consensus among organizational theorists. For example, Nizard (1983)

argues that culture is a subset of identity and a powerful expression of it. Similarly, Ashforth

and Mael (1996), indicate that identity is a larger concept than culture, but they do not define

or discuss what they mean by culture. Albert and Whetten declare that:

"What we will define as important about an organization will depend on how wecharacterize the organization as a whole. Consider the notion of organizationalculture... Is culture part of organizational identity? The relation of culture or any


36/196

23

other aspect of an organization to the concept of identity is both an empiricalquestion (Does the organization include it among those things that are central,distinctive and enduring) and a theoretical one (Does the theoretical characterization

of the organization in question predict that culture will be central, distinctive, and anenduring aspect of the organization)" (1985:265-266).

However, by the same token, one can ask "Is identity part of organizational

culture?", and say that the answer depends on the theoretical perspective which is taken to

the notion of culture. Unlike the authors mentioned above, I personally subscribe to a

definition of organizational culture which is broader than organizational identity. Like Fiol

(1991), I propose that identity provides the link between two aspects of culture: one

constituting a set of unobservable and unspoken rules or underlying beliefs and the other

constituting of behavioral manifestations. Fiol however, argues that a)culture as

unobservable and unspoken rules and b)culture as behavioral manifestation, constitute two

opposing views of organizational culture. Rather than seeing them as opposing notions, I see

them as complementary and as different aspects of organizational culture. In other words, I

agree with Hatch (1993) that culture involves a dynamic interaction between values,

assumptions, symbols and artifacts, all of which are components of the organizational

culture. Given this perspective, organizational identity constitutes a subset of culture;

namely the part which speaks particularly about the organizational attributes.

A similar distinction between identity and culture is made by Reitter, Chevalier,

Laroche, Mendoza and Pulicani (1991). To these authors, identity and culture constitute two

fundamental levels of group life. Culture includes collective practices deriving from a local

knowledge which all group members must possess to function properly within the group. It

also includes the system of collective symbols (pp. 24 & 274). Some cultural phenomena

cannot be verbalized by actors; they may not be conscious and may be so internalized, that

they strive without being expressed. Identity, on the other hand, is a coherent set of

characteristics developed by the group throughout its history, and recognizable by group

members (p. 21). Identity can be verbalized by group members.


37/196

24

2.6.2 Identity and Strategy

Strategy has been defined in numerous ways in the literature (Mintzberg, 1990;

Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). Describing the nature of the relationship between strategy andidentity depends largely on how these two concepts are defined. This relationship has

received some interest in a number of studies. Dutton and Dukerich (1991) give an

illustration of how identity can affect action and strategy in organizations. In their study of

the New York Port Authority, they show that managers' view of the organizational identity

affected their interpretation of, and reactions to, the issue of dealing with homeless people on

the premises managed by the organization. Miles and Cameron (1982) talk about a

"corporate character" which is approximated by an organization's peculiar mix of relatively

enduring features including its strategic predisposition, dominant values and beliefs in the

process of critical decision-making, and a core distinctive competency. Thus, an

organization which describes itself as having an innovative strategic predisposition and

which believes it has a distinctive competency in technology is likely to pursue the strategy

of being the first to introduce computer-based sales and services in its industry. Ashforth

and Mael (1996) clarify well the distinction between the two concepts:

"Identity refers to an organization's central, distinctive, and enduring character,

typically anchored to its mission, whereas strategy refers to an organization's goalsand the activities intended to achieve them. Identity can serve as a wellspring forstrategy, although identity and strategy are reciprocally related such that identity isenacted and expressed via strategy, and inferred, modified or affirmed from strategy.

The impact that identity and strategy have on each other is also explained by Sarason

(1995). Arguing from a structurational perspective (Giddens, 1984), she indicates that there

is a reciprocal relationship between the two. Identity impacts strategy through the vision of

managers that drives strategic behavior; and strategic behavior impacts identity, especially as

participants gain a sense of the organization by observing what it does.

In discussing the relationship between identity and strategy, authors usually point out

to the organization's identity as viewed by top managers. Carpenter (1994), for example,

explains that the decision to divest an organizational unit is related to the top management


38/196

25

team's shared gestalt of the distinctive, central and enduring attributes of their organization.

Both, strategy and identity are strongly influenced by top managers' worldviews.

- x - x -

In this section, I provided a review of the literature pertinent to my research subject.

In the next section, I provide the research questions which guided this research and discuss

the central approach I used to answer these questions.


39/196

26

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS, CONCEPTS AND APPROACH

In this section, I present the research questions that guided the study and the

central approach I adopted. Thus, I present the research questions which focus on

unresolved issues in the past literature on organizational identity. I then provide the

definition of organizational identity which I adopt in this study and which is based on

elements discussed in the literature review. As this study focuses on the evolution of

organizational identity in top management discourse, I will explain where a researcher

can possibly look for such discourse. I then describe how I approach the study of identity

evolution in top management discourse; this involves the application of the grounded

theory approach which allows for the emergence of theory from the data analyzed.

3.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Previously, I pointed out that authors have been in disagreement with respect towhether identity changes or tends to persist, and that this issue needs to be researched

further. I also indicated that top management discourse on identity has not been

systematically researched in the literature and yet, it is a major element in the expression and

elaboration of organizational identity, specially in a context of change. The aim of this thesis

is to explore how identity in top management discourse develops over time in a context of

change. The research questions that guided the study are: What aspects of identity are

addressed in a context of change in top management discourse? Do these aspects evolve, and

if so, how? What contextual factors are associated with the evolution? To answer these

questions, I propose the following conceptualization of organizational identity.


40/196

27

3.2 DEFINITION OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY

The literature indicates that organizational identity is construed through discourse

whereby statements of self-definition reflect and help create identity. It also indicates thattop management has a pre-dominant role in defining the organization to stakeholders.

Furthermore, although some definitions of organizational identity have placed emphasis on

the central, distinctive and enduring attributes of the organization, these dimensions can shift

with time depending on the context. Based on these affirmations, I define organizational

identity as a representation of the organization which refers to the central and distinctive

attributes as well as to the enduring and shifting attributes of the organization. This

representation emanates in great part from a discursive elaboration on the part of top

management. Through its statements of identity, top management helps maintain or change

an organizational representation, influencing stakeholders view of what the organization

was, is, and will be.

3.3 TOP MANAGEMENT DISCOURSE

3.3.1 Written discourse

A researcher looking for statements of identity in top management discourse, can

find his/her object of interest in top managements day-to-day conversations and interactions

with different individuals and/or groups. The researcher could also find the object of interest

in written organizational texts. Conversations are ephemeral (Taylor and Van Every, 1993);

spoken discourse has the character of a fleeting event (Ricoeur,1971:531) and is hard to

retrieve post facto. Written texts, on the other hand, tend to endure. These texts can be

retrieved and re-analyzed (Ricoeur, 1971; Hanks, 1989). Since the interest of this study lies

in organizational identity in management discourse over an extended period of time,

reliance on written organizational texts was most appropriate.

3.3.2 Content

There is a multitude of ways that a researcher can approach written texts. Because

this study focuses on top managements identity-revealing discourse, emphasis was placed


41/196

28

on the content of managements statements of identity. More specifically, identity themes,

and their evolution constituted the subject of the study. As will be explained in detail in

the methodology section, these themes are revealed in key words and expressions. Suchwords and expressions derive much of their meaning from the context within which they

are articulated.

3.3.3 Context

To be able to understand and explain the context within which discourse on identity

developed, I consulted numerous organizational and industrial documents. The importance

of gathering information on contextual factors to understand discourse on identity cannot

be overemphasized. As Hanks indicates, it is doubtful whether any approach to

discourse that posits text-works can limit itself to the textual artifact alone, without

taking the next step of situating the artifact in a broader context (1989:98). Internal

and external context factors have an impact on top management discourse on identity and

must be taken into consideration in explaining the evolution of this discourse. I thus

adopted the approach of contextualizing top management statements on organizational

identity. This, in turn, led to my reliance on qualitative data. A rich contextualization of

phenomena in research entails the use of qualitatively-based information (Miles and

Huberman, 1994).

3.4 APPROACH USED

Since this is an exploratory study and since the area of organizational identity is in an

early stage of development, I adopted the grounded theory approach (Glaser and Strauss,

1967; Strauss and Corbin,1990). In fact, this approach has been extensively utilized to

analyze qualitative data.

Strauss and Corbin indicate that a major assumption underlying this approach is that

not all the concepts pertaining to the phenomenon being studied have been identified; or if

they have been identified they are conceptually underdeveloped (1990:37). Identity


42/196

29

evolution in management discourse has not been systematically researched in the literature.

Concepts and ideas regarding this subject are fragmented and sometimes inconsistent.

Furthermore, using the grounded theory approach implies that the researcher doesnot start out with a narrow research question. The initial question is broad and is

progressively narrowed down during the research process as relationships between concepts

are discovered. Narrowing down the question, however, does not entail statements about

relationships between a dependent and an independent variable, as is common in quantitative

studies because the purpose is not to test this kind of hypothesis. The research question in

a grounded theory is a statement that identifies the phenomenon to be studied (Strauss

and Corbin, 1990:38; bold in the original).

The grounded theory approach was described by Glaser and Strauss (1967) as

involving the constant comparative method of analysis whereby data is gathered and

analyzed, leading to the emergence of conceptual categories. This, in turn, leads to more data

gathering and analysis until categories and their properties can be integrated leading to an

emerging theory.

A grounded theory is one that is inductively derived from the study of thephenomenon it represents. That is, it is discovered, developed, and provisionallyverified through systematic data collection and analysis of data pertaining to thatphenomenon. Therefore, data collection, analysis, and theory stand in reciprocalrelationship with each other. One does not begin with a theory, then prove it.Rather, one begins with an area of study and what is relevant to that area is allowedto emerge (Strauss and Corbin, 1990:23).

Applying the grounded theory approach to the study of identity evolution in top

management discourse entails looking for markers of identity in the content of texts. Once

these markers have been identified, their development is traced for the period under study.

Contextual factors associated with identity development also have to be identified and

traced. The patterns that surface form the basis for a theory that emerges from the data.

- x - x -


43/196

30

In this section, I provided an overview of the questions that guided the research. I

also discussed the major conceptual building blocks for the study, including the

definition of organizational identity I adopt and the aspects of top management discoursewhich become relevant in a study like the current one. I concluded by indicating that the

concepts in the area of organizational identity and identity evolution are not sufficiently

developed in the literature. Thus, using the grounded theory approach will allow

elaborations and new concepts to emerge from the data. In the next section, I turn to the

methodology employed in this research.


44/196

31

4. METHODOLOGY

As I indicated before, this is an exploratory study of organizational identity. The

purpose of the research is to trace the process of identity development in top management

discourse in a context of change.

To explore this issue, I effected a longitudinal study of managerial discourse for two

Canadian chartered banks for the years 1985 to 1997 inclusively. During this period, these

banks had undergone substantial changes that affected their identity.

Since organizational identity as an area of study is still at an early stage of

development, the concepts in this area are not well elaborated. Therefore, I used the

grounded theory approach the aim of which is to generate theory from the data. I also relied

on relevant recommendations provided by different authors on research methods and

techniques related to studying a limited number of cases, as well as those related to

qualitative data analysis.

In what follows, I describe in detail the methodology used. I present again the

research questions, and then discuss the cases selected, the research design, the units of

analysis, the sources of data, data presentation and analysis, as well as the issues of reliability

and validity.


45/196

32

4.1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND APPROACH

As mentioned in the previous section, the aim of this thesis is to explore the process

of identity development in top management discourse in a context of change. The researchquestions that guided the study are: What aspects of identity are addressed in a context of

change in top management discourse? Do these aspects evolve, and if so, how? What

contextual factors are associated with the evolution? To answer these questions, I adopted

the grounded theory approach the aim of which is to generate theory from the data. The

data for this research was taken from two organizations that have undergone change.

4.2 THE ORGANIZATIONS

Two Canadian chartered banks constitute the subject of this study: the Royal Bank

(RB) and the Bank of Montreal (BMO). RB and BMO are comparable in terms of size.

They ranked among the top three banks in Canada during most of the study period.

However, a reading of these two banks' written documents indicates that the identity

attributes they emphasize differ in several respects. RB ranked as the largest of all financial

institutions in Canada in terms of revenue at the end of the study period (1997). It considers

itself the leader in many respects. BMO is Canada's first bank (established in 1817) and

ranked third among financial institutions in Canada at the end of the study period. BMO is

the only bank which has retail banking operations in the United States and considers itself a

North American bank. The following statements of corporate profile taken from the banks

1997 annual reports (the last year of the study period) illustrate concisely the aspects of

identity that these banks emphasize:

Royal Bank Bank of Montreal

Royal Bank is Canadas largest financial

institution as measured by marketcapitalization, revenues and net income.We have leading positions in mostCanadian financial services markets andoperations in 36 countries In Canada,Internationally

Bank of Montreal, Canadas first bank, is a

highly diversified financial servicesinstitution offering a full range of servicesin all three NAFTA countries. These arethe companies that serve you:.


46/196

33

Although the choice of these two financial institutions can be justified on a number

of theoretical grounds, the factor that played a major role in my choice is the fact that, of the

Big Five chartered Canadian banks, RB and BMO are the only ones which have theirArchives department in Montreal. For a previous study I had undertaken, I had made

numerous attempts to obtain documents from the other members of the group of Big Five

Canadian chartered banks. However, as their Archives and Public Relations departments are

situated in Toronto, obtaining these documents was difficult indeed.

From a theoretical standpoint, choice of these two chartered banks as study cases is

justified by the fact that they have different histories and, as the corporate profile indicates,

define themselves by different attributes, although they operate in the same industry, and are

of comparable size. In addition, these institutions have dealt with a number of significant

changes during the last decade. Changes deriving from de-regulation, globalization,

increasing competition, technological advancements, international economic developments,

and customer expectations, have left the financial industry landscape substantially modified

if we compare it today with the mid-eighties. Both financial institutions in the study have

undertaken numerous restructurings, made a number of acquisitions in related but then non-

banking areas, and substantially upgraded the services they provide during the last thirteen

years. All these changes have had a major impact on the institutions in question and in the

way they are defined by management. They therefore constitute interesting cases to study.

The process of identity evolution for these two organizations was studied for a period

of thirteen years, from January 1985 to December 1997. In 1987, major regulatory change

occurred relating to the banking sector in Canada and this had a major impact on the identity

of the organizations under study. By considering 1985 as the beginning of the study period,

I was able to see how the organizations defined themselves before these major changes

occurred and the impact that these changes have had on the evolution of identity.

4.3 RESEARCH DESIGN

The research involved the study of two organizations. Following Eisenhardts (1989)

recommendations, I analyze and discuss identity development for each of the two


47/196

34

organizations separately. The idea is to become intimately familiar with each organization

and its unique patterns before trying to generalize. This intraorganizational analysis is

followed by an interorganizational analysis whereby the findings for the two banks arecontrasted. Similarities and differences are discussed and some general conclusions are

made.

4.4 UNITS OF ANALYSIS

Studying organizational identity empirically depends on how the concept is defined.

To date, most articles on organizational identity have been of a conceptual nature. In the few

empirical articles on this subject, different operationalizations have been adopted. In what

follows, I review different operationalizations of organizational identity and propose an

operationalization which is discourse-based.


48/196

35

4.4.1 Operationalizations of Organizational Identity in the Literature

Of the different studies that research some aspect of organizational identity, one

employed a survey. In a cross-sectional study, Gioia and Thomas (1996) tested theproposition that strategy and information processing structure are related to organizational

identity. In their survey of academic institutions, they measured two aspects of identity,

identity type and strength of identity. Identity type referred to whether the top management

team saw the institution as more utilitarian or more normative. It was measured on a seven

point Likert scale through questions such as "To what extent do top administrators feel your

institution should not be competing for students as if they were clients or customers?" (p.

401). Identity strength referred to the extent to which members held the values and identity

of their institution. It was also measured on a 7-point Likert scale through questions like "To

what extent do the top management team members of your institution have a strong sense of

the institution's history?" (p.401). It should be noted that the authors' major aim was not to

undertake an in-depth study of identity per se, but to test how different aspects of strategy

and structure were related to it.

Dutton and Dukerich used a different approach to study identity. In their study of the

New York Port authority, they measured it by asking informants about their views regarding

the characteristics that distinguished their organization. They found that there were six

attributes that summarized the informants' views:

"First, 100 percent of our informants called the Port Authority a professionalorganization with a uniquely technical expertise, ill-suited to social service activities.Secon

chreim_2000_the evolution of organizational identity_a discursive study

Documents