We develop a model to explain how images of one's work organization shape the strength of his or her identification with the organization. We focus on two key organizational images: one based on what a member believes is distinctive, central, and enduring about his or her organization and one based on a member's beliefs about what outsiders think about the organization. According to the model, members assess the attractiveness of these images by how well the image preserves the continuity of their self-concept, provides distinctiveness, and enhances self-esteem. The model leads to a number of propositions about how organizational identification affects members' patterns of social interaction.' Members vary in how much they identify with their work organization. When they identify strongly with the organization, the attributes they use to define the organization also define them. Organizations affect their members through this identification process, as shown by the comments of a 3M salesman, quoted in Garbett (1988: 2): I found out today that it is a lot easier being a salesman for 3M than for a little jobber no one has ever heard of. When you don't have to waste time justifying your existence or explaining why you are here, it gives you a certain amount of self-assurance. And, I discovered I came across warmer and friendlier. It made me feel good and enthusiastic to be "somebody" for a change.

In this article, the authors reflect on the past two decades of research on organizational identity, looking to its history and to its future. They do not provide a review of the literature, nor do they promote a particular perspective on the concept. Instead, they advocate pluralism in studying organizational identity while encouraging clarity and transparency in the articulation of definitions and core theoretical suppositions. Believing there is no one best approach to the study of organizational identity, their intent is to establish a reference point that can orient future work on organizational identity. They focus on three questions they feel are critical: What is the nomological net that embeds organizational identity? Is organizational identity “real” (or simply metaphoric)? and How do we define and conceptualize organizational identity? Last, they try to anticipate organizational identity issues on the horizon to suggest future directions for theory and research.

This study tests hypotheses about the relations between gender, career paths, and career success in a sample of MBAs. Findings indicate that women in managerial careers did not differ from men on total promotions and career satisfaction but did experience lower salary increases, fewer management promotions, and lower hierarchical levels compared to men of similar education, age, experience, performance, and career paths. In addition, starting salaries, starting job levels, job mobility, line experience, and company seniority were found to affect one or more of the career success measures. The findings have implications for the locus of bias in gender-based differences in career experience. o NW Academic PWSS, IW.

This paper presents a theory of organizational identity based on embodied cognition. Embodied cognitive science focuses on developing theories that reveal how humans’ capacities to process information and gain knowledge are functions of bodily experiences. What members come to know about an organization is a function of what they physically experience, as well as what is in their heads. We propose and examine four embodied capacities that members use to construe what they believe is central, distinctive, and enduring about their organizations. We suggest this approach reveals an important fourth dimension of OI: that an individual’s construal of organizational identity must also be ‘substantiated’ or verified by a member’s embodied experiences. We consider how an embodied construal of OI might add to three dominant perspectives on OI, and discuss how it might expand our understanding of six OI-related topics, ranging from individual organizational identification to large-scale organizational change. We close with suggestions for future research, including new empirical methods and perhaps a reexamination of organizational cognition as a whole.

No abstract