Identity Processes to Trigger Turnaround in Response to Organizational Decline

Abstract

This article proposes a model of identity-related social processes that, when applied during organizational decline, is hypothesized to support turnaround and avoid organizational death. The social processes are retiring, reclaiming, reaffirming, regenerating, and reimagining identity attributes. Although this model is rooted in past studies and literature on organizational decline and organizational identity, empirical research is needed to validate or adjust the model. Future work could involve examination of identity negotiations within past cases of organizational decline and turnaround as well as devising and testing specific retiring, reclaiming, reaffirming, regenerating, and reimagining interventions.

A resource-based framework for strategically managing identity

“…These include the social actor paradigm, which suggests that an organization’s identity reflects its material characteristics; the social constructionist paradigm, which suggests that identity acts as a tool of cognitive framing; and the linguistic-discursive paradigm, which posits that identity is the result of a continuously narrated argument. Rockwell (2016) integrated these perspectives to outline four forces within the organization that serve to assert and negotiate the identity of the organization: Identity claims communicated by organizational leadership and management in an effort to shape organizational members’ conceptions of what is central, enduring and distinctive to the organization (Whetten and Mackey, 2002). Sense-making interactions and interpretations of organization members and stakeholders (Cornelissen, 2006).…”

“…Based on a review of literature and case studies, Rockwell (2016) created what he called the 5R Model of Organizational Identity Processes. Although the model was originally created as a framework for helping organizations avoid stagnation and death during times of decline, the model is applicable to other situations when organizations want to leverage their identity for the purpose of enhancing performance.…”

“…Rockwell’s (2016) model relies upon the assumption that organizational identity simultaneously reflects qualities of being both enduring (Whetten, 2006) and malleable (Gioia and Thomas, 1996; Gioia et al ., 2000; Hatch and Schultz, 2008). In turn, the 5R Model hinges upon the idea that stakeholders constantly reassess and reconstruct the characteristics of an organization – specifically, its identity (Rockwell, 2016). As a result, stakeholders internal and external to the organization enact self-fulfilling prophecies about the organization that reinforce and accelerate what could be rather momentary events.…”

“…This paper blends RBV (Barney, 1995) with Rockwell’s (2016) 5R Model of Organizational Identity Processes to offer a new Strategic Identity Management Framework for creating sustainable competitive advantage through ongoing identity monitoring and adjustment. Overholt (1997) noted that the companies that remain successful under turbulent market conditions institutionalize adaptability such that they “master the paradox of creating a stable environment for continual change” (p. 22).…”

“…This places organizational change practitioners as key players in organizations’ quest for competitive advantage. This paper’s examination of RBV (Barney, 1995), Rockwell’s (2016) 5R Model of Organizational Identity Processes and the proposed Strategic Identity Management Framework contributes to the discussion and practice regarding organization change practitioners’ role in creating competitive advantage.…”