The dynamics of organizational identity

Abstract

While many organizational researchers make reference to Mead's theory of social identity, none have explored how Mead's ideas about the relationship between the "I" and the "me" might be extended to identity processes at the organizational level of analysis. In this paper we define organizational analogues for Mead's "I" and "me" and explain how these two phases of organizational identity are related. In doing so we bring together existing theory concerning the links between organizational identities and images, with new theory concerning how reflection embeds identity in organizational culture and how identity expresses cultural understandings through symbols. We offer a model of organizational identity dynamics built on four processes linking organizational identity to culture and image. While the processes linking identity and image (mirroring and impressing) have been described in the literature before, the contribution of this paper lies in articulation of the processes linking identity and culture (reflecting and expressing), and of the interaction of all four processes working dynamically together to create, maintain and change organizational identity. We discuss the implications of our model in terms of two dysfunctions of organizational identity dynamics: narcissism and loss of culture.

The online presence of Turkish banks: Communicating the softer side of corporate identity

“…Organizational identity puts forth what the organization is (Balmer, 1995;Hatch & Schultz, 2002;van Rekom, 1997;van Riel, 1995). As Bick, Jacobson, and Abratt (2003: 839) defined: "identity is the embodiment of the organization" and it communicates "the core values, philosophy and the strategy of the organization through the delivery of its products and/or services".…”

Organizational Identity: An Ambiguous Concept in Practical Terms

“…In other words, there are very few theories that align with the practical side to show the combined benefit to an organization of the theory and the practice. Hatch and Schultz (2002) work is exceptional in this regard, as explained below. Hatch and Schultz (2002) Hatch and Schultz (2002) conceptualized OI as reflecting a dialectical interplay between organizational members and key external stakeholders.…”

“…Hatch and Schultz (2002) work is exceptional in this regard, as explained below. Hatch and Schultz (2002) Hatch and Schultz (2002) conceptualized OI as reflecting a dialectical interplay between organizational members and key external stakeholders. They perceived OI as existing in a social context, drawing on Mead's framework (Mead 1934).…”

“…The attitudes of the others constitute the organized 'me', and then one reacts toward that as an 'I'" (Mead 1934, p. 175). Following Mead's conceptualization, Hatch and Schultz (2002) perceived that the members of an organization shape the internal focus-"I" ("who am I? ")-reflecting the organization's culture.…”

“…In this sense, there are very few theories that inform the practice side in ways that are beneficial for actual organizations. However, Hatch and Schultz (2002) work is an exception in this regard: they provided a theory with a great promise of practical implications for organizations, in regard to continuity and progress. Hatch and Schultz (2002) defined OI by reference to Mead's social constructionist framework, which refers to " .…”