Organizational Identity Theory

Organizational identity theory (OIT) attempts to address how employees' self concepts shape and are shaped by the attachments they make in the workplace. Grounded in symbolic interactionism, OIT considers how meaning, language, and thought constitute our sense of belongingness in organizations. It also considers how the ongoing process of reestablishing identity facilitates patterns of control in organizations. Studied in multiple organizational disciplines from a variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives, [Page 717]research on OIT conceptualizes identity as process and product of interaction. Scholars of social psychology had long studied identity emergence in group settings and identification with individual targets. The organizational identification construct was developed and popularized by George Cheney and Philip Tompkins in the 1980s.

Workplaces are not just places in which labor is divided and tasks accomplished. Participation in organizational life is an important way in which individuals perform and reinforce their preferred senses of who they are. Actors are often depicted as either profoundly committed or extremely alienated from the social institutions in which they participate. Yet in an era of increasing complexity, instability, and fragmentation, our ties to organizations are often characterized by insecurity and approach-avoidance tendencies. Performance of group and/or organizational characteristics is one way members attempt to manage this ambivalence. By accommodating or resisting societal meanings for various identity characteristics (what it means to be a doctor, a plumber, an organizational change consultant), members may align themselves with preferred senses of self and distance themselves from characteristics that threaten self-esteem.

Like many social-psychological theories, OIT begins with the assumption that people manage relationships and tasks in part by creating models of the self, the world, and the self in the world. Often defined as a set of core, central, enduring characteristics, identities are comprised of social categories of group membership people use to make sense of who they are in relation to others in their environment. These categories may refer to domains within and beyond organizational boundaries. For example, depending on the individual and his or her environment, an employee's self-concept may be informed by several discrete or overlapping categories, such as accountant, only female member of accounting division, nonprofit volunteer, mother, and lesbian. Membership in these categories may be more or less obvious (e.g., race and ethnicity vs. sexual orientation) and inside or outside the awareness of fellow organization members.

Identities are not given or innate, but are socially constructed through interaction. As such, workplace identities are accomplishments made possible by ongoing performance, but identities are never permanent and must be re-accomplished through ongoing interaction. For example, a person's identity as a lighthearted flight attendant for Southwest Airlines becomes difficult to sustain if this employee resigns from the company. The meanings of these categories are accomplished through interaction in a variety of institutional domains (e.g., government, family, school, church), all of which have organizational elements of their own. Similarly, one's self-concept may also derive meaning from the salient and stable characteristics of the organizations in which one is a member. And people consider some characteristics more salient, or prominent, in their self-concept than others. So the hypothetical accountant mentioned above may consider her church membership more salient to her identity than her role as an accountant in a software development firm, or for that matter, her sexual orientation. Her presentation of self to others is informed by these characteristics as is others' communication with her. Importantly, some identity characteristics are bound to be valued more or less than others in a given sociocultural context. The domineering characteristics of an army drill sergeant, for example, are more valued in a military setting than in a day care center.

...