More than a Metaphor: Organizational Identity Makes Organizational Life Possible
| Author | Tom Postmes,Naomi Ellemers,S. Alexander Haslam |
| Date | 01 December 2003 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2003.00384.x |
| Published date | 01 December 2003 |
More than a Metaphor: Organizational
Identity Makes Organizational Life
Possible
S. Alexander Haslam*, Tom Postmes and Naomi Ellemersw
*
School of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QG, UK and wDepartment of Social and
Organizational Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52,
2333 AK Leiden, The Netherlands
*
Corresponding author e-mail: A.Haslam@exeter.ac.uk
Recent papers by Cornelissen (2002a, 2002b) and Gioia, Schultz and Corley (2002a,
2002b) have debated the utility of organizational identity as a metaphor for
understanding organizational life. In the present paper we argue that this debate is
limiting because it frames issues of organizational identity purely in metaphorical terms
and fails to explore the social psychological basis and consequences of the discontinuity
between personal and organizational identity. Extending this debate, we argue that the
power of organizational identity as a theoretical and applied construct derives from the
fact that it has the capacity to be both an externally shared and negotiated product and
an internalized aspect of the collective self. Consistent with recent research informed by
the social identity approach to organizational psychology, we discuss how an
appreciation of the identity-based dynamic between the social facts of organizations
and the socially-structured psychology of organizational members is essential for both
theoretical and practical understanding of organizational life.
A series of recent articles in the British Journal of
Management have drawn attention to (and
fuelled) controversy surrounding issues of orga-
nizational identity (Cornelissen, 2000a, 2000b;
Gioia, Schultz and Corley, 2002a, 2002b). In
many ways, this debate is very timely, because in
recent years interest in the topic has increased
dramatically. This fact is signalled, amongst
other things, (a) by Albert et al. (2000) and van
Knippenberg and Hogg (2001) who have edited
Special Issues devoted to this topic, (b) by the
publication of several recent volumes (e.g.
Haslam, 2001; Haslam, van Knippenberg, Platow
and Ellemers, 2003; Hogg and Terry, 2001; Tyler
and Blader, 2000) summarizing research in this
area, and (c) by the exponential rise over time in
articles whose titles and/or abstracts make
reference to the term ‘organizational identity’
(see Figure 1). Certainly, the trends revealed here
suggest that these issues need to be tackled (and,
if possible, resolved) at the earliest opportunity –
before the organizational identity bandwagon
becomes unstoppable and any of its inherent
limitations or failings prove uncorrectable.
In his contribution to this process, Cornelissen
sounds a number of notes of caution that relate
to the utility of the organizational identity
construct and its potential uses. Three are
particularly significant. First, he suggests that,
as a metaphor, organizational identity has been
accepted more or less uncritically, and that, upon
closer inspection, its credentials appear somewhat
suspect. Cornelissen claims that, to prove useful
in this capacity, organizational identity needs to
‘provide for fresh, and previously non-existent
insights into the reality of organizational life’ that
*
Corresponding author
British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, 357–369 (2003)
r2003 British Academy of Management
To continue reading
Request your trial