VU Research Portal
Putting identification in motion
Bednar, Jeffrey S.; Galvin, Benjamin M.; Ashforth, Blake E.; Hafermalz, Ella
published in
Organization Science
2020
DOI (link to publisher)
10.1287/orsc.2018.1276
document version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Link to publication in VU Research Portal
citation for published version (APA)
Bednar, J. S., Galvin, B. M., Ashforth, B. E., & Hafermalz, E. (2020). Putting identification in motion: A dynamic
view of organizational identification. Organization Science, 31(1), 200-222.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1276
General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners
and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?
Take down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
E-mail address:
vuresearchportal.ub@vu.nl
Download date: 09. Aug. 2022
This article was downloaded by: [145.108.246.16] On: 01 July 2021, At: 01:22
Publisher: Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
INFORMS is located in Maryland, USA
Organization Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://pubsonline.informs.org
Putting Identification in Motion: A Dynamic View of
Organizational Identification
Jeffrey S. Bednar, Benjamin M. Galvin, Blake E. Ashforth, Ella Hafermalz
To cite this article:
Jeffrey S. Bednar, Benjamin M. Galvin, Blake E. Ashforth, Ella Hafermalz (2020) Putting Identification in Motion: A Dynamic
View of Organizational Identification. Organization Science 31(1):200-222. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1276
Full terms and conditions of use: https://pubsonline.informs.org/Publications/Librarians-Portal/PubsOnLine-Terms-and-
Conditions
This article may be used only for the purposes of research, teaching, and/or private study. Commercial use
or systematic downloading (by robots or other automatic processes) is prohibited without explicit Publisher
approval, unless otherwise noted. For more information, contact permissions@informs.org.
The Publisher does not warrant or guarantee the article’s accuracy, completeness, merchantability, fitness
for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Descriptions of, or references to, products or publications, or
inclusion of an advertisement in this article, neither constitutes nor implies a guarantee, endorsement, or
support of claims made of that product, publication, or service.
Copyright © 2019, INFORMS
Please scroll down for article—it is on subsequent pages
With 12,500 members from nearly 90 countries, INFORMS is the largest international association of operations research (O.R.)
and analytics professionals and students. INFORMS provides unique networking and learning opportunities for individual
professionals, and organizations of all types and sizes, to better understand and use O.R. and analytics tools and methods to
transform strategic visions and achieve better outcomes.
For more information on INFORMS, its publications, membership, or meetings visit http://www.informs.org
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE
Vol. 31, No. 1, January–February 2020, pp. 200–222
http://pubsonline.informs.org/journal/orsc ISSN 1047-7039 (print), ISSN 1526-5455 (online)
Putting Identification in Motion: A Dynamic View of
Organizational Identification
Jeffrey S. Bednar,
a
Benjamin M. Galvin,
a
Blake E. Ashforth,
b
Ella Hafermalz
c
a
Marriott School of Business, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84602;
b
W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University,
Tempe, Arizona 85287;
c
School of Business and Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact: jsbednar@byu.edu, http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2962-3378 (JSB); bengalvin@byu.edu,
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5995-3170 (BMG); blake.ashforth@asu.edu, http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2244-529X (BEA);
e.w.hafermalz@vu.nl,
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3053-915X (EH)
Received: November 3, 2017
Revised: May 31, 2018; September 26, 2018
Accepted: Novemver 1, 2018
Published Online in Articles in Advance:
November 14, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1276
Copyright: © 2019 INFORMS
Abstract. Building on work at the individual and organizational levels suggesting that an
individual’s self-concept and an organization’s identity are dynamic, we relax the gen-
erally held assumption that perceptions of organizational identification are perceived as
relatively stable over time and highlight the importance of understanding the perceived
dynamism in members’ relationships with their organizations over broader time horizons.
We introduce various identification trajectories—a member’s current perception of how his
or her identification has evolved and will evolve over time—and investigate the sense of
momentum that characterizes these trajectories. We also generate theory about the dif-
ferent action tendencies created by various types of trajectories and examine their influence
on cognition, affect, and behavior in the present. Our theoretical model helps to explain
why two members of the same organization with similar degrees of identification in the
present might think, feel, and behave quite differently. In addition, our theoretical per-
spective enables us to understand why high (or low) identifiers might display cognition,
affect, and behavior typically associated with low (or high) degrees of identification.
Keywords: organizational identification
•
identity
•
identification trajectory temporality
•
sensemaking
Introduction
Social identity theory suggests there is an important
distinction between being a member of a group and
identifying with that group (Tajfel and Turner 1986,
Haslam and Ellemers 2005). In organizational studies,
identification has been conceptualized as the extent
to which a n organization’sessenceisperceivedbya
member as self-defining (Ashforth et al. 2008)orthe
extent to w hich one adopts into the self-concept “the
same attributes as th ose in the perceived organiza-
tional identity” (Dutton et al. 1994,p.239).Themore
an individual identifies with a particular social group,
themoreheorsheperceivesasenseof“oneness with or
belongingness to some human aggregate” and invokes
“us” or “we” language when referring to a group instead
of “they” language (Ashforth and Mael 1989,p.21).
Interestingly, both “inputs” to one’s sense of current
identifica tion—an individual’s self-concept and his or
her sense of an organization’sidentity—have been
characterized as dynamic or changeable. At the in-
dividual level, the literature on identity work—
defined as the individual “forming, repairing, main-
taining, strengthening or revising the constructions
that are productive of a precarious sense of coherence
and distinctiveness” (Alvesson and Willmott 2002,
p. 626)—implies that one’s self-concept is dynamic
and often in flux (e.g., Kuhn 2006,Watson2008,
Kreiner a nd Murphy 20 16
,Brown2017). Furthermore,
many studies imply that an organization’sidentityis
likewise dynamic and evolving across time (e.g.,
Dutton and Dukerich 1991,ElsbachandKramer1996,
Corley and Gioia 2004,Cleggetal.2007,Bubenzer
2009). However, despite this recogn ition of the dy-
namism of these two inputs to an individual’ssenseof
organizational identification, identification is often
characterized as “deeply rooted” and relatively stable
and enduring in nature (Ashforth et al. 2008, p. 332).
As a result, most studies o f organizational identifi-
cation attempt to measure the current degree of identifi-
cation in predicting various outcomes (Bergami and
Bagozzi 2000,Ashforthetal.2008). In addition, al-
though various process models of organizational
identification have be en created (e.g., Dutton et al.
1994;Pratt1998, 2000 ;Ashforth2001;Barteland
Dutton 2001; Alvesson and Willmott 2002 ;Fiol2002;
Fuller et al. 20 06; Ashforth and Schinoff 2016; Sillince
and Golant, 20 18;cf.Thomas2009,Brown2017), they
have tended to focus on sensemaking and sensegiving
during the in itial stages of iden tific ation or during
singular events over relatively short time frames
while ignoring the perceived dynamism of identifi-
cation over a broader historical sweep of organizational
membership. Given this conceptualization of organiza-
tional identification in the literature, some scholars have
200
lamented the prevailing focus on “ snapshot images” of
the currently perceived degree of identification and
thelackoftheorydevelopmentfocusedontheper-
ceived dynamics of identification over b roader time
horizons (Ashforth et al. 2008,p.340;seealsoDemo
1992, Kerpelman et al. 1997,Pratt1998).
The limits of ignoring the perceived dynamism of
identification over a broader sweep of time can be
illustrated with a hypothetical example. Consider the
experiences of Bill and Helen, two corporate employees
of Uber with similar degrees of organizational identifi-
cation in the present (depicted in Figure 1), wh o are
making sense of the controversial exit of c hief exec-
utive offi cer (CEO) and cofounder Travis Kalanick
(Isaac and Benner 2017). If we t ake a snapshot view of
the currently perceived degree of identification (i.e.,
presently perceived overlap), we can conclude that
both Bill and Helen have a moderate sense of iden-
tification. Our current approach to understanding
organizational identification, assumin g that identi-
fication is relatively stable over time, gives us no
reason to anticipate variance in the th oughts, feel-
ings, or actions of Bill and Helen. However, if w e
acknowledge that identification might be perceived
as dynamic over time and stretch our view of Bill and
Helen’s perceptions to include perceived movement
from the past to the present, and anticipated move-
ment into th e future, w e see that their perceived re-
lationships with Uber are on different trajectories that
likely engender a different sense of momentum.
1
Looking into the past, Bill perceives that he had
relatively high identification in his early days with
Uber, whereas Helen perceives that she h ad a rela-
tively rocky start with U ber and fairly low ident ifi-
cation. Bill perceives that Uber’sactionsovertime
have dampened his sense of identification, whereas
Helen perceives that her sense of identi fication has
steadily increased. Furthermore, the exit of Kalanick
has reinforced Helen’s anticipation that h er identifi-
cation will continue on this positive trajectory as
she sees Uber becoming more closely aligned with
her core values (e.g., treating others with respect).
Conversely, Kalanick’s exit has rei nforced Bill’san-
ticipation that his i dentification will continue to de-
crease, as he sees Uber becoming more “corporate”
and less loyal to those who made Uber what it is
today. As a result, we argue that although Bill and
Helen both currently identify with Uber to similar de-
grees, they each perceive different identification traje cto-
ries with the organization that are characte rized by a very
different sense of momentum. Thu s, despite the fact that
they both currently identify with U ber to a moderate
degree, in Bill’s case we would anticipate cognition,
affect, and behavior th at would traditionally be as -
sociated with a low identifier, and in Helen’scasewe
would likely s ee cognition, affect, and behavior tra-
ditionally associated with a high identifier.
How then can we move the conversation beyond its
emphasis on snapshot images of the current degree of
organizational identification and create a n expanded
Figure 1. Example of Perceived Organizational Identification Trajectory for Two Hypothetical Members (Bill and Helen)
of the Same Organization
Notes. The black circle indicates Bill and Helen’s current level of organizational identification. The dotted-dashed line represents Bill’s perceived
organizational identification trajectory (a regressive trajectory). The solid line represents Helen’s perceived organizational identification
trajectory (a progressive trajectory).
Bednar et al.: A Dynamic View of Organizational Identification
Organization Science, 2020, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 200–222, © 2019 INFORMS 201
understanding of the member–organization relation-
ship? In response to this important question, we ex-
tend extant work on the p rocess of identification by
considering members’ retrospective thinking regard-
ing their past relationship with the organization and
members’ prospective thinking regarding the future
of that relationship. By moving beyond a focus on the
initial formation of identification, or how individuals
make sense of limited events in the present, we challenge
thenotionthatthecurrentdegreeofidentification will
uniformly predict cognition, affect, and behavior. It is
important to note that this retrospective and prospec-
tive thinking pertains not only to a member’sownper-
ceived past and anticipated future but also, as Dutton
et al. (1994) called for, to one’sperceptionsoftheor-
ganization’s past and future. We argue that d ifferences
in the way members in the present interpret and struc-
ture their past experiences with and future expectations
of their organizational membership give rise to vari-
ous identification trajectories—one’s current percep-
tion of how one’sidentification has evolved and/or
will evolve over time. We assert that the member’s
identification trajectory cap tures the perceived con-
vergence and/or divergence over time of his or her
self-concept and t he organization’sidentity,andit
will have an important influence on his or her cog-
nition, affect, and behavior.
In the follow ing sections, we extend previous re-
search on organizational identification by offering a
dynamic view of identification. Specifically, we ex-
amine the sensemaking efforts of organizational
members and the sensegiving efforts of the organi-
zation as members seek to define themselves in re-
lation to their organization, and we explain why
members might perceive that the relationship be-
tween their self-concept and the identity of the or-
ganization is dynamic over time. We then develop
theory and formal propositions explaining how dif-
ferences in the way members interpret the past and
anticipate their future with the organization will in-
fluence cognition, affect, and behavior. This more nu-
anced perspective will help explain why two people
with the same degree of identification at a point in time
might be expected to think, feel, and behave quite dif-
ferently in the same organization. Furthermore, our the-
oretical perspective helps us understand why high (or
low) identifiers might exhibit cognition, affect, and
behavior typically associated with low (or h igh) de-
grees of identification.
A Dynamic Sensemakin g View of
Organizational Identification
To begin, it is important to outline our theoretical
assumptions about organizational identification and
illustrate why a dynamic view may further our under-
standing of this critical construct. First, organizational
identification is generally defined (and measured) as
the currently perceived overlap between the self-concept
of a f ocal member and the organization’sidentity
(Dutton et al. 1994 , Bergami and Bagozzi 2000). The
area of overlap between the two identities captures
the sense of oneness the member feels with their or-
ganization and, as noted previously, is predictive of
important cognition, a ffect, and behavior in organi-
zations. However, if we assume that a member per-
ceives change in his or her degree of organizational
identification from past to present and perceives that
his or her relationship with the organization will con-
tinue to evolve from present to future, simply measuring
current degrees of overlap between the member’sself-
concept and the perceived organizational identity
fails to capture this perceived movement of the member’s
relationship with the organization over time. Thus,
we believe there is great value in moving beyond a
snapshot view of current identification to a deeper un-
derstanding of the dynamism perceived by the member
in his or her relationship with the organization. In other
words, we hope to be able to supplement our under-
standing of where a member’ssenseofidentification is
“at” by also understanding the member’ssenseof
where it has been and where it is going.
We offer a view of organizational identification t hat
focuses on the sensemaking efforts of members as
they seek to understand and (re)define their rela-
tionship with their organization. Sensemaking has
been defined as “individuals engaging in retrospec-
tive and prospective thin king in order to c onstruct an
interpretation of reality” (Sonenshein 2010,p.479).
This sensemaking includes retrospective thinking, or
looking to the past to make sense of that which has
occurred (Weick 1995, Weick et al. 2005), and pro-
spective thinking, or seeking to anticipate and make
sense of the probable future (Gioia et al. 1994, Maitlis
and Christ ianson 2014). We argue that these two
types of sensemaking (retrospective and prospective
thinking) are critical in the ongoing accomplishment
of making sense of the relationship between one’s
evolving self and one’s evolving organization (cf.
Dutton et al. 1994,Pratt2000, Alvesson and Willmott
2002,Fiol2002, Ashfo rth and Schinoff 2016).
In this ongoing sensemaking process, members must
engage in retrospective and prospective thinking about
the following questions: (1) “Who am I?” (2) “Who is
this organization?” (3)
“Who am I in relation to this
organization?” (See Figure 2.) This sensemaking pro-
cess involves the creation of a narrative of one’sre-
lationship with an organization. This narrative interprets
and ord ers disparate experiences over time in a way
that defines and explains the relationship of one’sself-
concept t o the organ ization’s identity (Kondo 1990,
Humphreys a nd Brown 2002;cf.Boje1991, Maitlis
2005, Ibarra and Barbulescu 2010,Sonenshein2010).
Bednar et al.: A Dynamic View of Organizational Identification
202 Organization Science, 2020, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 200–222, © 2019 INFORMS
