The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you
joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you
joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you
joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you
joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself
about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much
homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and
gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that
its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much
homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and
gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that
its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much
homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and
gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that
its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much
homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and
gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that
its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much
homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and
gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that
its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled
the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not
expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In
modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled
the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not
expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In
modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled
the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not
expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In
modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled
the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not
expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In
modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled
the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not
expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In
modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled
the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not
expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional
societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization
to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable
expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional
societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization
to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable
expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional
societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization
to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable
expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional
societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization
to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable
expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional
societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization
to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable
expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional
societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the
managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.
Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the
managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.
Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the
managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.
Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the
managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.
Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the
managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.
Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the
managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this
need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached
and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this
need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached
and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this
need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached
and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this
need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached
and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this
need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached
and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this
need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you
joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you
joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much
homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and
gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that
its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much
homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and
gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that
its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much
homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and
gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that
its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much
homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and
gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that
its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much
homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and
gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that
its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much
homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and
gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with
which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business
machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract
you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with
which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business
machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract
you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with
which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business
machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract
you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with
which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business
machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract
you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with
which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business
machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract
you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with
which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization
to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable
expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional
societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization
to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable
expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional
societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization
to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable
expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional
societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization
to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable
expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional
societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization
to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable
expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional
societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization
to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable
expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.
Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the
managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.
Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the
managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.
Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the
managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.
Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the
managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.
Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the
managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.
Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression
management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this
need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached
and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this
need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached
and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this
need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached
and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this
need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached
and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this
need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached
and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that
they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own
identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage
public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you
joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you
joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.

In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued
“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.

The first question is of greater interest to managers of new organizations, while the second and third

are concerns for managers of established organizations. Indeed, organizational identification is a

prime corporate objective as management strives to cultivate employees who feel strongly attached

and loyal to the organization and its values. At the same time, leaders engage in impression

management to engender positive feelings among the various publics—from customers, to

shareholders, to the media—on whose goodwill the organization depends. Nevertheless, the

managerial drive to maintain a stable corporate identity and foster strong organizational

identification among employees has certain risks. Too much homogeneity can cause an organization

to be set in its ways and respond too slowly to changes in the marketplace; for example, IBM ruled

the computer world through the 1980s but its organizational identity as a maker of “business

machines” may have caused it to miss the personal-computer revolution. Moreover, too much

homogeneity in a workforce can lead to groupthink and deny organizations the diverse mix of

employees and viewpoints that boosts creativity and leads to better decisions.
In this chapter, then, we have paired identity and diversity as two aspects of organizational life that

exist in a tension which must be successfully balanced. This is true for leaders who must manage

public impressions about the organization and, simultaneously, who must manage employees so that

they identity sufficiently with the organization to support the desired corporate identity. But this

need to manage the tension between identity and diversity is also true for individual organization

members.

Since the Industrial Revolution and then with accelerating force in the twentieth century,

organizations have become major sources of personal identity for many people. In traditional

societies, the bonds of local community and local authority supplied stable roles for people. In

modern societies, however, people derive a major part of their identities from the organizations with

which they affiliate. Perhaps you know people who identify so completely with an organization that

its values form their personal sense of moral duty. Perhaps you have experienced this feeling yourself

about a sports team on which you played, a church or mosque to which you belong, a club that you

joined, or even the college you now attend. For individuals, the tension between organizational

identity and diversity is sometimes called the work-life conflict. At work you want to be a valued

“team player” who helps to achieve organizational goals, and yet you also want to retain your own

identity. First, you desire to give your employer the advantage of your own unique perspectives;

second, you understand the personal need to “get a life.”

Then, too, the social contract between employers and employees has changed over the past two

generations in response to globalization (see Chapter 6 "Organizational Communication Climate,

Culture, and Globalization"). Until the 1970s people generally believed that employees who strongly

and loyally identified with their organizations would be rewarded with job security and a reasonable

expectation of a lifelong career. Today, employees realize they have no such guarantees and do not

expect to spend their entire adult lives working for a single company. Under this new social contract

you must balance the level of organizational identification needed to do your work effectively and

gain satisfaction from your employment, with the knowledge that you must build a personal “brand”

that is separate from your current organization. Why? Chances are that you will be working for

another company someday.