Full Chapter The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity Michael G Pratt PDF

The Oxford Handbook of Organizational
Identity Michael G. Pratt

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-organizational-identity-micha
el-g-pratt/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
The Oxford Handbook of Individual Differences in

Organizational Contexts (Oxford Handbooks) 1st Edition
Tuncdogan
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-
individual-differences-in-organizational-contexts-oxford-
handbooks-1st-edition-tuncdogan/
The Oxford Handbook of Music and the Brain Oxford

Library of Psychology Michael H. Thaut
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-music-
and-the-brain-oxford-library-of-psychology-michael-h-thaut/
The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Central Banking

David G. Mayes
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-
economics-of-central-banking-david-g-mayes/
The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations Thomas G.

Weiss
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-on-the-
united-nations-thomas-g-weiss/
Industrial/Organizational Psychology: An Applied
Approach, 9e Michael G. Aamodt
https://textbookfull.com/product/industrial-organizational-
psychology-an-applied-approach-9e-michael-g-aamodt/
The Oxford Handbook of Project Management 1st Edition

Morris Peter W G
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-project-
management-1st-edition-morris-peter-w-g/
The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity Oxford

Handbooks Robert Frodeman
interdisciplinarity-oxford-handbooks-robert-frodeman/
The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe (Oxford

Handbooks) Chris Fowler
neolithic-europe-oxford-handbooks-chris-fowler/
The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology (Oxford

Handbooks) Lewis Ayres
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-catholic-
theology-oxford-handbooks-lewis-ayres/
i
T h e Ox f o r d H a n d b o o k o f
ORGA N I Z AT IONA L
I DE N T I T Y
ii
iii
The Oxford Handbook of
ORGANIZATIONAL
IDENTITY
Edited by
MICHAEL G. PRATT
MAJKEN SCHULTZ
BLAKE E. ASHFORTH
and
DAVIDE RAVASI
1
iv
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 2016
The moral rights of the authors‌have been asserted
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016950871
ISBN 978–0–19–968957–6 (hbk.)
Printed in Great Britain by
Clays Ltd, St Ives plc
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
v
Contents
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xi
List of Contributors xiii
Introduction: Organizational Identity, Mapping Where

We Have Been, Where We Are, and Where We Might Go 1
Michael G. Pratt, Majken Schultz, Blake E. Ashforth,
and Davide Ravasi
SE C T ION I M A PPI NG T H E ORG A N I Z AT IONA L

I DE N T I T Y (OI) F I E L D
1. Great Debates in Organizational Identity Study 21
Dennis A. Gioia and Aimee L. Hamilton
2. Measuring Organizational Identity: Taking Stock
and Looking Forward 39
Peter O. Foreman and David A. Whetten
3. Organizational Identity, Culture, and Image 65
Davide Ravasi
4. Organizational, Subunit, and Individual Identities:
Multilevel Linkages 79
Blake E. Ashforth
5. Organizational Identity Change and Temporality 93
Majken Schultz
6. Hybrid and Multiple Organizational Identities 106
Michael G. Pratt
vi
vi Contents
SE C T ION I I C R I T IC A L PE R S PE C T I V E S ON OI
7. Organizational Identity and Organizational Identity Work
as Valuable Analytical Resources 123
Tony J. Watson
8. Organizational Identity: The Significance of Power and Politics 140
Kate Kenny, Andrea Whittle, and Hugh Willmott
9. Organizational Identity: A Critique 160
Mats Alvesson and Maxine Robertson
SE C T ION I I I I N T E GR AT I V E MODE L S OF OI
10. Optimal Distinctiveness Revisited: An Integrative Framework
for Understanding the Balance between Differentiation and
Conformity in Individual and Organizational Identities 183
Ezra Zuckerman
11. Bridging and Integrating Theories on Organizational
Identity: A Social Interactionist Model of Organizational
Identity Formation and Change 200
Joep P. Cornelissen, S. Alexander Haslam,
and Mirjam D. Werner
SE C T ION I V HOW I N DI V I DUA L S R E L AT E T O OI

12. How Do We Communicate Who We Are? Examining How
Organizational Identity Is Conveyed to Members 219
Beth S. Schinoff, Kristie M. Rogers, and Kevin G. Corley
13. Mobilizing Organizational Action against Identity Threats: The
Role of Organizational Members’ Perceptions and Responses 239
Jennifer L. Petriglieri and Beth A. Devine
14. Organizational Identity and the Undesired Self 257
Kimberly D. Elsbach and Janet M. Dukerich
15. Organizational Identity Work 276
Glen E. Kreiner and Chad Murphy
vii
Contents vii
SE C T ION V S OU RC E S A N D PRO C E S SE S OF OI
16. Re-Membering: Rhetorical History as Identity Work 297
Roy Suddaby, William M. Foster,
and Christine Quinn Trank
17. Materiality and Identity: How Organizational Products,
Artifacts, and Practices Instantiate Organizational Identity 317
Lee Watkiss and Mary Ann Glynn
18. Making Sense of Who We Are: Leadership and
Organizational Identity 335
Daan van Knippenberg
SE C T ION V I OI A N D T H E E N V I RON M E N T
19. Organizational Identity in Institutional Theory: Taking Stock and
Moving Forward 353
Nelson Phillips, Paul Tracey, and Matt Kraatz
20. Institutional Pluralism, Inhabitants, and the Construction
of Organizational and Personal Identities 374
Rich DeJordy and W. E. Douglas Creed
21. Organizational Identity and Institutional Forces: Toward
an Integrative Framework 396
Marya L. Besharov and Shelley L. Brickson
SE C T ION V I I I M PL IC AT ION S OF OI
22. Organizational Identity and Innovation 417
Callen Anthony and Mary Tripsas
23. Planned Organizational Identity Change: Insights from Practice 436
Mamta Bhatt, Cees B. M. van Riel, and Marijke Baumann
24. Identity Construction in Mergers and Acquisitions: A Discursive
Sensemaking Perspective 455
Janne Tienari and Eero Vaara
viii
viii Contents
25. Fostering Stakeholder Identification through Expressed

Organizational Identities 474
Caroline A. Bartel, Cindi Baldi, and Janet M. Dukerich
Conclusion: On the Identity of Organizational Identity. Looking
Backward toward the Future 494
Michael G. Pratt, Blake E. Ashforth, Majken Schultz,
and Davide Ravasi
Author Index 501

Subject Index 505
ix
List of Figures
0.1 Peer-reviewed articles, dissertations, and theses on organizational

identity from 1985 to 2015 2
2.1 Temporal comparison of qualitative v. quantitative analyses 53
3.1 Interrelations between organizational identity, image, and culture
in past research (a simplified visual representation) 74
4.1 Organizational identity emergence and cascades 80
6.1 A classification scheme for multiple organizational identity
management responses 111
11.1 A social interactionist model of organizational identity formation
and change (SIMOI) 209
12.1 A typology of organizational identity communication 226
14.1 A framework relating organizational identity affirmation and
the undesired self 268
17.1 Instantiating an organizational identity by different elements
of materiality 325
20.1 Organizational identity in a pluralistic institutional context 379
20.2 Personal identity in a pluralistic institutional context 381
20.3 Interactions of personal and organizational identities 382
20.4 Composite model of personal and organization identity in
a pluralistic institutional environment 383
21.1 The filtering role of OI and institutional structure in influencing
how institutional forces shape OI content 405
22.1 Identity-enhancing innovation 421
22.2 Identity-stretching innovation 424
22.3 Identity-challenging innovation 425
23.1 Implementation of planned organizational identity change 439
24.1 The discursive sensemaking approach to identity construction 464
x
xi
List of Tables
2.1 Representative list of selected articles 43

2.2 Article coding scheme 44
2.3 Clusters of organizational identity research 49
2.4 Major characteristics of OI research clusters 52
2.5 Additional descriptive statistics of OI research clusters 54
5.1 Dominant views on identity change 95
6.1 Hybrid vs. multiple organizational identity conceptualizations 113
8.1 Framework for analyzing power and organizational identity 146
9.1 Is OI conceptually different from OC? 172
11.1 Metaphors of organizational identity 205
19.1 Summary of organizational identity in institutional theory 354
22.1 Studies of identity-enhancing innovation 422
22.2 Identity-stretching innovation 423
22.3 Studies of identity-challenging innovation 426
xii
xiii
List of Contributors
Mats Alvesson, Lund University

Callen Anthony, Boston College
Blake E. Ashforth, Arizona State University
Cindi Baldi, University of Texas
Caroline A. Bartel, University of Texas
Marijke Baumann, Rotterdam School of Management
Marya L. Besharov, Cornell University
Mamta Bhatt, IESEG School of Management
Shelley L. Brickson, University of Illinois at Chicago
Kevin G. Corley, Arizona State University
Joep P. Cornelissen, VU University Amsterdam
W. E. Douglas Creed, University of Rhode Island
Rich DeJordy, Northeastern University
Beth A. Devine, INSEAD
Janet M. Dukerich, University of Texas
Kimberly D. Elsbach, University of California, Davis
Peter O. Foreman, Illinois State University
William M. Foster, University of Alberta
Dennis A. Gioia, The Pennsylvania State University
Mary Ann Glynn, Boston College
Aimee L. Hamilton, University of Denver
S. Alexander Haslam, University of Queensland
Kate Kenny, Queen’s University Belfast
xiv
xiv List of Contributors
Matt Kraatz, University of Illinois

Glen E. Kreiner, The Pennsylvania State University
Chad Murphy, Oregon State University
Jennifer L. Petriglieri, INSEAD
Nelson Philips, Imperial College London
Michael G. Pratt, Boston College
Christine Quinn Trank, Vanderbilt University
Davide Ravasi, Cass Business School
Maxine Robertson, University of London
Kristie M. Rogers, University of Kansas
Beth S. Schinoff, Arizona State University
Majken Schultz, Copenhagen Business School
Roy Suddaby, University of Victoria
Janne Tienari, Stockholm University
Paul Tracey, University of Cambridge
Mary Tripsas, Boston College
Eero Vaara, Aalto University
Daan van Knippenberg, Rotterdam School of Management
Cees B. M. van Riel, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Lee Watkiss, Boston College
Tony J. Watson, University of Nottingham
Mirjam D. Werner, Rotterdam School of Management
David A. Whetten, Brigham Young University
Andrea Whittle, Newcastle University
Hugh Willmott, Cardiff Business School
Ezra Zuckerman, MIT Sloan School of Management
1
I n troduction:
Orga n iz ationa l Iden tit y
mapping where we have been,
where we are, and where we might go
Michael G. Pratt, Majken Schultz,

Blake E. Ashforth, and Davide Ravasi
What happens when you take one of the most fundamental concepts in social science
and apply it to one of the most ubiquitous forms of human collectives? This hand-
book strives to answer this question by exploring what has become a “root construct”
(Albert, Ashforth, and Dutton, 2000: 13) in our field: organizational identity (OI). From
its rich heritage in the fields of psychology (e.g., Erikson, 1968), social psychology (e.g.,
Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Brewer and Gardner, 1996) and sociology (e.g., Mead, 1934;
Goffman, 1959), the concept of identity has travelled to organization studies. While
the term itself is credited to Albert and Whetten’s (1985) Research in Organizational
Behavior chapter by the same name, similar notions have been part of our field for a
very long time. To illustrate, some scholars have noted similarities between OI and
Selznick’s (1948) notion of “organizational character” (see also Phillips, Tracey, and
Kraatz, Ch. 19). The term “identity” has been used more directly, albeit briefly, in rela-
tion to organizations as well. One classic example can be found in Zald and Denton’s
(1963: 233, emphasis ours) work on the evolution of the YMCA:
These changes, if and when they come, may require changes in the financial struc-
ture of the organization and in the recruitment of staff… They may also affect the
basic identity of at least part of the organization, and are likely to be resisted by staff
and boards alike.
Echoes of OI also resound in Clark’s (1972: 183, emphasis ours) discussion of organi-
zational sagas, especially more bottom-up views of the concept; here he notes, “With
2
2 MICHAEL G. PRATT, MAJKEN SCHULTZ, BLAKE E. ASHFORTH, AND DAVIDE RAVASI
50
Number of Articles
40
30
20
10
0
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Figure 0.1 Peer-reviewed articles, dissertations, and theses on organizational identity from
1985 to 2015
Business Source Complete, ProQuest Dissertations, and Theses Global
deep emotional commitment, believers define themselves by their organizational af-

filiation, and in their bond to other believers they share an intense sense of the unique.”
Since its conceptualization as a concept in its own right in 1985, there has been a
proliferation of scholarly treatments of “organizational identity.” To get a conservative
count of its growth, we examined peer-reviewed journal articles, dissertations, and
theses appearing in Business Source Complete, ProQuest Dissertations, and Theses
Global (see Figure 0.1) that had the terms “organizational identity” in either their titles
or abstracts. As noted in this figure, despite a slow start, research in OI has grown over
the years, with most interest occurring since the turn of the century. The steady rise
since that time may have been due, at least in part, to a special issue on “Organizational
Identity and Identification” in the Academy of Management Review in 2000. In addi-
tion, during this time, there have been many book chapters, books, and dissertations
dedicated to identity in organizations and organizational identity more specifically.
Apart from articles directly on the topic, OI research has played a bigger role in
influencing research on a variety of topics in a number of disciplines. Indeed, type
“organizational identity” as a single concept into Google Scholar with a range from
1985 to 2015, and you will get about 16,800 hits, not only in organizational theory, but
also in studies of organization behavior, corporate communication, marketing, and
related fields.
With this growth, we’ve also seen a dizzying array of how OI is conceptualized, how
it is managed, how it forms and changes, and what the implications of its existence (real
or metaphorical) are for everything ranging from navigating an organization’s place
within broader institutions, to its role in establishing a firm’s strategic focus, to its use
in leadership and in capturing—or alienating—the hearts and minds of employees.
The term is also being “appropriated” (albeit not consistently) in other theoretical tra-
ditions, such as population ecology and institutional theory, as well as by practitioners
in areas such as corporate branding, corporate identity and values-based manage-
ment, and onboarding. The Gallup organization, for example, now promises to help
you with problems stemming from your organization’s identity (http://w ww.gallup.
com/services/170918/organizational-identity.aspx [last accessed March 10, 2016]).
3
Introduction: Organizational Identity 3
Here OI is conceived as a fundamental concept underpinning “purpose, culture and

brand.” While in our field this description may be more akin to corporate identity, it
nonetheless reminds us how OI connects with other concepts central to organizations.
What makes the notion of OI so appealing? We believe there are at least four related
reasons.
First, we believe that OI is appealing because it addresses an essential question of
social existence: Who are we as a collective? All major branches of social sciences (in-
cluding anthropology, sociology, political science, psychology—and even economics,
e.g., Akerlof and Kranton, 2000), as well as philosophy and other areas of the hu-
manities address the issue of identity. And most (if not all) also talk about the iden-
tity of a collective, be it a nation (or state or city), demographic group, or constituent
group. Even mathematics refers to the relationship between or among some variables
in terms of identity (e.g., trigonometric or exponential identities).
At its core, organizational identity is about how a collective defines itself. To “define”
can mean to “to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of” or it can
mean to “to fix or mark the limits of” (http://w ww.merriam-webster.com/diction-
ary/define [last accessed March 10, 2016]). Organizational scholars have taken both
meanings to heart. In terms of the first use of “defining,” some conceptualizations
focus on what members believe is the core, distinctive, and more or less enduring
characteristics of their organization. In terms of the second, other conceptualizations
of OI focus more on the categories organizations claim to signal similarity or differ-
ences (or both—see Zuckerman, this volume, Ch. 10) from others in their institutional
environment. In this usage, the clarity and porousness of the boundaries between
categories are seen as important. The first way to define OI has been central to social
constructivist conceptualizations of OI, while the second way has been used more by
institutionalists, sociologists, and those adopting a social actor perspective (see Gioia
and Hamilton, this volume, Ch. 1; Foreman and Whetten, this volume, Ch. 2).
Although the core question of “how does a collective define itself?” has remained
the same since OI took hold in organizational studies, the answers to the question
keep changing as organizations are continuously faced with new stakeholders, new
members, and new circumstances for creating meaningful distinctions vis-à-vis
other organizations. Indeed, one fundamental trend we noted in this handbook is
that there has been movement away from viewing OI as a metaphor or as a relatively
fixed property of an organization, toward a more process-oriented view (see Schultz,
this volume, Ch. 5). That is, scholars are increasingly viewing identity over time, and
noting the steps organizations have to take, not only to change conceptualizations of
who they are, but also to create and maintain them (e.g., Cornelissen, Haslam, and
Werner, this volume, Ch. 11; Kreiner and Murphy, this volume, Ch. 15; Suddaby, Foster,
and Quinn Trank, this volume, Ch. 16; DeJordy and Creed, this volume, Ch. 20).
Second, organizational identity is at its heart a relational construct connecting
concepts, ideas, and fields—even those that are often viewed as oppositional or anti-
thetical, such as “past” and “future,” “similar” and “different,” “us” and “them”. The
relational nature of OI is found with respect to others, to time, and to levels of analysis.
4
Drawing on early conceptualizations by G. H. Mead (1934) of interrelations between

the “I” and the “me,” OI emerges from relations between “us” and “them,” as further
developed, for example, in the organizational dynamics model by Hatch and Schultz
(2002) and by Pratt (2012). This interrelation has sensitized OI research to investigate
relations with others via perceived images (i.e., how are we perceived by them?), as
demonstrated in the classic study by Dutton and Dukerich (1991). Turning within the
organization, exploring the relationships among members has prompted a closer look
at the links between identity and culture (see also Ravasi, this volume, Ch. 3). Here,
identity serves to bridge internal and external notions of the collective, in at least par-
tial service to helping the collective communicate both its similarities and differences
with other collectives. OI is also suspended in time between who we were and who
we are becoming as an organization, and recent contributions have begun to unpack
how past, present, and future identities are intertwined (see, for example Anteby and
Molnár, 2012, and Schultz and Hernes, 2013, as well as Suddaby et al., Ch. 16).
OI also links different levels of analysis (see Ashforth, this volume, Ch. 4). Indeed,
the concept of OI links institutional dynamics with those within the organization (e.g.,
DeJordy and Creed, Ch. 20; Besharov and Brickson, this volume, Ch. 21), as well as be-
tween organizations and their members (Petriglieri and Devine, this volume, Ch. 13;
Elsbach and Dukerich, this volume, Ch. 14) and other stakeholders (Bartel, Baldi, and
Dukerich, this volume, Ch. 25).
Third, and similarly, OI is also appealing as it serves as a nexus concept. A nexus can
be something that links things together, as well as a central meeting place. Again, OI
relates to both uses of the term. In our second point we noted how the relational nature
of OI suspends the concept between seemingly antithetical constructs. Here we show
how OI also serves as a “place” where other theories can meet and “hang out.”
It is amazing how many theories have become associated with and inspired by OI.
A very partial list includes sensemaking, institutional logics, theories of power and
politics, cultural theories, theories of threat and threat response, theories of strategy
and strategizing, mergers and acquisitions, metaphors, materiality, communication,
history and memory, leadership, pluralism, innovation, identification, and organiza-
tional change. Also, research on OI has attracted scholars with different ontologies and
epistemologies (Ravasi and Canato, 2013), as well as those who utilize inductive and
deductive, quantitative and qualitative methods (Foreman and Whetten, Ch. 2). This
richness in the conceptualization and empirical elaboration of OI is reflected across the
sections in the handbook, as we deliberately invited authors who have expanded the
identity concept by scrutinizing its connections to other concepts or phenomena, and
showed its broad relevance to organization studies. Several chapters develop the as-
sociations between identity and significant other concepts from organization studies,
such as power and politics (Kenny, Whittle, and Willmott, this volume, Ch. 8), critical
theory (Alvesson and Robertson, this volume, Ch. 9), communication and employee
identification (Schinoff, Rogers, and Corley, this volume, Ch. 12), theories of threat and
response (Petriglieri and Devine, Ch. 13), leadership (van Knippenberg, this volume,
Ch. 18), as well as narratives and discourse analysis (Tienari and Vaara, Ch. 24).
5
Finally, we believe that OI is appealing because it is inherently useful. As often stated

by practitioners when they turn to identity questions, knowing who you are is the
foundation for being able to state what you stand for and what you are promising
to others, no matter their relationship with the organization. As such, OI underpins
everything from strategic direction to what organizations communicate about them-
selves and what they consider to be central and distinctive about their products and
services, as exemplified by the Apple story in Chapter 17 on materiality and identity by
Watkiss and Glynn. In more general terms, OI is powerful because it has a pragmatic
function in organizations, as argued by Watson (this volume, Ch. 7) in his elaboration
of what makes OI a valuable analytical resource.
Indeed, even in early uses of the concept, OI has been helpful for organizational
members in making sense of and responding to a variety of dilemmas they face,
such as how managers handled the presence of homeless patrons in Port Authority
buildings (Dutton and Dukerich, 1991), or how the managers of Bang & Olufsen on
numerous occasions turned to a redefinition of their OI as a source of renewed com-
petitiveness (Ravasi and Schultz, 2006). As we see in the handbook, OI can be useful
in navigating a variety of organizational threats, challenges, and dilemmas. Anthony
and Tripsas (this volume, Ch. 22) demonstrate the profound importance of OI to in-
novation, drawing on examples of both failure and success. Other chapters show how
managers deliberately seek to influence OI to attain valued goals. Examples include
planned efforts to change identity claims (as shown by Bhatt, van Riel, and Baumann,
this volume, Ch. 23), often to enhance identification among stakeholders (Bartel,
Baldi, and Dukerich Ch. 25), and attempts to reconstruct identity anew following a
comprehensive merger and acquisition in order to reduce ambiguity and uncertainty
(Tienari and Vaara Ch. 24).
Integrating some of these points, OI has been particularly useful in understanding
how different groups, as well as different conceptualizations of “who we are,” relate
to each other within the same organization. As noted by Kenny et al. (Ch. 8), any
sense of a “unified” OI is likely the outcome of power and politics—that is, out of
contestation. Thus, many scholars suggest that organizations may be viewed as having
multiple identities (Pratt, this volume, Ch. 6). At times, these identities may conflict.
Indeed, early work in social identity theory arose to meet the need to understand
intergroup conflict (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). In organizations, identity has also been
viewed at the heart of group conflict. For example, identity and conflict have been
illustrated in disagreements over how nurses dealt with an increase in patient acuity
and their interactions with physicians (Pratt and Rafaeli, 1997); how board members
dealt with managers over budget issues in a non-profit organization (Golden-Biddle
and Rao, 1997); how musicians and managers negotiated a strike in a symphony or-
chestra (Glynn, 2000); and how members of a food co-operative managed both the
idealistic and pragmatic nature of their organization (Ashforth and Reingen, 2014).
In particular, research suggests that conflicts over resources, both tangible and ab-
stract, become bound up in identity, making it very difficult to manage the conflict
that ensues (Fiol, Pratt, and O’Connor, 2009; Pratt, Fiol, O’Connor, and Panico, 2012).
6
Even when multiple organizational identities do not directly conflict, they still re-
quire attention and effort to manage (Pratt and Foreman, 2000). But no matter the
specific circumstances, reading chapters across the handbook will expand our knowl-
edge about how different ways of expressing identity—using narratives, stories, values,
and claims—are forceful ways of influencing and engaging both internal and external
stakeholders.
A Roadmap to Organizational Identity
Our handbook is meant to raise the major issues and topics that have been associated
with OI, as well as point to where OI research may go in the future. In particular, our
seven sections mirror the field, writ small: providing a present-day review that is both
backward glancing and future facing. We begin by providing a roadmap of our hand-
book, and then talk about the handbook in light of the field at large.
Mapping the Organizational Identity Field

Section 1, “Mapping,” is meant to provide the “big picture” regarding the theoretical
and methodological challenges facing the field, as well as to provide a deep-dive on
some central themes that undergird the rest of the handbook.
In Chapter 1, Gioia and Hamilton tackle the epistemological and ontological de-
bates that have emerged around OI in the past thirty years. Ontologically, they tackle
the issue of whether OI really exists: is it a “thing,” a process, both, or none of the
above? Epistemologically, these scholars trace the emergence of the social actor versus
social construction perspective on OI and add to this mix an institutional one. The
authors end with their take on how to resolve these debates. To whet your appetites for
one solution, we’ll leave you with one word: gerund.
Chapter 2 by Foreman and Whetten complements the preceding one by explor-
ing the variety of methods that have been used to “capture” OI. Through an analysis
of 82 OI-related articles culled from ABI Inform and EBSCO, the authors were able
to identify clusters of articles that differed on their measurement/methods as well as
their conceptual/theoretical lenses. As with the Gioia and Hamilton article, Foreman
and Whetten touch upon how OI is conceptualized in these articles—not just how it
was measured—and note a strong relationship between the two. They conclude that,
unlike many fields in science that move from primarily qualitative research to quan-
titative, the reverse is happening for OI. They also note that the qualitative research
employed tends to focus on OI exclusively (rather than OI and other concepts) and
tends to focus only on a single organization. They conclude by discussing what they
7
view as the implications of this trend for the field of OI, as well as their preferred future
directions. Is their outlook bright or bleak? We suggest reading this chapter along with
those in Section 2 in order to more fully understand the challenges scholars see to the
development of research in OI.
This section concludes with four “mini-chapters” written by the handbook editors.
Building on what makes OI such an attractive and powerful force in organizational
scholarship, these selections each highlight central themes that are often implicit in
our chapters.
To begin, Ravasi (Ch. 3) tackles nomological issues inherent in OI—specifically how
the concept is similar to and different from organizational culture and organizational
image. He underlines a general distinction between OI as an internal set of beliefs
and understandings and organizational image as an external set of perceptions and
representations, and briefly reviews other types of organizational images (construed,
desired, projected) described in previous research. He argues in favor of consider-
ing OI and culture as separate constructs (a distinction questioned by Alvesson and
Robertson in Ch. 9), and shows how the empirical examination of their interrelations
improves our understanding of change and stability in organizations.
While much is known about identity dynamics within levels of analysis (e.g., or-
ganization, subunit, individual), far less is known about between-level dynamics, thus
impeding the development of a systemic or holistic model of identity in organizations.
Chapter 4, by Ashforth, examines how an OI emerges from founder(s)/leaders’ ini-
tial conceptions of what the organization is or can be, and how this identity in turn
both enables and constrains the subunit and individual identities nested within it. The
result is a recursive system that experiences dynamic tension between stability (when
identity constrains) and change (when identity enables). The ongoing “bottom-up”
and “top-down” dynamics reflect a blend of processes that are supplementary (flesh-
ing out an initial or abstract identity), complementary (fostering differentiation to re-
flect a complex internal and external reality), and conflicted (when actors contest an
identity).
The chapter by Schultz (Ch. 5) focuses on identity change: how does identity change
and what about identity changes? Since its early conception as “enduring,” debates
about identity change have been central to the field, and the chapter outlines three
views of OI change: 1) Identity as enduring stability; 2) Identity as periodic change and
3) Identity as ongoing change. The chapter argues how recent developments toward
temporal-and process-based views return to a focus on the continuity provided by OI,
exploring the simultaneous existence of continuity and change.
The first section concludes with Pratt’s chapter (Ch. 6), which talks explicitly about
the role of plurality of organizational identities. In particular, he distinguishes be-
tween two different conceptualizations of such plurality: hybrid organizational identi-
ties and multiple organizational identities. He argues that the former deals with two
opposing identities that may be structured within or between groups. The latter con-
ceptualization, however, simply argues that organizations can have multiple identities,
8
and that these identities need not be oppositional (e.g., they can be complementary).
He compares and contrasts research from these conceptualizations, as well as a cen-
tral ongoing challenge for work in this area.
Critical Perspectives on Organizational Identity

Whereas Section 1 staked out the foundations of OI research, Section 2 sets out to
make those very foundations problematic.
In Chapter 7, Watson suggests that OI is perhaps best viewed as a pragmatic tool
for helping scholars understand how individuals relate to their organizations. Going
back to Albert and Whetten’s (1985) conceptualization, he notes how the concept
came from trying to understand how a group of individuals in an organization came
to overreact to a relatively minor budget cut. From a pragmatic perspective, he sug-
gests caution in viewing OI in terms of correct “definitions,” and caution in how we
deploy such terms. For example, personifying an organization by calling attention to
its “identity” treats organizations as homogeneous and unitary and thus covers up
diversity, power contestation, and conflict. Echoing the process-sentiments of later
chapters (e.g., Kreiner and Murphy, Ch. 15), he suggests instead focusing on OI work
that considers how organizational identities “arise out of the negotiated order of re-
lationships between the various constituencies inside and outside of the organiza-
tion upon which the organization is dependent for its long-term existence” (see also
DeJordy and Creed, Ch. 20).
The dangers of unitary conceptualizations of OI are further raised by Kenny et
al. (Ch. 8). Indeed, these authors insightfully argue that the term “OI” itself may
be misleading as it de-emphasizes the differing and sometimes discordant views of
“who we are” as an organization. In short, to the degree that organizations claim to
have a unified identity, such a claim is the result of an exercise of power within the
organization. Drawing on work by renowned social and political theorists such as
Foucault, Lukes, Laclau, and Mouffe, these scholars make a strong case for better
understanding the political and power dynamics that underlie OI. Illustrating their
arguments with the branding of a business school, they show how different practices
bound up in the formation of the school depict different dimensions of power as well
hegemony.
This section ends with the most broad-based critique of the identity field in our
handbook. Here, Alvesson and Robertson (Ch. 9) question fundamental taken-for-
granted assumptions inherent in scholars’ treatment of OI, and in doing so not only
raise issues similar to others in this section (e.g., issues of power and reification of OI),
but other concerns such as the nature of the relationship between OI and member
identification, and OI and organizational culture. They offer several propositions for
advancing research in OI in light of its shortcomings, including advocating for a more
process-based view of OI, for greater immersion in organizations when studying OI,
for a greater integration of politics, power, and culture in OI studies, as well as for
9
exploring a wider range of organizations in OI research (e.g., non-celebrity and non-

tainted organizations).
Integrative Models of Organizational Identity

Section 3 ponders how organizations settle on an overarching OI, given the myriad
possibilities that exist. In particular, the two chapters in this section propose models
that both incorporate and ultimately transcend different perspectives on how OI
works and develops.
Zuckerman (Ch. 10) begins with the intriguing question, why do organizations and
individuals alike strive to balance conformity to the practices of other actors with dif
ferentiation from them? While optimal distinctiveness theory argues that actors seek
to balance a need for inclusion (conformity) with a need for exclusiveness (differen-
tiation), and different audience theory argues that actors face institutional audiences
(who want conformity) and market audiences (who want differentiation), Zuckerman
argues for a third approach that is richer and yet more parsimonious than either of the
other two, namely two-stage valuation theory. In a nutshell, audiences that ostensibly
want differentiation actually want conformity on most of an actor’s salient characteris-
tics (to show that the actor is a bona fide member of whatever social category is in play,
such as a bank or charter school), along with differentiation on select characteristics
(to better address the audience’s particular desires). Thus, the “two-stage valuation”
refers to an initial judgment of conformity (do they exemplify the social category?),
followed by a judgment of value-added (do they address my desires better than other
members of the category?). Zuckerman concludes that, whether at the organizational
or individual level of analysis, the tension between conformity and differentiation is
not about the internal needs of the actor but about the external needs of the audience
and the resources they can provide.
Reconciling the social constructionist, social identity, and social actor perspectives
into a single, parsimonious model of OI formation and change is the ambitious goal
of Cornelissen, Haslam, and Werner (Ch. 11). They argue that a root metaphor is as-
sociated with each perspective and that, when linked, the three metaphors provide the
foundation for a processual model of OI formation. Specifically, social construction-
ism suggests a framing metaphor wherein individuals jointly, albeit tentatively, define
who they are. The result may be a diverse set of loosely coupled frames that jostle for
prominence. As consensus emerges, the prevailing frames increasingly shape action
and sensemaking. In turn, social identity theory suggests a categorizing metaphor
wherein the prevailing frames crystallize into seemingly more objective groupings
demarcated with clearer boundaries. Individuals who exemplify a particular category
are given license to engage in sensegiving, reinforcing the categories. Finally, the social
actor perspective suggests a personification metaphor wherein human-like character-
istics and propensities are attributed to the organization. Over time, one particular
category is likely to prevail as “the” OI and become embedded in roles, routines, and
10
rituals. Whereas OI under social constructionism is explicitly subjective, OI under

the social actor perspective is more objective and taken-for-granted, suggesting a pro-
cess of gradual objectification. Nonetheless, an objective OI can be problematized by
stakeholders, presumably triggering iterations of the three perspectives. Cornelissen
et al. dub their provocative argument the “social interactionist model of organiza-
tional identity formation and change.”
How Individuals Relate to Organizational Identity

An organization’s identity is enacted by members of the organization, and has im-
plications for how members come to see themselves and how members’ actions may
in turn affect the OI. Section 5 includes three varied perspectives on how individuals
relate to the OI.
An assumption in much of the literature is that perceptions of OI are more or less
shared by organizational members. Schinoff et al. (Ch. 12) posit the crucial question,
how do we actually communicate who we are? Focusing on identity custodians, “in-
dividuals seen as communicating identity content on behalf of the organization,”
Schinoff and her colleagues argue that there are three primary means of commu-
nicating OI: (1) saying, sending a verbal or written message, as through one-on-one
conversations and mass communications (e.g., email, annual reports); (2) showing,
modeling behaviors or displaying artifacts (e.g., physical setting, company products);
and (3) staging, choreographing a context in which members can experience or enact
the OI (e.g., via roles, rituals, routines). Schinoff et al. then formulate a 2x2 based on
identity custodians’ understanding of the OI (low versus high) and custodians’ inten-
tional communication of the OI (low versus high). The authors argue that there are
pros and cons attached to each of the resulting four cells, including—counterintui-
tively—cons of articulating OI (e.g., overwriting the OI on personal identities, thereby
sowing confusion if custodians disagree) and pros of not doing so (e.g., preserving
strategic ambiguity, thereby allowing members to buy in via filling in the gaps; ena-
bling identity at other levels to appropriately dominate, as in the occupational identity
of stylists in a hair salon).
How do the perceptions and responses of organizational members to an OI threat
affect the wider organization’s response to the threat? Petriglieri and Devine (Ch. 13)
note that threats to the way that members see the organization come from both inter-
nal events (e.g., change initiatives, scandals) and external events (e.g., environmental
turbulence, negative publicity). They argue that unless a threat to the organization’s
identity is also a threat to the individual’s identity (as when individuals identify with
their employer), then the individual is unlikely to be sufficiently motivated to respond.
The authors make the important point that not all members see the OI or the “threat”
in the same way, necessitating that frontline members mobilize consensus and sup-
port for action via bottom-up processes, and that senior managers mobilize via top-
down processes. The analysis closes with provocative directions for research, such
11
as: distinguishing between responses that protect the threatened OI from those that
change it; examining how the organization’s response to a threat may in itself consti-
tute a threat (as when members disagree with senior managers’ actions); and exploring
the potentially positive consequences of OI threat.
An OI has implications for how organizational members see themselves. Elsbach
and Dukerich (Ch. 14) close this section by pondering what happens when an
organization imposes an identity on members that is undesired. Specifically, in
pursuing an OI that is legitimate and distinctive, an organization may require in-
dividuals to adopt role-or group-based identities that are antithetical to how the
individuals see themselves. For example, artistic workers such as designers and
architects may be required to enact the role of pragmatic corporate professional.
Because individuals are necessarily tethered to their roles and groups, Elsbach and
Dukerich argue that the most viable defensive response is to reframe the mean
ing of the imposed identity. This is accomplished through either redefining the
meaning of the role or group (e.g., seeing oneself as a rebel) or demonstrating non-
investment in the role or group (e.g., signaling that one’s role enactment is insin-
cere). The authors highlight intriguing research questions, such as what happens
when individuals understand the organizational need for the undesired identity,
thus fostering ambivalence.
Sources and Processes of Organizational Identity

How do organizations engage in identity reconstruction? What are the resources de-
ployed by actors when engaging in such processes? These are the questions that have
guided the chapters in Section 5, which shows how studies of OI have turned to more
process-based and temporally informed views as OI is increasingly conceived as a
never ending “work-in-progress.”
The notion of “identity work” has had significant impact at the individual level of
analysis, but has only more recently been taken to the organizational level—enhancing
the relational nature of OI. The chapter by Kreiner and Murphy (Ch. 15) conceptual-
izes OI work by drawing on both insights from individual-level analysis and relat-
ing to other kinds of “agentic work,” such as boundary work and institutional work.
Acknowledging the multiplicity of definitions at all levels, the authors go to great
lengths explaining the conceptual underpinning of their definition of “organizational
identity work as comprising discursive, cognitive, and behavioral processes that help
individuals and collectives create, sustain, share, and/or change organizational iden-
tity.” This definition, in turn, suggests how organizational members, by engaging in
processes of identity work, transform the content of identity—a lthough the authors
also explore how both institutional and boundary work influence the conditions for
organizational identity work. In addition, they encourage an exploration of other
kinds of “work” in relation to OI, such as the work of remembering and/or forgetting
who we were as an organization.
12
The relationship between language and history in identity work is the focus of the
following chapter by Suddaby et al. (Ch. 16), adding narrations of collective history
and memory to the conceptualization of identity work. Referring to several empirical
studies on how history has been “re-Membered” in organizations across time, the au-
thors argue how grounding OI narratives in organizational history makes them more
powerful in persuading stakeholders to identify with the organization. They suggest
the term “rhetorical history” to stress managerial agency in the narrative use of his-
tory, tapping into the collective memory of the organizations. They argue that the
inclusion of historical narratives in identity work not only paves the way for rhetorical
identification processes, but also serves as a resource of competitiveness in drawing
distinctions from others.
The importance of OI to competitiveness is also a theme of the next chapter by
Watkiss and Glynn (this volume, Ch. 17) in that they illustrate the influence of ma-
teriality on OI via the success of Apple. The authors argue that identity not only
emerges from collective self-definitions about “who we are,” but also derive from
“what we do.” Whereas the preceding chapters emphasize the discursive, cognitive,
and rhetorical resources of identity work, this chapter introduces the importance of
materiality to OI, as manifested in artifacts, products, and practices. Using illustra-
tions from the development of the identity of Apple, the authors argue how these
forms of materiality contribute to the shaping of OI construction via processes de-
fined as categorization, symbolization, and repertoires for performance. In arguing
the importance of materiality to OI, the chapter also elaborates the relations with
organizational culture and its early interest in symbols and artifacts, among other
qualities.
No matter the resources underpinning OI, the above chapters all assume the pres-
ence of leadership without making this the topic of their conceptual contribution. In
contrast, the chapter by van Knippenberg (Ch. 18) makes how leaders give sense to OI
the focus of inquiry. The chapter departs from the assumption that leaders work to
communicate a desired understanding of OI and further explores what enables leaders
to change organizational members’ understanding of OI. The chapter stresses the im-
portance of credibility and legitimacy to identity leadership, but in particular suggests
that the ability of a leader to embody the perceived shared identity—or to be group
prototypical—serves as an important foundation for a leader’s potential to give sense
to the ways in which organizational members make sense of their OI. In the concep-
tion of group prototypicality the author relies on social identity theory and theories
of categorization, showing how theorizing OI leadership comprises multiple levels of
analysis, a point also discussed by Ashforth in Chapter 4.
Identity and the Organization’s Environment

How do members’ understandings of “who we are” as an organization draw on re-
sources from the broader environment? And how do these understandings influence
13
how they interpret and respond to environmental changes? This is what the three
chapters in Section 6 examine.
In their chapter, Phillips, Tracey, and Kraatz (Ch. 19) examine how the concept of OI
has been used by institutional theorists over time. First, they remind us about the im-
portant intellectual legacy of Phillip Selznick and his idea that some organizations ac-
quire a distinctive “character”—Selznick’s equivalent of OI—through complex social
and political processes and a history of commitments to a core set of values. Second,
they point out how organizational identities may draw on socially constructed “collec-
tive identities,” institutionalized understandings that organizations share similarity
in important characteristics and belong to the same type and “category” (an issue also
touched by Zuckerman in Ch. 10). Finally, they draw attention to how “institutional
entrepreneurs” can forge new organizational identities by combining elements from
different institutional logics, understood as different coherent sets of organizational
principles characterizing different domains such as commerce, charity, the family, or
the arts.
Why do people construct identities for organizations? This is the question
that DeJordy and Creed (Ch. 20) address in the second chapter of this section.
Organizational identities, they convincingly argue, help us fulfill personal identity
projects, as affiliation with organizations that claim particular values help us make
sense of our own identity and give sense of it to others, by expressing a “common-
ality of values.” Organizations—t hey point out—a re constantly facing pluralistic
demands from their environment, reflecting the different identity projects of their
constituents. Members are therefore engaged in an ongoing construction and re-
construction of the OI in order to address these demands. The result of their effort,
DeJordy and Creed claim, is a particular organizational “self ” (Pratt and Kraatz,
2012) that connects and prioritizes identities, addressing the demands of different
constituents. Building on these ideas, they develop a multilevel model linking the
individual, organizational, and institutional level of analysis, and use a compara-
tive analysis of OI in three different Christian denominations to illustrate their
ideas.
Finally, Besharov and Brickson (Ch. 21) address the apparent contradiction between
theories proposing that organizational identities are shaped by institutional forces and
those that emphasize members’ agency in socially constructing the identity of their
organization, possibly drawing on institutional “building blocks.” They propose that
these two positions correspond to the extreme ends of a continuum, and that the con-
tent and structure of both OI and institutional forces will influence the actual nature
of their interaction. By content, Besharov and Brickson refer to the particular answers
that members give to the self-defining question “who are we as an organization?”,
and the particular demands imposed by institutional forces; by structure, they refer
to the degree of alignment among multiple identities and pluralistic demands. When
the content of identities is more aligned with the content of demands, they argue,
organizations will be more responsive to these demands, but also less flexible in their
interpretation of them, shifting to the more constrained end of the continuum. They
14
conclude their chapter by discussing potential avenues for further research based on
the idea of OI acting as an interpretive filter for institutional demands.
Implications of Organizational Identity

The last section of the handbook focuses on the implications of OI, highlighting the
relevance of identity to what goes on in and around organizations.
The first chapter by Anthony and Tripsas (Ch. 22) explores the neglected relation
between innovation and OI by looking at both how identity influences the direction
of innovative activities, and, in turn, how those activities influence the further evolu-
tion of OI. However, the authors argue that innovative activities do not have the same
influence on OI, which is developed in the distinctions between identity-enhancing,
identity-stretching, and identity-challenging activities. Although innovation is rarely
pursued with the explicit aspiration to change OI, the authors show how identity and
innovation in reality reinforce each other, leading to periodic identity change as the
organization sets out to pursue new innovative paths.
The next chapter by Bhatt, van Riel, and Baumann (Ch. 23) takes a more explicit
focus on how leaders embark on planned OI change. Drawing on insights from a suc-
cessful planned change in OI claims in a Dutch funeral services organization, the
authors point out how planned change is directed at both internal and external audi-
ences. In particular, they stress how internal identity change implies that employees
must be aligned with the new set of identity claims by being informed, motivated, and
capable of realizing the new identity. By the same token, creating awareness and at-
tractiveness of the new set of identity claims among external audiences is a condition
for the identity change to be embraced and enacted. Although the authors illustrate
their arguments with a successful example of planned identity change, they also dis-
cuss a number of contextual conditions and challenges to identity change in relation
to its practical implementation.
In the following chapter, Tienari and Vaara (Ch. 24) look closer at the implications
of OI during mergers and acquisitions, focusing on how organizations and organiza-
tional members engage in self-definitions during such extreme organizational change.
The authors discuss how organizational members evoke and apply a variety of cultural
and discursive resources in order to construct, transform, and on some occasions de-
construct definitions of OI. The authors point to new ways of connecting identity to
culture in that they go beyond the dominant focus on power and cultural clashes to
explain how mergers develop—and often fail. Instead they suggest how organizational
culture provides “language-based means,” such as stereotypes and narratives, which
are used by organizational members in making sense of who they are, as a merger un-
folds. This in turn influences the extent to which organizational members are able and
willing to identify with the newly merged organization. Such collective constructions
of new self-definitions are conceived as processes of discursive sensemaking, demon-
strating how sensemaking—and in particular its discursive foundation—is salient to
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Its management under the spoils system.
See (in this volume)

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: A. D. 1901.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, at Washington.

The new building.
"By the act of April 15, 1886, the present site, one-quarter
of a mile south of east from the Capitol, was selected, its
acquisition by the United States provided for, and the
construction of a building authorized. During this long period
of discussion many schemes for attaining the desired end,
including a variety of plans for enlarging and occupying the
Capitol and many different sites in the city of Washington,
were considered. Several times did the legislation reach an
advanced state and fail through the pressure of more absorbing
interests. Finally the law referred to adopted sketch plans that
had been prepared by Messrs. Smithmeyer and Pelz, a firm of
Washington architects, but it fixed no limit of cost, nor did
it specify the materials of construction or character of
execution of the design other than to stipulate that the
building should be fireproof. A commission, composed of the
Secretary of the Interior, the Librarian of Congress, and the
Architect of the Capitol, was designated to conduct the
construction of the building. The site, comprising two city
squares—nearly nine acres, within the city building lines and
with the included streets—was purchased of the private owners,
the ground cleared of some seventy buildings occupying it, and
by the summer of 1888 about one-half of the foundation
footings for the building were laid. During that year,
however, Congress became dissatisfied with the progress that
had been made and the uncertainties involved in the operation
of the inadequate original law, and accordingly, on October 2,
modified it and lodged the entire control of the work, including
the preparation of new plans at a limited cost, in the hands
of Brigadier General Thomas Lincoln Casey, Chief of Engineers
of the United States Army. He immediately placed the writer in
local charge.
{293}
On March 2, 1889, Congress enacted that the building should be
erected at a total cost of $6,500,000, including previous
expenditures, according to a plan that had been prepared and
submitted by General Casey, pursuant to the previous act of
October 2, 1888. This plan was based on that adopted by the
original act, and provided a building of similar form,
dimensions, and architecture. The project embodied the
principal materials of construction and a detailed estimate of
the cost. Under these auspices operations were begun in the
spring of 1889 where the operations had left off the year
before, and the construction thence proceeded without
interruption until the building was finally completed, in the
spring of 1897. It was 470 feet in length by 340 feet in
width, having three stories and a subbasement, and fronts
west—toward the Capitol. … The foundations of the building are
of hydraulic cement concrete, 6 feet deep in ground which is a
mixture of clay and sand of very uniform character. The cellar
walls are of hard red brick; the exterior face of the
superstructure of a fine grained light blue granite from
Concord, New Hampshire; the stone of the rotunda and the
trimmings of the court walls a light blue granite from near
Woodstock, Maryland; the facing of the court walls enameled
brick from Leeds, England; and the backing and interior walls
as well as all of the vaulting of the basement and first
stories are of hard red brick. Most of the floors that are
flat ceiled are of terra cotta, and this material also forms
the covering and filling of the roofs and main dome, of which
the supporting members are of rolled steel in beams, girders,
and trusses. All of the floors are leveled up with concrete
and surfaced with tiles, terrazzo, or mosaic in the public
spaces, while in the office and working rooms they are covered
with a carpet of southern pine boards. The most important of
the strictly useful features of the building are the book
stacks, of which the design is largely original. The problem
was new, not only through the capacity to be provided but the
numerous other conditions to be met, such as light,
ventilation, adjustability to several uses, communication,
immunity from fire, cleanliness, durability, and simplicity.
It was also necessary that rapid mechanical transmission of
books between the shelving and the reading room should be
provided, coupled with a quick and reliable means of
communication, both written and oral. … The book carrier is a
pair of parallel, endless chains, running in a vertical shaft
in the middle of the stack; thence in a horizontal duct in the
cellar to a point below the central desk of the reading room,
where it turns upward and ascends vertically to the delivery
outlet at the desk. A series of equidistant book trays,
eighteen in number, are suspended between the chains. The
machine runs continuously and automatically takes on and
delivers books of the size of a quarto or less at its reading
room terminal and at each of the stack stories. The speed of
the carrier is about 100 feet per minute. The pneumatic
message tube is also convenient as a speaking tube. The great
rotunda or public reading room of the building, the main
staircase hall or foyer, the private reading rooms for the
members of Congress, the Librarian's office, the corridors
communicating with these, and the exhibition halls as well as
many portions of the exterior walls, especially the west main
pavilion, have received a good degree of artistic treatment
and embellishment, but all within strict architectural
requirements. Some forty sculptors and mural painters, about
equally divided in numbers, furnished the principal works of
art under the architects' supervision and direction. Many
appropriate quotations and names are inscribed on the walls in
the architectural tablets, friezes and panels, adding to the
general impressiveness and interest of the building. In all
ways and from all points of view the library building is
eminently instructive as an example of good design, good
appointment for its great purpose, good building and good
administration in the execution, and therefore the more
appropriate to house the nation's library. The unusual success
of the undertaking under Government auspices is almost wholly due
to the selection of a known competent, sturdy, and faithful
individual such as General Casey was, and giving him the sole
charge directly under Congress without an executive superior
liable to interfere and cause delays. The work went on
quietly, but with energy; and was completed within the
originally estimated time and well within the legal limit of
cost. The total cost of the building was $6,344,585.34—that of
the site, $585,000."
Bernard R. Green,
The Building for the Library of Congress
(Annual Report Smithsonian Institution, 1897, page 625).
LI HUNG-CHANG:
Negotiation of peace with Japan.

CHINA: A. D. 1894-1895.
LI HUNG-CHANG:
Tour in Europe and America.

CHINA: A. D. 1896.
LI HUNG-CHANG:
Charged with being in Russian pay.

CHINA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL-JULY).
LI HUNG-CHANG:
Acting Viceroy at Canton.

CHINA: A. D. 1899 (DECEMBER).
LI HUNG-CHANG:
Attempt to open negotiations with allied Powers.

CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JULY).
LI HUNG-CHANG:
Chinese Plenipotentiary to negotiate with the allied Powers.

CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
LIKIN, The Chinese taxes called.
"Chinese tariff rates, where they exist, average about 5 per

cent ad valorem. Many articles are admitted free of duty, and
on some the rates are higher than 5 per cent, but in general
terms this is about the average rate. To this, however, there
is a material addition where the goods are intended for
interior points. The Chinese Government, while it collects a
part of its revenue from customs, relies largely upon the
provinces to supply revenue, and arbitrarily names each year
the sum which each province must supply, leaving to the
officers of that province the methods by which this is
obtained. The consequence is that each province is permitted
to collect a tax on goods entering it from the adjacent
provinces, and this custom has been extended to the
subdivision of the provinces, so that goods in transit are
frequently compelled to pay taxes every few miles. As a
consequence, the interior taxes, known as 'likin,' became not
only the terror of importers, but sometimes almost
prohibitory. So serious was this system in its effects upon
attempts to introduce foreign goods that, upon the insistence
of foreign ministers, the Chinese Government announced that an
addition of 50 per cent to the rates paid at the custom-houses
would insure passage of the goods to any point in the interior
without the exaction of likin taxes.
{294}
This was gladly accepted by foreigners desiring to do business
in the interior of China. The additional 50 per cent on duties
was paid and 'transit passes' issued for the goods in question,
purporting to authorize their free transit to any point in the
Empire. Actual experience, however, shows that these transit
passes do not always accomplish what was expected. … Every 8
or 10 miles along the principal waterways or caravan routes a
likin station is found, where a tax is levied upon some
article or articles carried through by boat, pack animal, or
wheelbarrow. At some points every article is taxed. This is
the usual rule at the gates of cities. In some cases the tax
is as little as 2 per cent ad valorem; in others, such as
silk, satin, and native opium, much more, amounting at times
to 6, 8, or even 10 per cent. Between Shanghai and Soochow, a
distance of 84 miles, there are 8 likin stations. At the first
and last stations all goods are dutiable; at the rest all
goods must be examined, and there is scarcely a single article
that does not in that distance pay at least three taxes. It is
easily seen that under such a system foreign goods cannot be
carried very far from the coast before their prices become
prohibitive for ordinary people."
United States, Bureau of Statistics, Monthly Summary,

March, 1899, pages 2188, 2231.
LINCOLN PARTY, The.
See (in this volume).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER),
SILVER REPUBLICAN.
LIQUID AIR, The production of.

SCIENCE, RECENT: CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS.
LIQUOR SELLING, The regulation of.
Abolition of the Army Canteen.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY).
LIQUOR SELLING:
Dispensary Laws.

SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1892-1899;
NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1897-1899;
SOUTH DAKOTA: A. D. 1899; and
ALABAMA: A. D. 1899.
LIQUOR SELLING:
International convention respecting the
liquor traffic in Africa.

AFRICA: A. D. 1899 (JUNE).
LIQUOR SELLING:
The question in American politics.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER);
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
LIQUOR SELLING:
The Raines Liquor Law.

NEW YORK STATE: A. D. 1896-1897.
LISCUM, Colonel Emerson H.:

Death.

CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JULY).
LITTLE ENGLAND PARTY.
A name given by its opponents to the section of the Liberal

party in Great Britain which condemns the boundless
enlargement of British annexations, protectorates and spheres
of influence in all parts of the world, and which is critical
of expansive and imperialistic wars.
LIU KUN-YI, Viceroy at Nanking:

Admirable conduct during the Chinese outbreak.

CHINA: A. D. 1900 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
LOCH, Sir H. B.:

British High Commissioner in South Africa.

SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1894.
LOCKOUTS.

INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES.
LOG OF THE MAYFLOWER, The so-called.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1897.
LOGIA, Discovery of a fragment of the.

ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: EGYPT; DISCOVERY OF A
FRAGMENT.
LOMBOK.

DUTCH EAST INDIES.
LONDON: A. D. 1894.
The Tower Bridge.
The Tower Bridge was formally opened on the 30th of June,

eight years after the beginning of the work. Its cost was
£1,250,000.
LONDON: A. D. 1897.
Great fire.
On November 19, 1897, occurred one of the largest fires in

London since 1606. Beginning in Aldersgate, it spread over six
acres of a densely populated quarter, destroying over 100
warehouses and buildings. The loss was estimated at
£2,000,000.
LONDON: A. D. 1899.
The London Government Act.
"The London Government Act is the most important measure

passed by Lord Salisbury's Government during the year 1899;
indeed, in some respects it is the most valuable reform
carried by the Parliament which [expired in 1000]. There was
urgent need for such a measure. The machinery of London
Government was hopelessly out of gear. It was both cumbrous
and intricate; it was controlled by a network of small local
authorities whose duties were ill-defined and often clashed
with each other. There was no uniformity or harmony in the
system." The old Roman wall, "built somewhere between A. D.
350 and A. D. 370 … played a most important part in the
history of London; and, indeed, it had a large share in
creating the problems with which Mr. Balfour had to deal in
1899. Little did its unknown builder dream that his wall, so
admirable in itself, would cause us trouble fifteen centuries
after his death. But such is the fact. He was a wise man, this
nameless benefactor of the infant municipality; he took care
that the wall should be thoroughly well built; and he allowed,
as he thought, ample room for later growth. The exact position of
this wall is well known to antiquaries. Many portions of it
still remain; it included in its ambit about a square mile of
territory, with wells and trees, gardens and pastures,
bordering on the great Roman roads. For a thousand years or
more this area was sufficient for all purposes. … So far as we
now can guess, it was not till the 16th century that any
Londoner felt cramped within the wall and craved more
elbow-room. Gradually the City expanded, and at first it
incorporated its extra-mural parishes, such as Bishopsgate and
Farringdon Without. The borough of Southwark was supposed for
some purposes to be annexed to the City; it was till last year
by a fiction regarded as a ward of the City—the ward of Bridge
Without. To this extent, then, the City spread outside its
wall. But here its natural expansion stopped. … The City
proper remained a compact town, well organized and well
governed, but the suburbs were treated as mere country
villages; their only local authority was the parish vestry,
and its only officers the churchwardens and the overseers.
{295}
"This state of things obviously could not last. It soon became

impossible for the parishioners to assemble in the vestry; no
room, indeed, would hold them. First one parish and then
another applied to Parliament for an Act creating what was
called a 'select vestry,' and many representative bodies were
thus formed with diverse and very miscellaneous powers. …
Where the parishes were small, instead of a select vestry a
district board was formed, under which several small parishes
were grouped. And so when the London Government Act was passed
there were 78 parishes and extra-parochial places within the
county, but outside the City of London. … These vestries and
boards were the sanitary authorities for their respective
areas: they superintended the removal of nuisances, and the
lighting, paving, watering, and cleansing of the streets; they
also attended to some minor works of drainage, ancillary to
the main system. … In 1855, the Metropolitan Board of Works
was created to control the main drainage, to carry out
improvements, to regulate the streets and bridges, and to
maintain and manage the Fire Brigade. But its members were
elected on a vicious system—by the various vestries and
boards, and not directly by the ratepayers. … Its place was
taken [in 1888] by the London County Council. But besides
these vestries, local boards, district boards, and the
Metropolitan Board, it was deemed necessary from time to time
to create many minor authorities to meet various pressing
needs; such were the Metropolitan Asylums Board, the Thames
Conservators, the Lee Conservators, the commissioners of baths
and washhouses, the commissioners of free libraries, the
burial boards, &c., in addition to 30 boards of guardians and
the London School Board. As the population of London outgrew
its existing institutions, the defects and shortcomings were
remedied by patchwork. …
"From this position of affairs we have been rescued by two

important measures, … the Local Government Act, 1888, and the
London Government Act, 1899. … The Local Government Act of
1888 abolished the Metropolitan Board of Works: it created the
administrative county of London; it called into existence the
London County Council. The London Government Act of 1899 has
done still more for London. It has abolished some 127 local
authorities, whose place will be taken by the 28 borough
councils which must be elected on November 1. The London
County Council, the City Corporation, the Metropolitan Asylums
Board, the boards of guardians, and the London School Board
remain practically untouched. But 73 vestries, 12 district
boards, the Woolwich Local Board of Health (the last of its
race), 12 burial boards, 19 boards of library commissioners,
and 10 boards of baths and washhouses commissioners, for all
purposes of civic government, cease to exist."
London Times, October 16, 1900.
LONDON CONVENTION (British-Boer), of 1884.

SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1884-1894.
LONGEVITY, Human:
The Nineteenth Century increase of.
See (in this vol.)

NINETEENTH CENTURY: THE LENGTHENED AVERAGE.
LOOTING, in China.

CHINA: A. D. 1900 (AUGUST 5-16, and 15-28).
"LOS VON ROM" MOVEMENT, The.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1899-1900.
LOUBET, Émile: Election to the Presidency of the French Republic.

FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).
LOUISIANA: A. D. 1898.
New State Constitution.
An educational qualification of the suffrage which applies
to all negroes and few whites.
The framing of a new constitution for the State was completed

in May. Its distinctive feature is an educational
qualification of the suffrage which does not apply to men who
were qualified in any State to vote at the beginning of the
year 1867, nor to the sons and grandsons of such men, nor to
foreigners naturalized before the 1st of January, 1898. The
amendment is as follows:
"SECTION 3.
He (the voter) shall be able to read and write, and shall
demonstrate his ability to do so when he applies for
registration, by making, under oath administered by the
registration officer or his deputy, written application
therefor, in the English language, or his mother tongue, which
application shall contain the essential facts necessary to
show that he is entitled to register and vote, and shall be
entirely written, dated, and signed by him, in the presence of
the registration officer or his deputy, without assistance or
suggestion from any person or memorandum whatever, except the
form of application hereinafter set forth: Provided, however,
That if the applicant be unable to write his application in
the English language, he shall have the right, if he so
demands, to write the same in his mother tongue from the
dictation of an interpreter; and if the applicant is unable to
write his application by reason of physical disability, the
same shall be written at his dictation by the registration
officer or his deputy, upon his oath of such disability. The
application for registration, above provided for, shall be a
copy of the following form, with the proper names, dates, and
numbers substituted for the blanks appearing therein, to wit:
"I am a citizen of the State of Louisiana. My name is --. I

was born in the State (or country) of --, parish (or county)
of --, on the -- day of --, in the year --. I am now -- years
-- months and -- days of age. I have resided in this State
since --, and am not disfranchised by any provision of the
constitution of this State.
"SECTION 4.
If he be not able to read and write, as provided by section 3
of this article, then he shall be entitled to register and
vote if he shall, at the time he offers to register, be the
bona fide owner of property assessed to him in this State at a
valuation of not less than $300 on the assessment roll of the
current year, if the roll of the current year shall then have
been completed and filed, and on which, if such property be
personal only, all taxes due shall have been paid.
"SECTION 5.
No male person who was on January 1, 1867, or at any date
prior thereto, entitled to vote under the constitution or
statute of any State of the United States, wherein he then
resided, and no son or grandson of any such person not less
than 21 years of age at the date of the adoption of this
constitution, and no male person of foreign birth, who was
naturalized prior to the first day of January, 1898, shall be
denied the right to register and vote in this State by reason
of his failure to possess the educational or property
qualifications prescribed by this constitution: Provided, He
shall have resided in this State for five years next preceding
the date at which he shall apply for registration, and shall
have registered in accordance with the terms of this article
prior to September 1, 1898; and no person shall be entitled to
register under this section after said date."
{296}
LOW, Seth:
Citizens' Union candidate for Mayor of Greater New York.

NEW YORK CITY: A. D. 1897 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER.)
LOW, Seth:
American commissioner to the Peace Conference at The Hague.

PEACE CONFERENCE.
LÜBECK: A. D. 1900.
The Elbe and Trave Canal.

GERMANY: A. D. 1900 (JUNE).
LUDLOW, General William:

Military Governor of Havana.

CUBA: A. D. 1898-1899 (DECEMBER-OCTOBER).
LUEGER, Dr.:
Anti-Semitic agitation in Vienna.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1895-1896.
LUXEMBOURG: A. D. 1899 (May-July).

Representation in the Peace Conference at The Hague.

PEACE CONFERENCE.
LUZON.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS.
LYNCH LAW, in the United States.
Statistics, compiled by the "Chicago Tribune," of the cases of

mob-murder, called "lynchings," which were reported in the
newspapers as having occurred in the United States during the
year 1899, showed a total of 107, being 20 less than a similar
record for 1898 had shown. Of the reported cases, 3 were in
Kansas, 1 in Pennsylvania, and 103 in Southern States. Georgia
led in the latter list, being credited with 20 executions
under lynch law. Mississippi followed with 14, Louisiana with
13, Arkansas with 11, and other States of the South with
lesser numbers. Of the victims (mostly colored) 44 were
accused of murder; 11 of complicity in murder; 11 with rape or
attempted rape; 1 with rape and murder.
The "Political Science Quarterly," in its Record of Political

Events between November 11, 1897, and May 10, 1898, cites 31
incidents of lynching, exclusive of a mob-murder committed at
Lake City, South Carolina, where a negro postmaster and one of
his children were killed, his wife and three other children
wounded, and their house burned down. Of these incidents, 23
were reported from the South, the victims in every case being
black; 8 were from northwestern States, the victims being
white.
For 1897, the "Buffalo Express" compiled statistics of

reported lynchings from its news columns, which showed 38
between January 1 and June 8, and 77 during the remainder of
the year, making a total of 115.
M.
MACARTHUR, General:
Military operations in the Philippine Islands.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY-NOVEMBER).
MACDONALD, Sir Claude:
British Minister at Peking.

CHINA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY), and after.
MACEDONIA, Impending revolt in.

TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1901; and
BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES.
MACEO, Antonio:
Death of the Cuban leader.

CUBA: A. D. 1896-1897.
MACHADADORP:
Temporary seat of Transvaal government.

SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR): A. D. 1900 (MAY-JUNE).
MACKENZIE, The district of.

CANADA: A. D. 1895.
MCKINLEY, William:
Election and reelection to the Presidency of the United States.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1896 (JUNE-NOVEMBER);
and 1900 (MAY-NOVEMBER).
MCKINLEY, William:
Administration.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1897 (MARCH), and after.
MCKINLEY, William:
Message on the condition of Cuba in 1897.

CUBA: A. D. 1896-1897.
MCKINLEY, William:
Message on the destruction of the battleship Maine.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (FEBRUARY-
MARCH).
MCKINLEY, William:
Message asking for power to intervene in Cuba.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (MARCH-APRIL).
MCKINLEY, William:
Message announcing state of war with Spain.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (APRIL).
MCKINLEY, William:
Civil Service order in 1899.

CIVIL SERVICE REFORM: A. D. 1899.
MCKINLEY, William:
Negotiation of peace with Spain.
Instructions to and correspondence with Commissioners at Paris.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY-DECEMBER).
MCKINLEY, William:
Instructions to the military commander and
to the two commissions in the Philippines.

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS:
A. D. 1898-1899 (DECEMBER-JANUARY);
1899 (JANUARY); and 1900 (APRIL).
MADAGASCAR.
The island of Madagascar, which stretches through more than

thirteen degrees of latitude, in close neighborhood to the
eastern African coast, opposite Mozambique, though often
called "the great African island," is more Malayan than
African in its population. The dominant tribe is the Hova. For
more than a century the French have been covetous of the
island, and since 1883, when they opened a war with its Hova
rulers, they have pursued a steady policy toward the end of
making it their own. The result of the war of 1886 was a
treaty under which the French claimed a certain protectorate
or control of Malagasy foreign relations,—a claim concerning
which there remained much dispute. In 1890 the British
government recognized the French protectorate, but the native
government continued steadily to refuse acknowledgment that
the treaty had given any such rights.
{297}
MADAGASCAR:
Subjugation of the island by the French.
Anti-foreign and anti-Christian risings.
Revival of idolatry.
Final possession of the island by France proclaimed.
Submissive Declaration of the Queen.
In 1894 the French government took decisive measures looking

toward the subjugation of the island, and, early in 1895, a
strong expedition under General Duchesne was landed on the
coast. The Malagasy were much divided among themselves, and
they were poorly prepared for war. They made feeble resistance
to the invaders; but the latter had a difficult and costly
campaign, notwithstanding, on account of the nature of the
country and the absence of roads, which they were obliged to
construct as they advanced. They are said to have lost only 20
men killed in action, but 6,000 by disease. They reached
Antananarivo, the Hova capital, at the end of September.
"Immediately on the arrival of General Duchesne a treaty was
signed by the Malagasy authorities, by which the whole power
of the country was ceded to the French. The queen remained in
her place, and the Hova Prime Minister was also allowed to be
nominally at the head of affairs. Part of this arrangement was
found impracticable after a short time; the Prime Minister had
enjoyed unlimited power for too long a period to accept a
subordinate position, and General Duchesne was forced to
remove him. According]y, he was taken to a house of his own at
a short distance from the capital, where he was kept under
surveillance for two or three months, but as he was still
supposed to be plotting he was deported to Algiers, in which
country he died after a very short exile.
"It seemed at first as if the change of masters in the island

was to be accomplished without any serious disturbance. … In
the early part of November (1895), however, this satisfactory
state of affairs was rudely interrupted. A paltry quarrel
between two clans about a piece of ground, which each claimed,
gradually developed into a serious rising. The two parties

Full Chapter The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity Michael G Pratt PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full Chapter The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Identity Michael G Pratt PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Oxford Handbook of Organizational

Identity Michael G. Pratt

The Oxford Handbook of Individual Differences in

The Oxford Handbook of Music and the Brain Oxford

The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Central Banking

The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations Thomas G.

The Oxford Handbook of Project Management 1st Edition

The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity Oxford

The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe (Oxford

The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology (Oxford

The Oxford Handbook of

Introduction: Organizational Identity, Mapping Where

SE C T ION I M A PPI NG T H E ORG A N I Z AT IONA L

SE C T ION I V HOW I N DI V I DUA L S R E L AT E T O OI

25. Fostering Stakeholder Identification through Expressed

Author Index 501

0.1 Peer-​reviewed articles, dissertations, and theses on organizational

2.1 Representative list of selected articles 43

Mats Alvesson, Lund University

Matt Kraatz, University of Illinois

Michael G. Pratt, Majken Schultz,

deep emotional commitment, believers define themselves by their organizational af-

Introduction: Organizational Identity 3

Here OI is conceived as a fundamental concept underpinning “purpose, culture and

Drawing on early conceptualizations by G. H. Mead (1934) of interrelations between

Introduction: Organizational Identity 5

Finally, we believe that OI is appealing because it is inherently useful. As often stated

A Roadmap to Organizational Identity

Mapping the Organizational Identity Field

Introduction: Organizational Identity 7

Critical Perspectives on Organizational Identity

Introduction: Organizational Identity 9

exploring a wider range of organizations in OI research (e.g., non-​celebrity and non-​

Integrative Models of Organizational Identity

rituals. Whereas OI under social constructionism is explicitly subjective, OI under

How Individuals Relate to Organizational Identity

Introduction: Organizational Identity 11

Sources and Processes of Organizational Identity

Identity and the Organization’s Environment

Introduction: Organizational Identity 13

Implications of Organizational Identity

See (in this volume)

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, at Washington.

See (in this volume)

See (in this volume)

See (in this volume)

See (in this volume)

See (in this volume)

See (in this volume)

LIKIN, The Chinese taxes called.

"Chinese tariff rates, where they exist, average about 5 per

United States, Bureau of Statistics, Monthly Summary,

LINCOLN PARTY, The.

See (in this volume).

LIQUID AIR, The production of.

See (in this volume)

See (in this volume)

See (in this volume)

See (in this volume)

See (in this volume)

See (in this volume)

LISCUM, Colonel Emerson H.:

See (in this volume)

0.1 Peer-reviewed articles, dissertations, and theses on organizational

exploring a wider range of organizations in OI research (e.g., non-celebrity and non-