cornelissen - haslam - balmer - 2007 - social identity, organizational identity

8/7/2019 CORNELISSEN - HASLAM - BALMER - 2007 - Social Identity, Organizational Identity

1/17

Social Identity, Organizational Identityand Corporate Identity: Towards an

Integrated Understanding of Processes,Patternings and Products

Joep P. Cornelissen, S. Alexander Haslam* and John M. T. Balmerw

Leeds University Business School, Maurice Keyworth Building, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK, *School of

Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon EX4 4QG, UK, and wBradford University School of

Management, Emm Lane, Bradford BD9 4JL, UK

Email: [email protected] [Cornelissen]; [email protected] [Haslam];

[email protected] [Balmer]

This paper provides an overview of previous work that has explored issues of social,organizational and corporate identity. Differences in the form and focus of research intothese three topics are noted. Social identity work generally examines issues of cognitiveprocess and structure; organizational identity research tends to address the patterningof shared meanings; studies of corporate identity tend to focus on products thatcommunicate a specific image. Nonetheless, across these areas there is generalconsensus that collective identities are (a) made viable by their positivity anddistinctiveness, (b) fluid, (c) a basis for shared perceptions and action, (d) strategicallycreated and managed, (e) qualitatively different from individual identities and (f) thebasis for material outcomes and products. This paper calls for greater cross-fertilizationof the three identity literatures and discusses requirements for the integration of micro-and macro-level analyses.

Introduction

In recent years, interest in issues of organiza-

tional and corporate identity has dramatically

increased (Albert, Ashforth and Dutton, 2000;

Corley et al., 2006; Haslam and Ellemers, 2005;

Schultz, Hatch and Larsen, 2000). This has been

associated with a commensurate increase in the

volume of empirical and theoretical work that

explores identity and identification processes as

well as the outcomes and products these lead to.As well as using an assortment of methodologies,

this work also spans multiple disciplinary do-

mains and literatures incorporating ideas andperspectives from corporate communications,

management, marketing, organizational beha-

viour, social and organizational psychology,

personnel and human resources, and strategy.

The reasons for the interest in identity across

these domains and literatures are historically also

quite diverse. These include preoccupations with

visual design and logos (in marketing), the social

categorization of individuals (in social and

organizational psychology), integration of visual

identity, corporate public relations and manage-

ment communication messages (in corporate

communications and marketing), institutiona-

lized culture and organizational performance (in

strategy), customer reactions to and identificationwith organizations (in marketing), and employee

sense-making and motivation (in management

and organizational behaviour). However, inrecent years these lines of enquiry have started

to overlap and inter-penetrate (e.g. the marketing

and corporate communications literatures; see

Van Riel and Balmer, 1997). This has led many

British Journal of Management, Vol. 18, S1S16 (2007)

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00522.x

r 2007 British Academy of Management


2/17

commentators to argue that, whereas in the past

these fields tended to exist (and could be

advanced) quite independently, there is now

value in and indeed a pressing need for interdisciplinary cross-fertilization (Brown et al.,

2006). Consistent with this integrationist agenda,

there have recently been a number of consciousattempts to bridge the various literatures identi-

fied above (e.g. Balmer and Greyser, 2002, 2003;

Brickson, 2005, in press; Hatch and Schultz,

1997, 2002; Schultz, Hatch and Larsen, 2000).

At the same time, and sitting alongside the callfor interdisciplinary cross-fertilization, an in-

creasing number of writers have stressed the need

for a strengthening of our conceptualizations of

identity. This has been associated with calls (a) to

make the different ontological and epistemologi-

cal foundations underlying identity research

in organizations explicit (Corley et al., 2006;Cornelissen, 2002, 2006; Faurholt Csaba and

Bengtsson, 2006), (b) to develop a consistent and

parsimonious terminology (Brown et al., 2006),

(c) to understand how identities are actually

constructed at different levels (individual and

group, organizational and extra-organizational,

stakeholder and consumer) (Haslam and Ellemers,

2005; Haslam, Postmes and Ellemers, 2003) and

(d) to explore mechanisms and consequences of

identification more systematically (Haslam, 2001;

Van Dick, 2001; Van Knippenberg and Ellemers,

2003).Against this background, this special issue was

conceived with the explicit aim of bringing

together strands of identity-related scholarship

that might speak to, and integrate, group (social

identity), organizational (organizational identity)

and institutional and customer (corporate iden-

tity) domains. It is testament to the breadth of

interest in such a project that nearly 40 manu-

scripts were submitted for editorial consideration.

Space considerations meant that we could pub-

lish only five papers and our final selection

focused on those submissions that most clearlymet the brief of promoting innovative theorizing

about social, organizational and corporate iden-

tity and the connections between them.

Our aim in the present paper is to conceptua-

lize these contributions in light of the emerging

field of identity and organization as a whole.

Here the heterogeneity of identity research across

disciplines and literatures raises important ques-

tions about the extent to which a truly cumulative

body of knowledge is emerging and about the

form of possible integration. For example, theore-

tical perspectives on the foundations of organiza-

tional identity range from a social psychologicalemphasis on cognitive principles (e.g. of accessi-

bility and fit; Oakes, Turner and Haslam, 1991),

through a quasi-economic focus on organizationalassets and social capital (e.g. Ibarra, Kilduff and

Tsai, 2005), to a sociological examination of social

structure and institutional behaviour (e.g. Corne-

lissen, 2006). As research advances in each of the

discipline-based subfields of identity research, itbecomes increasingly important to consider the

extent of (and opportunities for) integration

across these separate traditions. For without

addressing the question of integration, we run

the risk of propagating a highly fractionated

Babel-esque view of intra- and extra-organiza-

tional identity processes and their manifestations(Schultz, Hatch and Larsen, 2000). Moreover, a

limited appreciation of the links across disciplin-

ary perspectives is likely to prove inefficient and

unparsimonious as researchers fail to take advan-

tage of theoretical and empirical progress in other

areas and simply rediscover what is known

already (Cardador and Pratt, 2006; Ellemers et al.,

2003; Haslam et al., 2003; Pfeffer, 1997).

In the remainder of this paper, we therefore

address a number of key questions in order to

assess the state of knowledge about identity

accumulated from the perspectives of differentdisciplines. Are there points of convergence

across different disciplines? Are researchers in

different fields investigating unrelated aspects of

identity or are they treading the same ground?

And finally, but perhaps most importantly, what

key and potentially unifying themes are

emerging from research and where are there

opportunities for greater cross-fertilization?

Identity and organization

Definitions

The increase in theoretical and research attention

to identity and identification within and across

organizational contexts can, in part, be attributed

to the richness and profundity of the core

identity concept. In the organizational domain

this spans multiple levels of analysis (Brown,

2001) individual (relating to peoples personal

sense of self within the organization), group

S2 J. P. Cornelissen, S. A. Haslam and J. M. T. Balmer


3/17

(relating to the shared identity of teams and

sections within an organization), organizational

(relating to the identity of the organization as a

whole) and cultural (relating to commonalities inidentity across organizations and within a society

as a whole). Moreover, the versatile and gen-

erative way in which the identity concept can beapplied is credited with having opened up a

multitude of avenues for theoretical development

and revelation (Albert, Ashforth and Dutton,

2000, p. 13; Gioia, Schultz and Corley, 2002).

Indeed, in Pratt and Foremans (2000b, p. 141)words, theoretical development surrounding the

constructs of organizational identity and corpo-

rate identity is characterized by an amazing

theoretical diversity. Amongst other things, this

means that the term identity has been concep-

tualized from very different theoretical perspec-

tives and has been used to refer to very differentconceptual objects (e.g. self-knowledge, beliefs,

discourse, capabilities or structures) (see also

Schultz, Hatch and Larsen, 2000).

From a linguistic perspective, this polysemy or

interpretive viability refers to the plurality and

openness of interpretation associated with the

notion of identity which becomes even more

pronounced when coupled with reference to a

social, organizational or corporate entity.

This has contributed to the concepts rapid and

wide promulgation across different literatures as

it resonated with, and hence was incorporatedinto, other meanings in existing academic schools

and research traditions. For example, in the

marketing and corporate communications

literatures, it connected with existing questions

concerning the way in which companies position

and promote themselves to others (Van Rieland Balmer, 1997), while in the social psycho-

logical literature it connected with questions

about ways in which collective self-esteemcould be enhanced by defining in-groups as

positive, distinct and enduring (Tajfel and

Turner, 1979; see also Dutton, Dukerich and

Harquail, 1994).

As a result of this rapid uptake, the concepts ofsocial, organizational and corporate identity have

been comprehended and applied in very different

ways and to very different research questions.

Indeed, these differences in emphasis can be seen

in the primary definitions of these constructs (i.e.

those most prevalent in particular research

literatures) that are presented in Table 1. Hereit is apparent that social identity (after Tajfel,

1972, p. 31) tends to be seen as an internalized

knowledge structure, organizational identity tends

to be seen as a system of shared meaning, while

corporate identity tends to be seen as a projected

image. Nevertheless, it is apparent that secondary

(i.e. less common) definitions reflect sensitivities

compatible with the primary focus of research in

other areas. So, for example, while the basis and

form of shared meaning is a primary concern in

the literature on organizational identity (e.g.

Gioia, Schultz and Corley, 2002), this is also adiscernable theme in work on both social and

corporate identity.

Table1. Definitions of social, organizational and corporate identity constructs

Construct Primary definition Secondary definition Illustrations of (1) primary and (2)

secondary definitions

Social identity Individuals knowledge that they

belong to certain groups

together with the emotional and

value significance of that group

membership

The shared meaning that a group is

understood to have that arises

from its members (and others)

awareness that they belong to it

(1) I am proud to be in Group X

(2) As managers, we do A well and

B badly

Organizational

identity

The shared meaning that an

organizational entity is

understood to have that arises

from its members (and others)


Individuals knowledge that they

belong to particular

organizational groups together

with the emotional and value

significance of that group

membership

(1) Department X is good at C but

bad at D

(2) I am proud to be in Department

X

Corporate identity The distinctive public image that a

corporate entity communicates

that structures peoples

engagement with it

The shared meaning that a

corporate entity is understood

to have that arises from its

members (and others)


(1) Bank X is good at E

(2) Bank X is good at E but bad

at F

Social, Organizational and Corporate Identity S3


4/17

The research terrain

Given the size and diversity of the literature, a

comprehensive review is beyond the scope of thepresent treatment (for representative recent

reviews, see Balmer, 2001; Cornelissen, 2006;

Haslam and Ellemers, 2005; Van Dick, 2001).Instead, we draw on the work that is showcased

in this special issue and on other representative

work to map the terrain of research on identity

and organization. Figure 1 represents a sum-

mary framework for organizing the literaturebased on the relative positioning of work along

key dimensions of analytic focus (internal

versus external) and analytic form (cognitive

versus symbolic). The first dimension refers to

the locus of identity, i.e. whether the attribution

of an identity to a collective or organization

involves individuals and groups internal (e.g.employees) or external (e.g. customers) to an

organization. The second dimension refers to

the analytic form or nature of identity. At the

cognitive end of the dimension, identity is

defined as involving a mental framework,

categorization or set of beliefs and attributions

in the minds of individuals. On the other hand,

the symbolic end of the same dimension defines

identity as the symbolic manifestation or

projection (through language, artifacts and

behaviour) of an identity.What we observe here is that, as the above

definitions imply, research into social identity

(primarily in the social psychological literature)has tended to attend to internal, cognitive factors

in its focus on identity processes at the level of

individual group members within the organiza-

tion. On the other hand, research into corporate

identity (in the marketing and communicationsliteratures) has traditionally placed an emphasis

on external, symbolic factors in its focus on

identity products (i.e. material manifestations of

identity). Located between these traditions, re-

search on organizational identity has reflected a

concern with both the internal and external

aspects of identities, but has tended to addressthe patterning of those meanings (e.g. their form

and content) and the way they are negotiated

within the dynamic interactions of organiza-

tional life. These differences in emphasis can be

drawn out by considering the key developments,

insights and themes in each area of research in

turn.

Patterning: Internal and external

features of differentidentities

Potential variability ofidentity

Contextual/negotiatedmeanings of identities for

multiple parties

symbolic

Corporate

identity

Social

identity

Organizational

identity

Research emphasis

Products: Materials and artifacts

(e.g. logos, advertisingslogans)

Tangible content/structure Concrete instantiations of

single identity Perceptions and reactions of

powerful stakeholders

Process: Categorization andjudgement of self andothers

Potential fluidity ofidentity and identification

Contextual and negotiatedaspects of multipleidentities

Conflict between identitiesinternal external

cognitive

Analytic

Form

Analytic

Focus

Figure 1. Overview of social, organizational and corporate identity constructs



5/17

Social, organizational and corporateidentity: key developments, insightsand themes

Social identity

The concept of social identity emerged fromsocial psychological research that examined the

causes and consequences of individuals seeing

themselves, and being seen by others, and as part

of a social group (Ashforth and Mael, 1989;

Tajfel, 1972, Tajfel and Turner, 1979; for adetailed review see Haslam and Ellemers, 2005).

Within social psychology the concept of social

identity grew from an awareness of the reality of

the group and of its distinctive contribution to

social cognition and behaviour. A core idea here

was that, as well as being external features of the

world, groups are also internalized so that theycontribute to a persons sense of self (Turner,

1982). Tajfel and Turners (1979) social identity

theory suggests that after being categorized in

terms of a group membership, and having defined

themselves in terms of that social categorization,

individuals seek to achieve or maintain positive

self-esteem by positively differentiating their

ingroup from a comparison outgroup on some

valued dimension. This quest for positive distinc-tiveness means that when peoples sense of self is

defined in terms of we (i.e. social identity) rather

than I (personal identity), they strive to see usas different from, and preferably better than,

them in order to feel good about who they are

and what they do.

Later work from the perspective of self-

categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987, 1994)

strove to formalize the conditions under which

particular social identities become salient and the

consequences of this for perception and action.

Here one of Turners (1982) key insights was that

social identity actually allowed intergroup beha-

viour to take place as he put it social identity is

the cognitive mechanism that makes groupbehaviour possible (p. 21). A related insight was

that a sense of shared social identity is the basis

for social influence and organization (Turner, 1999;

see also Haslam, 2001). This is because when

people perceive themselves to share group mem-

bership with another person in a given context

they not only expect to agree with that person on

issues relevant to their shared identity but are

also motivated to strive actively to reach agree-

ment and to coordinate their behaviour in

relation to those issues.

Applying these ideas to the organizational

domain (e.g. Haslam, 2001; Haslam et al., 2003;Hogg and Terry, 2000, 2001), it has been argued

that organizational identity is in effect simply a

particular form of social identity one associatedwith membership of a given organization or

organizational unit (Haslam, 2001). Moreover,

the logic of the social identity approach suggests

that where features of social context make a given

organizational identity salient for organizationalmembers then this is the basis for a range of

critical organizational behaviours including

leadership, group motivation, communication,

and indeed organization itself (Bartel, 2001;

Ellemers, De Gilder and Haslam, 2004; Haslam

et al., 2003; Pratt, 1998; Turner and Haslam,

2001; Tyler and Blader, 2000). Critically, too, it isalso the basis for people to take on organiza-

tional roles and for them to exercise collective

power (Haslam and Reicher, 2007; Pratt and

Foreman, 2000a; Reicher, Haslam and Hopkins,

2005; Turner, 2005).

Working from this theoretical application of

social identity principles, organizational identity

is, as Haslam et al . (2003) suggest, both a

psychological and social reality and a mental

and material fact. This is because it encompasses

not only the cognitive categorization processes

that take place in the minds of individuals, butalso the collective activities and products to

which those processes lead (e.g. Postmes, 2003;

Postmes, Haslam and Swaab, 2005). In this

respect, a key premise of organizational applica-

tions of the social identity approach is that once a

particular organizational identity has become

salient for a particular organizational group and

once the particular norms and values associated

with that identity have been internalized, then

that identity not only structures the psychology

of individuals (e.g. their beliefs, attitudes and

intentions) but also allows that psychology to betranslated into the structures and products (e.g.

the plans and visions, goods and services,

practices and institutions) that are the material

building blocks of organizational life.

Organizational identity

Traditionally, however, the concept of organi-

zational identity was conceived to be an



6/17

organizational-level phenomenon that was distinct

from individual and collective levels of analysis

(Albert, 1998; Albert and Whetten, 1985; Gioia,

1998). From this perspective, although constitutedby the cognitions of individual organizational

members (or indeed groups within the organiza-

tion), organizational identity was ultimately seenas taking on a form and dynamic of its own. This

line of thinking was based on the dominant view

that an organization is not a collective composed

of individuals but is, in a metaphorical sense, a

single organism or human being that can have anidentity and ask the self-referential and phenom-

enological question Who am I (as an organiza-

tion)? (Cornelissen, 2002, 2005, 2006; Gioia, 1998;

Hatch and Schultz, 2002).

Following this reasoning, and adopting an

organizational level of analysis, a large number

of writers have argued that this understanding ofthe identity of the whole organization forms the

basis for information processing and sense-

making within organizations (see Putnam, Phillips

and Chapman, 1996). According to this view,

organizational identity can be seen as an inter-

pretative system, or as a set of shared cognitions,

or as shared language and behaviours. The first

two of these ideas are accommodated within the

common conception of organizational identity as

either a cognitive frame (Brickson, 2005, in press;

Dutton and Dukerich, 1991; Dutton, Dukerich

and Harquail, 1994; Elsbach and Kramer, 1996;Scott and Lane, 2000) or a perceptual lens

(Dukerich, Golden and Shortell, 2002; Fiol,

2002; Gioia, Schultz and Corley, 2000; Gioia

and Thomas, 1996; Labianca et al., 2001) that

guides individuals sense-making (Table 1). In

other words, organizational identity is seen as a

self-definition or cognitive self-representation

adopted by organizational members that is gen-

erally embedded in deeply ingrained and hidden

assumptions (Fiol and Huff, 1992, p. 278) and

refers to those features that are perceived as

ostensibly central, enduring, and distinctive incharacter [and] that contribute to how they define

the organization and their identification with it

(Gioia and Thomas, 1996, p. 372). The third idea

relates to the argument that organizations are, in

effect, unitary actors with identities that emerge

from their language and behaviour (Powell and

DiMaggio, 1991). Aligned with the notion that

an identity is symbolically enacted (Mead, 1934),

organizations are seen to construct an identity

through their symbolic behaviour and language

use within particular organizational fields (Czar-

niawska and Wolff, 1998). From this perspective,

organizational identity is constructed throughlanguage (e.g. the development of corporate

names, rhetoric, myths, narratives and stories;

Glynn and Abzug, 2002) and culturally patternedpractices (e.g. organizational dress, ideological

scripts, artifacts, rites and rituals; Glynn, 2000;

Pratt and Rafaeli, 1997). It serves the overall

objectives of (a) differentiating the organization

from other comparison organizations (Lamertz,Heugens and Calmet, 2005) and (b) legitimizing

the organization for stakeholders in its environ-

ment (Fiol, 2001; Hatch and Schultz, 2002;

Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). In this respect it

has been argued that any account of organiza-

tional identity needs to be situated within

institutional dynamics that attend to the sym-bolic process through which organizations mimic

or contrast themselves from rival organizations

(Glynn and Abzug, 2002, p. 277; see also

Brickson, 2005). It is argued that this is because

only an institutional perspective of this form can

capture organizations unique status as actors

(Hatch and Schultz, 2002, p. 1004; Whetten and

Mackey, 2002, p. 395).

Corporate identity

The concept of corporate identity grew out of apreoccupation in the design, marketing and

corporate communications communities with

the ways in which organizations present them-

selves to external audiences (Table 1) e.g. in

their visual images as well as through more

elaborate forms of corporate advertising and

communications (Lippincott and Margulies,

1957). Initially, the term was restricted to logos

and other elements of visual design, but it grad-

ually came to encompass communications and all

forms of outward-facing behaviour in the mar-

ketplace (Birkigt and Stadler, 1986; Hendersonet al ., 2003; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997).

Company logos came to be seen as part of a

process of corporate image formation and

projection, leading to customer perceptions and

corporate associations (e.g. Birkigt and Stadler,

1986; Olins, 1978; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997).

In recent years, the meaning of corporate

identity has once more been extended, so that

now this is seen not just as involving the visible



7/17

outward presentation of a company, but also the

set of intrinsic characteristics or traits that give

the company its specificity, stability and coher-

ence (Balmer, 1998; Larcon and Reitter, 1979).The leap in reasoning here is that a corporate

identity is not merely a projected image in the

form of visual design and communication, but isfundamentally concerned with what the organi-

zation is encompassing the strategies and

culture specific to the organization in particular

(Balmer, 1995, pp. 3237, 1998). Where indivi-

dual human beings express a sense of personaldistinctness, a sense of personal continuity and

a sense of personal autonomy, organizations

equally have their own individuality and unique-

ness that they express in their dealings with

others. And just as the identity of individuals

may come to be anchored in some combination

of gender, nationality, profession, social group,life-style, educational achievements or skills, so

an organizations may be anchored in some

specific combination of geographical place, na-

tionality, strategy, founding, core business, tech-

nology, knowledge base, operating philosophy or

organization design. Among the most important

traits identified by scholars are those relating to

strategy, structure, culture and company history

(Melewar and Karaosmanoglu, 2006; Moingeon

and Ramanantsoa, 1997). These organizational

traits provide an organization with specificity,

stability and coherence (Larcon and Reitter,1979; Moingeon and Ramanantsoa, 1997; Ra-

manantsoa, 1989). In this sense, the notion of

corporate identity traits resembles the concep-

tualization of organizational identity (Albert and

Whetten, 1985) as involving identity anchors that

are central (inimitable organizational traits),

distinctive (differentiated from other organiza-

tions) and enduring (stable over time).

The chief significance of this changing view of

corporate identity within the marketing and

communication literatures is that it clearly

connects with the concept of organizationalidentity outlined above. For now corporate

identity is seen to relate to the general meaning

of a corporate entity that resides in the values,

beliefs, roles and behaviour of its members as

well as in the shared symbols and other artefacts

that they create in particular, through branding(Schroeder and Salzer-Mo rling, 2006). Accord-

ingly, empirical research on corporate identity

has explored links between a corporate identity,

as the projected image of the organization, and

both (a) its underlying organizational identity or

culture (Balmer and Greyser, 2002, 2003; Schultz,

Hatch and Larsen, 2000) and (b) its receivedimage in the eyes of stakeholders such as

employees (e.g. Simoes, Dibb and Fisk, 2005)

and customers and consumers (e.g. Bhattacharyaand Sen, 2003).

In relation to these links, researchers emphasize

that it is strategically important for organizations

to achieve alignment or transparency at multi-

ple levels (e.g. Balmer and Greyser, 2002; Balmerand Soenen, 1999; Fombrun and Rindova, 2000;

Hatch and Schultz, 2001; Simoes, Dibb and Fisk,

2005). According to Fombrun and Rindova

(2000, p. 94), transparency is a state in which

the internal identity of the firm reflects positively

the expectations of key stakeholders and the

beliefs of these stakeholders about the firm reflectaccurately the internally held identity. Along

these lines, researchers stress the particular

importance of consonance between (a) organiza-

tional identity as articulated by senior managers

and as experienced by employees, and (b)

corporate identity (i.e. the image projected by

the organization) and corporate reputation (i.e.

the images held of the organization by individuals

and groups outside of it). Importantly, too, where

these elements are non-aligned (so that the

rhetoric of corporate identity does not match the

experienced reality), a range of sub-optimal out-comes is anticipated including employee disen-

gagement, customer dissatisfaction and general

organizational atrophy (Borgerson, Magnusson

and Magnusson, 2006; Hatch and Schultz, 2001,

2002).

Links between literatures

The above discussion of research into social,

organizational and corporate identity clearly

demonstrates how recent developments in theseliteratures have started to see these concepts as

overlapping and in many ways compatible with

one another. Indeed, notwithstanding differences

in terminology and (meta) theoretical orienta-

tion, there is much to suggest that the processes

and products that each literature explores at a

different level of analysis are fundamentally

connected. In the most basic terms, this for the

simple reason that a social identity can be



8/17

grounded in organizational group membership

and hence be an organizational identity, and

an organizational identity can relate to a

corporate entity and inform the perceptions andinteraction of its stakeholders and hence be a

corporate identity. A key question, though, is

whether, over and above content-related differ-ences in analytic focus, there are qualitative

differences between these three forms of identity

that make attempts at integration misguided and

misleading.

It is certainly the case that a number of re-searchers have expressed doubt on this point. For

example, in their discussion of corporate brands,

Faurholt Csaba and Bengtsson (2006, p. 126)

assert that

Efforts to explore and understand the nature,

sources and formation of social and culturalidentity do not represent a coherent body of work.

The multifarious contributions draw on a wide

array of research traditions and do not provide a

common conceptual framework or generally

agreed-upon agenda. . . . Attempts to conceptualize

identity are, if not futile, then problematical since

most enquiries are critical of the notion of integral,

ordinary and unified identity. For this reason, it is

not useful to engage in an extended effort to define

precisely what social identity is.

Notwithstanding such scepticism, our basic posi-

tion on this point is that while there are certainlyimportant differences between social, organiza-

tional and corporate identities, there is no Iron

Curtain between them that makes the insights of

one literature irrelevant to, or irreconcilable with,

those of another. In the first instance, this claim is

based on evidence that many of the key insights

that emerge independently in these literatures are

compatible with each other, and hence point to a

number of common truths about collective

identity in general.

These insights are summarized in Table 2 and

suggest that collective identities (whether social,organizational or corporate) are (a) made viable

as a function of their positivity and distinctive-

ness, (b) inherently fluid rather than fixed, (c) a

basis for shared perceptions and action, (d)

strategically created and managed (i.e. with a

more or less conscious intention to differentiate a

group or organizational unit from others), (e)

associated with behaviour that is qualitatively

different from that associated with lower-order

identities and (f) the basis for achievement of

higher-order material outcomes and products.

It is also the case, though, that while these

points of contact exist, many have not been fullyteased out in previous treatments. Not least, this

is because they are examined and expressed in

rather different ways in different literatures.Research which speaks to the fluidity of identities

serves to illustrate this point. Within the social

psychological literature this has typically been

explored in experimental studies which manip-

ulate features of comparative and normativecontext and assess the quantitative impact of this

on an individuals representation of ingroups and

outgroups (e.g. Doosje et al., 1998; Haslam and

Turner, 1992). In contrast, within the organiza-

tional literature this has typically been explored

in archival and qualitative case studies which

identify and map variability in the content ofpeoples representations and accounts of organi-

zational identities as a function of situational and

strategic concerns (e.g. Elsbach, 1999; Svenigsson

and Alvesson, 2006). Studies in the marketing

and communications literatures also tend to be

archival and qualitative, yet rather than being

based on individuals accounts, these tend to

document changes in the artefacts and other

material manifestations of corporate identity that

occur in response to historical and other fluctua-

tions in market conditions and forces (e.g. Grant,

1999).Significantly, too, this use of different meth-

odologies also reflects the desire of researchers in

different disciplinary traditions to provide quite

different forms of insight (see also Figure 1). As

intimated above (a) social psychological demon-

strations of identity fluidity are generally de-

signed to test theories of psychological process

(e.g. categorization, judgement), (b) organiza-

tional research aims to make statements about

the patterning of behaviour (e.g. content, struc-

ture), and (c) marketing and communication

research tends to be geared towards taxono-mies of both corporate and market strategies

and products such as logos and symbols

(Henderson and Cote, 1998; Van Riel and Van

den Ban, 2001). For this reason, many of

the challenges that confront researchers who

attempt integration across social, organizational

and corporate literatures are methodological

and practical as much as conceptual and

theoretical.



9/17


10/17

Conclusion: Requirements for anintegrated understanding of identity inorganizations

The above review suggests that it is possible to

make important connections between the con-

cepts of social, organizational and corporateidentity and, moreover, that there is value in

attempting to move towards an integrated under-

standing of these concepts that clarifies and

explains the basis of those connections. In order

for this to be achieved, and in line with points

that emerge from the other contributions in this

special issue, we believe that there are (at least)

three important requirements for future research.

The need for methodological pluralism

Following on from the observation in the previous

section that research methodology can itselfpresent barriers to understanding, it is important

to acknowledge the dangers that are inherent in

forms of methodolatry which prioritize the way

that questions are answered over the questions

that are actually asked (Moscovici, 1972; Reicher,

2000). At the same time there are also perils in a

form of methodological apartheid whereby

researchers who favour different analytic techni-

ques and philosophies (qualitative versus quanti-

tative, observational versus survey, realist versusidealist) simply agree to leave each other alone.

These are particular risks in the area of identity

research where, as noted above, the evolution of

distinct sub-disciplines already gives the field

quite a fractionated feel (e.g. so that social

identity theorists tend to employ quantitative

methods, while researchers interested in corpo-

rate identity rely much more heavily on qualita-

tive tools). On top of this, the existence of these

divisions is associated with a certain amount of

suspicion about the methods that researchers in

other camps employ and an associated reluc-tance to take on board the ideas that emerge from

them. Indeed, this lack of trust can itself be seen

as a manifestation of the different social, organi-

zational (and corporate) identities that define the

professional lives of the researchers themselves

(Kramer and Tyler, 1996). Along the lines of

Rink and Ellemers (2007) contribution to this

volume, managing these differences in order to

maximize opportunities not only for harmonious

coexistence but for productive and creative

synergy can therefore be seen as a classic exercise

in harnessing the dividends of diverse identities

(see also Haslam, Eggins and Reynolds, 2003;Van Knippenberg and Haslam, 2003).

In line with Rink and Ellemers own solution to

this potential problem and the general philosophyof organic pluralism (Haslam, 2001), we suggest

that the most fruitful way forward involves (1)

recognizing the existence of differences associated

with lower-level identities (e.g. as qualitative or

quantitative researchers), (2) working to createsuperordinate identities which anticipate and

celebrate this diversity as a self-defining feature,

and then (3) using the range of methodological

skills and specialisms encompassed by that iden-

tity as a source of strength rather than weakness.

In this vein, it is clear that the different

methodologies employed and drawn upon in thepapers that follow including experimental,

survey, case study and archival methods do

not detract from the value of this special issue but

rather illustrate the range of powerful analytical

resources upon which researchers can draw in

order to advance both theory and practice.

The need to examine processes of identity formation

In more content-specific terms, a second require-

ment for future research is to address the

important question of how the identities thatunderpin the patternings and products of orga-

nizational life are actually formedand constructed

(as well as re-formed and re-constructed). This is

a question that organizational and corporate

identity research is now beginning to address

(Corley and Gioia, 2004; Hatch and Schultz,

2002), but one that has long been at the heart of

social identity scholarship (Haslam and Ellemers,

2005; Postmes, 2003; Turner, 1985).

In the past researchers have attempted to

capture aspects of this process (and signalled

their importance) with reference to terms such asbridging and buffering (Meznar and Nigh,

1995), mimicking (Whetten and Mackey, 2002),

expressing and mirroring (Hatch and Schultz,

2002). However, some would argue that verbs of

this form are incapable of properly describing

and explaining actual processes of identity

(re)formation. In large part this is because,

following Sandelands and Drazin (1989), they

can be seen to be self-fulfilling in the sense that



11/17

their grammatical form implies the very out-

comes they purport to explain (a point recently

echoed by Ferraro, Pfeffer and Sutton, 2005).

In order to do justice to these processes webelieve there may be particular value in revisiting

the literature on entitativity which has emerged

from social cognitive accounts of identity andgroup formation (Campbell, 1958; Turner, 1985).

Building on earlier Gestalt theorizing, Campbell

himself identified four principles which served to

make groups entitative: common fate, proximity,

similarity and pregnance (akin to the idea of

affordance; Gibson, 1966; see Greeno, 1994). More

recently, self-categorization theorists have refined,

elaborated and found support for a number of

related hypotheses which point to the ways in

which social identities form on the basis of

principles of accessibility and fit (suggesting that

identities become salient to the extent thatperceivers have been exposed to them in the past

and those identities represent a coherent resolution

of observed patterns of similarity and difference)

(Oakes, Haslam and Turner, 1994; Reynolds et al.,

2004; Turner, 1985). Significantly, though, there

have been only limited applications of these ideas

to organizational or corporate settings and hence

their potential remains under-explored in this

domain (but see Riketta and Van Dick, 2007;

Van Dick et al., 2005; Van Knippenberg and Van

Schie, 2000). Nevertheless, papers in this special

issue draw on such ideas to make powerful pointsabout processes and outcomes in areas of diversity

management (Rink and Ellemers, 2007), franchis-

ing (Ullrich et al., 2007) and cooperative network-

ing (Riketta and Nienaber, 2007; see also work on

communication by Postmes, 2003).

The need to connect observations of micro-level

identity phenomena to macro-level models of

identity process

Related to the previous point, a third requirement

for future research is to connect observations ofstructural or macro-level phenomena with micro-

level analyses of process. In effect, this involves

attempting to ensure that the three levels and forms

of analysis identified in Figure 1 are fully articulated

with each other. This does not deny the importance

of research that has raised awareness of key macro-

issues and challenges for example, the challenge

of achieving and sustaining strong corporate

reputations with stakeholders, of developing a

coherent narrative or image (corporate identity)

of oneself as an organization, of managers and

employees sharing a coherent and distinctive set of

values and beliefs (Van Riel and Balmer, 1997).Instead, it fills out such macro-level accounts with

description and explanation of the socio-structural

and psychological processes which underpin suchphenomena. By the same token, this attempt at

articulation does not deny the importance of

research which has explored basic categorization

and representational processes for example,

specifying determinants of category salience, inter-nal category structure or prototypicality (McGarty,

1999; Turner, 1985). Rather it calls for more

research to clarify how exactly these feed into

larger-scale systems, strategies and structures in

organizational and corporate contexts.

In this way, rather than prioritizing a particular

level and form of analysis, an integrated approachto identity research needs to bridge distinctions

between social, organizational and corporate

domains and associated concerns with process,

patterning and product in order to provide a

more comprehensive understanding of identity-in-

action. Again, there are signs that this concern for

dynamic integration is starting to inform research

activity. Examples include work which demon-

strates how successful organization is contingent

upon leaders identity-embedding practices (Reich-

er, Haslam and Hopkins, 2005), how strategies of

social creativity underpin the construction oforganizational identities that facilitate a willingness

to do dirty work (Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999),

and how different forms of organizational citizen-

ship are underpinned by organizational identities

defined at different levels of specificity (Ellemers,

De Gilder and Van den Heuvel, 1998; Van Dick

et al., 2005). Consistent with such an agenda, work

featured in this special issue also explores the

relationship between organizational image and

corporate identity and the manner in which they

are underpinned by instrumental and symbolic

considerations that change as a function of apersons vantage point (as applicant or employee;

Lievens, Van Hoye and Anseel, 2007) and their

national identity (Jack and Lorbiecki, 2007).

Final comment

It is clearly the case that as a manifesto for

future research the above comments are both



12/17

speculative and contentious. Certainly, there is

every reason to believe that researchers in the

future will continue to study social, organiza-

tional and corporate identity in the ways thatthey have in the past and with little concern for

engagement across sub-disciplines of the form

encouraged here. In itself, this is no bad thing.Indeed, it is only because scholars within

particular disciplinary traditions have been com-

mitted to advancing their own particular research

agenda that identity research as it stands presents

such a rich and diverse smorgasbord of method,theory, perspective and practice.

Our sense, however, is that the time is now ripe

for constructive dialogue across these literatures

in order to promote a more integrated under-

standing of the role that collective identity plays

in creating the meaning, the form, and indeed the

very possibility of organizational life. The pro-spects of such dialogue are enhanced by recogni-

tion of the fact that despite very real differences

in orientation identity work shares, and has

exposed, a considerable amount of common

ground (e.g. as suggested by Table 2). Moreover,

this ground is neither trivial nor banal. Instead it

defines identity research as distinct from, and in

advance of, theory and practice in many other

branches of organizational and social science. As

such, it is a platform both for identification and

for progress.

References

Albert, S. (1998). The definition and meta-definition of

identity. In D. A. Whetten and P. Godfrey (eds), Identity

in Organizations: Building Theory through Conversations,

pp. 113. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Albert, S. and D. A. Whetten (1985). Organizational identity.

In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds), Research in

Organizational Behavior, 8, pp. 263295. Greenwich, CT: JAI

Press.

Albert, S., B. E. Ashforth and J. E. Dutton (2000). Organiza-

tional identity and identification: charting new waters and

building new bridges, Academy of Management Review, 25,pp. 1317.

Alvesson, M. and M. Robertson (2006). The best and the

brightest: the construction, significance and effects of elite

identities in consulting firms, Organization, 13, pp. 195224.

Ashforth, B. E. and G. Kreiner (1999). How can you do it?:

dirty work and the dilemma of identity, Academy of

Management Review, 24, pp. 413434.

Ashforth, B. E. and F. Mael (1989). Social identity theory and

the organization, Academy of Management Review, 14,

pp. 2039.

Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). Corporate branding and connoisseur-

ship, Journal of General Management, 21, pp. 2446.

Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Corporate identity and the advent of

corporate marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, 14,

pp. 963996.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate

branding and corporate marketing: seeing through the fog,

European Journal of Marketing, 35, pp. 248292.

Balmer, J. M. T. and S. A. Greyser (2002). Managing the

multiple identities of the organization, California Manage-

ment Review, 44, pp. 7286.

Balmer, J. M. T. and S. A. Greyser (2003). Revealing the

Corporation: Perspectives on Identity, Image, Reputation,

Corporate Branding and Corporate-Level Marketing. London:

Routledge.

Balmer, J. M. T. and G. B. Soenen (1999). The ACID test of

corporate identity management, Journal of Marketing

Management, 15, pp. 6992.

Bartel, C. A. (2001). Social comparisons in boundary-spanning

work: effects of community outreach on members organiza-

tional identity and identification, Administrative Science

Quarterly, 46, pp. 379413.

Bhattacharya, C. B. and S. Sen (2003). Consumercompanyidentification: a framework for understanding consumers

relationships with companies, Journal of Marketing, 67,

pp. 7689.

Birkigt, K. and M. Stadler (1986). Corporate Identity:

Grundlagen, Funktionen und Beispielen. Landsberg an Lech:

Verlag Moderne Industrie.

Borgerson, J. L., M. E. Magnusson and F. Magnusson (2006).

Branding ethics: negotiating Bennetons identity and image.

In J. E. Schroeder and M. Salzer-Mo rling (eds), Brand

Culture, pp. 171185. London: Routledge.

Brickson, S. E. (2005). Organizational identity orientation,

forging a link between organizational identity and organiza-

tions relations with stakeholders, Administrative Science

Quarterly, 50, pp. 576609.Brickson, S. E. (in press). Organizational identity orientation:

the genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social

value, Academy of Management Review.

Brown, A. D. (2001). Organization studies and identity: towards

a research agenda, Human Relations, 54, pp. 113121.

Brown, T., P. Dacin, M. Pratt and D. Whetten (2006). Identity,

intended image, construed image, and reputation: an inter-

disciplinary framework and suggested methodology, Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, pp. 95106.

Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other

indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social

entities, Behavioural Science, 3, pp. 1425.

Cardador, M. and M. Pratt (2006). Identification management

and its bases: bridging management and marketing perspec-tives through a focus on affiliation dimensions, Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 34, pp. 174184.

Corley, K. G. and D. A. Gioia (2004). Identity ambiguity and

change in the wake of a corporate spin-off, Administrative

Science Quarterly, 49, pp. 173208.

Corley, K., C. Harquail, M. Pratt, M. Glynn, C. Fiol and

M. Hatch (2006). Guiding organizational identity through aged

adolescence, Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, pp. 8599.

Cornelissen, J. P. (2002). On the organizational identity

metaphor, British Journal of Management, 13, pp. 259268.



13/17

Cornelissen, J. P. (2005). Beyond compare: metaphor in

organization theory, Academy of Management Review, 30,

pp. 751764.

Cornelissen, J. P. (2006). Metaphor and the dynamics of

knowledge in organization theory: a case study of the

organizational identity metaphor, Journal of Management

Studies, 43, pp. 683709.

Czarniawska, B. and R. Wolff (1998). Constructing new

identities in established organization fields, International

Studies of Management and Organization, 28, pp. 3256.

Doosje, B., S. A. Haslam, R. Spears, P. J. Oakes and

W. Koomen (1998). The effect of comparative context on

central tendency and variability judgements and the evalua-

tion of group characteristics, European Journal of Social

Psychology, 28, pp. 173184.

Dukerich, J. M., B. R. Golden and S. M. Shortell (2002).

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: the impact of

organizational identification, identity, and image on the

cooperative behaviors of physicians, Administrative Science


Dutton, J. E. and J. M. Dukerich (1991). Keeping an eye on

the mirror: image and identity in organizational adaptation,

Academy of Management Journal, 34, pp. 517554.Dutton, J. E., J. M. Dukerich and C. V. Harquail (1994).

Organizational images and member identification, Adminis-

trative Science Quarterly, 39, pp. 239263.

Ellemers, N., D. De Gilder and S. A. Haslam (2004).

Motivating individuals and groups at work: a social identity

perspective on leadership and group performance, Academy

of Management Review, 29, pp. 459478.

Ellemers, N., D. De Gilder and H. Van den Heuvel (1998).

Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and beha-

vior at work, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, pp. 717730.

Ellemers, N., S. A. Haslam, M. J. Platow and D. Van

Knippenberg (2003). Social identity at work: developments,

debates, directions. In S. A. Haslam, D. Van Knippenberg,

M. J. Platow and N. Ellemers (eds), Social Identity at Work:Developing Theory for Organizational Practice, pp. 328.

New York: Psychology Press.

Elsbach, K. D. (1999). An expanded model of organizational

identification. In B. M. Staw and R. I. Sutton (eds), Research

in Organizational Behavior, 21, pp. 163200.

Elsbach, K. D. and R. D. Kramer (1996). Members responses

to organizational identity threats: encountering and counter-

ing the Business Week rankings, Administrative Science


Faurholt Csaba, F. and A. Bengtsson (2006). Rethinking

identity in brand management. In J. E. Schroeder and

M. Salzer-Mo rling (eds), Brand Culture, pp. 118135.

London: Routledge.

Ferraro, F., J. Pfeffer and R. Sutton (2005). Economicslanguage and assumptions: how theories can become self-

fulfilling, Academy of Management Review, 30, pp. 824.

Fiol, C. M. (2001). Revisiting an identity-based view of

sustainable competitive advantage, Journal of Management,

27, pp. 691699.

Fiol, C. M. (2002). Capitalizing on paradox: the role of

language in transforming organizational identities, Organi-

zational Science, 13, pp. 653666.

Fiol, M. and A. S. Huff (1992). Maps for managers: where are

we? where do we go from here?, Journal of Management

Studies, 29, pp. 269285.

Fombrun, C. and V. Rindova (2000). The road to transpar-

ency: reputation management at Royal Dutch/Shell. In

M. Schultz and M. J. Hatch (eds), The Expressive Organiza-

tion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gibson, J. J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual

Systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Gioia, D. A. (1998). From individual to organizational

identity. In D. Whetten and P. Godfrey (eds), Identity in

Organizations: Building Theory through Conversations,

pp. 1731. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gioia, D. A. and J. B. Thomas (1996). Identity, image and

issue interpretation: sensemaking during strategic change in

academia, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, pp. 370403.

Gioia, D. A., M. Schultz and K. G. Corley (2000). Organiza-

tional identity, image and adaptive instability, Academy of

Management Review, 25, pp. 6381.

Gioia, D. A., M. Schultz and K. G. Corley (2002). On celebrating

the organizational identity metaphor: a rejoinder to Corne-

lissen, British Journal of Management, 13, pp. 269275.

Glynn, M. A. (2000). When cymbals become symbols: conflict

over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra,

Organization Science, 11, pp. 285298.

Glynn, M. A. and R. Abzug (2002). Institutionalizing identity:symbolic isomorphism and organizational names, Academy

of Management Journal, 45, pp. 267280.

Grant, J. (1999). The New Marketing Manifesto: The 12 Rules

for Building Successful Brands in the 21st Century. London:

Texere.

Gray, E. R. and J. M. T. Balmer (1998). Managing corporate

image and corporate reputation, Long Range Planning, 31,

pp. 695702.

Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibsons affordances, Psychological

Review, 101, pp. 336342.

Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in Organizations: The Social

Identity Approach. London: Sage.

Haslam, S. A. and N. Ellemers (2005). Social identity in

industrial and organizational psychology: concepts, contro-versies and contributions, International Review of Industrial

and Organizational Psychology, 20, pp. 39118.

Haslam, S. A. and S. D. Reicher (2002). A Users Guide to The

Experiment: Exploring the Psychology of Groups and Power.

London: BBC Worldwide.

Haslam, S. A. and S. D. Reicher (2007). Social identity and the

dynamics of organizational life: insights from the BBC Prison

Study. In C. Bartel, S. Blader and A. Wrzesniewski (eds),

Identity and the Modern Organization, pp. 135166. New

York: Erlbaum.

Haslam, S. A. and J. C. Turner (1992). Context-dependent

variation in social stereotyping 2: The relationship between

frame of reference, self-categorization and accentuation,

European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, pp. 251277.Haslam, S. A., R. A. Eggins and K. J. Reynolds (2003). The

ASPIRe model: actualizing social and personal identity

resources to enhance organizational outcomes, Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, pp. 83113.

Haslam, S. A., T. Postmes and N. Ellemers (2003). More than

a metaphor: organizational identity makes organizational life

possible, British Journal of Management, 14, pp. 357369.

Haslam, S. A., D. Van Knippenberg, M. Platow and N.

Ellemers (eds) (2003). Social Identity at Work: Developing

Theory for Organizational Practice. New York: Psychology

Press.



14/17


15/17

Entitativity and Essentialism, pp. 317333. New York:

Psychology Press.

Riketta, M. and S. Nienaber (2007). Multiple identities and

work motivation: the role of perceived compatibility between

nested organizational units, British Journal of Management,

18, Special Issue, pp. S61S77.

Riketta, M. and R. Van Dick (2007). Foci of attachment in

organizations: a meta-analytic comparison of the strength

and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identifica-

tion and commitment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67,

pp. 490510.

Rink, F. and N. Ellemers (2007). Diversity as a basis for shared

organizational identity: the norm congruity principle, British

Journal of Management, 18, Special Issue, pp. S17S27.

Sandelands, L. E. and R. Drazin (1989). On the language of

organization theory, Organization Studies, 10, pp. 457478.

Schroeder, J. E. and M. Salzer-Mo rling (eds) (2006). Brand

Culture. London: Routledge.

Schultz, M., M. J. Hatch and M. H. Larsen (eds) (2000). The

Expressive Organization: Identity, Reputation and Corporate

Branding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scott, S. G. and V. R. Lane (2000). A stakeholder approach to

organizational identity, Academy of Management Review, 25,pp. 4362.

Simoes, C., S. Dibb and R. P. Fisk (2005). Managing corporate

identity: an internal perspective, Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 33, pp. 153168.

Svenigsson, S. and M. Alvesson (2006). Managing managerial

identities: organizational fragmentation, discourse and iden-

tity struggle, Human Relations, 56, pp. 195224.

Tajfel, H. (1972). La cate gorization sociale. In S. Moscovici (ed.),

Introduction a` la Psychologie sociale, Vol. 1, pp. 272302.

Paris: Larousse.

Tajfel, H. and J. C. Turner (1979). An integrative theory of

intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (eds),

The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, pp. 724.

Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social

group. In H. Tajfel (ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup

Relations, pp. 1540. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept:

a social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler

(ed.), Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research,

Vol. 2, pp. 77121. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social

identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R.

Spears and B. Doosje (eds), Social Identity: Context,

Commitment, Content, pp. 634. Oxford: Blackwell.

Turner, J. C. (2005). Explaining the nature of power: a three-

process theory, European Journal of Social Psychology, 35,

pp. 122.Turner, J. C. and S. A. Haslam (2001). Social identity,

organizations and leadership. In M. E. Turner (ed.), Groups

at Work: Advances in Theory and Research, pp. 2565.

Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Turner, J. C. and P. J. Oakes (1986). The significance of the

social identity concept for social psychology with reference to

individualism, interactionism and social influence, British

Journal of Social Psychology, 25, pp. 237252.

Turner, J. C., M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher and M. S.

Wetherell (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-

categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Turner, J. C., P. J. Oakes, S. A. Haslam and C. A. McGarty

(1994). Self and collective: cognition and social context,

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, pp. 454463.

Tyler, T. R. and S. Blader (2000). Cooperation in Groups:

Procedural Justice, Social Identity and Behavioural Engage-

ment. New York: Psychology Press.

Ullrich, J., J. Wieseke, O. Christ, M. Schulze and R. Van Dick

(2007). The identity-matching principle: corporate and organi-

zational identification in a franchising system, British Journal

of Management, 18, Special Issue, pp. S29S44.

Van Dick, R. (2001). Identification in organizational contexts:

linking theory and research from social and organizational

psychology, International Journal of Management Review, 4,

pp. 265284.Van Dick, R., U. Wagner, J. Stellmacher and O. Christ

(2005). Category salience and organizational identification,

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78,

pp. 273285.

Van Knippenberg, D. and N. Ellemers (2003). Social identity

and group performance: identification as the key to collective

effort. In S. A. Haslam, D. Van Knippenberg, M. Platow

and N. Ellemers (eds), Social Identity at Work: Developing

Theory for Organizational Practice, pp. 2942. New York:

Psychology Press.

Van Knippenberg, D. and S. A. Haslam (2003). Realizing the

diversity dividend: exploring the subtle interplay between

identity, ideology and reality. In S. A. Haslam, D. Van

Knippenberg, M. J. Platow and N. Ellemers (eds), SocialIdentity at Work: Developing Theory for Organizational

Practice, pp. 6177. New York: Psychology Press.

Van Knippenberg, D. and E. C. M. Van Schie (2000).

Foci and correlates of organizational identification, Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, pp.

137147.

Van Riel, C. B. M. and J. M. T. Balmer (1997). Corporate

identity: the concept, its measurement and management,

European Journal of Marketing, 31, pp. 340356.

Van Riel, C. B. M. and A. Van den Ban (2001). The added

value of corporate logos: an empirical study, European

Journal of Marketing, 35, pp. 428440.

Whetten, D. A. and A. Mackey (2002). A social actor

conception of organizational identity and its implicationsfor the study of organizational reputation, Business and

Society, 41, pp. 393414.



16/17

Joep Cornelissen is Reader in Corporate Communications at Leeds University Business School. His

research interests include corporate communications, the construction of organizational andcorporate identities, and the use of metaphor in management and organization theory and practice.

He is author of Corporate Communications: Theory and Practice (Sage). His research articles on

metaphor have appeared in Academy of Management Review, Organization Studies, British Journalof Management, Psychology and Marketing and the Journal of Management Studies. He is currently

an Associate Editor of the Journal of Management Studies.

Alex Haslam is Professor of Social and Organizational Psychology at the University of Exeter.

Together with colleagues, his work focuses on the study of social identity in social andorganizational contexts, as illustrated by his most recent book Psychology in Organizations: The

Social Identity Approach (2nd edn, 2004). A Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Advanced Research,

he is a former editor of the European Journal of Social Psychology and Kurt Lewin award winner.

John M.T. Balmer is Professor of Corporate Brand/Identity Management at Bradford School of

Management. His publications have appeared in California Management Review, International

Studies of Management and Organizations and the European Journal of Marketing. With StephenGreyser (Harvard Business School), he is the author of Revealing the Corporation (2003). In 1994 he

founded the International Corporate Identity Group (ICIG), a multidisciplinary academic/

practitioner forum. He has worked with the Swedish Crown, the BBC, WPP Group and other

organizations.



17/17

cornelissen - haslam - balmer - 2007 - social identity, organizational identity

Documents