organization studies 2010 ybema 481 503

7/29/2019 Organization Studies 2010 Ybema 481 503

1/24

http://oss.sagepub.com/Organization Studies

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/31/4/481The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0170840610372205

2010 31: 481Organization StudiesSierk Ybema

Talk of change: Temporal contrasts and collective identities

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

European Group for Organizational Studies

can be found at:Organization StudiesAdditional services and information for

http://oss.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://oss.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/31/4/481.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jun 2, 2010Version of Record>>

by guest on July 3, 2013oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://oss.sagepub.com/http://oss.sagepub.com/http://oss.sagepub.com/http://oss.sagepub.com/content/31/4/481http://oss.sagepub.com/content/31/4/481http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.egosnet.org/http://www.egosnet.org/http://oss.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://oss.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://oss.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://oss.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://oss.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://oss.sagepub.com/content/31/4/481.refs.htmlhttp://oss.sagepub.com/content/31/4/481.refs.htmlhttp://oss.sagepub.com/content/31/4/481.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://oss.sagepub.com/content/31/4/481.full.pdfhttp://oss.sagepub.com/content/31/4/481.full.pdfhttp://oss.sagepub.com/http://oss.sagepub.com/http://oss.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://oss.sagepub.com/content/31/4/481.full.pdfhttp://oss.sagepub.com/content/31/4/481.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://oss.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://oss.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.egosnet.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://oss.sagepub.com/content/31/4/481http://oss.sagepub.com/


2/24

Talk of change: Temporal contrasts andcollective identities

Sierk Ybema

Abstract

While temporality is generally acknowledged as a critical ingredient in processes of iden-tity formation, studies of identity talk usually assume collective identity is essentially

about establishing or facilitating a sense of temporal self-continuity. These studies do notdetail how organizational actors might recast their identity narratives and reflectively puttogether stories about a changing or changed identity. The ethnographic research pre-sented in this article reports how the editors of a Dutch national newspaper constructedtheir newspapers identity in temporal discontinuity talk, discursively constructing a con-trast between the old and the new, between legacies from a common past and plans forthe future. As the organizational identity literature is primarily focused on talk of tempo-ral continuities, I draw on studies of organizational change and nostalgic and postalgicnarratives in order to develop an understanding of the temporal dimension of collectiveidentity talk that does not rule out, but incorporates, discontinuity and change.

Keywords: discourse, identity, nostalgia, organizational change, time

At the end of the meeting to discuss the newspapers profile, some editors, a

columnist and a news commentator of de Volkskrant, a Dutch national newspa-

per with left wing ideological roots, stay and talk, while eating egg or salmon

rolls. The news commentator sitting next to me grabs the text of the staffs offi-

cial identity statement laid down in the editorial statute in 1975, which I had

brought along. Waving it in the air, he calls out to those sitting around: Here!

Listen! and begins to read, adding comments as he goes along.

De Volkskrant is a national morning paper that sets itself the task of keeping itsreaders informed as honestly and exhaustively as possible.

He editorializes: Okay, nothing wrong with that.

He continues: It originated from the Catholic labour movement. Partly for thatreason

He pauses for a moment and then repeats, cynicism in his voice: Partly for thatreason! He looks up from the text with a mocking smile.

He continues reading, now in a ceremonial manner: Partly for that reason itwants to be progressive and, especially, to stand up for the oppressed and perse-cuted. In particular, it aims at promoting developments that hold out promise fora more humane society.

With a sneering voice, he says: Not humane. No: more humane.

Everyone laughs.

article title

OrganizationStudies31(04): 481503ISSN 01708406Copyright TheAuthor(s), 2010.Reprints and

permissions:http://www.sagepub.

co.uk/journalspermissions.nav

Sierk YbemaVU University

Amsterdam, TheNetherlands

www.egosnet.org/os DOI: 10.1177/0170840610372205

http://oss.sagepub.com/http://oss.sagepub.com/http://oss.sagepub.com/http://oss.sagepub.com/


3/24

Members of the editorial staff seem keen to ridicule the 23-year-old statement of

principles. In 1981, at the end of his book on de Volkskrants history, the social his-

torian Hemels had given an assured reaffirmation of the newspapers identity, stat-

ing that the identity declaration in the editorial statute was an essential and

connecting element between the past, present and future of de Volkskrant. Fifteenyears later, in 1996, the historian van Vree closed his account of de Volkskrants

history on a less certain note. Like a modern prophet of doom he foresaw a com-

ing crisis and a fundamental change when he spoke of the loss of a traditional

social, political and cultural anchor that would cut the paper loose from one of its

lifelines (van Vree 1996: 202). And now, the official representation of the papers

identity its supposedly central and abiding values was being treated as a fos-

sil, a curiosity from the past having seemingly little or nothing to do with the edi-

tors current beliefs or concerns. If indeed the editors think that the formal

statement is no longer valid, as the scene sketched above seems to suggest, what

does the newspaper the key symbol of the editorial staffs collective identity stand for today in their eyes? Or, more generally stated, if through processes of

change an institution is somehow cut loose from its former lifelines, how does its

collective identity become represented in members everyday discourse?

Social theorists commonly theorize identity in terms of self-continuity (e.g.,

Ezzy 1998; Giddens 1991; Jenkins 2004) and organizational identity researchers

likewise report how organizational members experience or re-create a sense of

sameness across time (e.g., Clegg et al. 2007; Ravasi and Schultz 2006). Instead

this study describes organizational members sense of a changing or changed

collective self. The language-focused, time-sensitive analysis of identity shows

that the Volkskrant editors cultivate a sense of separation from the past, whilesimultaneously disputing the meaning and direction of the identity change by

authoring divergent, conflicting narratives of it. As discontinuity and change are

relatively under-explored issues in the identity literature (Carlsen 2006; Corley

and Gioia 2004), collective identity studies have not yet detailed how organiza-

tional actors discursively enact identity change. For the analysis of the varieties

of identity talk in this case, I will therefore draw on organizational change liter-

ature that describes actors temporal, i.e. nostalgic and postalgic, sensemaking.

This literature helps to theorize the varieties of temporal talk described in this

case, thus extending the analysis of organizational actors temporal self-under-

standings and including their experiences of instability and discontinuity.

The theoretical argument set out in this article is inspired by an ethnographic

case study of the editorial staff ofde Volkskrant, one of the major national news-

papers in The Netherlands with, at the time of the research, a staff of about 240

members and a subscription base of more than 300,000 (permission was granted

to name the organization). After summarising the theoretical approach, I explain

the research methodology used in the case. I then turn to the empirical findings

that illustrate how the editors construct, deconstruct or reconstruct their collec-

tive identity in everyday organizational discourse. Focusing specifically on tem-

poral talk, I describe and analyse the narratives of collective identity change

adopted by the editors. Implications for theorizing organizational identity are

discussed in the final section, in which I develop a situation-sensitive, contex-

tual understanding of identity change talk.

482 Organization Studies 31(04)



4/24

A temporal perspective on collective identity change

Although change is a central topic in organizational studies and scientific inter-

est in matters of organizational identity has increased markedly over the past

decade, the combination research into the formation, transformation, and loss

of collective identities has not enjoyed similar attention. Various organiza-

tional theorists have proposed research into identity change (e.g., Hatch and

Schultz 2002), but debates on whether organizational identities are enduring

(e.g., Albert and Whetten 1985) or dynamic (e.g., Gioia et al. 2000) have, thus

far, tended to be weighty in significance but fairly abstract in detail (Corley et

al. 2006: 93), paying relatively little attention to identity as processes of trans-

formation (Carlsen 2006: 132). In particular, the temporal dimension of identity

change is understudied (Corley and Gioia, 2004: 204). While temporality is

generally acknowledged as a critical ingredient in processes of identity forma-

tion, less attention has been paid to how temporality is socially constructed, and

deployed hegemonically, in the authorship of collective identities (Brown 2006:

741). Existing research into collective identity change tends commonly to focus

on the interplay between internal and external images of the organizational self

(e.g., Dutton and Dukerich 1991) or on its differentiating qualities that serve to

distinguish supposedly unique collective selves from others (e.g., Garcia and

Hardy 2007), while not systematically exploring how temporal resources, i.e.

the past, present and future, are utilized and deployed within organizational and

managerial discourses to disrupt, transform, develop, discover, or restore a sense

of collective self. This article seeks to fill this gap and develop our understand-

ing of how organizational actors recast their self-narrative, authoring a version

of their collective selves as changing or changed.

Temporal self-understandings when the self is defined through a compari-

son of the I or the we at different periods of time can be a highly significant

sensemaking device. In Charles Taylors words: In order to have a sense of who

we are, we have to have a notion of how we have become, and of where we are

going (quoted in Giddens 1991: 54). Stressing the symbolic and constructed

nature of the labels we use to interpret time, studies of ethnic groups, social

movements, nations, local communities (e.g., Cohen 1985) and organizations

(Gabriel 1993) show that narratives of the past often present a highly selective

rendering of historical facts, projecting a present-day point of view onto past

events. Even detailed descriptions of a shared origin are continuously revised to

serve situational interests and to match the mood of present times (Douglas

1987: 69). Because of the subjective nature of our experience of time (Cunliffe,

Luhman and Boje 2004: 262) and the plasticity of the past, present and future

(Elias 1992), time lies relatively open to (re-) interpretation, projection, and

exploitation. It provides people with a particularly rich reservoir of meanings for

identity work (Sveningsson and Alvesson 2003), because it can be squeezed

and expanded, made to seem episodic or linear, and imposed upon to create

beginnings and endings which, in turn, define eras of supposed progress and

regress, order and chaos (Brown 2006: 741).

However, empirical studies of the discursive enactment of collective identities

in organizational settings seem to suggest that organizational members adopt a

Ybema: Talk of change 483



5/24

single temporal template: one that constructs a linear sense of self-continuity.

Ravasi and Schultz (2006), for instance, describe how Bang & Olufsen handled

identity threats by looking back into their corporate history, presenting revised

claims not as radically new but rather as a rediscovery of values and attitudes

that were already part of the collective heritage of the organization (Ravasi andSchultz 2006: 449). In a similar vein, Clegg, Rhodes and Kornberger (2007: 508)

show how business coaches construct their professional and organizational iden-

tity as temporally fixed, actively seeking to achieve endurance in the precarious,

ill-defined context of an emerging industry. Organizational members may even

discursively construct continuity in the face of radical change, as Paalumkis

(2000) case study suggests. She describes how members of a recently privatised

organizational unit assume a straight line of events running from past to future in

order to celebrate their present success as a continuation of cherished traditions

that are bound to bring a bright future. Apparently, the certainty of who we were

is often a prerequisite for the certainty of who we are and who we will be.These studies support the widespread assumption that narrative identity can

be equated with a subjective sense of self-continuity (Ezzy 1998; see also, e.g.,

Czarniawska 1997: 48), along with the claim that organizational members have

an intrinsic desire to sense and experience coherence and continuity (Weick

1995: 20), thereby seeing their organization as having an enduring essence in

order to avoid psychic pain and discomfort, [to] allay or prevent anxiety,

resolve conflicts, and generally support and increase self-esteem (Brown and

Starkey 2000: 104). Yet, although collective identity narratives may often artic-

ulate enduring features (Albert and Whetten 1985) and facilitate the collective

experience of temporal continuity (Brown 2006: 741), it is a mistake to assumethat collective identity is invariably or necessarily coincident with peoples

sense of consistency over time. This assumption rules out the possibility of iden-

tities enacted through talk of discontinuity and change.

Some organizational identity researchers have explicitly drawn attention to

identity change, while, ironically, still testifying to the importance of consis-

tency over time for members organizational identities by showing the confla-

tion of change and continuity in narrative texts (e.g., Chreim 2005). Gioia,

Schultz and Corley (2000) have coined the term adaptive instability to describe

that we use the same labels over time to describe core elements of identity

(p.75), while the meaning associated with these labels changes (p.64). From

this theoretical vantage point, maintaining a sense of continuity (p.65) through

the continued use of the same organizational symbols is assumed to bridge the

past and present and to allow new applications to be undertaken under the

umbrella of persistent labels and values (Chreim 2005: 587), thus providing a

sense of familiarity and facilitating the acceptance of change (p.586) (a simi-

lar continuity-change conflation is described in studies of managerial discourse

that deploys a myth of the organizations Golden Age to bring about change (see,

e.g., Strangleman 1999; OConnor 2000)). While these studies have been impor-

tant in stretching the conceptual boundaries of the identity concept and opening

up the field of identity research for studying change, they also persist in repro-

ducing an understanding of identity as maintaining a sense of continuity with a

past self to alleviate the pain of change.




6/24

Some studies invite us to stretch the conceptual boundaries even further by dis-

cussing labels-based identity change (Fiol 2002) in combination with meaning-

based identity change (Corley and Gioia 2004) and describing managerial

attempts to promote attractive notions of a clean break from past identities

(Llewellyn 2004). The empirical research presented here also highlights a situa-tion where the critical self-questioning about who we are as a collective elicited

discursive responses that did not enact a continuous or enduring notion of iden-

tity. In fact, in this case, talk of temporal discontinuities dominated the discursive

arena, demonstrating how organizational members can establish an idea of radi-

cal change by depicting one period in time positioned in strong contrast with

another. How, then, do we theorize this talk of discontinuity and transformation?

Since the identity researcher is theoretically biased and/or empirically inspired to

note narratives of enduring rather than changing identities, collective identity

studies offer limited conceptual guidance for such an exercise. Therefore, we may

seek inspiration in the literature on organizational change and, in particular, instudies that analyse actors narratives of change during organizational upheaval

(e.g., Buchanan and Dawson 2007), focusing specifically on both retrospective

and prospective sensemaking (Carlsen 2006) and sensebreaking (Pratt 2000)

practices. Although they lack an explicit theoretical focus on temporal identities,

in-depth studies of organizational change highlight, first of all, members iden-

tity-defining discontinuity talk. As an expression (or invocation) of an emotion-

alised and politicised reality, change talk seeks to construct a symbolic distinction

between, for instance, the indulgent management style of Old Doug and the

punishment-centered style of a new manager (Gouldner 1954), the genial atmos-

phere and good relationships in an organizations founding years and its com-mercialism and professionalism of today (Ybema 1997), the old-fashioned

values of a companys past and the newer, fresher ideas that it is bringing in

today (Parker 2000: 177), thus engaging in collective identity talk that provides a

sense of the new replacing the old, manufacturing a sense of distance between

then and now (Llewellyn 2004: 963).

Secondly, these studies show that, instead of one single kind of temporal dis-

continuity talk, change can be discursively enacted in at least two different forms.

One form that is frequently reported is usually referred to as organizational nos-

talgia (Gabriel 1993). Nostalgia is the composite feeling of loss, lack and long-

ing (Pickering and Keightley 2006: 921). It tells a tragic story (Beech 2000) in

which a specific kind of temporal comparison is drawn: one that longs for, and

mourns the loss of, a Golden Age (Davis 1979). Although romantic invocations of

the past are sometimes deployed for managerial and/or marketing purposes to

legitimise new plans and policies (e.g., Strangleman 1999; OConnor 2000;

Ravasi and Schultz 2006), nostalgia often represents a discursive resource to be

mobilized in the context of threats to cherished identities employed to demonize

the present by those who seek to resist change (McDonald et al. 2006: 1098). It

is the emotion of those who feel they have fallen victim to the new reigning pow-

ers, those who stand for the preservation of the old and time-honored paths

(Gouldner 1954: 85) and seek to shore up a cherished, and insecure sense of self.

A second, radically different form of temporal discontinuity talk relevant

to identity theory replaces the good past/bad present contrast of nostalgia




7/24

(Davis 1979: 15) with a bad past/great future contrast. While the nostalgic

voice is typically heard in the organizational underlife (Goffman 1961) or the

unmanaged organization (Gabriel 1995), organizational actors in the manage-

rial upperlife tend to have a clear preference for forward-looking concepts, such

as planning, mission, vision, or goal-setting (Bate 1997: 1155). As prevailing dis-courses on change leadership in the general management literature characteristi-

cally invoke an alluring and challenging destination (Oswicket al. 2005), it is not

surprising that managers often frame their own actions in terms of an epic plot

(Beech 2000): highly optimistic, packed with adventure, and projected to end

with a golden age (Brown and Humphreys 2006: 135). As self-proclaimed

saviours involved in a rescue operation, these managers launch new campaigns,

introduce innovations, and conquer new markets, seeking to create a resolute dis-

junction with the past in order to escape a present that bears the stamp of previ-

ous generations. This way, they manage to open up a present-future field of desire,

promise and purpose that allows organizational members to see themselves asprotagonists in some sort of progressive drama (Carlsen 2006: 146). In addition,

again following rhetorical strategies of the organizational change literature

(Oswicket al. 2005), change-oriented managers often enforce their argument for

change as a prerequisite for organizational survival, implicitly sounding a rather

apocalyptic warning to secure their search for better futures (Wolfram Cox

1997: 640). In the words of a young manager (Parker 2000: 178): if you dont

gear up to change, youre going to get left behind. The idealisation of the future

and disdain for the past, and the concomitant condemning of the past-in-the-

present/future, might be termed managerial postalgia (Ybema 2004). If nostal-

gia is an odd mix of present discontents and sweet memories (Davis 1979: 29),postalgia is a mixture of bleak pessimism with huge optimism, of dystopian anx-

ieties over decline or disaster with utopian desires for advancement, growth, and

success. It conjures up images of desirable and undesirable future selves.

The Volkskrantcase demonstrates the relevance of both of these forms of tem-

poral discontinuity talk in the formation of organizational identities. More gener-

ally, it shows how our putative past, present and future can be rich reservoirs of

meanings for promoting, contesting, appropriating and negotiating a change of

identity. The subjectivity of these temporal representations makes for an interest-

ing analysis of the specific contents, contours and contexts of organizational

actorsidentity change talk. So, I ask, how do Volkskranteditors discursively con-

struct temporal discontinuities to establish a sense of collective identity change?

Research approach and methods

An ethnographic case study of the editorial staff of de Volkskrant inspired the

theoretical argument set out in this article. A reflective interchange between the-

ory and data (in deskwork) and between research participants views and my

own interpretations (in field conversations) characterized the interpretive

process. During a period of seven months of fieldwork in 1998, I adopted the

role of simultaneous insider/outsider (Hammersley and Atkinson 2005). By

shadowing central figures in the editorial staff during the everyday production




8/24

of the newspaper, as well as attending meetings and receptions and joining edi-

tors during lunch and evening drinks, I endeavoured to build rapport with the

editors and become familiar with their everyday talk. At the same time, I tried to

ensure a more distanced view by reiteratively reflecting on first impressions and

my developing interpretations in order to preserve some of the initial surprisethat I had as a newcomer to the field (Ybema and Kamsteeg 2009). Having read

some of the literature that theorizes identity in terms of continuity, distinctive-

ness and cohesion, I was puzzled to find that editors identity talk seemed to

fail, for it did not portray a clear, distinctive, and historically consistent col-

lective identity. This confusion or breakdown in my understanding (Agar 1986:

20), while trying my patience, inspired my own critical dialogue between theo-

retical assumptions and empirical impressions (Alvesson and Krreman 2006).

The research process was characterized by the interchange among findings

stemming from different sources and methods, comprising field observations,

document analysis, informal conversations, and formal interviews. In the firstweeks of my fieldwork, I frequently observed and took notes during regularly

scheduled newsroom meetings and informal gatherings in order to get insight

into the identity themes that recurred in discussions about the newspapers edi-

torial policies and its character and external image. Since identity discourse

was commonly present in everyday discussions about actual practices and news-

paper contents, I then started focusing my attention by closely following debates

about particular identity-sensitive (and heavily discussed) issues, such as the

journalistic profile of the new weekly Volkskrant-magazine or the changing

contents of the front page. I attended three plenary meetings and four discussion

sessions on the papers profile (sessions lasted about two hours and were orga-nized over a period of four months), each chaired by one of the four chief edi-

tors and attended by a different group of 8 to 15 editors. I also analysed different

kinds of texts, including marketing reports, internal company documentation,

and annual reports published from 1990 to 1998; the editorial statute; the daily

paper; studies of de Volkskrants history by Van Vree and Hemels; a research

report based on data derived from a questionnaire administered to the editorial

staff; and a journalistic report based on two weeks of fieldwork in the Volkskrant

newsroom (Van Westerloo 1996). These were helpful for understanding the con-

text and contents of the discussions taking place.

The spontaneous conversations continuously informed my emerging interpre-

tations, providing a more grounded understanding of the editors personal atti-

tudes, motivations and impressions concerning the newspapers identity and the

underlying meaning of the opinions on identity-related issues that they vented in

discussion sessions, formal meetings and corridors. In order to explore partic-

ular identity issues in more depth and detail, thirty-two formal (planned), semi-

structured interviews were conducted of one to two hours duration each with a

variety of the editorial staffs members (varying in age, tenure, gender, hierar-

chical position, functional specialisation and discursive position within the inter-

nal debate; ten of these interviews were conducted as a follow-up four years

after the initial ones). The interview protocol contained open questions about the

respondents general biography and tenure at the paper, background on the edi-

torial staffs structure and functioning, views of the newspapers historical




9/24

development and current situation, perceptions of the internal and external

images of the newspaper, and (dis)identification with the newspaper. All inter-

views were recorded and transcribed verbatim; respondents read and com-

mented on interview transcripts, and I used their comments and interpretations

in the data analysis. Information derived from observations and conversationshelped me obtain an idea of the variety (and invariability) of voices that could

be heard within the editorial staff, which in turn guided the choice of interlocu-

tors and the modification of future interviews.

Iterative movement among data gathering, intermediary analysis, and theo-

retical exploration, mediating experience-near and experience-distant con-

cepts (Geertz 1973), allowed the data to speak as loudly as the theories

(Snow, Morrill and Anderson 2003: 193) so that they mutually informed each

other. The analysis first focused on uncovering the particular patterns of col-

lective identity talk within de Volkskrant, treating the field of study as a stand-

alone case (Eisenhardt 1989: 540). Repeated readings of field notes, interviewtranscripts and collected documents, each time marking phrases and passages,

provided a way to identify recurrent themes in copious amounts of data. The

themes identified in the textual data subsequently guided a clustering of con-

vergent categories and abstracting to conceptual levels of interpretation

(Miles and Huberman 1994). Presenting narrative descriptions and initial

analyses in research reports and conference papers involved going back and

forth again between raw data and emerging categories, in a process that

strengthened the interpretation and furnished the description with empirical

depth and detail. Finally, reviewing a variety of case studies of identity talk in

work organizations and other social settings described in the literature, exam-ining similarities and dissimilarities, allowed for a context-sensitive reading

of the case study and an exploration of its theoretical promises, limitations

and implications.

The central focus of the analysis and the theoretical exploration was on the

way people construct their collective identity in everyday organizational dis-

course. This framed identity as a social construct constituted through the situ-

ated practices of talking and writing (Grant et al. 2004: 3), in identity

discourse (Ainsworth and Hardy 2004), identity narratives (Brown 2006),

identity accounts (Kuhn 2006) or identity talk (Snow and Anderson 1987). A

discursive approach to the analysis of organizational identities enables a view

that puts emphasis on the situated performance and multiplicity of narratives

(Cunliffe et al. 2004), thereby avoiding the danger of treating participants

(often essentialist) claims as the true essence of an individual or a collective

(Ybema et al. 2009; Czarniawska 1997). It is insightful for understanding how

identities are articulated in everyday organizational talk and texts; how domi-

nant discourses play out in organizations; how a particular discourse relates to

other discourses; and what discursive strategies are deployed to encourage or

discourage the adoption of certain meanings (Thomas and Linstead 2002). For

the purpose of exploratory richness and theoretical refinement, the analysis of

identity discourse in this article was restricted to temporal self-categorizations.

This meant analysing those core constructs of self-categorization (Clegg et al.

2007: 500) in which editors explicitly reflect on, and actively deploy, the past,




10/24

present and future of the newspaper in order to formulate or reformulate,

applaud or oppose a collective identity.

Narratives of de Volkskrants identity change

From shared dedication to crisis, transformation, and dissent

In the meeting described in the opening vignette, the editor-in-chief of de

Volkskrant had begun the discussion session by asking some of the papers

young talents and leading figures and the (mostly silent) researcher-author

whether the old-fashioned words of the identity statement written down in the

editorial statute still represented de Volkskrants current or desired identity. De

Volkskrant had started out as a Catholic union paper in 1919, gradually aban-

doned its Catholic origins in the 1960s, and embarked on a distinctly left wing,

social-democratic course in the 1970s, formally laid down in the statutory iden-tity statement (Van Vree 1996). In the 1990s, after more than two decades of

steady growth, revenues from advertising and readership had slowly started to

decrease. Against this backdrop, the editor-in-chief claimed that de Volkskrant

suffered from its ideological heritage that he saw as stigmatising the paper:

potential readers assumedly saw de Volkskrant as a bitingly critical newspaper

of left wing faultfinders. So, he asked the staff, perhaps it was time to recon-

sider the identity statement and refashion the papers identity anew?

The fifteen editors invited to take part in the discussion session readily agreed

that it was no longer self-evident that a newspaper would take a particular (or,

indeed, any) political stand. Traditional ideology, it was claimed, was blurringor ebbing in the 1990s. Curiously enough, however, after administering a ques-

tionnaire and holding four discussion sessions (some of whose central issues

were summarised in a report written by the author-researcher), a plenary meet-

ing was held in which it was decided (without celebration or enthusiasm) notto

eliminate the statement after all. Why? When I asked them after the meeting,

editors expressed different views. Some suggested the statement of principles

was nothing but a dead letter that left them, and most staff members, indiffer-

ent. Others claimed that some of the staff were not ready to break away from

once cherished ideals. Still others believed nobody really knew what to do with

the identity statement and they failed to formulate an appealing alternative.

While editors had different views on the reasons for the staffs decision not to

cross out the identity statement, all agreed that the lack of common consent and

clear convictions were characteristic of the editorial staff today. In interviews,

meetings and informal talk, editors frequently talked of identity change, conflict

and crisis. Invoking an image of a rupture with the papers past, they situated the

present-day disputes in time, claiming that, in contrast with the old days, a clear

and uniting perspective was missing today. The confusing, changing and con-

flict-ridden present was measured against the presumed social cohesion, stabil-

ity and ideological clarity of former years symbolized by the unambiguous

statement of principles in the statutory text.

While a stark contrast was believed to distinguish the present from a relatively

recent, more stable and secure period in the papers history, todays turbulence




11/24

simultaneously resonated with memories of radical transformations in a more

distant past. Editors shared the belief that it had always been a typical strength

of de Volkskrant that it was able to change. The paper, as one editor expressed

it, follows the latest fashion: we always change colour exactly on time. A com-

mentator on foreign affairs, presenting the papers history as a succession of rad-ical changes: De Volkskrant has always been opportunistic and chameleonic:

Catholic in the 1960s, left wing in the 1970s and 1980s, and now were more

popular. Weve always been good in sensing the spirit of the times. Criticising

current changes, some disapprovingly named it Catholic docility or spineless-

ness; others rather called it journalistic sensitivity, shrewd positioning or

innovative flexibility. All agreed, however, that changing colours had been a

constant characteristic of the paper throughout its history.

Editors collectively engaged in temporal talk of identity change, but they typ-

ically put forward conflicting views about how the collective identity was chang-

ing today. In my interpretation of these different views, co-constructed inconversations with research participants, the rhetoric of the staffs identity talk

can be seen as two antagonistic discourses in which past traditions and planned

innovations were valued differently. The discourse that dominated the staffs

identity discussions, described in the following section, reacted against the som-

bre negativism of leftist journalism (devaluing the past) and argued for a more

light-hearted, liberal newspaper (projecting an attractive future). It successfully

drove the counter-discourse, discussed in the subsequent section, into a defensive

posture. This discourse dismissed the frothy entertainment of todays paper

(devaluing the present/future) and favoured societal engagement and critical jour-

nalism (re-valuing and romanticising the past). Within these discourses, partici-pants use of terms such as bloody sour, open and newsy or bleak and bland

(or indeed frothy entertainment and sombre negativism) are themselves con-

tested categories; they can be seen as discursive moves in an ongoing negotiation

over the shape, direction and legitimacy of the process of change.

From bloody sour to open and newsy

One powerful voice in the discursive struggles within the editorial staff railed

against the inheritance of the newspapers left wing ideological past. In this dis-

course, editors internalised the negative image that the public was assumed to haveof the left wing Volkskrant with its preference for social issues, labelling their

own paper as predisposed, patronizing, cynical, predictable, and moraliz-

ing, imposing an overly sombre worldview on its readers. It was argued that the

steady growth of readership and lack of direct competition in the 1980s, together

with the editors missionary zeal and idealism, had grown into a false belief of

moral superiority and a rather self-assured, opinionated attitude that was indiffer-

ent to readers wishes. The negative characterization of the paper was often framed

as the publics image (they think we are like this) or relegated to the past (we

used to be like that). Recalling instances of the papers missionary journalism,

editors laughed about former taboos on covering auto racing, boxing, showbiz,the infernal din of heavy metal music or, indeed, the anachronism of an old-

fashioned statutory text. It was, however, also acknowledged that the papers




12/24

apostolic journalism had not entirely disappeared. A foreign news editor, for

instance, wrote in the margin of a questionnaire:

Weve got to do away with our damned proclivity to change the world, to play the mis-sionary. () We never seem to have put an end to the dreadful seventies. Away with that!

Let the reader decide what he wants to think instead of being lead by a Volkskrant tellinghow it is. If we want to wreck ourselves.

The stinging self-criticism laid a foundation for plans and initiatives to change

the newspapers journalistic policies. The new staff of chief editors propagated

this past-unfriendly, change-oriented view most forcefully. In his maiden speech

in 1995, the editor-in-chief told the staff to move away from note journalism

[official news from institutions] and go search for the non-directed reality (Van

Vree 1996: 202). The abundance of union news and the umpteenth story about

welfare mothers were assumed not to appeal to the onrushing zap-generation.

On different occasions, he clearly voiced his discontent with the character and

contents of the paper that, he asserted, was bloody sour. It was his ambition torid the paper of its wornness and from the silly idea that good and bad are firmly

fixed notions. Together with a new team of chief editors, he began to emphasize

the diversity of political opinion makers by including both liberal and conserv-

ative voices, as well as popular culture, infotainment, a newsy attitude and

reports from the streets, in order to lighten the papers intellectual, left-wing

image and to bring the paper close up to its readers. A deputy chief: We are

allowed to offer amusement now. We always kept it out. We are breaking with

the idea that left-wing must be sombre, heavy-hearted.

Looking back three years after he took office, the editor-in-chief spoke in the

past tense when discussing the newspapers leftist leanings: The conscience ofde Volkskrant no longer lies on the left-right axis. We are done with that social-

political distinction. Competing on ideology is pass. He recapitulated the

newspapers identity change as follows:

When I started, the paper had a cranky overtone. It was predictable, everyone could tellwhat the opinion of de Volkskrant would be and usually that was not sympathetic.Moreover, we were too much a newspaper of political notes and union reports. Notexactly appealing to female and young readers Clearly, the paper had to change: itshould become less predictable, more curious, open and frivolous. Not sour and no taboosanymore. We no longer decide what our readers should think or read. (Public interview,Opzij, November 1998)

At the time of the research changes were well under way and heavily discussed.

Editors observed a profound change, claiming the new policies had turned for-

mer taboos into new tasks and vice versa: the new rule is: no more union news

or welfare stories; there is less politics, less conflicts, more leisure on the

first page; pictures from starving Africans are now taboo. Although these poli-

cies met with strong opposition from the staff (described in the next subsection),

editors commonly engaged in anti-past, pro-change talk. The youngest editors in

particular were in favour of street-level journalism and popular culture-coverage

(e.g., the Eurovision Song festival, the Dutch crown princes new date). In their

eyes de Volkskranthad grown into a rather elitist paper that all too often turned upits nose at the interests of the common people. They envisioned a newspaper that

would bring in low culture, while maintaining high culture but non-highbrow




13/24

standards it needed to be juicy but good, as one of them put it. For them, this

also entailed that the staff would abandon its left wing roots and would make for

a strictly professional newspaper without a political bias.

The older generation of editors shared the critique of the politically correct

and correcting Volkskrant. Even the more vociferous opponents of the new plansand policies admitted that the paper had become too agenda-focused; dead

and stuffy; had lost its reporters character; or was politically biased: With

hindsight, we [education editors] often overplayed our hand, being guided by

good intentions. We worked along established lines for too long. Support of the

chief editors reforms was usually given rather unenthusiastically or was cloaked

in criticism, as when, for instance, it was claimed that the papers rejuvenating

cure did not come up to the staffs expectations. The paper was still sour and

smarty; still politically correct; not writing about popular culture with an

open mind yet; was still running the risk of becoming a dreary old codgers

paper. The critical support notwithstanding, the contents, direction and out-comes of the change initiatives themselves had come under fire in a counter-dis-

course that, rather than pouring scorn on the papers past, placed renewed value

on old traditions to criticise the contemporary Volkskrant.

From critical and engaged to frothy

Although all editors engaged in anti-past, pro-change talk, most of them simul-

taneously maintained that new policies of the team of chief editors posed a direct

threat to some of the most valued characteristics of the newspaper. In this

counter-discourse a divergent, oppositional view of current changes was nour-ished that claimed de Volkskrant was involved in a process called popularisa-

tion, vulgarisation or soap-ification and was slipping into tasteless,

Telegraaf-like journalism (De Telegraafis a populist paper with a wide circu-

lation). It was argued that the paper had gone from one extreme to another: for

years the paper had run down banal popular culture and now it was applaud-

ing it. One editor summarised this transition as follows (with a grim look on his

face): We used to be left wing and cynical and now we are liberal and frothy.

Editors were particularly annoyed about the chief editors plans to make a glossy

pulp of the new weekly Volkskrant-magazine and their newly instantiated practice

of putting reports about Spice Girls-mania or news about the Dutch Royal Familyon the front page. A photojournalist, for instance, looking at a report of the Spice

Girls, shook his head disapprovingly, saying: These kinds of issues that I find of no

value whatever when they blow this up out of all proportions, turning it into a

front page report These kinds of issues were widely considered trivial and cheap

entertainment, representing an unprofessional, marketing-like approach meant only

to serve a broad reading public: [Today] the paper tries to please as many readers

as possible (economy editor); We never wanted to sell as many papers as possible

(commentator). The criticism surfaced in, for instance, informal conversations: It

makes me rather cranky. Young, New, Open, Fresh. Thats all the chief editors can

talk about these days (news editor); in formal gatherings: We are cheering too

much. We go along with all the nonsense (sport editor); and in discussion sessions:

We are sliding into an overly populist paper (chairman of the editors council).




14/24

The counter-discourse critically questioned the gains of the new plans and

policies while simultaneously accentuating their losses. Old(er) editors in par-

ticular perceived the papers popularisation in terms of loss or devaluation.

They were dedicated to writing the quality newspaper de Volkskrant had pur-

ported to be under the previous editor-in-chief, with high journalistic standards,an intellectual interest, societal engagement and a critical stance towards the

establishment. In what they saw as a frantic attempt of the new team of chief

editors to make a sunshiny newspaper, the paper was bargaining away these

former qualities:

De Volkskrant is popularising. It needs to be done light-heartedly these days. Not tooserious. Today we aim at an audience that is hardly interested in political matters and thatdoes not appreciate difficult subjects: an important report on environmental pollutiondoes not make the paper I have a little less the feeling that this is my paper. (Editor,Van Westerloo 1996)

Those challenging the chief editors plans argued that lately de Volkskrant wasmissing the curious suspicion typical of good journalism and the true inspira-

tion of an ideologically inspired approach. In comparison with the criticality

and progressiveness of former years, the new Volkskrant often came to be rep-

resented as the pale opposite. The reforms were seen as turning de Volkskrant

into a lifeless paper. It created, as an education editor put it, nothingness:

Today we lack this passion of really wanting to get to the bottom of things [that

used to be characteristic of the paper], and this has changed de Volkskrantinto a

colourless, bleak, and bland paper.

Instead of bashing the old Volkskrant, in this discursive framework it was typ-

ical to labour for a revaluation of the papers former characteristics. Editorsagreed that the paper needed to lighten up its sombre negativism, but they regret-

ted that the paper seemed to be finished with the past altogether. Instead, they

wanted to see de Volkskrant hold on to the papers social engagement with the

underdog groups in a realistic, light-hearted way. While differentiating their

sympathy for socially engaged journalism from the missionary journalism of

former times We shouldnt shout it from the rooftops they advocated restor-

ing old qualities and making the paper rebellious again, provocative, a bit

impish or less law-abiding in order to reconnect the paper with its roots as a

high-quality, intellectual, critical and socially engaged newspaper and to create

a distinct profile once more.

Analysis: temporal talk of identity change

The case analysis of de Volkskrant shows how organizational identity research

may deal with questions of organizational change at the fundamental level of

self-definition. By adopting a language-focused, time-sensitive approach to the

analysis, I described the recurrent time-related references of Volkskrant editors

to the identity of the newspaper and the editorial staff Ever since we;

When I became editor-in-chief, the paper; The paper should become

more; We used to be, now we are and demonstrated that the discur-

sive struggles over the newspapers identity are about tradition and transition,

legacies inherited from a common past and plans made for a new future. The




15/24

editors derive a sense of collective self by comparing the collective past, present

and future; that is, by making temporal comparisons that picture the develop-

ments that the paper and the staff have undergone or are undergoing. So, in most

general terms, the research shows the significance of temporal talk about identity

change for our understanding of collective identities in organizational settings.In particular, the analysis presented here challenges the common assumption

in identity studies that identity formation is essentially or invariably about estab-

lishing or facilitating a sense of continuity. As an alternative, this research brings

into focus how organizational members draft a version of their collective self as

radically changing or changed. In the discursive construction of a collective iden-

tity, Volkskrant editors explicitly or implicitly draw contrasts between old and

new identities, following the formula, Then we used to be X (e.g., left wing

and cynical), now we are (or will become) Y (not-X) (e.g., liberal and frothy).

By accentuating differences rather than similarities between periods or points in

time, the newspapers identity is depicted as moving from one extreme toanother: from leftist to liberal, predictable to open or from passionate to

bleak. Even when editors call on the papers long-standing traditions, they

implicitly draw a temporal opposition with the present or the future by suggest-

ing that this particular tradition has been out of use and needs to be reinstated.

This is what the editor-in-chief was doing when he said that the paper needed to

become a reporters paper again (implicitly drawing a temporal contrast by

assuming this quality had been disregarded by his predecessor), or when a com-

mentator criticized present-day commercialism by exclaiming that in previous

times the staff never wanted to sell as many papers as possible. The primary

focus of the Volkskrant journalists is thus on the changing features of theVolkskrants identity rather than its enduring features (Albert and Whetten

1985). Ironically, the only enduring feature that is mentioned frequently is the

chameleonic ability to change and follow the latest fashion: We always change

colour exactly on time. It is the only enduring feature that is mentioned fre-

quently, as if change is the only stable factor. If we are to believe the way the edi-

tors talk about the collective past, present and future, change is the only stable

factor and the newspaper is in a constant state of turmoil and transformation. So,

in counterpoint to the widespread assumption that a sense of consistency across

time is at the heart of peoples self-sensemaking, this study suggests that collec-

tive identity should not necessarily be equated with the experience of continuity.

The Volkskrant editors do not conceive the identity change in one single,

unitary way. They draft two contrasting and conflicting versions of their

changing collective self by placing different value on the past, present and

future. Linguistic binary oppositions are often utilized in identity construc-

tion to set up a hierarchy and position selves and others, not simply as dif-

ferent from one another, but also as more or less good, respectable or

desirable (Ainsworth and Hardy 2004). The Volkskrant editors talk of old

and new collective identities shows a similar pattern. In their presentation of

the papers history as a non-linear, episodic, transformational development,

they not only exaggerate the symbolic distance between the past, present and

future; they also paint the contrasting extremes as an oppositional hierarchy:

one period is put up against the other as desired versus despised or good




16/24

versus bad. By imbuing the papers history with emotions, values and beliefs,

they frame the identity transformation either in terms of a good past/bad

present or a bad present/great future contrast. The more dominant tempo-

ral discourse devalues the past (reacting against the sombre negativism of

leftist journalism) and projects an attractive future (labouring for a morelight-hearted, liberal newspaper), whereas the counter-discourse devalues the

present/future (dismissing the frothy entertainment of todays paper) and re-

values and romanticises the past (favouring social commitment and critical

journalism).

As organizational identity scholars have not theorized temporal talk of

change, I turn to the organizational change literature on nostalgic and postal-

gic narratives to further conceptualise the two variants of identity change talk.

From this theoretical vantage point, these temporal discourses can be seen as

a strong identification with either a beautified past or a promising future, in

combination with a critical counter-identification with present-day develop-ments. Telling an inevitably selective, simplified and slightly dramatized story,

the Volkskrant editors script the change of their newspapers identity, in retro-

spection or anticipation, as either regrettable regress or promising progress,

suggesting the paper has moved or is moving either from a Paradise Lost to the

dry lands that lie east of Eden or, alternatively, from Egyptian slavery to the

Promised Land. By refurbishing a pristine past, the nostalgic discourse imparts

a sense of identity by momentarily restoring the emotional connection with a

shared history at the same time that it cultivates a sense of identity loss by

showing how the present is disconnected from the past. This way, it warns

against new fashions and tries to reconnect a collective to former lifelinesby promoting a retro-identity (the socially engaged, critical-intellectual

Volkskrant of a previous era). In contrast, the postalgic discourse wants to cut

loose and move away from the past and is thus aimed, not at preserving or

restoring, but at disavowing so-called old identities. In order to replace tra-

ditional bricks and mortar (Pratt 2000: 486), it simultaneously fashions

invents, projects, and heralds more modern or modish identities (a young

and fresh newspaper). Whether preparing for the future or repairing the past,

both narratives construct an ideal collective self alongside an actual self that is

unsatisfactory, setting up a temporal contrast as a means to motivate, negoti-

ate, and/or challenge identity change.

From a political perspective, the nostalgic and postalgic discourse can be seen

as part of a power struggle in which organizational actors either support or

oppose the journalistic and ideological renewal of the paper instigated by the

new editorial management by praising or dispraising past, present and future

identities. Negotiating the content, legitimacy and direction of the change, both

discourses refer to, comment on, and thus implicitly or explicitly presuppose,

provoke and oppose the competing discourse. Every hurrah-word (Cohen

1985) used to promote the future-oriented identity change plans for the newspa-

per, such as young, new, open, playful, fresh, frivolous, dynamic,

was countered with typical boo-words like frothy, bleak, banal, superfi-

cial, uncritical, nothingness. In turn, the pro-change discourse re-labelled

the positive typifications of the newspapers intellectual and ideological past,




17/24

such as critical involvement, social inspiration or high-quality journalism,

as prejudiced, elitist, predisposed, predictable or bloody sour. The orga-

nizational identity change thus emerges in relationally responsive, talk-

entwined activities (Cunliffe et al. 2004: 264), which, in this case, is a

politicised process of reality construction through the conflict-ridden interactionof two antagonistic discourses.

As competing attempts to promote and oppose particular readings of the iden-

tity change narrative and to appropriate the identity discourse for a political

agenda, both types of temporal discontinuity talk described in this case can be

seen as rhetorical strategies to make a convincing case for why change is

required or resisted. The editors nostalgic revaluation of the past was used as a

subtle means to show their resentment and to resist present-day changes, while

the political import of their postalgia lay in the fostering of an optimistic belief

that progress and improvement were possible. More implicitly, both discourses

instilled a somewhat apocalyptic fear of organizational deterioration (e.g., a neg-ative image, dropping revenues, poor quality, etc.) if change initiatives would

(nostalgia) or would not (postalgia) be followed through. Unsatisfied about a

present that bears the stamp of either former or future generations, nostalgizers

and postalgizers thus condemn particular policies and practices (attempting to

destruct or break down meaning) and infuse them with new value and direction

(trying to create new meaning). Longingly picturing a sparkling future identity

and romanticising about a cherished past identity are reflections or expressions

of present-day concerns that may be deployed as symbolic means to shed new

light on the here and now or, instead, to put it in the shade. Discourses that

dwell in the past or the future are in fact not so much about other times as theyare disputing and negotiating who, metaphorically speaking, owns the pre-

sent; that is, whose discourse authors a more authoritative version of an identity

and ultimately determines decisions on present-day policies and practices. So,

while appropriating the past or the future, one is actually battling over who is the

proprietor of the present.

Discussion and conclusions

The research presented in this article advances our understanding of identity as

a discursive product and resource, moving the theorization of the relation

between temporal categories, collective identity, and organizational change one

step further. The question I have asked is how Volkskrant editors discursively

construct temporal discontinuities to establish a sense of collective identity

change. As a challenge to the assumption that identity facilitates organizational

actors sense of self-continuity, this research shows how organizational actors

discursively enact old and new identities by invoking clear contrasts between

different periods in time. Through such clear-cut periodization (Czarniawska

1997: 116), they are able to cultivate the idea of a radical identity transfor-

mation, a rupture in the collective history in terms of B.C. and A.D.,

pre-Damascus and post-Damascus (Berger and Luckmann 1991: 179). It

demonstrates empirically that by adopting a language-focused, time-sensitive




18/24

approach to its analyses, organizational identity research may deal with questions

of organizational change at the fundamental level of self-definition. However,

for that purpose, identity researchers need to incorporate and develop a notion

of change in their conceptualisation of identity. Because past theorizing about

identity change has given little consideration to time-based incongruities(Corley and Gioia 2004: 204), I brought in the concepts of nostalgia and postal-

gia in this study which proved to be a valuable aid for analysing organizational

actors evaluative talk of identity change. In future research, combining theo-

ries of identity and change may help to further develop our understanding of

both phenomena: an identity perspective brings into focus organizational actors

basic self-sensemaking practices, while, vice versa, the organizational change

literature may help to foreground temporal, political and emotional dimensions

of change talk.

To explore the implications and limitations of this research, I will briefly com-

pare the talk of identity change observed in this case with studies that describeorganizational members sense of self-continuity. Analytically, observing two

different types of identity talk points to the need for developing greater sensitiv-

ity to the varieties and situatedness of collective identity talk. It prompts a ques-

tion concerning the circumstances under which organizational members claim to

have a continuous or enduring collective identity and when instead they draw on

temporal talk that narrates an identity change. Relating the question to this par-

ticular case: why do Volkskranteditors engage in talk of identity shifts? Surely,

they could have ignored changing characteristics and focus on enduring features

instead, as other studies of collective identity describe organizational members

do in contexts of organizational change (e.g., Ravasi and Schultz 2006). To thisquestion there are many answers. Here, I will pursue a somewhat speculative,

contextual interpretation. By adopting a focus on varieties of collective identity

talk in different forums and different settings, we may have access to a more sit-

uation-sensitive view of the intricacies which inform the processes of identity

construction in organizational settings.

One first important context for the editors identity talk was the perceived

threat to the papers external image. The talk of identity change and crisis

in this setting was prompted by the gradual decrease of revenues from subscrip-

tions and advertising and the shared assumption of having an increasingly

negative reputation. An organizational identity may be discursively enacted

in a different manner when, for instance, an organization goes from being

derided as a low status organization to being celebrated as a highly success-

ful one, as the continuity-constructing identity talk described in Paalumkis

(2000) case study illustrates. When organizational members go from being

championed as the shining stars to being the bad kids on the block

(Feldman 1991) in the case of, for instance, a sudden economic downfall or a

scandal, this poses a threat to members long-held, preferred views of them-

selves (Elsbach and Kramer 1996; Ravasi and Schultz 2006). Interestingly,

however, case studies that describe organizational actors responses to a

threatened reputation also report temporal continuity talk (e.g., Dutton and

Dukerich 1991). More broadly speaking, a threat to a collective identity gener-

ally motivates organizational members to shore up their precarious collective




19/24

selves by restoring the continuity of a positive collective identity, such as

when members seek legitimacy as a new company (Clegg et al. 2007); try to

impress clients or competitors (Alvesson 1994); or establish continuity in the

face of market turmoil (Ravasi and Schultz 2006) or in response to external

rankings (Elsbach and Kramer 1996). So, the negative image-discoursewithin the editorial staff of de Volkskrant provided the context for the expe-

rience of the collective identity as a problem; yet, on the basis of previous

research, one might expect editors to engage in continuity talk in order to pre-

serve their preferred views of themselves. So, the question remains why they

prefer to talk of identity change.

A close comparison of the Volkskrant case with the aforementioned organi-

zational identity studies suggests that the situation of the editors fundamen-

tally diverged from processes in which, for instance, new actors try to enter an

existing field or construct a new field (e.g., Clegg et al. 2005) or established

actors try to maintain their external position vis--vis a highly demandingand dynamic field (e.g, Alvesson 1994; Ravasi and Schultz 2004). This case

describes instead a politicised, conflict-ridden process in which established

actors internally negotiate how to restructure the old field and construct a new

stage (cf. Czarniawska 1997: 159). So, arguably, the internal conflicts over

new editorial policies and practices constitute a second, equally important

context for the Volkskrant editors identity change talk. As relatively democ-

ratic decision-making practices within the staff give them some discretion to

influence the direction of change, editors engage in talk of identity shifts, not

only in an attempt to make cognitive sense of a rather confusing transition, but

also as a rhetorical strategy to promote or oppose identity change. Outside ofthe field of organizational identity research a variety of case analyses of inter-

nally disputed organizational change testifies to this idea. These studies have

also highlighted organizational members prospective and retrospective sense-

making of change and discontinuities, some of them explicitly describing

nostalgic and postalgic discourses (e.g., Humphreys and Brown 2002;

McDonald et al. 2006), suggesting that the Volkskrant editors polemical talk

of identity discontinuities and a nostalgia-postalgia dialectic may be typical of

discursive struggles over organizational change. This might be the case in par-

ticular for a redirection of a well-established, symbol-intensive product like de

Volkskrant (symbol-intensive due to the impact of the newspapers ideological

and professional content and day-to-day performance on readers evaluations

of a newspaper and, ultimately, on its image, status and readership). More in-

depth case studies of identity formation processes during and after various

types of organizational change the adoption of new modes of management,

the introduction of new forms of collaboration, the radical restructuring of an

organization, etc. would allow for comparative analyses of varieties of iden-

tity talk across different change contexts.

Thirdly, we may presume that identity change talk is characteristic of more

backstage, self-absorbed or inward-focused processes of identity formation. The

research presented here provides ethnographic detail and depth, but, even

though the case description partly draws on frontstage material such as public

interviews and newspaper articles, gaining rapport among research participants




20/24

and going behind the scenes may nonetheless have privileged self-centered,

insider-to-insider identity talk in the research, instead of the more outward-

faced or other-directed identity talk commonly described in studies of collective

identities which have usually not been conducted ethnographically. Studies

which display a more outward-faced discursive performance of identity (e.g.,Alvesson 1994) tend to cast organizational actors as security-seekers who shore

up their fragile selves by establishing or restoring a sense of continuity, coher-

ence and distinctiveness. The Volkskrant case describes instead fragments of

more inward-faced processes of authoring and re-authoring a collective identity

which may reflect some of the incoherence, self-doubt, insecurity, antagonism

or fragility evident in those moments of reflexivity when the actor interrogates

rather than secures orglorifies the self (Ybema et al. 2009: 3134). Perhaps in

these moments of self-interrogation organizational actors are more motivated

to engage in identity talk which creates discontinuities, ambiguities and conflict.

Hence, we may ask under what circumstances organizational actors engage ineither frontstage or backstage identity change talk and, more specifically,

whether discourse which manufactures and legitimates or resists identity change

is typical of relentless self-reflection and negotiation with internal stakeholders

in the back regions of an organization?

To conclude, this article shows how a discursive analysis of organizational

actors imagined selves, either hoped-for and aspired-to or feared and avoided,

and projected onto the past or the future, may hold promise for theorizing sense-

making and sensebreaking practices during processes of organizational change.

While identity talk often aspires to the construction of continuity and coherence,

this study, by describing how participants reflectively put together a story abouttheir changing or changed collective identity, shows there are alternative goals

for organizational members self-sensemaking. Future research is required to

investigate the play and role of collective identity talk in different forums, dif-

ferent settings, in more backstage as well as highly public contexts, in different

periods and over different issues. By empirically addressing the myriad ways in

which collective identities are used in talk, whether oral or written, in order to

promote, appropriate, contest and negotiate a particular truth claim or form of

self, we can advance our understanding of organizational change. For this pur-

pose, it may be instructive to take an identity perspective that is sensitive to the

subtleties in temporal talk that organizational members use to interpret and eval-

uate their present, former and future actions and to express their hopes, fears,

ambitions, anxieties, pride and shame.

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the suggestions, inspiration and encouragement of Nic

Beech, Chris Carter, Tom Keenoy, Willem Koot, Frank Mueller, Andre Spicer,

Phyllis Vangelder, and Dvora Yanow in developing the ideas set forth in this

manuscript. I also thank Andrew Brown and four anonymous OS reviewers for

thoughtful developmental feedback that helped sharpen the arguments of the

paper considerably.




21/24

Agar, Michael H.1986 Speaking of ethnography. Beverly

Hills CA: Sage.

Ainsworth, Susan and Cynthia Hardy2004 Discourse and identities, in

Handbook of organizationaldiscourse. D. Grant et al. (eds),153173. London: Sage.

Albert, Stuart and David A. Whetten1985 Organizational identity, in L.L.

Cummings and B.M. Staw (eds)Research in organizational behavior.Greenwich CT: JAI Press, vol.84:485503.

Alvesson, Mats1994 Talking in organizations: Managing

identity and impressions in an

advertising agency. OrganizationStudies 15/4: 535563.

Alvesson, Mats and Dan Krreman2006 Constructing mystery: Empirical

matters in theory development.Academy of Management Review 32(4): 126581.

Bate, S. Paul1997 Whatever happened to organizational

anthropology? A review of the field oforganizational ethnography andanthropological studies. Human

Relations 50/9: 11471171.Beech, Nic2000 Narrative styles of managers and

workers: A tale of star-crossedlovers. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science 362: 210228.

Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann1991 The social construction of reality: A[1966] treatise in the sociology of

knowledge. London: Penguin.

Brown, Andrew D.2006 A narrative approach to collective

identities. Journal of ManagementStudies 43/4: 731753.

Brown, Andrew D. and Michael Humphreys2006 Epic and tragic tales: Making sense

of change. Journal of AppliedBehavioural Science 39/22: 121144.

Brown, Andrew D. and Ken Starkey2000 Organizational identity and learning:

A psychodynamic perspective.Academy of Management Review25/1: 102120.

Buchanan, David and Patrick Dawson2007 Discourse and audience:

Organizational change as multi-story

process. Journal of ManagementStudies 44/5: 669686.

Carlsen, Arne2006 Organizational becoming as

dialogical imagination of practice:

The case of the indomitable Gauls.Organization Science 17/1:132149.

Chreim, Samia2005 The continuity-change duality in

narrative texts of organizationalidentity. Journal of ManagementStudies 42/3: 567593.

Clegg, Stewart R., Carl Rhodes and MartinKornberger2007 Desperately seeking legitimacy:

Organizational identity and emerging

industries. Organization Studies28/4: 495513.

Cohen, Anthony P.1985 The symbolic construction of

community. London: Ellis Horwood/Tavistock.

Corley, Kevin G. and Dennis A. Gioia2004 Identity ambiguity and change in the

wake of a corporate spin-off.Administrative Science Quarterly49/3: 173208.

Corley, Kevin G., Celia V. Harquail, Michael

G. Pratt, Mary Ann Glynn, C. Marlene Fioland Mary Jo Hatch2006 Guiding organizational identity

through aged adolescence. Journal ofManagement Inquiry 15/2: 8599.

Cunliffe, Ann L., John T. Luhman and DavidM. Boje2004 Narrative temporality: Implications

for organizational research.Organization Studies 25/2: 261286.

Czarniawska, Barbara1997 Narrating the organization: Dramas

of institutional identity. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Davis, Fred1979 Yearning for yesterday: A sociology

of nostalgia. New York: The FreePress.

Douglas, Mary1987 How institutions think. London:

Routledge.

Down, Simon and James Reveley2004 Generational encounters and the

social formation of entrepreneurialidentity: young guns and oldfarts. Organization 11/2: 233250.


References



22/24

Dutton, Jane E. and Janet M. Dukerich1991 Keeping an eye on the mirror. Image

and identity in organizationaladaptation. Academy of Management

Review 34: 517554.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M.1989 Building theory from case study

research. Academy of ManagementReview 14/4: 532550.

Elias, Norbert1992 Time: An essay. Oxford: Blackwell.

Elsbach, Kimberley D. and Roderick M.Kramer1996 Members responses to

organizational identity threats:Encountering and countering the

Business Weekrankings.

Administrative Science Quarterly 41:442476.

Ezzy, Douglas1998 Theorizing narrative identity:

Symbolic interactionism andhermeneutics. Sociological Quarterly39/2: 239252.

Feldman, Martha S.1991 The meanings of ambiguity:

Learning from stories and metaphors,in Reframing organizational culture.P.J. Frost, L.F. Moore, M.R. Louis,

C.C. Lundberg and J. Martin (eds),145156. London: Sage.

Gabriel, Yiannis1993 Organizational nostalgia: Reflections

on The Golden Age, in Emotion inOrganizations. S. Fineman (ed),118141. London: Sage.

Gabriel, Yiannis1995 The unmanaged organization:

Stories, fantasies and subjectivity.Organization Studies 16/3:477501.

Garcia, Primo and Cynthia Hardy2007 Positioning, similarity and

difference: Narratives of individualand organisational identities in anAustralian university. Scandinavian

Journal of Management 23:363383.

Geertz, Clifford1973 The interpretation of cultures. New

York: Basic Books

Giddens, Anthony

1991 Modernity and self-identity. Self andsociety in the late modern age.Cambridge: Polity.

Gioia, Dennis A. Majken Schultz and KevinG. Corley2000 Organizational identity, image, and

adaptive stability. Academy ofManagement Review 25/1: 6381.

Goffman, Erving1961 Asylums: Essays on the socialsituation of mental patients and otherinmates. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Gouldner, Alvin W.1954 Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy.

New York: Free Press.

Grant, David, Cynthia Hardy, Cliff Oswickand Linda Putnam2004 Introduction: Organizational

discourse: Exploring the field inHandbook of organizational

discourse. D. Grant et al. (eds), 136.London: Sage.

Hammersley, Martyn and Paul Atkinson1995. Ethnography: Principles in practice,

2nd edn. London: Routledge.

Hatch, Mary Jo and Majken Schultz2002 The dynamics of organizational

identity. Human Relation, 55/8:9891018.

Hemels, Joan1981 De emancipatie van een dagblad:

Geschiedenis van de Volkskrant[The

emancipation of a newspaper: Historyofde Volkskrant]. Baarn: Ambo.

Humphreys, Michael and Andrew D. Brown2002 Nostalgia and the narrativization of

identity: A Turkish case study.British Journal of Management 13/2:141159.

Jenkins, Richard2004 Social identity, 2nd edn. London/New

York: Routledge.

Kuhn, Timothy

2006 A demented work ethic and alifestyle firm: Discourse, identity,and workplace time commitments.Organization Studies 27/9: 13391358.

Llewellyn, Nick2004 In search of modernization: The

negotiation of social identity inorganizational reform. OrganizationStudies 25/6: 947968.

McDonald, Ruth, Justin Waring and StephenHarrison2006 At the cutting edge? Modernization

and nostalgia in a hospital operatingtheatre department. Sociology 40/6:10971115.




23/24

Miles, A. Michael and Matthew B.Huberman1994 Data management and analysis

methods in Handbook of qualitativeresearch. N.K. Denzin and Y.S.Lincoln (eds), 428444. London:

Sage.

OConnor, Ellen S.2000 Plotting the organization: The

embedded narrative as a construct forstudying change. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science 36/2: 174192.

Oswick, Cliff, David Grant, Grant Michelsonand Nick Wailes2005 Looking forwards: Discursive

directions in organizational change.Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement18/4: 383390.

Paalumki, Anni2000 Time and organizational identity:

Discourses of the past and the futureas constructors of the organizationalself. Paper presented at the 4th

International Conference onOrganizational Discourse, KingsCollege, London.

Parker, Martin2000 Organizational culture and identity.

Unity and division at work. London:Sage.

Pickering, Michael and Emily KeightleyThe modalities of nostalgia. CurrentSociology 65/6: 919941.

Pratt, Michael G.2000 The good, the bad, and the

ambivalent: Managing identificationamong Amway distributors.

Administrative Science Quarterly45/3: 456493.

Ravasi, Davide and Majken Schultz2006 Responding to organizational

identity threats: Exploring the roleof organizational culture. Academyof Management Journal 49/3:433458.

Snow, David A. and Leon Anderson1987 Identity work among the homeless:

The verbal construction and avowalof personal identities. American

Journal of Sociology 92/6:13361371.

Snow, David A., Calvin Morrill and LeonAnderson

2003 Elaborating analytic ethnography:Linking fieldwork and theory.Ethnography 4/2: 181200.

Strangleman, Tim1999 The nostalgia of organisations and

the organisation of nostalgia: Past andpresent in the contemporary railwayindustry. Sociology 33/4: 725746.

Sveningsson, Stefan and Mats Alvesson2003 Managing managerial identities:Organizational fragmentation,discourse and identity struggle.

Human Relations 56/10: 11631193.

Thomas, Robyn and A. Linstead2002 Losing the plot? Middle managers

and identity. Organization 9: 7193.

Van Vree, Frank1996 De metamorfose van een dagblad.

Een journalistieke geschiedenis vande Volkskrant [The metamorphosis of

a newspaper: A journalistic history ofde Volkskrant] Amsterdam:Meulenhoff.

Van Westerloo, Gerard1996 Op zaal [In the newsroom]. De

Volkskrant, October 5.

Weick, Karl E.1995 Sensemaking in organizations.

London: Sage.

Wolfram Cox, Julie R.1997 Manufacturing the past: Loss and

absence in organizational change.Organization Studies 18/4: 623654.

Ybema, Sierk1997 Telling tales: Contrasts and

commonalities within the organizationof an amusement park in Culturalcomplexity in organizations: Inherentcontrasts and contradictions. S.A.Sackmann (ed), 160186. London:Sage.

Ybema, Sierk2004 Managerial postalgia: Projecting a

golden future. Journal of ManagerialPsychology 19/8: 825841.

Ybema, Sierk, and Frans Kamsteeg2009 Making the familiar strange: A case for

disengaged organizationalethnography in Organizationalethnography: Studying thecomplexities of everyday life. S.Ybema, D. Yanow, F. Kamsteeg and H.Wels (eds), 101119. London: Sage.

Ybema, Sierk, Tom Keenoy, Cliff Oswick,Armin Beverungen, Nick Ellis, and Ida

Sabelis2009 Articulating identities. HumanRelations 62/3: 299322.



organization studies 2010 ybema 481 503

Documents