NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 credentials are rather suspect. His second argument is that when researchers

66 I NTERNATIONAL R EVIEW OF I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY 2005 credentials are rather suspect. His second argument is that when researchers

work with the metaphor they run into the ‘logical impasse’ that arises from the dissimilarity ‘between the individual-level construct of identity and the collective-level construct of organization’ (Cornelissen, 2002a, pp. 264, 266). From a sociological perspective, Gioia, Schultz, & Corley (2002a, b) mount a spirited defence of organizational identity as an analytic construct. Far from being barren and stale, they argue that it is proving extremely useful—not least because it is ‘part of the lay organizational vocabulary’ (Gioia et al., 2002a, p. 270) that organizational members themselves use to describe both their own experience and features of the organizational world around them. In response to Cornelissen’s (2002a) second point, they note that there is no necessary equivalence between individual and collective identity and that, on the contrary, researchers have begun to identify ways in which the structure and content of these is markedly different (e.g., Gioia, 1998; Weick & Ro- berts, 1993).

Yet, going beyond this sociological response, a social psychological per- spective suggests that organizational identity is more than just a metaphor (Haslam, Postmes et al., 2003). Psychologically, then, there is considerable value in using the term in a non-metaphorical way to refer to psychological and social realities—realities associated with the construct’s status as an organizational motivator and product (e.g., see pp. 68–72 below). And, while there is a qualitative difference between individual (personal) identity and organizational identity, there is also much to be gained from attempts to spell out the psychological basis of this difference along the lines of Tajfel’s (1978) and Turner’s (1982) treatments (see Figure 2.2). When one does investigate the psychology of this difference, the construct of organizational identity can be seen tobe valuable precisely because it allows researchers to resolve the problem identified by Cornelissen (2002a) concerning the impasse between individual and collective levels of analysis (Turner & Oakes, 1986). Entering intothis analysis alsoallows us tounderstand the distinct conse- quences of the discontinuity between personal and social (organizational) identity.

Thus, along the lines of Turner’s (1982) analysis, we can see that organ- izational identity relates to stereotypic attributes of an organization that are conferred upon it by those for whom the organization is relevant and mean- ingful. Thinking about organizational identities as stereotypes is helpful for a range of reasons, not least because it allows us to draw on the large body of research that pertains to this topic (e.g., in social psychology; McGarty, Yzerbyt, & Spears, 2002; Oakes et al., 1994; Spears, Oakes, Ellemers, & Haslam, 1997). Three features of stereotypes that are particularly relevant tothe present chapter are, first, that they are widely shared within particular social groups and communities (Haslam, Turner, Oakes, Reynolds et al., 1998; Tajfel, 1981a, b); second, that they provide a basis for socially coor- dinated action (Reicher, 1982; Sherif, 1966); and, third, that while they are

67 often characterized by stability over time they are also context-dependent

S OCIAL I DENTITY IN I NDUSTRIAL AND O RGANIZATIONAL P SYCHOLOGY

and potentially fluid (Haslam & Turner, 1992). In relation to the second of these points, a significant feature of organiza- tional identities, as with stereotypes, is that they are used not only to describe others but also to describe ourselves and to inform our own behavior. In this sense, organizational identity overlaps with conceptualizations of organiza- tional culture (see also Albert & Whetten, 1985; Ellemers, 2003; Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000) in serving as a potential source of norms and values that guide people’s behavior toward both ingroup and outgroup mem- bers. However, in addition to offering scope to define the content of what we are, organizational (or social) identification also captures the extent to which people define themselves as members of a particular organization (or group). That is, identity strength (organizational/social identification) indicates whether people engage in a process of self-stereotyping whereby their behav- ior is oriented toward, and structured by, the content of that organization’s (or group’s) defining characteristics, norms, and values, resulting in the internalization of a particular organizational (or social) identity.

Critically, too, once a particular organizational identity has become salient for a particular group of people and once particular norms and values have come to define it, this should impact not just on the psychology of individuals but it should also help to translate that psychology into collective products— plans and visions, goods and services, organizations and institutions. As noted above, this is because, as a form of social identity, shared organiza- tional identity is a basis not only for people to perceive and interpret their world in similar ways, but also for processes of social influence which allow them to coordinate their behavior in ways that lead to concerted social action and collective products (Haslam, 2001; Reicher & Hopkins, 1996; Simon & Klandermans, 2001; Turner, 1991).