CRAFTING A SHARED SENSE OF ‘US’ IN A CO-MANAGING WORKPLACE
− Developing Identification in the Organisational Crew
Merja Luostarinen, 291646 Master’s thesis University of Eastern Finland Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Department of Social Sciences, Social Psychology 24.4.2020
Abstract
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Faculty
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies
Department
Social Sciences
Author
Merja Luostarinen
Supervisors
Vilma Hänninen, Mikko Saastamoinen
Title
Crafting the Shared Sense of ‘us’ in a Co-managing Workplace. Developing Identification in the Organisational Crew.
Main subject
Social Psychology
Level
Master’s thesis
Date
April 2020
Number of pages
163+22
Abstract
This thesis proposes organisational identity as the relatively stable, yet flexible construct which provides the organisation the continuity needed, and the opportunity to adapt to its uncertain and volatile environment.
Should the members identify in the organisation, it may turn into a naturally co-ordinated group, capable of flexible adaption. Therefore, the main research question is: how might an organisation facilitate identification?
To facilitate identification effectively, the thesis considered respectively organisational socialisation, facilitat- ing continued identification and making the identity salient in the organisational life.
The study used an integrative model of organisational identity, combining the social identity, social actor and the social constructionist traditions, however, emphasised the social identity approach. The thesis captured or- ganisational identification in a case study of a self-managing workplace taking highly elaborate ways to ensure identification. The data includes five expert interviews with the management, four group discussions with the personnel, 10 examples of organisational communications and observations of four facilities. Theory-guided content analysis was used in the thesis.
The findings show how identification is facilitated in four phases. First, the peer-led socialisation practices en- sure the recruitment of highly prototypical members and the integration of the identity in a personally meaning- ful manner. Secondly, the organisational identity and its practices exemplify organisational fairness, making the members feel included and valued. The leadership practices exemplify fairness and careful social identity management, with the leaders seen as ‘one of us’ and championing the group’s goals. Thirdly, the organisa- tional membership is highly personal following the identity-notions and practices which aid the members to express their personal values and make personal connections at work. Fourth, the identity is meaningful in the organisational life following the leadership rhetoric and the abundance of organisational symbols in static, port- able and electronic items. Additionally, the findings show how identity can be innovated by relating existing identity notions into novel proposals. Finally, the results also illustrate how identification can be facilitated in a merger.
The study extends the previous findings on identity formation and social identity approach to leadership into the organisational context. It also shows how the traditional principles used to facilitate identification are up- dated in the modern context. Furthermore, it offers insights on how the organisational identity may become personally meaningful. Additionally, the findings show the dynamic relationship between the different identity notions. Finally, the study offers insight on how the organisation may aid the members’ self-determined behav- iour at work.
Key words
Organisational identification, social identity, Social Interactionist Model for Organisational Identity, self- managing organisation, self-determined behaviour at work.
Tiivistelmä
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO
Tiedekunta
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta
Yksikkö
Yhteiskuntatieteiden laitos
Tekijä
Merja Luostarinen
Ohjaajat
Vilma Hänninen, Mikko Saastamoinen
Työn nimi (suomeksi ja englanniksi)
Hiomassa yhteistä käsitystä ’meistä’ yhteisohjautuvalla työpaikalla. Samaistumisen tunteen ke- hittyminen organisaation joukkueeseen. Crafting the Shared Sense of ‘us’ in a Co-managing Workplace. Developing Identification in the Organisational Crew.
Pääaine
Sosiaalipsykologia
Työn laji
Pro gradu -tutkielma
Aika
Huhtikuu 2020
Sivuja
163+22
Tiivistelmä
Tutkielma esittää organisaatioidentiteetin tarjoavan suhteellisen vakaan, mutta joustavan käsitteen, jonka avulla organisaatio voi sopeutua epävarmaan ja epävakaaseen ympäristöönsä. Jäsenten samaistuessa organisaatioon, se muuttuu luonnollisesti koordinoiduksi ryhmäksi ja pystyy sopeutumaan ympäristöönsä joustavasti. Päätutkimus- kysymys on siis: miten organisaatio voi tukea samaistumisen tunnetta? Tavoittaakseen tehokkaan samaistumisen tukemisen, tutkielma on tarkastellut erikseen organisaatioon sosiaalistamista, jatkuvan samaistumisen tunteen tukemista sekä identiteetin tekemistä merkitykselliseksi tilanteessa.
Tutkielma on hyödyntänyt sosiaalisen identiteetin, sosiaalisen toimijuuden sekä sosiaalisen konstruktionismin perinteet yhdistävää mallia organisaatioidentiteettiin, painottaen kuitenkin sosiaalisen identiteetin lähestymista- paa. Samaistumisen tukemista on tarkasteltu tapaustutkimuksessa itseohjautuvasta organisaatiosta, joka tukee organisaatioon samaistumista äärimmäisen tehokkaasti. Aineistona on viisi johdon asiantuntijahaastattelua, neljä henkilöstön ryhmäkeskustelua, 10 esimerkkiä organisaatioviestinnästä sekä neljän toimitilan havainnointi. Ai- neisto on analysoitu teoriaohjaavalla lähestymistavalla.
Tulosten mukaan organisaatioon samaistumista tuetaan neljässä vaiheessa. Ensin, organisaatiojäseniin vahvasti nojaavat sosiaalistamiskäytännöt mahdollistavat äärimmäisen prototyyppisten jäsenten rekrytoinnin sekä orga- nisaatioidentiteetin omaksumisen henkilökohtaisesti merkityksellisellä tavalla. Toiseksi, organisaatioidentiteetti ja sitä tukevat käytännöt ilmentävät oikeudenmukaisuuden periaatteita ja saavat aikaan inklusiivisuuden ja ar- vostuksen tunteen. Myös johtamiskäytännöt ilmentävät oikeudenmukaisuuden periaatteita sekä tarkkaa sosiaali- sen identiteetin hallintaa, jossa johtajat koetaan osana sisäryhmää sekä edistävän sen tavoitteita. Kolmanneksi, organisaatioidentiteetti on hyvin henkilökohtainen, koska jäsenet pystyvät edistämään henkilökohtaisia arvoja sekä muodostamaan henkilökohtaisia suhteita työpaikalla. Arkipäivässä organisaatioidentiteetti on merkityksel- linen johdon retoriikan sekä useiden organisaatiosymboleiden ansiosta, joita on niin kiinteissä, mukaan otetta- vissa kuin elektronisissa muodoissa. Lisäksi tulokset osoittavat, miten organisaatioidentiteettiä voi innovoida yhdistämällä vakiintuneita identiteettikäsityksiä uusiin ehdotuksiin. Tutkielma tarjoaa myös havaintoja samais- tumisen tukemisesta organisaatioiden yhdistyessä.
Tutkielma laajentaa aiempia tuloksia identiteetin muodostumisesta sekä sosiaalisen identiteetin johtamisesta uu- teen kontekstiin, organisaatioihin. Se myös osoittaa, miten samaistumisen tukemista koskevat periaatteet on päi- vitetty moderniin organisaatioon. Lisäksi se tarjoaa huomioita, miten organisaatioidentiteetistä voi tulla henkilö- kohtaisesti merkityksellinen. Tulokset osoittavat myös eri identiteettikehysten välisen dynaamisen suhteen. Tut- kielma tarjoaa vielä oivalluksia organisaatiojäsenten itseohjautuvan käyttäytymisen tukemiseen työssä.
Avainsanat
Organisaatioidentiteetti, sosiaalinen identiteetti, organisaatioidentiteetin vuorovaikutteinen malli, itseohjautuva organisaatio, itseohjautuva käyttäytyminen työpaikalla.
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 6
2.1 Social Identity Approach 6
2.1.1 Social Identity Theory 6
2.1.2 Self-Categorisation Theory 7
2.2 Organisational Identity 10
2.3 Social Interactionist Model for Organisational Identity 11 2.4.1 Social Constructionist Approach to Organisational Identity 12 2.4.2 Social Actor Perspective on Organisational Identity 13 2.4.3 The Integrative Social Interactionist Model for Organisational Identity 14
2.4 Organisational Identity and Organisational Culture 16
2.5 Facilitating Identification 17
2.5.1 Socialisation Measures 18
2.5.2 Facilitating Organisational Identification Strength 23 2.5.3 Facilitating Situated Accessibility and Identity Fit 29
2.6 Identification in Mergers and Acquisitions 32
2.7 Self-managing Organisations and Related Concepts 34
3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 39
4 RESEARCH TARGET, MATERIAL AND METHODS 41
4.1 Methodological Approach 41
4.2 Research target 42
4.3 Data Sources 43
4.4 Recruitment of the Participants and Access to the Data Sources 47
4.5 Data Collection and Preparation 48
4.6 Methods of Analysis 53
4.7 Ethical Matters Related to the Research 57
5 RESULTS: ORGANISATIONAL IDENTITY WITHIN THE CASE
ORGANISATION 63
5.1 Identity Formation 63
5.2 Claimed Identity: Case Organisation as a Self-Managing Social Actor 65
5.2.1 Self-managing Structures Facilitating Traditional Supervisory Tasks 68 5.2.2 Self-managing Structures Facilitating Traditional Human Resource Tasks 70 5.2.3 Organisational Principle Facilitating Self-Managing Behaviour 72
5.2.4 Research Case as a Self-Managing Organisation 73
5.3 Cognitive Organisational Identity of the Case Organisation 74 5.3.1 Cognitive Organisational Identity Core: Being Human 75 5.3.2 Cognitive Organisational Identity Dimension: Sense of Community 77 5.3.3 Cognitive Organisational Identity Dimension: Professional Growth Mindset 79
6 RESULTS: FACILITATING IDENTIFICATION 84
6.1 Facilitating Identification in Merger 84
6.1.1 The Leadership Rhetoric Helping Identification 85
6.1.2 Leadership Action Aiding Identification 89
6.1.3 Organisational Similarities Facilitating Identity Continuity 92
6.2. Socialisation Measures 94
6.2.1 Socialisation Measures Prior to Applying 94
6.2.2 Recruitment Measures Aiding Identification 96
6.2.3 Socialisation Measures After the Hiring Decision 99
6.3 Facilitating Personal Accessibility 104
6.3.1 Making the Organisational Membership More Important 104
6.3.2 Making the Organisational Membership Valuable 107
6.3.3 Making the Organisational Membership More Emotional and Central 112
6.4 Facilitating Situated Accessibility 116
6.5 Facilitating Identity Fit 117
7 DISCUSSION 121
7.1 Main Findings of the Thesis 121
7.1.1 Organisational Socialisation 121
7.1.2 Social Identity Approach to Leadership 124
7.1.3 Facilitating Identification in the Modern Organisational Contexts 124 7.1.4 Making the Organisational Identity Personally Meaningful 127
7.1.5 Identification in a Merger 128
7.1.6 Organisational Identity Dynamic 129
7.2 The Results in the Wider Social Context 131
7.3 Organisational Identity Facilitating Self-Determined Behaviour? 132
7.4 Limitations of the Study 133 7.5 Theoretical Contributions and Directions for Future Research 134
7.6 Practical Implications 137
REFERENCES 139
APPENDICES 164
FIGURES
Figure 1. A Social Interactionist Model of Organisational Identity. 15 Figure 2. Cognitive Organisational Identity of the Research Target. 75
TABLES
Table 1. The Sources of the Main Data. 44
Table 2. Initial Coding Framework. 55
Table 3. Claimed Identity of the Case Organisation. 66 Table 4. Self-managing Structures, Practices and Principles of the Research Target. 68 Table 5. Measures Facilitating the Importance of the Organisational Membership. 104 Table 6. Measures Facilitating the Value of the Organisational Membership. 107 Table 7. Measures Facilitating an Emotional and Central Organisational Membership. 112
1 INTRODUCTION
The organisational contexts have been shifting from the relatively stable and predictable into a more volatile, uncertain and complex environments. This has led organisations in the tradi- tional forms into problems in facing these challenges, as they have been designed for more static contexts. Therefore, the novel environment requires more flexible and agile approaches in organisational design. (Cf. Prime Minister’s Office 2019; see also Niinimäki 2017.) This change seems to have also led into the democratisation of organisational communications and hence, the understanding of the shared goals and the means to achieve them are now built simultaneously in different channels and teams (cf. Aalto University 2015) instead of the tra- ditional, one-directional communications (cf. Ashforth & Schinoff 2016) from the top man- agement taking place often only when the goals are changed. In this sense, a different ap- proach to leadership is also required (cf. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment 2018; Prime Minister’s Office 2019).
According to a study by the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment in Finland (2018), it seems that the Finnish way of leading has been marked by a certain kind of ‘engi- neering’ -approach: focussing on refining processes and things over people. However, in the new volatile, uncertain and complex environment, the approach runs the risk of becoming re- strictive and counterproductive. Additionally, if the processes are too detailed and static, they might actually hinder solving the issues at hand. Therefore, it seems that the new environment requires leadership, in other words leading people, not processes or mere objects. (Cf. Minis- try of Economic Affairs and Employment 2018.) Furthermore, this leadership needs to em- power people to make smart choices by themselves, so that the organisation may flexibly solve each challenge it faces (cf. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment 2018; Prime Minister’s Office 2019).
On the other hand, the volatile, uncertain and complex environment may also cause stress and confusion within employees. Therefore, it is more important than ever to ensure that the entire organisation is aware of and committed to its overarching goals. Challenge remains though, how the leaders of the organisation might be able to ensure this, as the communication is now
dispersed and instant (cf. Aalto University 2015)? This thesis proposes that one potential so- lution might be to lead the organisation by taking the advantage of its organisational identity which might provide the relatively stable construct needed, but which could also be dynami- cally interpreted or innovated in a meaningful way, as the situation or the environment changes.
The concept of the organisational identity captures the very essence of an organisation, its central, distinctive and enduring characteristics (cf. Albert & Whetten 1985). Various research traditions have approached the construct in a differing manner. The scholars closer to the tra- ditional management theory appear to view it as the public commitments the organisation has made to its stakeholders, which establish it as a unitary collective actor (cf. e.g. Whetten 2006, Whetten & Mackey 2002). On the other hand, the constructionists consider that the identity is created in the everyday interactions between the members (cf. e.g. Dutton &
Dukerich 1991; Gioia, Schultz & Corley 2000). The social identity scholars are in the middle of these two approaches, believing that the organisational identity is a shared cognitive con- struct between the members about what it means to be ‘us’ in a particular organisation (cf.
e.g. Haslam, Reicher & Platow 2011).
Out of these different approaches, particularly the social identity approach established by Tajfel and Turner (1979) has found several positive outcomes associated with the organisa- tional identification. For the employees these include e.g. better motivation and performance (e.g. van Knippenberg 2000), commitment (e.g. Harris & Cameron 2005) and lower stress levels (e.g. Haslam, Jetten & Waghorn 2009). Considering the outcomes for the organisa- tional co-operation, those who identify more seem to trust their colleagues (e.g. Brewer &
Kramer 1986; Tyler, Degoey & Smith 1996) and actively seek alignment in identity-relevant matters with them (Haslam, Platow & Reicher 2011, 58–59; see also Haslam & Platow 2001). On the other hand, the organisation benefits from the shared identity for example in ensuring that the members work together towards the shared goals (Haslam, Platow &
Reicher 2011, 58–59; Tyler & Blader 2000) and in terms of normative and exemplary citizen- ship behaviour (e.g. Haslam, Jetten & Waghorn 2009). Furthermore, identification appears to lead to a lower turnover (e.g. Harris & Cameron 2005).
Therefore, it sounds like a workplace with members who identify in the organisation might be better equipped to face the new volatile, uncertain and complex environment. By applying the
social identity approach, it seems that the organisation might be able to unite the teams and the members behind the shared goals in a naturally co-ordinated and supportive co-operation (Ellemers, De Gilder & Haslam 2004; Haslam, Powell & Turner, 2000; Haslam, Reicher &
Platow 2011, 58–59; Turner 1987, 65–72) and therefore, flexibly adapt to its environment.
Hence, the results of the shared sense of ‘us’ in the workplace appear to be appealing, but how could one facilitate this notion?
Findings on how a shared identity is facilitated seems scarcer than the ones on its outcomes.
The topic seems to have been dominated by the potential shifts in the organisational environ- ment, such as mergers (cf. e.g. Edwards et al. 2017; Ellemers 2003; Terry & Callan 1998; van Leeuwen & van Knippenberg 2003). Additionally, scholars have researched the outcomes of the organisational fairness to identification (cf. e.g. Olkkonen & Lipponen 2006; Tyler &
Blader 2000). Some research has also looked into the effects that the organisational properties might have on identification (e.g. Mael & Ashforth 1992; Scott 1997). Furthermore, the social identity scholars (Haslam, Reicher & Platow 2011; Hogg 2001) have proposed an approach for the social identity leadership which has been tested mainly experimentally (e.g. Hains, Hogg & Duck 1997) or in political, even historical case studies (Haslam, Reicher & Platow 2011). On the overall then, it seems that the research has focused more on the experimental designs and surveys over more qualitative approaches (see e.g. Haslam et al. 2003; Hogg &
Terry 2001).
Experimental and survey designs do not, however, capture the complex nature of organisa- tional life equally well as qualitative research does. The lack of qualitative studies is slightly surprising given that the approach considers that the social identity is activated based on situ- ational cues and makes sense of the social world at hand (Tajfel & Turner 1979). Addition- ally, it appears that the previous research has been conducted in traditional, hierarchical con- texts, whereas the new environment would require a more flexible organisational design.
Therefore, to understand the nature of these novel organisational forms better, qualitative de- sign would be more appropriate.
In line with the requirements of the changed organisational contexts, a recent review (Mis- cenko & Day 2016) on organisational identity research called for more focus on methods cap- turing the dynamic nature of the shared identity in the workplace. Cornelissen, Haslam and Werner (2016; Haslam, Cornelissen & Werner 2017) proposed such a model which integrates
the social constructionist and the social actor perspectives on organisational identity together with the social identity approach. The scholars integrated these approaches in specific, as they established that these were the most influential theoretical perspectives on the subject. Their integrative approach views organisational identity as a dynamic construct and hence, it allows the researcher to consider the factors affecting identification more fully.
This thesis seeks to understand how a shared sense of ‘us’, the organisation’s shared under- standing of their social identity, or the so-called organisational identity, can be facilitated in the workplace. My goal is to add knowledge on the way organisational identification can be effectively built and maintained in a modern workplace where the leaders and the employees have equal agency and therefore, the organisation is capable to flexibly respond to the changes in its environment. This means that the identification is facilitated without any static
‘control structures’ (see e.g. Alvesson & Empson 2008, Kärreman & Alvesson 2004), which would be counter-productive in the modern context. The thesis provides more information on dynamic organisational identity development in a modern, self-managing workplace operating in a particularly fast-paced environment. In my analysis I aim to identify the resources and means used to build and facilitate a shared understanding of the identity. Furthermore, the re- search provides new insights on how a particularly personally meaningful identification might be facilitated. Finally, the study shares some novel observations on identification in a merger.
To address these questions, I approached the subject in a thorough manner and included the voice of both the leaders and the employees in the sources.
The biggest theoretical influence in this study is the social identity approach, but to consider the current volatile and uncertain organisational context and its impact on organisational iden- tity development, I included in the analysis the new social interactionist model proposed by Cornelissen and his colleagues (Cornelissen, Haslam & Werner 2016, Haslam, Cornelissen &
Werner 2017). In the research, I used a mix of qualitative methods, with the main sources be- ing expert interviews and group discussions with the personnel, as well as some specific ex- amples of organisational communications. To consider the potential symbolic representations of the identity in the organisational life, I observed the organisation’s premises on its biggest locations.
As I wanted to capture the phenomena in its ideal form, I conducted a case study in an organi- sation that seemed to take extensive measures to ensure the identification of its members. As
some of the methodology of the Great Place to Work study addresses the identity-relevant matters, I chose a research target that had been successful in this study. The case organisation had recently gone through a major growth period, during which it had diversified its services, increased its personnel and turnover. Furthermore, fairly recently before the data collection it had gone through a merger with another organisation. The organisation operates in a highly fast-paced industry with constant innovation and hence, they were an ideal case to research considering the new organisational contexts.
In the next chapter I describe the theoretical framework of this thesis. With the social identity approach as the main influence of the study, I describe it more thoroughly than the other tradi- tions in the new social interactionist model. Within the theoretical framework I also elaborate on the organisational socialisation, i.e. recruitment and induction. Furthermore, I describe the literature on the elements that seem to facilitate identification in groups and organisations. I will also detail the literature relevant for the research context in terms of mergers and self- managing organisations. After establishing the theoretical background, in chapter three I clar- ify and substantiate the research questions.
In chapter four I outline the reasons behind the chosen methodology and methods. Further- more, I describe the considerations for each selected method of data collection. Additionally, I explain the analytic strategy and the chosen method of analysis, the theory-guided content analysis. I close the chapter in reflecting the ethical matters related to the research and in ex- plaining how I managed them. In chapters five and six I present the results of the study. In chapter five I detail the case organisation’s organisational identity in its different theoretical forms. In chapter six I describe how identification is facilitated in different phases of the member’s organisational life. Additionally, I illustrate how the findings relate to the previous literature. Finally, in chapter seven I sum up the results and the contributions they bring to the scientific knowledge, as well as detail the limitations of the research. I also draw the main conclusions as well as suggest directions for future research. I close in elaborating on the practical implications of the study.
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The study has been partly motivated by the positive findings on the outcomes of strong identi- fication. Therefore, the social identity approach is the main theoretical framework in this the- sis. However, the framework needs to also address the shift in the organisational context from the stable and predictable into a volatile, uncertain and complex one. Hence, to fully grasp the modern, self-managing environments, I complemented the theoretical framework with the new integrative social interactionist model of organisational identification. This chapter out- lines the theoretical framework and the previous literature considering the research subject.
The most central influences are the findings and the literature on organisational socialisation and the facilitation of identity strength. To include the perspectives relevant for the research context, the chapter also includes a previous findings on mergers and acquisitions, and the lit- erature on self-management.
2.1 Social Identity Approach
The social identity theory was developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner (1979) based on the so-called minimal group experiments, in which Tajfel found that the subjects expressed in-group favouritism following the mere perception of belonging to a group. This was ex- pressed by awarding otherwise completely anonymous fellow-members in a trivial group more funds when compared to the others, in a different group. Turner and his colleagues (Turner et al. 1987) continued to develop the approach in the self-categorisation theory which describes more in detail how social identities might become activated in the situation.
2.1.1 Social Identity Theory
In the original theory, Tajfel and Turner (1979) argue that for the social identity to form and activate, the individual needs to perceive themself as part of the group and have some emo- tional attachment to this membership. Through the membership and its prestige, the individ- ual strives to gain positive self-esteem and therefore, social identities are important to them.
When a person identifies in the social category, they have internalised the membership as a part of their self-concept. (Tajfel & Turner 1979.)
For the social identity to become meaningful, Tajfel and Turner (1979) argue that the mem- bers need to agree on how they evaluate the group. This is achieved by comparing ‘us’ in the situation with the mutually relevant other(s) to achieve positive distinctiveness on shared characteristics which might vary from one group to another. Therefore, according to Tajfel and Turner, the social situation must allow for the comparison, or people might be unable to choose and evaluate the relevant characteristics. Additionally, the reference group needs to be perceived relevant for the categorisation. Finally, the members also need to agree on the group’s borders, i.e. the members who belong to the group and those who do not. (Tajfel &
Turner, 1979.)
The theory assumes that the social categorisations are cognitive, i.e. tools that classify and or- ganise the social world in the mind. Thanks to this cognitive categorisation, the individual then is believed to take action in the situation and define themself in the social world. In iden- tifying in a social category, the person relates and compares themself to the ‘other’ group.
Due to the identification, the individual’s behaviour in the situation begins to be guided by the stereotypical perceptions of the group’s norms and beliefs. (Tajfel & Turner 1979.) In other words, within the workplace, as one has internalised the organisational identity, they start to progress its goals and values whenever the identity is salient (Ellemers, De Gilder & Haslam 2004; Haslam, Powell & Turner, 2000; Haslam, Reicher & Platow 2011, 58–59; Turner 1987, 65–72).
2.1.2 Self-Categorisation Theory
John Turner and his colleagues (1987) continued developing the approach in the self-categori- sation theory. According to the theory, a person’s cognitive self contains several hierarchical representations of the individual. On the broadest and the most inclusive level, they perceive themself as a human being, different from other species. In the next level the self-perception is grounded in social groups, as one categorises themself based on the social similarities and differences between groups and thus identifies in the ingroup. On the most exclusive level, the individual considers themself a unique person with distinctive qualities, separate from other
individuals. The theory argues that the different levels of categorisation are equally compel- ling and the least abstract one in the situation would become salient in it. (Turner 1987, 42–
46.)
Turner (1987) suggests categorisations form and become meaningful as the individual com- pares the people present with the information from the previous comparisons based on the so- called meta-contrast principle: people are categorised together the more they share character- istics and differ from others on the dimensions relevant in the situation. Following this princi- ple, a member is considered more prototypical if they are perceived more representative of the entire social category. Similarly, as a particular social categorisation becomes salient, one begins to perceive the people present in terms of their membership in groups, accentuating the similarities within and the differences between them. This leads the individual to perceive themself de-personalised on the defining dimensions of the category. Hence, in the moment they view themself more in terms of the in-group identity rather than a unique person. The theory proposes that this de-personalisation process leads into several group phenomena such as co-operation, cohesiveness, shared norms and social influence in groups. (Turner 1987, 46–51.)
According to Turner (1987, 51–54), social categorisations may form spontaneously following the meta-contrast principle, or as the individual internalises a pre-existing group membership.
The minimum requirement is that at least two people perceive and classify themselves in a shared in-group-out-group dimension. (Turner 1987, 51–54.) Hogg and Mullin (1999) pro- pose that one motivation for forming or joining groups is to reduce uncertainty. Additionally, Turner (1987, 51–54) suggests that individuals mainly internalise social categorisations as a result of persuasive communication from credible and prominent others, or other people they identify in.
Drawing on Wilder and Shapiro’s (1984) findings, Turner (1987, 52–55) suggests that social identities become salient depending on the context: a change in the available out-group results in a shift in the perceived identity as well as the behaviour. He argues that social categories become salient, i.e. cognitively relevant in the self-perception based on their relative accessi- bility for the individual and how well they fit or make sense of the situation. Turner defines accessibility as the degree to which the category is easy for the perceiver to identify. Hence, more accessible categories are associated with more defining characteristics and therefore,
less input is needed to make them salient. In turn, this might cause less accessible categories in the same situation to remain unnoticed. Turner also suggests that accessibility is driven by the individual’s experiences of relevant categories in specific situations and current their mo- tives. Additionally, he argues that the degree of the internalisation of the category member- ship and its centrality for the individual’s self-definition affect accessibility. Fit, on the other hand, follows the meta-contrast principle and depends on how well the reality at hand corre- sponds to the defining characteristics of the category. Therefore, it is more likely that the so- cial category with the largest meta-contrast ratio would become salient. (Turner 1987, 52–55.) Turner (1987, 56–65) proposes that categorisation leads to several important consequences for the groups, such as cohesion and co-operation. He argues that cohesion, i.e. mutual attraction between the in-group members, results from the category’s accessibility and fit which also make the membership salient. Furthermore, he suggests that more prototypical members are perceived more positively, although the most prototypical member might vary as the situation changes; e.g. in line with the changes in the compared identity dimensions. (Turner 1987, 56–
65.)
Additionally, Turner (1987, 72–86) argues that social co-operation is the result of the deper- sonalised self-interest: as the person perceives the shared identity, they also come to under- stand the shared needs, goals and motives of the group. Furthermore, he suggests that humans have a need to validate their views in social negotiation process with similar ‘others’, espe- cially when their identification is strong, their personal view is ambiguous or when reaching a consensus is important. The most convincing arguments in each the situation are proposed to be the ones reflecting the group’s prototypical position, the ones suggested by the prototypical members or the members with a history of being correct; or the legitimised leaders in the situ- ation. (Turner 1987, 72–86.)
Turner (1987, 65–72) argues that these factors lead to natural co-operation, as the individual perceives their own and the fellow in-group members’ interests as one and assumes that their fellow members share the same conception. Furthermore, he suggests that members expect to agree on identity-relevant matters and are assumed to behave in similar, normative ways.
Therefore, the approach argues that the salience of a shared group membership should in- crease co-operation. Group salience and hence, co-operation might be induced e.g. by similar- ity, shared fate, close location and social interaction. On the other hand, personalised or
individuated relations are assumed to decrease co-operation and increase interpersonal com- petition. (Turner 1987, 65–72.)
2.2 Organisational Identity
Albert and Whetten (1985) introduced organisational identity as a concept, defining it as the central, distinctive and enduring characteristics of an organisation. They argued that each of these notions were necessary, and sufficient only together, although they would be independ- ent in the sense that e.g. not all the essential features might necessarily be exclusive to the or- ganisation. Furthermore, Albert and Whetten proposed that endurance of the features was re- quired, as instability or change would be considered an identity threat. Additionally, they sug- gested that the essential character might vary depending on the context. Furthermore, the scholars proposed that the distinctive qualities might include the organisation’s unique traits, as well as the less common features of the otherwise general inter-organisational compari- sons. (Albert & Whetten 1985.)
Albert and Whetten (1985) recognised that the organisational context might include several points of identification, for example, separate units. They proposed that in certain points in time, questioning the organisational identity might become particularly salient, e.g. when ac- complishing the goals, facing aggressive growth or a change in the organisational structure.
Albert and Whetten suggested that to research the identity of the organisation, scholars might look at e.g. the official documents, the signs and symbols as well as the office spaces and buildings, or its leaders. (Albert & Whetten 1985.)
Ashforth and Mael (1989) were the first to apply the social identity approach into the organi- sational identity. They argued that the organisational membership is one of the potentially meaningful social categories of a person and that following the success of one’s workplace, they might experience a higher self-esteem. In line with Tajfel and Turner’s (1979; Turner 1987) propositions, they suggested that the social categories in the organisational context might include e.g. other organisations or one’s own unit within the workplace (cf. Albert &
Whetten 1985). While Ashforth and Mael considered the organisational identity to include only the cognitive and evaluative components, this thesis conforms to the original theoretical approach (Tajfel & Turner 1979) and includes also the affective component, i.e. the emotional
attachment to one’s workplace, in the organisational identity (cf. Ellemers, Kortekaas &
Ouwerkerk 1999).
Following Albert and Whetten (1985), Ashforth and Mael (1989) recognise that the work- place might offer several points of identification. They argue that in general, the lowest level of identity is likely to be more salient, due to task-interdependencies as well as the closeness and the amount of interaction with the closest colleagues. (Ashforth & Mael 1989.) March and Simon (1958, 73–81) proposed that the identities within the organisational context tend to be nested, i.e. each higher level identity includes also the lower level ones. According to El- lemers, de Gilder and van den Heuvel’s (1998) the survey, they seem to be inter-correlated. If the nested identities have conflicting aspects or goals, Ashforth and Mael (1989) suggest that joint identification might be hindered.
As these identities often relate to groups like subunits or teams competing for resources or re- wards (cf. March & Simon 1958, 75–152), Ashforth and Mael (1989) note that the negative aspects of intergroup behaviour, like negative stereotyping, polarisation and maintaining dis- tance might pose challenges in the workplace (cf. Postmes, Spears & Lea 2002). They argue that this is more likely if the organisational identity is weak and the workplace has clearly separated units and groups, especially if associated with status differentials. On the other hand, Brewer and Kramer’s (1984) experimental research suggests strong organisational iden- tities might unify members. (Ashforth & Mael 1989.)
2.3 Social Interactionist Model for Organisational Identity
Previous research includes several different theoretical frames through which the organisa- tional identity can be considered. Based on a systematic review, Haslam, Cornelissen and Werner (2017) found that the social identity, social constructionist and social actor perspec- tives are the most influential ones. Arguing that scholars might currently approach the phe- nomena from a limited and narrow perspective, following their socialisation into specific the- oretical traditions (see also Gioia et al. 2013), they proposed a model integrating these per- spectives. (Haslam, Cornelissen and Werner 2017.)
A wider perspective would also be called for because of the rapid and complex changes in the organisational environments (cf. Prime Minister’s Office 2019). Haslam and his colleagues (2017) argue that their model, social interactionist model of organisational identity formation and change, includes each of the most influential tradition’s strengths and therefore, it pro- vides a richer understanding of how organisational identity emerges and transforms in the workplaces. In this section I describe the social constructionist and the social actor traditions on organisational identity, before elaborating on the model proposed by Haslam and his col- leagues.
2.4.1 Social Constructionist Approach to Organisational Identity
Constructionists believe that the social reality is constructed in the everyday interactions, in a specific historical and cultural context. Therefore, the constructionist scholars research the phenomena by examining social processes and interactions between people. (Burr 2015, 4–
12.) Similarly, the constructionist organisational researchers believe that the shared identity is constructed and renegotiated in interaction between the members and the external stakehold- ers of the organisation, like its customers, investors or the general public (Gioia, Schultz &
Corley 2000). This interaction produces a shared frame that members use to interpret and act upon events (Dutton & Dukerich 1991).
The approach argues that the leaders and the founders of the organisation (Gioia et al. 2013) strive to establish the identity and guide members (Ashforth & Schinoff 2016) in sensegiving rhetoric, symbols and modelling behaviours (see Corley & Gioia 2004). In turn, the members interpret these meanings in sensemaking narratives, construing their identity in the context of the reality they experience (Ashforth & Schinoff 2016). The approach proposes consistency to strengthen the identity, whereas inconsistency would spark the members to make sense of the discrepancy and take the necessary corrective action, perhaps in the form of a change in the way that they define themselves (Gioia, Schultz & Corley 2000; see also Corley & Gioia 2004).
The constructionists closer to the cognitive tradition argue that identity does have also stabil- ity and continuity, provided by the labels describing its core elements. They propose that while the labels offer the members the security needed for the organisational life, their
meaning and interpretations might change based on the feedback the organisation receives from its internal and external environment. (Gioia, Schultz & Corley 2000.) In addition to la- bels, the constructionist scholars strive to understand the identity by looking at e.g. the key values, practices, symbols (e.g. Tripsas 2009), structures and decisions, language, interactions and behaviour (e.g. Corley & Gioia 2004; Dutton & Dukerich 1991) as well as the history of the workplace (Gioia et al. 2013).
2.4.2 Social Actor Perspective on Organisational Identity
The social actor approach is based on the observation that in modern societies like individu- als, also organisations are held accountable for their actions. Therefore, they can be consid- ered actors established by their founders for a specific purpose. The approach defines the or- ganisational identity as a set of institutionalised identity claims which refer to specific estab- lished social categories and describe, how they are similar to as well as different from other organisations. (Whetten & Mackey 2002.) Furthermore, Whetten (2006) argues that the iden- tity claims are organisational commitments, establishing them as a unitary, collective actor and therefore, different from a group of single actors. Additionally, he suggests that these claims are imperatives for the organisation, setting the boundaries for acceptable behaviour for the entire organisation as well as for its individual member agents, when acting on behalf of the organisation. (Whetten 2006.)
Whetten and Mackey (2002) propose that to achieve legitimacy for the identity claims, organ- isations develop communications to construct an identity-congruent image to their external stakeholders who in turn respond to the communications by establishing a reputation, or an outsider perception of the organisation. Hatch and Schultz (2002) suggest that in turn, the rep- utation influences the organisational identity. The approach argues that to operate effectively, the organisational identity, image and reputation need some consistency between them (Whet- ten & Mackey 2002; see also Albert & Whetten 1985).
To understand the organisational identity, the scholars following the social actor approach study the communications (Hatch & Schultz 2002), the processes and structures (Whetten 2006), the media coverage or the everyday behaviour of the organisation and its members (Hatch & Schultz 2002). They might also use interviews (Whetten 2006).
2.4.3 The Integrative Social Interactionist Model for Organisational Identity
Cornelissen, Haslam and Werner (2016; Haslam, Cornelissen & Werner 2017) developed their integrative model for organisational identity to merge the most influential perspectives of organisational identity. The scholars (2017) pinpointed each approach into metaphors which capture their essence: frame for the constructionist, categorisation for the social iden- tity and personification for the social actor. These approaches differ on whether they consider the organisational identity as a subjective or objective concept. The constructionists view it as a subjective, situated and emergent, whereas the social identity researchers consider it a rela- tively stable cognitive structure with the internalised and shared meanings of the members. In turn, the social actor scholars see it as a set of objectified and de-contextualised commitments existing independent of the members. (Haslam, Cornelissen & Werner 2017.)
Cornelissen, Haslam and Werner (2016) note that all these traditions share the roots in Albert and Whetten’s (1985; see chapter 2.2) conception of the organisational identity, as they be- lieve it is positive and has consequences in the individual, group and organizational levels.
Furthermore, they all propose that the identity results from the repeated interaction between the self and the social environment. The approaches also agree on the organisational identity to include a shared cognition and consistent behaviour. (Cornelissen, Haslam & Werner 2016.)
Developing Ashforth, Rogers and Corley’s (2011) hypothesis further, Cornelissen, Haslam and Werner (2016; 2017) conceptualised their integrative model (see Figure 1). They (2017) suggest that within the shifts in the identity development, the processes of consensualisation and contestation work in opposite directions; the former setting up and institutionalising the identity and the latter questioning it.
Figure 1. A social interactionist model of organisational identity (adapted from Haslam, Cornelissen &
Werner 2017).1
Cornelissen, Haslam and Werner (2016) propose that the organisational identity formation be- gins with the members constructing a frame together, as they describe the identity in interac- tion, using initially slightly different words or closely related figures of speech available in the society. They suggest that over time, the members begin to focus more on the common words and concepts over the conflicting ones. (Cf. Ravasi & Schultz 2006.) When these tenta- tive subjective interpretations slowly become more salient, the researchers propose they begin to condense the different elements of the framing, as the identity is repeatedly communicated and consensualised (cf. Postmes, Haslam & Swaab 2005). (Cornelissen, Haslam & Werner 2016.)
Cornelissen, Haslam and Werner (2016) argue that should these constructs be consistently re- peated, they might become associated with the mutually acknowledged, cognitive and abstract category of ‘us’ as an organisation, i.e. the social identity, guiding the members’ perception and behaviour as a collective. The scholars propose that over time, the social identity might become embedded in the organisation’s practices, roles and rituals to the extent that it be- comes reduced to specific labels and symbols. (Cornelissen, Haslam & Werner 2016.) Cornelissen, Haslam and Werner (2016) suggest that these identity claims may begin to con- strain the identity’s sensemaking and the members’ sensegiving to others. If they become completely naturalised, taken out of the original context and perceived legitimate, the internal
1 Note: a = organisational norms, values, beliefs; a¡, a¡¡ and a¡¡¡ = different sets of organisational attributes
and external stakeholders are argued to start considering them as given facts about how the organisation simply ‘is’. In the end, the organisation is personified as a particular kind of so- cial actor, independent of the social collective. The scholars note that the shared notion of ‘us’
can be questioned by the members on each identity level, whereas the outsiders may question it only on the objectified level. (Cornelissen, Haslam & Werner 2016.) However, the scholars (2017) point out that in real organisational life, the members are capable of combining the dif- ferent levels at the same time.
The integrative model proposed (Cornelissen, Haslam & Werner 2016; Haslam, Cornelissen
& Werner 2017) helps to understand how the organisational identity might develop and be led in the new dynamic environment. While organisations might seek to establish a stable and in- stitutionalised notion of ‘us’, the novel context requires it can also be innovated flexibly ac- cording to the demands of the environment. This might be reached by using the construction- ist level of the organisational identity to introduce new elements into the identity frame and then, consensualising these elements as a shared understanding of ‘us’ in the changed context.
2.4 Organisational Identity and Organisational Culture
Organisational culture appears to have become increasingly popular with the practitioners (see e.g. Bergman & Korhonen 2019) and hence, it is important to define the relation between the organisational identity and its culture. Edgar Schein (2001) defined organisational culture as the perceived correct way to think, feel and observe the world within the organisation.
These perceptions are based on the learnings from the organisation’s successful past, external environment and internal functions. Schein structures organisational culture into three levels.
The first one is the observable level of the organisation’s artefacts, structures and processes, and might include for example its physical space, language, dress, stories and rituals. The sec- ond level consists of its espoused values, i.e. the explicit strategies, goals and philosophies, which guide the members in the workplace. Sometimes the first two levels of the culture might include contradictions, which are the result of the third level, consisting of the taken- for-granted underlying assumptions. These latent notions have formed historically from the founders’ beliefs, values and assumptions, which made the organisation successful. As they have been socially validated, they are shared in the organisation. Schein argues that one po- tential source for these assumptions is the founders’ nationality, education or initial
profession. Additionally, he points out that the founders have a central role in modelling these beliefs and values, specifically in times of change. (Schein 2010, 18–32; 220–257.)
Researchers have considered the potential relation between the organisational identity and its culture in differing ways. Albert and Whetten (1985) viewed it as an empirical question, in other words, whether the organisation itself finds it as one of its central, distinctive and endur- ing features and if it could objectively be considered as one. Schein (2010, 29) on the other hand, considers the organisational identity is similar to the culture’s underlying assumptions.
Social identity scholars Haslam, Postmes and Ellemers (2003) distinguished organisational identity from the culture based on the unique impact of identification strength, which has been shown to predict the members’ organisational behaviour (see e.g. Haslam & Reicher 2002;
Mael & Ashforth 1992). Therefore, they suggested that the difference between the two is the content of the organisational membership and the actual behaviour, with the organisational identification predicting also the latter, while the culture would not.
Considering the integrative approach described in chapter 2.3, the social actor perspective ap- pears to be close to Albert and Whetten’s (1985) understanding of the relationship. Addition- ally, the subsequent chapters show that the claimed identity seems to include the espoused values and the observable level of the research target’s culture, i.e. Schein’s (2010) first and second layer of the organisational culture. On the other hand, the cognitive level reflects Schein’s (2010) underlying values and beliefs, which however separate ‘us’ from the relevant
‘others’ and are socially meaningful in the situation (cf. Tajfel & Turner 1979; Turner 1987).
Finally, the constructionist level is mainly similar to the actual observed behaviour and rheto- ric in Schein’s (2010) first layer of the organisational culture, although the data does include some constructionist indications of the research target’s history as well. In Schein’s (2010) methodology, these would be considered to be a part of the underlying assumptions.
2.5 Facilitating Identification
Facilitating identification in the organisational context can be divided into the socialisation measures taken to promote a newcomer’s identification and making the identity salient for the individual member. Saliency can be further distinguished into personal and situated accessi- bility, or meaningfulness, in addition to situated identity-fit. In this chapter I specify the
measures the organisation might take to aid the initial identification, before outlining the liter- ature on how they might render the identity meaningful personally or in the situation.
2.5.1 Socialisation Measures
Van Maanen and Schein (1977) defined socialisation as the process the organisation takes to teach its members the necessary social knowledge and skills to survive in the organisational context. This thesis takes a broader view on socialisation and considers also the anticipatory measures (Van Maanen 1976) taken as a part of the socialisation process. Furthermore, this study recognises that certain organisational characteristics might make it more attractive for the prospective candidates and hence, aid the socialisation. The following sections describe these different parts of the socialisation process.
Organisational Properties Facilitating Identification
There are several organisational properties that scholars have proposed or confirmed to aid identification. These properties are also visible externally, perhaps even promoted by the or- ganisation, or simply featured in the media. While they are important in strengthening the ex- isting members’ identification, they might also induce prospective candidates to apply in the organisation which they perceive attractive. After entering the organisation, they might also help to develop the newcomers’ initial identification.
For example, Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) survey confirmed that organisation’s distinctive- ness and prestige aid in developing identification (cf. Kärreman & Alvesson 2004; March &
Simon 1958, 65; Van Maanen 1976). Furthermore, they had earlier proposed that the organi- sation’s distinctive values and practices might facilitate identification (Ashforth & Mael 1989). Dutton, Dukerich and Harquail (1994) suggested that the organisation’s positive repu- tation in general might help in developing identification. Similarly, March and Simon (1958, 67–68) proposed that the organisation’s position in the society, strengthened by e.g. its larger size, growth rate or the higher status of its members, might facilitate identification. Addition- ally, Ashforth and Mael (1989) argued that the innovativeness of the organisation and its commitment to acting in a responsible manner would strengthen its prestigious image and therefore, help in developing identification. These proposals might hold also in the
organisational reality, considering that experimental research (see Ellemers 1993 for a review) has confirmed identification is stronger, if the participant’s group has a higher status.
Actions Prior to Hiring Aiding in the Initial Identification
Van Maanen (1976; 1978) has noted that the prior actions of recruitment and selection play a role in the socialisation process of the new member (cf. Moreland & Levine 1982). According to the scholar (1976), modern organisations might take anticipatory socialisation measures helping the prospective members to adopt the organisational values and therefore, make the subsequent integration easier. For example, by providing the candidates a realistic view of the organisational life and the work itself, the actual socialisation measures should become easier (Van Maanen 1976; see also Breaugh 2012 for a review). Feldman (1981) argues that being open about organisational goals and values, as well as on how the organisation is able to meet the newcomer’s needs might also be a part of the effective anticipatory measures (cf. Pratt 1998).
Similarly, Van Maanen (1976) seems to suggest that by choosing a candidate who is more loyal to the organisation rather than a career-oriented, the organisation might be able to inte- grate the person more easily into the workplace. Furthermore, Kristof-Brown (2000) found that the recruiters appear to evaluate how the candidate would fit the role as well as the organ- isation (cf. Alvesson & Empson 2008; Chao et al. 1994; Feldman 1981; Kärreman & Alves- son 2004). Naturally, the ideal candidate would have the skills and the abilities to perform in the job, as well as fit in the organisational context. Developing identification would likely be strengthened at least by ensuring the latter.
Previously, experimental evidence (Perry 1984) suggested that organisations appear to hire candidates who most closely match the organisational prototype (cf. Feldman 1981; Mo- reland, Levine & McMinn 2001; Van Maanen 1976). Following Van Maanen’s (1976) pro- posal, this might result in not only a more harmonious induction process (see also Schein 1968; 1990; Pratt 2001), but also in the domination of specific views within the organisation.
Therefore, such a recruitment strategy would also put the organisation at the risk of develop- ing groupthink (Janis 1972). On the other hand, according to Moss and Frieze’s (1993) survey results, the candidates also evaluate organisational prototypes, but their goal is to evaluate the attractiveness of the position.
Actions upon the Member’s Entry Facilitating Identification
Van Maanen and Schein (1977) argued that taking up a new role, the individual experiences anxiety and is hence highly motivated to learn the necessary information to adapt into their environment (cf. Hogg & Mullin 1999). In Ashforth and Mael’s (1989) words, they have a need to define themselves in the novel context. Schein (1968) suggested that in addition to the basic requirements, effective socialisation should include the topics of the organisational goals, the ideal means by which they should be attained, the behaviours required, as well as the principles to be followed. Furthermore, he proposes that establishing effective relation- ships with others and thus, gaining tacit knowledge of the organisational values as well as on individual members, according to Feldman (1981), also of the organisational politics, is re- quired for the newcomer to be fully integrated into the organisation (cf. Chao et al. 1994).
(Schein 1968.)
Louis, Posner and Powell (1983) suggest that organisations tend to rely on mostly formal col- lective training and socialisation aids which provide the new members with the basic skills, expected attitudes and behaviours in the organisation (Van Maanen 1976; cf. Alvesson &
Empson 2008; Cable, Gino & Staats 2013; Rollag, Parise & Cross 2005). Most of these kind of organisational socialisation programmes likely take the approach where the newcomers are assumed to internalise the identity in a top-down manner from the social context, i.e. the so- cialisation aids provided by the organisation (cf. Postmes, Haslam & Swaab 2005; Turner 1987, 51). Based on experimental research (e.g. Postmes, Spears & Novak 2005), Postmes, Haslam and Swaab (2005) proposed that this manner of identification might be developed e.g.
by helping the members to compare relevant groups following the metacontrast principle (see also e.g. Drury & Reicher 2000; Pratt 2000).
While these collective socialisation programmes might also include measures emphasising the unity and ‘we-ness’ (Ashforth & Johnson 2001; Ashforth & Mael 1989; cf. Van Maanen &
Schein 1977) of the organisation and hence, aid identification, Louis, Posner and Powell’s (1983) survey found them to be less effective than socialisation through peers and the individ- ual’s supervisor. The finding seems to be supported by the meta-analysis of Antonacopolou and Güttel (2010; see also Moreland, Levine & McMinn 2001; Rollag, Parise & Cross 2005;
Van Maanen 1976). Additionally, according to Ashforth and Saks’ (1996) survey results, the more collective and fixed socialisation strategies appear to lead to a more rigid performance
and hence, might be counter-productive in the environment which requires flexible innova- tion. The previous findings (Antonacopolou & Güttel 2010; Louis, Posner & Powell 1983) seem to support the proposal that the colleagues and Line Managers have an important role in helping the newcomers by encouraging them to behave according to the organisational role expectations (Van Maanen 1976; Van Maanen & Schein 1977; cf. Moreland & Levine 1982).
The social identity approach suggests that identification might be pursued through these cred- ible, prestigious or attractive ‘others’ (Turner 1987, 53). Turner (1987, 52) also noted that the amount of social contact and proximity might facilitate the adoption of a shared membership (cf. March & Simon 1958, 66–68). However, the social identity scholars (Haslam, Reicher &
Platow 2011, 94–96; Hogg 2001; Pratt 2000) note that the influence of these socialisation agents depends on how well they represent and embody the organisation; e.g. how they ex- press the identity in their own behaviour. Postmes (2004) proposes that engaging the new- comers based on a shared in-group identity, such as career (Van Maanen 1976), might help the persuasiveness of the socialisation agent (cf. Glynn 2000; Pratt 2001). There is some evi- dence (Postmes, Spears & Cihangin 2001; Pratt 2000) to suggest that the induction measures in general might ‘prime’ the new members to internalise the existing organisational identity (see also Postmes 2004).
Experimental evidence (Haslam, et al. 1999; Postmes, Spears & Cihangir 2001) supports these findings on peers and key members of the organisation as socialisation agents and in fact propose that these organisational insiders might be particularly useful in aiding the adop- tion of the group’s identity. The findings (Haslam, et al. 1999) suggest that e.g. the discussion with one’s fellow group members enhances the consensus in the normative direction, i.e. the direction best reflecting the norms of the group, especially if the social identity is salient. Ad- ditionally, experimental research (Postmes, Spears & Cihangir 2001) has shown that the pre- established social identity informs the discussion and that in anonymous environments (Postmes, Spears, Sakhel & de Groot 2001), the individuals adopt the group identity from their fellow members’ primed tendencies through interaction. Postmes, Haslam and Swaab (2005) propose that identity might be adopted by merely observing the members’ behaviour and noticing the similarities within or differences against relevant ‘others’. For example, Pratt’s (2000) field study seems to suggest that identity might be adopted passively by the mere exposure to its ideal version. Together, these findings suggest that the organisational in- siders might be able to socialise the newcomers by simply discussing the important identity-
features with them. In other words, discussing the organisational identity with one’s peers might help the newcomer to get a more concise sense of the identity. Thus, they might be able to integrate it into their coherent sense of self more quickly.
On the other hand, Turner (1987, 52) proposed that identification might be facilitated cogni- tively by pointing out the similar values and attitudes of the members or by contrast, empha- sising the differences against important outgroups (cf. Feldman 1981). Discussing the identity dimensions with the newcomers would help them to notice these commonalities. Emphasising the shared values in this manner might be in line with the investiture socialisation proposed by Van Maanen and Schein (1977). This kind of a socialisation tactic focusses on ensuring the newcomer is able to use their skills and practice their values in the new organisational role. (Van Maanen & Schein 1977.) The controlled field experiment of Cable, Gino and Staats (2013) found that taking advantage of these kinds of socialisation measures was associ- ated with stronger engagement and performance, as well as retention. The scholars proposed that these measures would help the organisation to be more innovative and hence, more agile and flexible.
Finally, Postmes, Haslam and Swaab (2005) proposed that social identity might be formed in- teractively by inducing it from the communication within the group, e.g. in actual negotiation (e.g. Postmes, Spears & Novak 2005). Additionally, research in computer-mediated environ- ment (Postmes, Spears & Lea 2000; see also Postmes, Spears, Sakhel & de Groot 2001) has confirmed that the members construct the group’s identity through interaction even if the con- text is not explicitly an intergroup one. This kind of an identity negotiation would be most rel- evant in a completely new organisational context. On the other hand, the newcomers might follow similar approaches as they observe their new environment and induce the similarities between their colleagues and the environment. The newcomers might also be able to induce the organisational identity from the repeated exposure to its practices, which previous find- ings (Canato, Ravasi & Phillips 2013; Dutton & Dukerich 1991) propose to carry the identity (see also Schinoff, Rogers & Corley 2016).
According to Van Maanen (1976), the more consistently identity-congruent practices the or- ganisation has, the stronger the internalisation of the organisational membership should be.
To ensure the socialisation, the organisation might also take symbolic measures, such as providing the members or teams with a specific organisational dress (cf. Rafaeli & Pratt 1993;
1997) or other symbols, such as titles (Van Maanen 1976). The scholar proposed that the more thorough socialisation measures reflect the organisation’s desire of full integration. Fur- thermore, he suggested newcomers might be integrated by creating peer groups in contexts which encourage collaboration on solving problems and helping each other to navigate in the new workplace. (Van Maanen 1976.)
Summing up, the organisation may help the development of the initial identification through several means. First, by taking measures that increase its distinctiveness and prestige, the or- ganisation attracts the most prospective members to apply in their open posts. Secondly, they would be advised to be as transparent as possible in the recruitment phase and to include the member prototype in the process to ensure the commitment of the selected candidate. To fa- cilitate the full integration of the organisational identity, discussions around it would be ad- vised. Finally, it would be recommended to design the induction process around the newcom- ers’ peers and their immediate team.
As the newcomer has adopted the organisational membership fully and integrated it in their coherent sense of self, the initial socialisation has been concluded. In other words, they iden- tify in the organisation once it has become self-referential for them (Pratt 1998). The next chapter details how the organisation might strive to make the organisational identity more meaningful for the members either in general, or in the situation.
2.5.2 Facilitating Organisational Identification Strength
Previous research on facilitating identification has focused mainly on observing the factors which facilitate identification strength. This measure seems to convey its personal accessibil- ity for the member, i.e. how personally meaningful, valuable or important the membership is for them (cf. Oakes 1987, 128–129). Oakes (1987, 126–129) argues that following the higher value or perhaps even the centrality of the identity for the member’s overall self-concept, more varied stimulus might make it salient in the situation and hence, psychologically amplify their influence in the individual’s perception and behaviour. Ashforth and Johnson (2001) seem to propose that the organisational identity might also become chronically available, if it was central for one’s personal values and goals. Experimental evidence (Ellemers, Korkekaas
& Ouwerkerk 1999) suggests that particularly this affective component of the identification is
