Kevin G. Corley

Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology

For all its richness and potential for discovery, qualitative research has been critiqued as too often lacking in scholarly rigor. The authors summarize a systematic approach to new concept development and grounded theory articulation that is designed to bring “qualitative rigor” to the conduct and presentation of inductive research.

Identification in Organizations: An Examination of Four Fundamental Questions

The literature on identification in organizations is surprisingly diverse and large. This article reviews the literature in terms of four fundamental questions. First, under “What is identification?,” it outlines a continuum from narrow to broad formulations and differentiates situated identification from deep identification and organizational identification from organizational commitment. Second, in answer to “Why does identification matter?,” it discusses individual and organizational outcomes as well as several links to mainstream organizational behavior topics. Third, regarding “How does identification occur?,” it describes a process model that involves cycles of sensebreaking and sensegiving, enacting identity and sensemaking, and constructing identity narratives. Finally, under “One or many?,” it discusses team, workgroup, and subunit; relational; occupational and career identifications; and how multiple identifications may conflict, converge, and combine.

Building Better Theory by Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide

Qualitative methods for data collection and analysis are not mystical, but they are powerful, particularly when used to build new or refine existing theories. This article provides an introduction to qualitative methods and an overview of tactics for ensuring rigor in qualitative research useful for the novice researcher, as well as more experienced researchers interested in expanding their methodological repertoire or seeking guidance on how to evaluate qualitative research. We focus our discussion on the qualitative analytical technique of grounded theory building, and suggest that organizational research has much to gain by coupling of use of qualitative and quantitative research methods.

Guiding Organizational Identity Through Aged Adolescence

In this article, the authors reflect on the past two decades of research on organizational identity, looking to its history and to its future. They do not provide a review of the literature, nor do they promote a particular perspective on the concept. Instead, they advocate pluralism in studying organizational identity while encouraging clarity and transparency in the articulation of definitions and core theoretical suppositions. Believing there is no one best approach to the study of organizational identity, their intent is to establish a reference point that can orient future work on organizational identity. They focus on three questions they feel are critical: What is the nomological net that embeds organizational identity? Is organizational identity “real” (or simply metaphoric)? and How do we define and conceptualize organizational identity? Last, they try to anticipate organizational identity issues on the horizon to suggest future directions for theory and research.

Defined by our strategy or our culture? Hierarchical differences in perceptions of organizational identity and change

While theory and research have identified the possibility for multiple organizational identities to exist within an organization, there is little empirical evidence on how differentiation occurs or what its implications are for the organization. In the course of inductively studying an organizational spin-off, evidence of identity differentiation based on hierarchy level emerged in interview-, documentation-, and observation-based data. Higher levels of the hierarchy tended to see identity in light of the organization’s strategy, whereas lower aspects of the hierarchy saw it in relation to the organization’s culture. This identity differentiation was evident in marked differences in the perceptions organizational members had about: (i) the nature of organizational identity; (ii) the most salient identity-based discrepancies; (iii) the basis for organizational identity change; and (iv) how identity change can be implemented. After examining how and why this hierarchical differentiation occurred, I discuss the implications for our understanding of organizational identity and situate it in the larger context of organizational change.

Organizational Identity Formation and Change

Theory and research concerning organizational identity (“who we are as an organization”) is a burgeoning domain within organization study. A great deal of conceptual and empirical work has been accomplished within the last three decades—especially concerning the phenomenon of organizational identity change. More recently, work has been devoted to studying the processes and content associated with identity formation. Given the amount of scholarly work done to date, it is an appropriate time to reflect on the perspectives, controversies and outcomes of this body of work. Because organizational identity change has received the preponderance of attention, we first review that extensive literature. We consider the conceptual and empirical work concerning the three putative “pillars” of identity (i.e. that which is ostensibly central, enduring, and distinctive). We devote particular attention to the most controversial of these pillars—the debate pitting a view that sees identity as stable over time (a position ...

Identity in Organizations: Exploring Cross-Level Dynamics

Most research on organization-based identities focuses on a single level of analysis, typically the individual, group, or organization. As a spur to more cross-level identity research, we offer speculative discussions on two issues concerning nested identities. First, regarding the processes through which identities become linked across levels, we explore how identities at one level of analysis enable and constrain identities at other levels. We argue that, for a collective identity, intrasubjective understanding (“I think”) fosters intersubjective understanding (“we think”) through interaction, which in turn fosters generic understanding---a sense of the collective that transcends individuals (“it is”). Second, regarding the content of linked identities, we suggest that identities are relatively isomorphic across levels because organizational goals require some internal coherence. However, for various intended and unintended reasons, isomorphism is often impeded across levels, and identities tend to become somewhat differentiated.

From the editors the coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods

We would like to add our editorial voices to those who have previously advocated for qualitative research in AMJ. From the editors who have supported such work to the editorials they endorsed, a strong vision and commitment to qualitative work is evident. Our new editorial team remains equally committed (see the February 2011 From the Editors [vol. 54: 9–14]). The fact that two associate editors are now dedicated exclusively to managing qualitative papers through the review process—one for micro submissions (Kevin) and the other for macro submissions (Tima)—is strong evidence of that commitment. That this, our team’s second editorial, is by the two of us, Kevin and Tima, and focuses on qualitative research, is further evidence. After years of sustained commitment to the qualitative research agenda, we now have the opportunity to ask: What has AMJ done particularly well so far, and where do we see potential for continued improvement in publishing high-quality qualitative research? To address these questions, we reviewed the qualitative articles that have been published in AMJ the past ten years. From this review, we identified some gaps and pondered opportunities for further development. In this editorial, we applaud the important strides made on the qualitative frontier, recognize that some strong norms are emerging in the research that is published, and encourage more diversity in the qualitative research appearing in AMJ. We convey these thoughts through a first-person dialogue between us. We have chosen this style for several reasons. First, we want to signal that we are open to novelty by writing an editorial that departs from the traditional form. Second, dialogue embodies some of the character of qualitative research itself—exhibiting the authors’ voice, illustrating context, and demonstrating transparency. This dialogue also reinforces efforts made in previous editorials that show AMJ as a community of scholars collectively interested in advancing management research. Finally, this format allows us to share with you some of our conversation and experience as new associate editors making sense of and creating an identity for ourselves as visible advocates of qualitative research in the Academy of Management.

Revising the past (while thinking in the future perfect tense)

Accounting for organizational history is essential to any change process. We argue, however, that the intentional revision of that history also can be important. We treat history as malleable, because events and actions from the past are susceptible to reinterpretation as organizations try to align with the way they see themselves in the present and want to see themselves in the future. Because change is a prospective, future‐oriented process, whereas sensemaking is a retrospective, past‐oriented process, making sense of the future requires an ability to envision the future as having already occurred, i.e. to think in the future perfect tense. We offer an initial conceptual exploration of organizational change from a revisionist history perspective that turns on future perfect thinking, a view that enlarges our conceptualization of the ways in which history affects organizational adaptation and change.

On Celebrating the Organizational Identity Metaphor: A Rejoinder to Cornelissen

We disagree strongly with Cornelissen’s critique of the organizational identity metaphor on grounds that he: seriously underplays the generative strength of metaphor in the study of organizations; inappropriately applies the standards of assessment from one paradigm to the approaches of another; and raises false concerns about issues of self reference, reification and multilevel transference of concepts, among others.