Michael G. Pratt

Identity, Intended Image, Construed Image, and Reputation: An Interdisciplinary Framework and Suggested Terminology

Many scholars across various academic disciplines are investigating the following questions: What do individuals know or believe about an organization? How does a focal organization (and/or other interested entity) develop, use, and/or change this information? and How do individuals respond to what they know or believe about an organization? Cross-disciplinary research that centers on these questions is desirable and could be enhanced if researchers identify and develop consistent terminology for framing these questions. The authors work toward that end by identifying four central ‘viewpoints’ of an organization and proposing labels to represent each of these viewpoints:identity, intended image, construed image, andreputation.

ORGANIZATIONAL DRESS AS A SYMBOL OF MULTILAYERED SOCIAL IDENTITIES

Qualitative data collected in a rehabilitation unit of a large hospital reveal how organization members used dress to represent and negotiate a web of issues inherent to the hybrid identities of the unit and the nursing profession. As different issues were considered, dress took on various and often contradictory meanings. Thus, a seemingly simple symbol such as organizational dress is shown here to reveal the complex notion of social identity, which is argued to comprise multiple layers of meaning. We discuss the implications of this thesis for theory and research on organizational identity, organizational symbolism, organizational dress, and ambivalence.

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.

4 The Physical Environment in Organizations

Abstract We review empirical research on the physical environment in professional, organizational work settings (i.e., offices, meeting rooms, and design work spaces) from the past several decades. This research reveals no common elements of the physical environment (e.g., enclosures and barriers in work spaces, adjustable work arrangements, personalized work spaces, and ambient surroundings) that are consistently and exclusively associated with desired outcomes in these work settings. Instead, these elements are routinely associated with both desired and undesired outcomes. Based on these findings, we suggest that understanding the role of physical environments in organizations requires an understanding of common trade-offs in organizational life. Further, we suggest that the prevalence of such trade-offs is grounded in tensions that are inherent to the functions that physical environments serve (i.e., aesthetic, instrumental, and symbolic functions). We provide an outline of these tensions and trade-off...

From threat‐rigidity to flexibility ‐ Toward a learning model of autogenic crisis in organizations

Complementing prior research by Staw et al. (“Threat‐rigidity effects in organizational behavior: a multilevel analysis”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 4, 1981, pp. 501‐24), the authors develop a new conceptual model of organizational change, “autogenic crisis”. The authors’ update of Staw et al.’s threat‐rigidity model shows that top managers may initiate strategic “pre‐adaptations” to future crises, thereby using latent threat to generate organizational flexibility, learning, renewal and, possibly, longer life.

Identification Management and Its Bases: Bridging Management and Marketing Perspectives Through a Focus on Affiliation Dimensions

There has been growing interest in both management and marketing regarding how individuals become identified with organizations and how organizations attempt to manage these identifications. The authors present a framework built on explicit and implicit points of convergence in research conducted in both these disciplines. In their review of the management and marketing literatures, the authors suggest three fundamental mechanisms, or “bases”, for managing organizational identification: relational, behavioral, and symbolic. Furthermore, the authors argue that how an individual is affiliated with an organization will impact the relative influence of these identification management bases. The authors conclude by suggesting how management and marketing scholars can create a theoretical space for future interdisciplinary work Such a change would involve moving away from “employees” versus “customers” as a prime division between the fields and moving toward a more fine-grained approach that emphasizes the unique characteristics of individual-organizational relationships.

The Illinois White Paper - Improving the System for Protecting Human Subjects: Counteracting IRB Mission Creep

Our system of research self-regulation, designed to provide internal checks and balances for those who participate in research involving human subjects, is under considerable stress. Much of this crisis has been caused by what we call mission creep, in which the workload of IRBs has expanded beyond their ability to handle effectively. Mission creep is caused by rewarding wrong behaviors, such as focusing more on procedures and documentation than difficult ethical questions; unclear definitions, which lead to unclear responsibilities; efforts to comply with unwieldy federal requirements even when research is not federally funded; exaggerated precautions to protect against program shutdowns; and efforts to protect against lawsuits. We recommend collecting data. We also call for refinements to our regulatory system that will provide a set of regulations designed for non-biomedical research. This will enable IRBs to direct attention to the areas of greatest risk while intentionally scaling back oversight in areas of lesser risk. We recommend removing some kinds of activity from IRB review altogether. Our system, if not broken, is seriously straining at the seams. It is imperative that we have a respected and effective system in place to protect human research subjects, so that much-needed research into the causes and prevention of disease and other research expanding the boundaries of knowledge can proceed. We hope that this White Paper will further the discussion about what reasonable procedures can be instituted to help get IRBs back on track and do what they were originally meant to do—protect the rights and welfare of human subjects while allowing the research enterprise to progress and its benefits to society to accrue.

Ambivalence in Organizations: A Multilevel Approach

The experience of simultaneously positive and negative orientations toward a person, goal, task, idea, and such appears to be quite common in organizations, but it is poorly understood. We develop a multilevel perspective on ambivalence in organizations that demonstrates how this phenomenon is integral to certain cognitive and emotional processes and important outcomes. Specifically, we discuss the organizational triggers of ambivalence and the cognitive and emotional mechanisms through which ambivalence diffuses between the individual and collective levels of analysis. We offer an integrative framework of major responses to highly intense ambivalence avoidance, domination, compromise, and holism that is applicable to actors at the individual and collective levels. The positive and negative outcomes associated with each response, and the conditions under which each is most effective, are explored. Although ambivalence is uncomfortable for actors, it has the potential to foster growth in the actor as well as highly adaptive and effective behavior.

Constructive Deviance in Organizations: Integrating and Moving Forward

A growing literature explores the notion of constructive deviance conceptualized as behaviors that depart from the norms of the reference group such that they benefit the reference group and conform to hypernorms. We argue that constructive deviance is an umbrella term that encompasses several different behaviors, including taking charge, creative performance, expressing voice, whistle-blowing, extra-role behaviors, prosocial behaviors, prosocial rule breaking, counter-role behaviors, and issue selling. Using the three common mechanisms underlying constructive deviance to organize our review (intrinsic motivation, felt obligation, and psychological empowerment), we provide an emergent model that integrates extant empirical work on the antecedents of constructive deviance. We conclude by discussing issues for future research, such as examining obstacles, outcomes, and unexplored mechanism dynamics associated with constructive deviance.

3. Symbols as a language of organizational relationships

Abstract We view physical symbols as a rich, potent, non-verbal language that is uniquely suited for enacting relationship issues within organizations. Like verbal language, physical symbols have accepted elements and structure (e.g. grammar), and both influence and are influenced by social construction processes. We apply this ‘physical symbols as language’ perspective to modern organizations, and argue that recent trends, such as increasing diversity and empowerment, result in changes in relationships between individuals and organizations. We further argue that these relationship changes alter both the type (e.g. more portable and instrumental), and use of physical symbols in the workplace. Specifically, we suggest that the accessibility and flexibility of a physical symbol language offers individuals and organizations a powerful medium with which to represent and negotiate new and complex identity and status relationships. Viewing physical symbols as a language provides students of organizations a vehicle for examining these changing relationships, and offers a framework for how symbol language miscommunications can be identified and overcome.