Shubha Patvardhan

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 ...

Exploring Prospective Sensemaking in Organizations

Prospection or forward-looking behavior is central to many core organizational activities (strategic management, entrepreneurship, and innovation). A key hurdle to the practice and study of such fo...

Moral Accounting by Organizations: A Process Study of the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission:

We take an inductive approach to understanding the aftermath of crises, namely, the process by which organizations come to be viewed as morally accountable (or not) for such events. We studied the transcripts of the 2009 Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) that investigated the global financial crisis of 2007-2008. Our findings revealed a dynamic we call moral accounting, a process whereby supposed wrongdoers encounter narrative and situational constraints that make it difficult, if not impossible, to fully account for the (im)morality of their actions, a position that often induces moments of disorientation that only reinforce the perception of wrongdoing. To push back against such perceptions, supposed wrongdoers use rhetorical strategies and sentence-level linguistic tactics, which can likewise reinforce the perception of wrongdoing. Overall, our model suggests that organizational moral accountability is not simply assigned, accepted, or denied—rather, it is negotiated via an iterative, discursive process.

Prospective sensemaking: Strategy-making in a pioneering firm

Anticipating the future is a defining aspect of strategic decision-making (Gavetti, 2012; Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Mintzberg, 1985; Tsoukas & Shepherd, 2009). Although there have been calls to study “foresight” (Hamel & Prahalad, 1996; see Tsoukas & Shepherd, 2004) and “prescience” (Corley & Gioia, 2011), the key processes involved in such prospective activities remain undertheorized. Moreover, when studies on strategy-making do account for anticipation, the main orientation is one of “adapting” to trends in an uncertain future (e.g. Burgelman, 1994, 2002). Very little empirical attention has been given to the possibility that a firm might “strive more actively to shape its environment...” (Ghemawat, 2010: 40), “construct” its opportunity space (Gavetti, 2011: 3), influence trends (Corley & Gioia, 2011) and invent the future (Kay, 1971; Narayanan & Fahey, 2004). These observations suggest both the theoretical and pragmatic value of focusing on the question: By what processes might firms influence or shape the future? Following arguments that imbuing a forward-looking sensibility into the field of strategy would involve re-examining existing cognitive microfoundations of managerial behavior (Gavetti, 2012; Porac & Tschang, 2013), I adopted a grounded theory approach to investigate the processes associated with more bona fide “future-oriented” strategy-making processes. Operating on the assumption that firms not only try to adapt to the future, but sometimes also try to shape and construct it (Cunha, 2004; Gavetti, 2012; Hamel & Prahalad, 1994; Narayanan & Fahey, 2004), I conducted an in-depth longitudinal study of a pioneering firm that, over five decades, shaped the future of its industry landscape. Fabindia Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (“Fabindia” henceforth), established in 1960, served as an exemplary case for this study on prospection because Fabindia is widely acknowledged to have anticipated, created and shaped an ecosystem for handcrafted products in India and overseas over a period of five decades (Cherian, 2012; Ramachandran, Pant, & Pani, 2010; Tyabji, 2010).