Organizational Identity ←⇒ Organizational Learning
Analogous to the expansion of the concept of knowledge, identity, too, ought to be seen as a more inclusive phenomenon that inheres in the recursive relationship between meanings and action patterns. Identity change therefore entails disruptions and revisions not only in perceptions, but also in social practices that provide ‘justificational cues’ to people about who they are as a collective and why they work in the ways they do. It is therefore possible to illustrate, both conceptually and empirically, how organizational identity and organizational learning are interrelated in an adaptive way. Based on a continuing line of research into the processes of organizational identity change, we suggest that instead of focusing on the potential for constraints to arise from identity and learning’s mutual dependence (which inhibits adaptability), it is insightful to look at the enabling effects provided through their interrelationship (which facilitates adaptability).
Both Cook and Yanow (1993) and Nicolini and Meznar (1995) provide some insight into the relationship between learning and identity, albeit in a general sense. For example, in focusing on the cultural aspects of the learning undertaken by the Powell Flute Company, Cook and Yanow illustrate that learning can influence identity by strengthening or maintaining the current sense members have of who they are as a collective, or it can change that sense and lead to a redefinition of ‘who we are.’ Likewise, they also suggest that identity can either inhibit or facilitate learning, depending on how the organization’s members deal with the potential for change in their collective sense of identity. In the end, Cook and Yanow posit that Powell Flute’s learning about a new flute technology helped to strengthen their collective identity and that no change in identity occurred. We would argue, however, that through the meaning-based learning that occurred around Powell Flute’s sense of collective self, their identity did in fact change in a subtle way that facilitated adaptation without loss of identity.
This is a key point, because treatments of the identity–learning relationship have explicitly reduced it to its inhibiting aspects by emphasizing the constraints placed on identity and learning because of their interdependence. For instance, Brown and Starkey (2000: 102) argue from a psychodynamic perspective that ‘individuals and organizations are not primarily motivated to learn to the extent that learning entails anxiety-provoking identity change.’ They explain that ‘in practice, this means that individuals and organizations engage in learning activities and employ information and knowledge conservatively to preserve their existing identities.’ Thus, they strongly imply that both identity change and learning are constrained because of their mutual dependence on each other.
Likewise, Lant (1999: 185) explains that because identity ‘describes the boundaries of the collective [it] influences the interpretations of member firms and tends to constrain the range of strategic actions taken . . . both interpretation and actions will tend toward congruence with this identity’ while Weick and Ashford (2001: 711) suggest that ‘individuals learning about their own performance or that of their organization often make trade-offs between the desire for accurate information and the desire to defend the ego.’
These perspectives on the identity–learning relationship, however, hinge on the assumption that organizational identity is stable and, therefore, changes in organizational identity can be disconcerting for an organization and anxiety producing for its members. As our work on identity change has demonstrated, though, this conceptualization provides a rather incomplete picture of organizational identity and, in fact, prevents researchers from seeing complexities involved in its relationship with other key organizational phenomena. Nowhere is this more evident than in the relationship between organizational identity and organizational learning.
The fluidity of identity
Because organizational identity consists of collectively shared beliefs and perceptions of what it means to be ‘us’ as an organization, any change in that collective sense necessarily involves changes in intersubjective meanings. As noted above, changes in intersubjective meanings form the basis of subtle learning (see Figure 16.1). Yet, those changes are not always recognized by the members, nor explicitly labeled as learning, if recognized. Exploring why organizational identity changes and how this process comes about not only helps illustrate the adaptive nature of the identity–learning relationship, it also provides a clear example of subtle learning.
Figure 16.1 Illustration of Conceptual Links between Organizational Identity and Subtle Learning
Our original conceptualization of a malleable identity grew out of past research on organizational identity, image, and reputation that demonstrated the potential for identity to change over relatively short periods of time, but did not explicitly explain it (cf. Corley and Gioia, 2004; Gioia and Thomas, 1996). In exploring these empirical examples, we posited that images of the organization communicated by outsiders are noticed by organization members and spur a social comparison process similar to James’s (1918) ‘looking glass self’ (Gioia et al., 2000).
Specifically, members of an organization (especially top management members) implicitly and explicitly assess how they see the organization (i.e. provide answers to such questions as ‘Who do we think we are?’ and ‘Who do we think we should be?’) in relation to how they think outsiders see the organization (i.e. provide answers to questions such as ‘Who do they think we are?’ and ‘Who do they think we should be?’). Arising from this comparison is either a sense of discrepancy (‘How we see ourselves does not match with how we think others see us’) or a sense of alignment (‘We see ourselves in a similar way to how we think they see us’) (Corley et al., 2000). A perception of alignment feeds back to reinforce organizational identity, whereas a perception of discrepancy can either result in a sense that something must be done in response to the disparity or in an acceptance of the discrepancy if it falls within some ‘zone of indifference’ (Barnard, 1938).
Regardless of whether a sense of alignment or discrepancy arises, identity is reconsidered and reconstructed (and, thus, destabilized to some degree) as organization members confront the implications of others’ views of their organization. This instability of identity is actually adaptive, in that it allows an organization to cope better with the demands of an environment that itself is undergoing continuous change (Gioia et al., 2000). That is, an organizational identity that adapts to changing perceptions while maintaining a sense of continuity affords an organization the ability to cope with the changing expectations realized in interactions with a changing environment.
Perhaps the most useful aspect of our revised conceptualization of organizational identity, and the key to understanding its linkage with meaning-based organizational learning, was the recognition that changes in organizational identity can occur at the level of shared meanings that frame the social practices of organizational members, not just common language or labels. That is, an organization’s identity consists of (1) the shared labels used to describe the ‘who we are’ and ‘what we do,’ and (2) the meanings associated with those labels by members. The seeming stability of an organization’s identity resides in the stability of the consistent labels used to describe it, whereas the meanings and actions associated with those labels often change over time to match external expectations and internal goals. Thus, an organization can claim a stable identity, for instance, as a service organization focused on ‘delivering the highest possible quality,’ but the significance of such words as ‘service,’ ‘quality,’ and ‘highest possible’ can (and, in some circumstances, must) take on different meanings and practices at different times for members of the organization.
Changing the meanings underlying identity is as much a process of organizational learning as a pronounced change to the descriptive labels would be. The biggest difference, and the reason why the relationship between identity and learning can be adaptive, is that the learning can take place below the level of articulation, and possibly even awareness, for the individuals within the collective. Organizational learning occurs subtly as members focus on the labels used to describe ‘who we are,’ while the more tacit and unexplored meanings and practices underlying the labels change to match the shifting environment. This tacit process allows for a comforting sense of consensus, continuity, and stability among interested parties inside and outside the organization, while affording the organization the necessary adaptive learning to survive and grow in the face of changing environments. Thus, it is possible for learning to take place in the face of anxiety about changing identity because the identity change (and, thus, organizational learning) occurs at the level of intersubjective meanings embedded in social interaction.
In the context of Cook and Yanow’s example of the Powell Flute Company, we suggest that, contrary to their original supposition, Powell Flute’s identity did in fact change, albeit in a subtle manner that did not undermine the sense of continuity that was so important to its members. The concept of subtle learning as applied to organizational identity allows us the opportunity to see how an organization like Powell Flute can indeed ‘change without changing.’
Changes in the external environment forced the organization to adapt and learn what it meant to be Powell Flute by reinterpreting the labels used to describe themselves. Yes, it was possible to continue making the best flutes in the world, regardless of whether the flutes have the Powell scale or the Cooper scale. The labels used to describe who they were remained the same, but their underlying meanings changed to reflect their new reality. The power of the change resides in its subtlety—the fact that it was subtle and precluded the kind of anxiety often attributed to changes in identity. One might even posit that because the change was successful and occurred without the anxiety that this event would normally be expected to generate, it helped inculcate change into the culture and break down many of the bases for resistance to change seen in other organizations.