Identity Under Construction - How Individuals Come To Define Themselves in Organizations

OP03CH05-Ashforth ARI 19 February 2016 13:59
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further
Click here to view this article's
online features:
• Download ﬁgures as PPT slides
• Navigate linked references
• Download citations
• Explore related articles
Identity Under Construction:
• Search keywords
How Individuals Come to
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:111-137. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Define Themselves in
Organizations
Access provided by 188.253.224.76 on 04/09/23. For personal use only.
Blake E. Ashforth and Beth S. Schinoff

Department of Management, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University,
Tempe, Arizona 85827; email: blake.ashforth@asu.edu, beth.schinoff@asu.edu
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016. Keywords

3:111–37
identity construction, identity motives, sensemaking, narratives, social
First published online as a Review in Advance on
January 29, 2016 validation
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Abstract
Organizational Behavior is online at
orgpsych.annualreviews.org Individuals need a situated identity, or a clear sense of “who they are” in their
This article’s doi: local context, to function. Drawing largely on interpretivist research, we de-
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062322 scribe the process of identity construction in organizations. Organizations
Copyright c 2016 by Annual Reviews. set the stage for members to construct their identities through sensebreak-
All rights reserved ing, rendering individuals more receptive to organizational cues conveyed
via sensegiving. Individuals utilize sensemaking to construe their situated
identity as they progress toward a desired self. Affect (feeling “this is me”),
behavior (acting as “me”), and cognition (thinking “this is me”) are each vi-
able and intertwined gateways to a situated identity that resonates with one’s
desired self and a given context. Individuals formulate identity narratives
that link their past and present to a desired future, providing direction. If
their identity enactments and narratives receive social validation, individuals
feel more assured, fortifying their emergent identities. The result of these
dynamics is a visceral understanding of self in the local context, facilitating
adjustment.
111
INTRODUCTION
I thought, then who am I? I know who I am when I go home, when I am in the community. But who
am I here? I could master some of the things that were fed to me, but I didn’t know how to place them
internally. (a student reflecting on a new school system, as described in Sonnleitner 1995, p. 329)
Individuals in organizations, as in any social domain, need to have a reasonably clear sense of who
they are and how they fit into their surroundings. Although a job title, a team goal, a department’s
function, and an organization’s mission may be easily stated, what those labels actually mean to
the individual—the identities they convey (including how well those identities resonate with how
they see or hope to see themselves, and how they may enact and shape those identities)—are not
as easily stated.
Our review explicates how people in organizational settings come to define themselves, both as
individuals and as members of groups, and both in the present and prospectively in the future. The
prototypical scenario for identity construction is a newcomer entering an organization, as this is
when identity tends to be the most salient and malleable. It is also, not surprisingly, the most studied
identity construction scenario. However, identity construction—including reconstruction—can
be triggered by various cues, particularly identity threats; surprises; and novel, disruptive, and/or
critical events (see Petriglieri 2011, Louis 1980, and Morgeson et al. 2015, respectively). Although
our article draws largely on the copious literature on identity construction in work contexts, we
believe that the process we articulate generalizes fairly readily to identity construction in all
organizations (e.g., sororities/fraternities, religious organizations, volunteer organizations).
The article proceeds as follows. We discuss the various components that comprise the iden-
tity construction process, loosely adapting Ashforth et al.’s (2008, 2014) model as our guiding
framework (see Figure 1). The section Identity describes our theoretical orientation and key
concepts. The Sensebreaking and Sensegiving section considers how organizations set the stage
for identity construction by influencing how individuals see themselves. Sensemaking then de-
scribes how individuals decode environmental cues to understand their environs and who they are
within them. Enacting Identity examines how affect, behavior, and cognition interact to enable
identity construction. The section Identity Narratives then considers how individuals “explain”
themselves to others as well as to themselves. Deeply intertwined with narratives, Social Valida-
tion explores how individuals negotiate their identities with others and come to feel reasonably
affirmed. We’re reminded of why all this matters in the Outcomes section. Finally, the Discussion
briefly summarizes our framework and touches on practical implications and future research.
IDENTITY: WHAT ARE INDIVIDUALS CONSTRUCTING AND WHAT

MOTIVATES THE PROCESS?
Alvesson et al. (2008, p. 8) describe three “metatheoretical orientations” of identity scholarship in
organizations. The functionalist orientation emphasizes cause-and-effect relationships that foster
organizational effectiveness (e.g., organizational identification facilitates organizational citizenship
behavior). The critical orientation (often under the rubric of poststructuralism or postmodernism)
emphasizes the power struggles between organizations seeking to impose a preferred corporatist
identity and their employees who seek to carve out more personally agreeable identities. Finally, the
interpretivist orientation emphasizes the interactional processes through which individuals forge
their identities. Given our interest in the social dynamics of identity construction, we draw mainly
on interpretivist studies. Furthermore, whereas the functionalist orientation tends to view identity
as relatively stable, coherent, and unproblematic, the critical orientation tends to view identity as
relatively unstable, fragmented, and contested. The interpretivist orientation, however, spans the
112 Ashforth · Schinoff

Organizational sensebreaking
l validation
Socia
So
on
Identity motives Sensemaking
cial
validati
Outcomes
Enacting identity
validati
• Central identity motives
• Situated and validated identity
• Peripheral motives Constructing identity
cial
• Workplace adjustment
(see Table 1 for a list of motives) narratives
on
So
S o c ial
v ali d a ti o n
Organizational sensegiving
Figure 1
The identity construction process in organizations. For simplicity, we have modeled the identity construction process as linear;
however, it is recursive in reality. Figure adapted from Ashforth et al. 2014 (p. 13) and Ashforth et al. 2008 (p. 341).
great middle ground, emphasizing dynamism as individuals attempt to construct identities that
at least they can view as relatively stable, coherent, and uncontested—whether or not they are in
actuality.
Identity Construction and Possible Selves

Van Maanen (2010, pp. 117–18) asserts, “The term ‘identity’ is used in a bewildering variety of
ways and has, of late, become something of a cultural cliché.” Shorn of the barnacles that have
attached themselves to the construct, identity, at its essence, refers to an actor’s self-definition, how
the actor answers the question, “who am I?” or “who are we?” Identity construction, then, is the pro-
cess through which actors come to define who they are. The key outcome of identity construction
at the individual level is identification, the extent to which one internalizes a given identity as a (par-
tial) definition of self (e.g., “I am a salesperson”).1 Regarding nomenclature, as Pratt (2012) notes,
identity construction at the individual level is sometimes used synonymously with identity work,
defined by Alvesson & Willmott (2002, p. 626) as “forming, repairing, maintaining, strengthening
or revising the constructions that are productive of a precarious sense of coherence and distinc-
tiveness.” Although we also see the terms as very similar, we prefer identity construction because,
unlike identity work, it accommodates a broader range of identity motives than coherence and
1
Somewhat confusingly, identification also refers to the process through which individuals internalize an identity and is thus
both a verb (to identify with a target) and a noun (the state of being identified with a target) (Ashforth et al. 2008).
www.annualreviews.org • Identity Construction in Organizations 113

Table 1 Why and how individuals are motivated to construct their identity
Central identity motives Definition of motive Representative citations
Belonging A need to feel close to, connected to, and accepted by Baumeister & Leary 1995, Vignoles
others et al. 2006
Belonging: personalized A need to feel known or liked as an individual based Turner 1982, Cooper & Thatcher
on interpersonal attraction 2010
Belonging: depersonalized A need to feel known and liked as a member of a
collective based on social attraction
Need for identification (see, also, A need to define oneself in terms of a given target Glynn 1998, Mayhew et al. 2010,
self-construal) (i.e., another individual, role-relationship, Pilarska 2014
collective)
Self-enhancement (see, also, A need to hold valued identities and a desire to grow Tajfel & Turner 1986, Aron et al.
self-expansion, self-improvement) toward a positive conception of oneself 1991, Vignoles et al. 2006
Self-knowledge (see, also, A need to accurately understand more about oneself, Katz 1980, Ashford 1989, Ashforth
self-assessment) particularly in the context in which the identity is 2001
enacted and salient to others

Self-expression (see, also, A need to display one’s sense of self and to enact Gecas 1986, Cable et al. 2013
authenticity) identities that are valued
Self-coherence A need for an integrated sense of self Amiot et al. 2007, Ibarra &
Barbulescu 2010
Self-continuity A need for a consistent sense of self over time Ashforth 2001, Brickson 2013
Optimal distinctiveness A need to strike a balance between seeing oneself as Capozza et al. 2006, Kreiner et al.
similar to and different from others 2006, Brewer 2012
Reduction of subjective uncertainty A need to resolve, manage, or avoid a perceived lack Hogg & Terry 2000, Hogg 2007
of clarity
Self-verification A need to be seen by others as one sees oneself Swann et al. 2003, Cable & Kay 2012
Self-presentation A need to externally project a socially desirable self to Baumeister 1989, Roberts 2005
influence others’ perceptions
Identity-relevant but more
peripheral motives
Meaningfulness A need to find significance or purpose Baumeister 1991, Vignoles et al. 2006
Self-efficacy A need for a sense of capability and competence Bandura 1986, Vignoles et al. 2006
Control A need to influence domains perceived as important Greenberger & Strasser 1986,
Ashford & Black 1996
distinctiveness (see Table 1, discussed later), is not usually invoked as a contrast to managerial
attempts to impose unwanted identities on employees (and is thus less ideologically loaded), and is
often applied to the longer-term “building” that is our focus (rather than short-term adjustments;
e.g., “repairing”).
Because identity construction inherently involves the development of a sense of self over
time, the construct of possible self (Markus & Nurius 1986, Roberts et al. 2005)—who an ac-
tor would like to become (a desired self ) and/or avoid becoming (a feared self )—is also very
important to our analysis [see, as well, future work self (Strauss et al. 2012), progressive iden-
tity development (Dutton et al. 2010), and alternative self (Obodaru 2012)]. A salient possible
self brings the future into the present, facilitating positive adjustment by representing a goal
to which individuals can aspire, shaping the jobs and organizations they select, the develop-
mental activities they engage in, and the people they model themselves after and turn to for
feedback. In a sample of organizational newcomers, Zhang et al. (2014, p. 1463) found that

the degree to which individuals reported having a salient desired self (e.g., “I am very clear
about who and what I want to become in my future work”) predicted proactive adjustment
behavior one month later. A salient possible self also provides benchmarks by which to eval-
uate progress (Ibarra 1999) and shapes how events are interpreted; for example, a frontline
employee aspiring to be a manager may be much more disturbed by a poor performance ap-
praisal than an employee who does not share this desired self. An individual may have multi-
ple desired and feared selves, vested in both the short term (e.g., to become a business school
graduate, to not become a dead-end jobholder) and the long term (e.g., to become a socially
responsible CEO, to not become a workaholic). Short-term and long-term possible selves may
be complementary, with the latter acting as a homing beacon and the proximity of the former
motivating concrete developmental steps. However, because desired selves are sought whereas
feared selves are avoided, the latter often provide less clear guidance (e.g., if one wishes to
avoid becoming a dead-end jobholder, should one strive to be a manager, a lottery winner, or
what?).
Social and Personal Identities

Individuals in organizations have multiple identities, ranging from social identities based on col-
lectives (e.g., team, occupation, organization) and categories (e.g., gender, racioethnicity, age) to
personal identities based on idiosyncratic attributes that typify them as individuals (e.g., person-
ality profile, memories, sense of humor).2 Self-categorization theory scholars initially maintained
that social and personal identities were mutually exclusive in that when a social identity is salient,
the personal identities are not; individuals were said to become depersonalized and thus inter-
changeable exemplars of the social identity. However, subsequent research suggests that both
identities may be simultaneously salient (Turner 1999). For example, Elsbach & Flynn (2013) de-
scribe how individuals enacted the shared social identity of toy designer in unique ways. Those
who emphasized an artistic personal identity resisted collaborating with others, whereas those who
emphasized a problem-solving personal identity were more inclined to collaborate. The ability of
individuals to simultaneously instantiate both social and personal identities—and, for that mat-
ter, multiple social and multiple personal identities—greatly enriches their potential for complex
thought and action (e.g., Caza & Wilson 2009, Ramarajan 2014). However, the following should
be noted:
1. There is a dynamic tension between social and personal identities as individuals want to
be part of a collective and be unique (see Brewer 2012 and Table 1 regarding optimal
distinctiveness). Thus, strong situational pressures for inclusiveness often heighten the desire
for exclusiveness, and vice versa. Kreiner et al. (2006) document how Episcopal priests
utilized various tactics to maintain a rough balance between the siren call of their social
identity as priests and their desire to preserve their personal identities. One priest remarked,
“I’m always a priest, and especially when dressed as a priest, I’m aware of my role. But I also
know I’m a person as well . . . there are times when I deliberately take off the ‘role’ so as to
just ‘be’” (p. 1044).
2. Although identities are always instantiated in a specific context, personal identities need not
pertain to the enactment of a specific social identity (i.e., they can be decoupled from the
2
Brewer & Gardner (1996) note that there are actually three levels of identity: individual (i.e., personal identity), interpersonal
(i.e., role identity and relational identity), and collective/categorical (i.e., social identity). Although we believe that our model
of identity construction applies to all levels of identity, given space constraints, we focus primarily on social and personal
identities.

context). For example, two people may chat about their favorite hobbies irrespective of their
occupation or department.
3. Social and personal identities may transcend the context, not merely in the sense that they
are applicable elsewhere. In particular, an identity can be couched (a) abstractly, as when a
landscaper or hairstylist defines herself as an entrepreneur (Moore & Robinson 2006), and
(b) in terms of adaptation itself, as when a person defines himself as chameleon-like (Gubler
et al. 2014). Abstract and adaptation-focused identities provide myriad other contexts in
which the identities can be effectively instantiated.
In the case of identity construction, individuals are concerned with establishing their situation-
ally relevant and/or subjectively important—their salient (Ashforth 2001)—social and personal
identities. Regarding social identities, individuals are inherently and publicly a member of certain
collectives. The concern, then, is not with establishing membership per se but that one is a bona
fide exemplar of those collectives—the prototype of a member in good standing (e.g., I am a good
waitress). Given our focus on organizations, we concentrate on social identities tied to collectives
(i.e., groups with formal boundaries, structure, and entitativity) rather than to social categories
such as gender. Regarding personal identities, the boundary, prototype, and social desirability of a
given identity tend to be much fuzzier. Thus, it is often more difficult to establish that one is an
exemplar of a given personal identity and that it is desirable. For example, is being assertive so-
cially desirable; when does a nurturing mentor become a smothering mentor (DeRue et al. 2009)?
The challenge, then, is for individuals to establish themselves as prototypical members of their
collectives (their social identities) and demonstrate that the unique ways they behave as individ-
uals (their personal identities)—especially in terms of how they enact their social identities—are
understood by others and deemed laudable. That said, the more institutionalized the collective,
the more robust the associated prototype and clearer the standards (e.g., the requirements for a
lawyer to make partner)—reducing the latitude for expressing personal identities.
For ease of exposition, we refer to situated identity (Alexander & Wiley 1981), or simply
identity, as shorthand for a set of multiple social and personal identities that are germane to a
particular organizational context. For the sake of parsimony, we assume that the identities mesh at
least somewhat smoothly in the relevant context, that individuals view work as a reasonably strong
central life interest (Dubin 1992), and that they are therefore more psychologically invested in the
dynamics described in this review.
Identity Motives
Both consciously and nonconsciously, identity construction processes are guided by identity mo-
tives, or need-like properties that push individuals “toward certain identity states and away from
others” (Vignoles et al. 2006, p. 309; Vignoles 2011). The strength and salience of motives are a
function of individual predispositions (e.g., Cooper & Thatcher 2010) and features of the context
(both stable attributes and momentary events). For example, in a study of professional identity re-
construction, Chreim et al. (2007) found that personal life changes and dissatisfaction sparked the
motive for meaning, and Pratt (2000) described how Amway creates motivational drive through
the practice of “dream building,” i.e., creating a disparity between individuals’ current selves and
desired selves.
The literature on identity motives is somewhat fragmented and diverse, with a dizzying number
of potential motives guiding identity construction. Moreover, recent work by social psychologists
has tended to define identity broadly, discussing drives that don’t appear to be central to the con-
struction of self-definition (e.g., Vignoles 2011; Vignoles et al. 2006, 2008). Building on Ashforth’s

(2001) typology of motives, we separate identity motives that seem central to identity construc-
tion (i.e., belonging, need for identification, self-enhancement, self-knowledge, self-expression,
self-coherence, self-continuity, optimal distinctiveness, reduction of subjective uncertainty, self-
verification, and self-presentation) from those that seem relevant but more peripheral (i.e., mean-
ingfulness, self-efficacy, and control).
Table 1 defines each of these motives and provides representative citations. Much of the lit-
erature on identity motives pertains to internally focused motives, particularly self-enhancement,
self-continuity, and uncertainty reduction. However, identity construction clearly does not occur
in a vacuum; holding identities that are valued by others is perhaps just as important as holding
identities that are valued by oneself (Baumeister & Tice 1986). This is particularly true in organi-
zational contexts, where an individual is accountable to others and subject to rewards/punishments
and other social controls (Tsui & Ashford 1994). What are the key motives with an external focus?
One motive that is both internally and externally focused is self-knowledge (defined similarly to
self-assessment), as individuals need a reasonably accurate sense of their attributes and how other
key individuals with whom they interact (or who have power over them) perceive them (Ashford
1989, Katz 1980). One motive that is entirely externally focused is self-presentation—the desire
to project a socially desirable self to influence others’ perceptions of oneself (Baumeister 1989,
Roberts 2005). Baumeister (1989, p. 62) called this “the motive to please the audience.” For ex-
ample, Reid (2015) describes how consultants felt compelled to live up to the ideal worker image,
i.e., taking conference calls late at night and answering emails instantly, just to project the image
of always being available. A second externally focused motive is self-verification, the desire to so-
cially confirm one’s sense of self, even if that self is negative (Swann et al. 2003). Indeed, research
suggests that verifying extant negative attributes is often more important to the individual than
projecting or gaining positive attributes (Swann 1990), that is, that self-verification may trump self-
presentation and self-enhancement. Cable & Kay (2012) showed that, even during organizational
entry—a time when individuals may be expected to present a rosier version of themselves—self-
verification striving predicted later job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Our larger
point is that scholars studying single identity motives do so at their own peril; scholars need to be
cognizant of the interplay—and potential conflicts—between and within internally and externally
focused identity motives.
Complicating the role of multiple motives is the notion of multiple levels of self. Each motive
listed in Table 1 likely drives identity construction at all levels—individual, relational, and col-
lective (Brewer & Gardner 1996, Brickson 2000). However, whether some motives spark identity
construction at one level of self over another is still relatively unknown. Although Vignoles et al.
(2006) found that self-enhancement (“self-esteem”), self-continuity, meaning, and distinctiveness
are particularly strong in motivating construction at all levels, recent theoretical work suggests
that individuals may be differentially motivated, depending on their chronically salient level of self.
Specifically, Cooper & Thatcher (2010) theorize that individuals with an individual self-concept
orientation may be strongly motivated by self-enhancement and self-consistency, whereas those
with a collective self-concept orientation may be strongly motivated by belongingness and uncer-
tainty reduction.
Finally, unfulfilled identity motives make salient a gap between the present and a desired future.
Not surprisingly, then, individuals’ desired (and feared) selves embody identity motives (Vignoles
et al. 2008), adding a temporal dimension to these needs. For example, Thornborrow & Brown
(2009) describe how the desired self of the British paratrooper is couched in aspirational terms as
professional, elite, and macho. However, such aspirational characteristics are often difficult to sat-
isfy, prompting one paratrooper to conclude, “You never feel like you are the finished article in the
[Parachute] Regiment. If you thought you were the finished article, being a paratrooper . . . [y]ou

wouldn’t have the right idea” (p. 363). In short, individuals may seek to approximate desired selves
and thereby address the relevant identity motives through gains rather than completion. If identity
is forever a work in progress, then so too may be satisfying certain identity motives.
As identity is core to human functioning, much of what we have described applies across various
contexts. Given our focus on identity construction in organizations, we turn now to organizational
settings.
SENSEBREAKING AND SENSEGIVING: HOW DOES THE

ORGANIZATION SET THE STAGE FOR IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION?
Constructing a sense of self in organizations may entail, paradoxically, a certain amount of sense-
breaking, defined by Pratt (2000, p. 464) as “the destruction or breaking down of meaning.”
Sensebreaking fosters “a fundamental questioning of who one is when one’s sense of self is chal-
lenged . . . [and] a meaning void that must be filled” (p. 464). A strong challenge to self may come
in the form of upending experiences (where one’s assumptions are proven false), major task failure,
stretch goals, social exclusion, or value and belief discrepancies between self and organization. Fol-
lowing the socialization literature, perhaps the most dramatic challenge to self occurs via divestiture,
where the organization actively seeks “to deny and strip away certain personal characteristics of
a recruit” (Van Maanen & Schein 1979, p. 250). Organizations utilize sensebreaking/divestiture
when individuals hold values, beliefs, expectations, etc., that are thought to impair the assumption
of an organizationally desired identity. Thus, sensebreaking/divestiture is most likely employed
when organizations (a) have a strong and distinctive culture (e.g., an army), (b) seek to have mem-
bers discard unrealistic beliefs or “bad habits” (e.g., unethical practices learned from a previous
employer), (c) seek to render members more compliant and receptive to learning (e.g., hazing at a
sorority), and/or (d ) seek to forge cohesion among members (by stripping away their individuality,
as in the debasement of rookie football players).
Sensebreaking/divestiture creates a sense of liminality, that one does not have a viable identity
for the local context, motivating a strong desire to acquire one (Ashforth 2001, Beech 2011). Or-
ganizations attempt to resolve liminality through sensegiving, defined as attempts to influence the
“meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality” (Gioia &
Chittipeddi 1991, p. 442). As suggested by the title of Park’s (2014) paper, “After Pain Comes Joy,”
the greater the sensebreaking, the greater the need for subsequent sensemaking to fill the void.
That said, whereas sensebreaking is used in selective circumstances, most organizations utilize
sensegiving to increase the likelihood that individuals will socially construct the inherently equiv-
ocal nature of organizational life in ways that mesh with the collective mission and practices. With
regard to identity specifically, sensegiving is intended to convey information about members of the
organization and local context, including prototypical (and perhaps aspirational) role attributes.
Intriguingly, a recent field experiment by Cable et al. (2013, pp. 10–11) found that social-
ization practices that encouraged newcomers to reflect on, express, and utilize their personal
identities—their “authentic best selves” (e.g., “What is unique about you that leads to your
happiest times and best performance at work?”)—was associated with lower turnover (although
not higher performance) than socialization practices that emphasized the organization’s identity.
In their follow-up lab experiment, personal identity-oriented socialization was more strongly
associated with work engagement, job satisfaction, job performance, and retention, and the
impact of socialization was mediated by authentic self-expression. This bottom-up approach
to socialization is contrary to conventional approaches but entirely consistent with the motives
for self-coherence, self-continuity, self-expression, self-verification, and optimal distinctiveness
(assuming that newcomers are nonetheless able to glean what defines the organization). In short,

Cable et al.’s study underscores the importance that even newcomers—eager to fit in—accord to
carving out a distinctive and personalized niche within the social identity of their new organization.
Sensegiving is perhaps most prevalent at two times. First, during the onboarding process, the
organization’s website, recruiters, HR managers, trainers, socialization agents, mentors, and even
customers provide a plethora of information about the organization and the newcomer’s local
context and role (e.g., Saks & Gruman 2012). Newcomers, however, tend to put the most stock
in information and interpretations provided by their peers and manager because these individuals
are most familiar with the proximal situation and the newcomer him or herself—and managers
are seen to represent the organization and its expectations (Ashforth & Rogers 2012). Indeed,
Pratt (2000, pp. 469–70) describes how Amway utilizes “positive programming,” where distrib-
utors are encouraged to form strong mentor-protégé relationships with senior colleagues and to
distance themselves from family and friends who do not buy the distributor’s products or who
otherwise “steal your dreams.” Second, during critical events and changes, managers typically
provide interpretations, whether proactively or retroactively, to help shape the meaning that or-
ganizational members construct. In a study of a university president instigating strategic change,
Gioia & Chittipeddi (1991) depict how university members and external constituents attended the
president’s speeches and watched his actions as they made sense of the change. That said, even
during more quiescent times, individuals often receive a steady stream of communications, feed-
back, work-related experiences, and decisions that reinforce and nudge their social constructions.
Indeed, huge literatures have emerged on the role of discourse (e.g., Ainsworth & Hardy 2004)
and normative control (e.g., Fleming & Sturdy 2011) in the ongoing construction of individuals’
organization-based identities.
Scholars adopting a critical orientation take a decidedly negative view of sensebreaking/
sensegiving, focusing on (a) how organizations utilize their power to impose sanctioned identities
on individuals (including managers)—a process often termed identity regulation—and (b) how
individuals experience and resist this imposition—often under the rubric of identity work (Alvesson
& Willmott 2002, Collinson 2003, Thomas 2009). Identity is seen as contested terrain where the
organization’s interests and discourses are, almost by definition, antagonistic to members.
SENSEMAKING: HOW DO INDIVIDUALS CONSTRUE

THEIR IDENTITY?
A given social identity, whether attached to an occupation, team, department, or organization, etc.,
is likely to be at least somewhat institutionalized, that is, a consensually validated and even taken-
for-granted social reality that predates the newcomer. Coupled with the emphasis in sensegiving
on explicating social identities, the chore for individuals regarding social identities is largely one
of learning about the extant social reality. Conversely, individuals’ personal identities tend to be
far more inchoate initially as it is unclear how they will “be” as individuals and how they will
enact the various social identities in that context. Thus, rather than simply learning about an extant
reality, the chore regarding one’s personal identities is to construct a self that resonates with that
reality and, if relevant, lays the groundwork for evolving into a desired self. So how do individuals
interpret internal and environmental cues as they construct a situated identity?
Learning about the context and constructing a sense of self are greatly facilitated by sense-
making or how “individuals work to understand novel, unexpected, or confusing events” (Maitlis
& Christianson 2014, p. 58). Sensemaking enables individuals to endure and thrive under condi-
tions of ambiguity, equivocality, and dynamism. The process may be triggered by organizational
sensebreaking/sensegiving or simply by events that induce individuals to question what is unfold-
ing around them, prompting them to seek identity-relevant information (Pratt 2000). Greatly

abetting sensemaking, of course, is one’s previous experience and toolkit of extant and contextu-
ally diverse identities. For instance, Beyer & Hannah (2002) discovered that newcomers adjusted
better to a research organization when they could draw on a diverse set of established identities
and experiences to make sense of their new reality.
The link between sensemaking and identity construction is fairly well established (see Ashforth
et al. 2008, Maitlis & Christianson 2014). The triggers of sensemaking are often situations that
disconfirm the valued identities that individuals hold—the sensebreaking/divestiture discussed
above as well as spontaneous identity threats (Petriglieri 2011). Furthermore, Weick (1995, p. 23)
argues that sensemaking is “grounded in identity construction”; that is, “the idea that sensemaking
is self-referential suggests that the self, rather than the environment, may be the text in need of
interpretation.” Consequently, identity is often the target of sensemaking (Maitlis 2009, Pratt
2000), and sensemaking is accordingly tied to identity motives (Weick 1995). Reflecting those
motives, Ashforth et al. (2014, p. 23) propose that the following identity questions face individuals
as they engage in sensemaking:
(1) what does it mean to be a shipping agent (or whatever the job may be), particularly in this organi-
zation?; (2) what does it mean, more broadly, to be a member of this organization?; . . . (3) how do this
job and broader role resonate with how I see myself and, importantly, how I want to see myself?. [and;]
(4) how do I come to be—and be seen as—a legitimate exemplar of this desired self?
As to what a given identity “means,” Tajfel & Turner (1986, p. 16) argue that identity is “rela-
tional and comparative” in that individuals derive a situated sense of self by comparing themselves
and the groups to which they belong to other individuals and groups. As Watson (2009, p. 446)
notes, “identity work [construction] is about establishing both who one is and who one is not (in
the eyes of oneself and others).” For example, Ibarra (1999) and Gibson (2003) describe how a mix
of positive and negative role models helped consultants and investment bankers define who they
did and did not want to be. And Jorgenson (2002, p. 366) notes how female engineers, sensitive
to the male-dominated ethos of their profession, contrasted themselves with other female engi-
neers “who are easily ‘offended,’ who are ‘chit-chatty,’ and who ‘paint their nails.’” Individuals, in
short, make sense of their identities not only via what they resonate with (attraction to a desired
self ) but also as a reaction against what they find repugnant (avoidance of a feared self ). And, as
Ibarra’s and Gibson’s studies show, attraction and repulsion may be felt toward the same referent.
Thus, just as Lewin (1951) famously argued that seemingly stable states are actually equilibria
held in rough suspension between opposing forces, so, too, can identity be thought of as an equi-
librium resulting from making sense of attraction to and repulsion from one or more referents.
The identity-as-equilibrium notion highlights the dynamic nature of identity; the opposing forces
may shift at any time, strengthening or weakening that sense of self. For example, as the saga of
disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong demonstrates (Macur 2014), learning that one’s role model
achieved success through cheating may tip the balance of attraction and repulsion such that one
no longer identifies with him or her and questions what was internalized.
Sensemaking and Time

The search for what an identity means and whether it resonates with oneself is itself dynamic. Ini-
tially, when individuals have a relatively shallow understanding of the context and their place within
it, the motives for uncertainty reduction, need for identification, self-knowledge, and belonging
are likely to be strong. Individuals are inclined to search for cues about how things work and what is
expected (Kramer 2010, Morrison 1993), and, as discussed below in the Social Validation section,

how well they appear to be “getting it.” However, given the motive for self-enhancement, sense-
making is likely to be somewhat biased toward a favorable reading of the situation and one’s place
within it. As a situated identity begins to emerge, the motives for self-coherence, self-continuity,
self-expression, self-presentation, and self-verification become increasingly important with indi-
viduals seeking to consolidate and confirm their incipient understanding. That said, depending on
the vicissitudes of organizational life, one or more motives may momentarily flair to prominence.
Kreiner et al. (2006), for instance, suggest that the salience of optimal distinctiveness depends on
fluctuations in pressures for inclusion and exclusion.
Although sensemaking is usually conceived as a retrospective process (Weick 1995), recent
work suggests that it might also be prospective (Maitlis & Christianson 2014). For example,
the literatures on socialization and job crafting imply that, as individuals grapple with a situated
identity, they may proactively seek information and craft their tasks, roles, and relationships to
better conform to their desired self (Kira & Balkin 2014, Wrzesniewski & Dutton 2001). Blåka
& Filstad (2007) describe how new real estate agents and midwives asked questions and forged
relationships with their peers to help learn about their roles and tailor them to their preferences.
Finally, although sensemaking facilitates identity construction, the process is recursive; a bud-
ding identity shapes sensemaking. Weick (1995, p. 23) argues that people “[project their iden-
tities] onto an environment and observ[e] the consequences.” This is more than a search for
self-verification. It means that one’s identity strongly shapes the way one perceives a situation and
acts, influencing the environment by virtue of enacting one’s interpretation of it and one’s place
within it. Thus, sensemaking processes may become self-fulfilling, as preconceptions of self and
the context with which it is connected are likely confirmed by the environment the individual had
a hand in shaping.
ENACTING IDENTITY: HOW DO FEELING, BEHAVING,

AND THINKING FACILITATE IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION?
Individuals can feel (i.e., I like and value this identity), behave (i.e., I “do” this identity), and/or
think (i.e., I “am” this identity) their way into constructing their identity; that is, affect, behavior,
or cognition (making up the ABC model; Ashforth 2001, pp. 209–15) can each serve as a first
mover in the search for self-definition. Affect serves as a gauge for whether an identity truly
resonates (e.g., Cascón-Pereira & Hallier 2012). First, feeling positive emotions about the identity
signals a promising fit, encouraging one to “follow their heart” (Harquail 1998, p. 227) and
internalize the identity as a (partial) definition of self. For example, Kessler & Hollbach (2005)
asked individuals to recall a situation where they felt happy with their ingroup (East Germans) or
felt angry with their outgroup (West Germans). Both recollections increased identification with
the ingroup. Conversely, recalling a situation where they felt angry with their ingroup or happy
with their outgroup reduced identification. In organizations, newcomers are often hired with no
direct behavioral experience in the occupation or industry, and thus rely on how they feel (and
think) about the prospect. Second, most identities are associated with a certain affective profile,
that is, a set of emotions that one is expected to experience with some frequency and intensity while
enacting the identity (Heise 1977). An athlete is expected to experience fiery competitiveness, a
nurse is expected to feel warmth and empathy toward her patients, and a salesperson is expected
to be animated by thoughts of closing a deal. Actually experiencing the expected emotions thus
affirms that one fits with the identity, encouraging internalization.
Behavior, although not as central to conceptualizations of identity as cognition and affect
(Ashforth et al. 2008), is an alternative route to self-definition. Following self-perception theory
(Bem 1972), individuals often make inferences about themselves—much as does any observer—by

monitoring what they are (voluntarily) doing. As Weick (1979, p. 5) famously stated, “How can I
know what I think until I see what I say?” Put differently, “How can I know who I am until I see
what I do?” Given the motive for self-enhancement, individuals tend to gravitate toward interests
and identities that they can effectively enact (Vignoles et al. 2006). Thus, the more individuals
are able to display the prototypical behaviors associated with an identity, the more likely they
are to internalize that identity as a legitimate definition of self. In organizations, of course, an
individual is hired to enact certain identities, particularly his or her job, and thus is motivated
to be reasonably proficient at doing so. Contexts, however, vary greatly in how much discretion
they allow individuals in enacting an identity (Meyer et al. 2010), and individuals vary in how
much discretion they desire (Ashford & Black 1996). Generally, the greater the discretion allowed
and utilized, the better able are individuals to craft their work-based identities to match their
preferences (Brown 2015, Wrzesniewski & Dutton 2001). Conversely, Pratt et al. (2006) studied
medical residents and found that, despite the ostensible power of physicians, their diminished
physicians-in-training status undermined their discretion and induced them to tailor their medical
identities to the work at hand rather than the reverse.
Finally, cognition is the sine qua non of identity, as various models consider identity to be a
state of mind; i.e., “I think I am, therefore I am” [e.g., Mead’s (1934) symbolic interactionism;
Tajfel & Turner’s (1986) social identity theory]. Specifically, unless one considers oneself, at a
reasonably visceral level, to be a member of a collective or exemplar of a personal identity then the
identity cannot take root and truly stick.3 The role of cognition (and affect) is particularly clear
in the case of possible selves where individuals think about and yearn to embrace (desired self ) or
avoid (feared self ) certain identities that they cannot yet experience.
Interactions Between Affect, Behavior, and Cognition

Although affect, behavior, or cognition can each serve as a first mover, the three are densely in-
tertwined, and identity construction tends to implicate all three (Harquail 1998). Regarding affect
and cognition, the motive for self-expression encourages individuals to enact identities they psy-
chologically embrace. Regarding behavior, “doing” the identity engages one phenomenologically
such that one thinks about and affectively experiences the identity (Brickson 2015, Pratt 2012).
Through acting, a thin, intellectual understanding soon becomes a thicker, visceral understanding.
Assuming a reasonably rewarding experience, “doing” thus facilitates “being.”
The interaction of affect, behavior, and cognition is clearly illustrated in Ibarra’s (1999, p. 764)
study of “provisional selves.” Ibarra describes how neophyte consultants and investment bankers,
as with many newcomers, were required to appear competent (behavior) in a desirable role (affect)
long before they thought of themselves (cognition) as competent. They observed and contrasted
role models to discern what behaviors facilitated credible role performance, weighing which behav-
iors resonated with how they saw themselves and desired to see themselves (affect and cognition),
and that they could reasonably emulate or modify (behavior). The newcomers then experimented
with their provisional selves by imitating their chosen role models, assessing their comfort with
how they enacted their roles, evaluating the explicit and implicit feedback received and, finally,
modifying their behavior and sense of who they actually were in the role.
3
It is conceivable, however, that an identity may remain nonconscious, particularly if it is threatening to one’s other identities.
For example, one may repress awareness of an identity that others are likely to regard as undesirable (e.g., a person may repress
thoughts of being an overbearing boss).

Inferences of “I like and value this” (affect), “I can do this” (behavior), and “this is me” (cog-
nition) are far more likely if there are clear physical markers, normative behaviors, milestones,
tests, performance indicators, and rituals of inclusion to denote effective adoption of the identity
(Ashforth 2001, Van Maanen 2010). For example, Loseke & Cahill (1986) describe how stu-
dent social workers had difficulty thinking of themselves as social workers because the identity
itself—and therefore, the requisite behavior—was ill-defined by their occupational community,
there was no distinctive dress code or occupational argot, and they were provided few evaluations
of their competence. Conversely, Curran (1996) describes how, despite similarities between jazz
drumming and rock drumming, the two genres are associated with different equipment, institu-
tionalized drumming styles, hairstyles, and attire in order to socially construct uniqueness for each
identity. Thus, in enacting their chosen genre, “drummers experience categorization by [genre]
as ‘Truth’—as if no other way of categorizing could exist” (p. 45).
IDENTITY NARRATIVES: HOW DO INDIVIDUALS

“EXPLAIN” THEMSELVES?
Organizational life is messy, with political battles, paradoxes, ambiguity, complexity, and change.
Thus, with little prompting, individuals can relate experiences that illustrate highs and lows,
moments of cleverness alongside moments of stupidity, instances of doubt and of certainty, and
events that prompt deep emotional engagement on the heels of those that prompt detachment.
Accordingly, some critical theorists conclude that “identities are not merely unstable, but fluid
compositions of subject positions which lack a ‘core’ cohering narrative able to orient, reassure
and support people” (Clarke et al. 2009, p. 341; Ybema et al. 2009).
And, yet, individuals are typically able to step back from the turbulence of daily affairs and offer
relatively coherent narratives, that is, “accounts of events in the world which are organized in a
time-related sequence” (Watson 2009, p. 429). These narratives, albeit highly selective and often
self-serving, make sense of the messiness in a manner that resonates with prevailing discourses
(e.g., managers should be rational and professional) and the demands of the context, as well as
with one’s identity motives, desired selves, and emergent affect, behavior, and cognition. Why is
this so? It is because narrating is not a process of passively reporting every experience; it is an
active and motivated process of abstracting from day-to-day events to make sense of oneself in
the local context in a manner consistent with salient identity motives. Narratives help confer a
sense of order, emphasizing desirable plotlines and de-emphasizing missteps [unless, as in “before-
and-after plots” (Ibarra & Barbulescu 2010, p. 141), the missteps are part of the story itself, as
when an entrepreneur ultimately finds her personal path]. Indeed, the self-reflection prompted by
narration tends to crystallize one’s identity such that the identity-consistent behaviors highlighted
by the narrative facilitate identity-consistent behaviors in the future.
Shipp & Jansen (2011, p. 77) argue that narratives often begin “in the middle” as one attempts
to make sense of the present by casting the past as a series of stepping stones (flashbacks) and
extrapolating the present into a hoped-for future (flashforwards). As such, narratives are simulta-
neously retrospective and prospective and are crafted primarily to address the identity motives of
self-continuity, self-expression, self-verification, and self-enhancement (regarding improvement
or growth over time). Because of their prospective nature, narratives may be used in conjunction
with possible selves to further explore identities (“Can I really be this?”), suggesting insights that
may shape one’s future enactments and sense of self (McLean & Pasupathi 2012). As Ibarra &
Barbulescu (2010, p. 150) put it, “narrating the self changes the self.” Additionally, just as desired
selves often have an inspirational quality, so, too, do the identity narratives that instantiate them.
For example, managers in a biotech R&D firm described themselves as visionary and strategic

leaders even though their mundane reality involved narrow administrative and operational issues
(Alvesson & Sveningsson 2003).
As with possible selves, narratives range from short term (“I’m studying to get my MBA”) to
long term (“I’d like to be a CEO someday”), with each recursively shaping the other. The longer
the term, the more narratives implicate career identity, defined as “one’s self-definition in the
career context, describing ‘who I am’ or ‘who I want to be’” (Fugate et al. 2004, p. 17). Traditional
career identity narratives tend to emphasize “stable, linear progression within a hierarchy or
profession, whereas the new career discourse constitutes careers as entrepreneurial, self-directed
and continuous” (LaPointe 2010, p. 3). This shift expands the range of socially acceptable options,
including “stretch narratives” that may appear incongruous and even fanciful given one’s current
occupation.
Organizations and occupations often facilitate narration by providing not only opportunities
to share narratives but prototypical narratives tied to the organization’s identity and one’s current
role and expected career trajectory. Not surprisingly, such narratives often serve the cause of
the organization/occupation. Linde (2009, p. 83) found that employees of an insurance company
couched their narratives within the context of valued stories of the company’s history, showcasing
the “everyday heroism” of members and thereby pronouncing and cementing their identification
with their employer. Schweingruber & Berns (2005) describe how a company that sells books door
to door propounded the narrative that selling makes dealers better people, building character and
work habits that enable them to thrive in the face of adversity. Dealers were encouraged to develop
more personalized narratives (e.g., if their family was supportive, dedicate the summer to them; if
unsupportive, prove them wrong), and negative narratives such as complaints were reinterpreted
by managers to reflect positive themes (e.g., mastering adversity).
Narratives are typically anchored to memorable events, such as those that open doors (e.g.,
being hired by a desirable employer), spur key decisions and alterations in one’s trajectory (e.g.,
accepting an international transfer), mark progress and acceptance (e.g., receiving a promotion),
and reveal personal wants and attributes (e.g., handling a setback). Events, in short, serve as “high
points, low points, and turning points” in narratives (Shipp & Jansen 2011, p. 81). Although
narratives often emphasize big occurrences, they may also be predicated on small events that
foster momentum in one’s trajectory (e.g., continually meeting performance goals), nudge the
direction of the story (e.g., becoming an interim manager), or serve as tipping points for radical
changes in direction (e.g., a series of small grievances leading to quitting). Because narratives often
begin in the middle, events may be recast as the plotlines evolve. For instance, being fired may
trigger a narrative of loser until a successful career change causes one to reinterpret the event as
a needed spur for soul searching.
Narratives, of course, are crafted not only for internal consumption but also for external con-
sumption (Ainsworth & Hardy 2004). Individuals are often expected to account for themselves
during job interviews, career counseling, neighborhood parties (“What do you do?”), etc. Such
occasions tend to make individuals’ temporal trajectories more salient and help crystallize their
interpretations of those trajectories. When expressed to others, narratives are apt to hew more
closely to socially desirable archetypes and discourses regarding careers and career trajectories
(e.g., “I’m planning on starting my own business”), thereby implicating the self-presentation mo-
tive. Thus, externally espoused narratives can be regarded as identity claims that the individual
hopes will be honored by the audience (DeRue & Ashford 2010). Not surprisingly, narratives
must be reasonably plausible to receive validation from others, the topic we turn to text. Ibarra &
Barbulescu (2010) argue that narratives with coherent plots (i.e., disparate events knit into a com-
pelling storyline) and that reflect the agency of the narrator and socially desirable archetypes are
more likely to earn validation. Additionally, just as individuals may experiment with provisional

selves, so, too, may they experiment with provisional narratives, searching for a storyline that
resonates with both their audiences and evolving sense of self. As such, narratives are negotiated
anew with each audience.
SOCIAL VALIDATION: HOW DO THE CONSTRUCTED

IDENTITIES TAKE ROOT?
We noted that individuals are motivated to present a positive self to influence how others see
them in the hopes of attaining social validation of their claim to being (or becoming) a bona
fide exemplar of the identity in question (DeRue & Ashford 2010). Most important for identity
construction purposes, individuals come to see themselves much as others do, as suggested by the
venerable concept of reflected appraisal (Mead 1934, Sullivan 1947; see Wallace & Tice 2012 for
a review). In short, others’ perceptions affect self-perceptions. The result ranges from a virtuous
circle where iterations of enactment and social validation lead to greater internalization of the
identity (i.e., to the identity taking root), to a vicious circle where social validation is denied and
enactments whither.
Social validation is predicated on the extent to which individuals provide observable indicators
that they are (or are becoming) exemplars of the identity. Such indicators include behaviors (e.g.,
task-related activities, conformity to identity-related values, beliefs, and norms), performance
outcomes [e.g., output, job crafting (if desired)], and identity markers (e.g., attire, workspace arti-
facts) (Ashforth 2001). Elsbach (2004), for instance, describes how employees inferred coworkers’
workplace identities from such office décor as their furniture, photos, and conversation pieces.
As the copious literature on feedback seeking suggests (Anseel et al. 2015, Ashford et al. 2003,
Ashford & Cummings 1983), individuals are very likely to look to others for cues about how well
they are enacting a claimed identity. Cues can be explicit or implicit, intended or unintended,
direct or indirect, and large or small (Ashforth 2001, Smith et al. 2013). Examples include encour-
agement and other rewards (or punishments), task feedback, changes in responsibility, inclusion
in or exclusion from social activities, etc. Additionally, individuals may derive cues from social
comparison, where one’s identity fit is measured against the apparent fit attained by others. For
example, Thornborrow & Brown (2009) describe paratroopers’ use of ongoing social comparisons
with their peers to reassure themselves of their worthiness in the role.
Social validation is most prized when it comes from others whose opinion is valued. It
seems likely that the more an individual is of high status and is task interdependent, has re-
ward/punishment power, and is knowledgeable about the identity and one’s enactment of it, the
more valued his or her opinion will be. As noted under “Sensegiving,” just as great stock is placed
in information provided by managers and peers, so, too, are managers and peers (along with key
clients, if relevant) prized audience members for validation. Hatmaker (2013, p. 392) describes
how female engineers were marginalized by their male colleagues but came to feel validated when
those colleagues sought them out for advice and, in the words of one female engineer, “were ac-
tually interacting with me as a person.” Conversely, Darr & Scarselletta (2002, p. 68) discuss how
medical technicians were denied respect by their physician clients, who saw them as “glorified
button pushers,” making it difficult to sustain a self-image of being a fellow professional. Fur-
thermore, validation from one valued source tends to reassure others, enhancing the legitimacy
of an identity claim. In a study of consultants, Reid (2015, p. 1010) found that being “labeled a
star performer by particular, high-status audiences seemed to create a powerful halo effect, such
that other audiences also assumed the person was a star.” Not surprisingly, then, Smith et al.
(2013) found that change in social validation from one’s leader correlated at 0.64 with change in
validation from one’s peers.

Identity Negotiation
Because social validation (in conjunction with the motives for self-knowledge, self-presentation,
and self-verification) implicates an audience, it involves negotiation with others, much as identity
narratives were argued to. Identity negotiation (McCall & Simmons 1978, Swann et al. 2009) is an
iterative process where the individual endeavors to come to a perceived consensual understanding
of his or her identity with those whose opinion is valued. The individual tends to seek identity-
confirming opportunities (e.g., lobbying to join a project that plays to one’s strengths), enact the
claimed identity by displaying the indicators noted above, and provide subtle and not-so-subtle
statements about the legitimacy of the identity claim (DeRue & Ashford 2010, Swann et al. 2009).
If the claim does not receive social validation, the individual has various options (assuming that
the feedback is perceived accurately): (a) modifying the claim to be more in accord with others’
perceptions, (b) striving harder to present a persuasive claim (e.g., redoubling efforts to display
positive indicators), (c) abandoning the claim and presenting an alternative (e.g., emphasizing one’s
social skills rather than technical skills), (d ) seeking validation from a secondary audience (e.g.,
abandoning attempts to impress senior coworkers and pursuing validation from junior cowork-
ers), or (e) tolerating the discrepancy between claim and denial (DeRue et al. 2009, Swann et al.
2009). Depending on how the negotiation unfolds, further feedback may be elicited, leading to
additional iterations of the process until at least a rough perceived consensus is reached—whether
the validated identity is construed positively or negatively.
However, identity negotiation is typically not cut and dried. Because the standards for assessing
prototypicality are frequently ambiguous (if not dynamic), one’s enactment may be equivocal, and
interpersonal communication is often fraught with misreadings. Given the prevalence of self-
serving biases (Shepperd et al. 2008), this ambiguity, equivocality, and misreading provide scope
for individuals to infer more validation than was intended by their audience. Indeed, it is precisely
because of such biases that individuals who are most in need of corrective feedback are often the
least receptive to it.
Social Validation of Movement Toward Desired Selves and Away

from Feared Selves
Although the literature is fairly clear about how validation works when there is diagnostic evidence
regarding a realized self, it provides mixed signals when there is little tangible evidence regarding
possible selves, that is, movement toward a desired self or away from a feared self. As noted, on
one hand, the literatures on self-enhancement and self-presentation indicate that individuals want
others to think well of them, so much so that they often engage in impression management to
convince others that they are better than they actually are (Meister et al. 2014); on the other hand,
the literature on self-verification indicates that individuals want others to view them as they view
themselves, so much so that they are uncomfortable when others view them as better than they
actually are (Swann et al. 2003).
So what are we to conclude regarding social validation where there is little tangible evidence?
Swann et al. (2009) suggest that individuals may be willing to at least temporarily suspend self-
verification for practical or political reasons (e.g., an interviewee strives to come across as more
polished than she feels). This suspension helps individuals focus instead on their potential to become
the desired self (or avoid the feared self ), thereby aligning self-verification with self-enhancement
and self-presentation. That is, individuals who feel efficacious about becoming their desired self
(and avoiding their feared self ) will engage in self-verification of their goal and their progress toward
it—and if social validation is received, they will experience self-enhancement and an affirmed self-
presentation. The catch, of course, is that it is often difficult to feel efficacious about a possible

self. The more an identity is associated with complex knowledge, skills, and abilities, and a dense
system of values, beliefs, and norms, the more newcomers may legitimately question their ability
to ever proficiently realize the identity. It is quite likely, then, that doctoral programs, seminar-
ies, medical schools, etc., have a disproportionate number of individuals who feel like imposters
(Topping & Kimmel 1985), desiring an identity that they believe may prove elusive. In such
cases, social validation may arouse dissonance [“I want to believe this positive feedback (desire for
self-enhancement), but I’m having a hard time doing so (desire for self-verification)”].
OUTCOMES: WHY DOES IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION MATTER?

The upshot of the identity construction process, when successful, is that individuals develop a sense
of who they are in their local contexts. The result of this validated, situated identity is that it meets,
at least in the moment, some combination of salient identity motives. Not surprisingly, research
clearly indicates that a secure sense of self and identification with various workplace collectives
is positively associated with workplace adjustment (e.g., Haslam & Ellemers 2005, Lee et al.
2015).4 Indeed, because identity is foundational to an individual’s experience of the workplace,

identification has been empirically associated with all manners of desirable phenomena, from
justice perceptions to effective leadership.5 Ashforth et al. (2008, p. 338) dub this trend “the rise
of the ampersand,” as in identification & justice perceptions, identification & leadership, etc.
The most proximal process to the outcomes, as depicted in Figure 1, is social validation.
Although research here is sparser, it is suggestive. In a literature review, Swann et al. (2009,
p. 91) report that “successfully negotiated situated identities” at work are associated with task
performance, commitment to team and organization, and lower withdrawal and turnover, and
speculate based on related research that they are also associated with relationship quality, perceived
organizational fairness, and health and well-being. Furthermore, Milton & Westphal (2005) found
in a study of emergency response groups and construction groups that individuals cooperated more
with group members who socially validated their identities than with those who did not. Similarly,
Farmer & Van Dyne (2010) found that an identity of being an industrious worker was only
associated with industrious behavior if individuals thought that coworkers saw them as industrious
workers, and an identity of being a helpful coworker and thinking that coworkers saw them that
way were additively (rather than interactively) associated with helping behavior. The successful
construction of a situated identity is, then, important for the functioning of both the individual
and organization.
Doubling Back: Feedback Loops

As Burke (1991, p. 841) notes, however, “an identity process is a continuously operating, self-
adjusting, feedback loop.” Although Figure 1 largely models identity construction as linear, in
reality individuals construct their sense of self iteratively. A prime example is the loop at the
center of our model representing the dynamic interplay between sensemaking, enacting identity,
constructing identity narratives, and socially validating the results. In addition to this center circle
4
We recognize, however, that there is a potential dark side to identification, as individuals can overidentify, allowing other
identities to be overshadowed (Dukerich et al. 1998). The cost is one’s independence and the well-rounded character that
comes from instantiating multiple personal and social identities in a given domain.
5
Although identification is usually treated as either an independent or dependent variable, we suspect that many associ-
ations with identification are actually recursive as positive conditions/attitudes foster identification, which reinforces the
conditions/attitudes.

of recursiveness, we see two particularly strong feedback loops, both of which bring the identity
construction process back to the motives themselves. In this way, identity motives are the gauge
by which individuals strive to construct and maintain their identity. Following Burke (1991), just
as a thermostat set to 75◦ F will cue a heater when it senses the air is 70◦ F, an unfulfilled and salient
identity motive sets the search for self-definition in motion (see, also, adaptive self-regulation;
Tsui & Ashford 1994).
The first feedback loop is between the circle at the center of the model just described and
the motives. As individuals iterate through the identity construction process, they assess if their
emerging sense of self meets the salient identity motive(s) (Brickson 2013). If not, individuals may
change affect, behavior, and/or cognition and, if that fails, experience distress, prompting a search
to satisfy the need (Burke 1991, Pratt 2000). For example, Wilson & Deaney (2010) describe how
an individual became a teacher because her previous job was not perceived as meaningful, but exited
teaching after only one term because she did not feel she could enact the role proficiently and thus
no longer experienced the identity positively. The second loop bridges the outcomes of the identity
construction process to the identity motives. Although individuals construct their identity in ways
that are intended to meet the salient motives presented in Table 1, motives cannot be permanently
satiated. Rather, the motives become less salient to the extent that individuals construct an ongoing
sense of self that currently satisfies them. Adding complexity, because individuals strive to become
exemplars of a desired self, the identity motive “thermostat” is subject to change, as the standards
for satiating any particular motive may shift. For instance, in a study of self-construal growth, an
employee described how he continually asked his boss for tasks “just to try to learn something
new” (Sonenshein et al. 2013, p. 559).
DISCUSSION
Individuals in organizations need a situated identity to guide their actions. Not surprisingly, or-
ganizations have a vested interest in this identity construction, and may engage in sensebreaking
to disabuse individuals of ways of being that are thought to impede adjustment, and in sensegiv-
ing to influence how individuals come to understand the organization and their place within it.
For their part, individuals engage in sensemaking to construe who they are or “should be” be-
coming, enacting their incipient identity and formulating a narrative that connects their past and
present to a desired future. Individuals may follow their heart (affect), hands (behavior), or head
(cognition) into internalizing the identity. Assuming that their initial enactments and narrative
receive feedback and social validation from colleagues and others, individuals come to feel more
comfortable, emboldening further enactments. The outcome is a situated and validated sense of
self that resonates at a visceral level, facilitating workplace adjustment. Table 2 provides practical
implications for individuals and managers that stem from our analysis.
Future Research
This identity construction process suggests many avenues for future research. We highlight three.
First, the model is predicated largely on qualitative studies with an interpretivist orientation
(Alvesson et al. 2008), a method that is very effective at surfacing dynamic processes. The state
of our knowledge has progressed to the point where the dynamics are increasingly amenable
to a more functionalist orientation, where quantitative methods are used to assess hypothesized
relationships among variables. Indeed, our reading of the vast literature suggests that many
qualitative studies simply echo the findings of earlier interpretivist work, harkening back to the
Chicago School of Sociology (Barley 1989), whereas rigorous tests of arguments are in short

Table 2 Practical implications for individuals and managers

Individuals (vis-à-vis their own identity
Focus construction) Managers (vis-à-vis their subordinates)
Identity motives Recognize one’s diverse identity motives and how Recognize the diverse identity motives that
each contributes to a richer self, and resist letting individuals hold, and underscore during recruitment
one or two dominate the others (particularly if and socialization how the organization will help
the organization trumpets only one or two). individuals address those motives.
Make one’s possible selves explicit rather than Although organizations seldom promise a long-term
implicit, thereby encouraging more proactive and career, managers can help subordinates see how
deliberate identity construction. their current position is a developmental stepping
stone toward a longer-term desired self.
Sensebreaking Although sensebreaking is often disturbing, Rather than practice blanket divestiture (which can
recognize that it is actually designed to facilitate undermine important personal identities), restrict
adjustment. Similarly, reframe the sense of free sensebreaking to attributes that are likely to actually
falling—or liminality—that accompanies impede adjustment to the organization, local
sensebreaking as liberating in that it frees one to context, or role.
explore other possible identities. It is easy for organizations to overdo sensebreaking

Divestiture is most likely to be utilized on and alienate members. Remain mindful that the
cohorts of newcomers. Draw social support from objective is to encourage individuals to learn (or
others who are “in the same boat.” relearn) not to actually break them.
Sensegiving Attend to diverse potential role models to gain a Recognize that sensegiving is most essential during
richer set of possibilities for emulation. newcomer onboarding and critical events and
It is easy to overadapt to local ways of thinking, changes but should be periodically reaffirmed
feeling, and doing. Thus, be wary of sensegiving during quiescent periods as well.
that is organization- or context-specific, as it may Rather than focus exclusively on social identities
render one less able and willing to work in other (e.g., organization, role), encourage individuals to
contexts. reflect on, express, and utilize their personal
identities within the context of their social identities.
Sensemaking Because possible selves include both desired Provide a psychologically safe context within which
selves to approach and feared selves to avoid, individuals can make sense of who they are and how
attend to both positive and negative role models. their subsequent identity enactments and narratives
The latter, in clarifying who one does not want to are resonating.
be, help crystallize identity choices. Sensemaking requires psychological investment from
Proactively seek feedback on identity enactment the individual. Provide latitude for individuals to
and identity narratives. make sense of who they are on their own terms and
timeline.
Identity Recognize that one may have to enact an identity Because affect, behavior, or cognition can serve as a
enactment long before feeling comfortable doing so. gateway to identification, provide developmental
However, because affect, behavior, and/or opportunities for individuals to feel positively like an
cognition can facilitate identification, such X, behave effectively like an X, and think like an X.
incipient enactments lay the groundwork for a To signify and stabilize progress toward a situated
strong, situated identity. identity, provide physical markers, milestones,
It is easy to overthink how well one is adjusting to performance indicators, rituals of inclusion, etc.
a new role or milieu. Pay attention to gut feelings
of how well the emergent identity is resonating
with oneself.
(Continued )

Table 2 (Continued )
Individuals (vis-à-vis their own identity
Focus construction) Managers (vis-à-vis their subordinates)
Identity Because narratives involve making sense of the Highlight events that underscore positive personal
narratives past and present as a springboard for the future, development and progress toward goals, and that
create moments for personal and public reflection symbolize growing identification. If individuals are
on one’s history and possible selves—both for the trapped in self-defeating narratives (e.g., victim,
short term and the long term. dead-end career), encourage them to reframe the
Because the meaning of past events can be recast meaning derived from experiences to help foster
as present circumstances warrant, recognize that confidence and momentum.
negative events that prompt unwanted turns in Provide opportunities for individuals to publicly
narratives are not set in stone. Indeed, even reflect on their experiences as a means of fostering
traumatic events may be experienced in hindsight communal identity narratives.
as positive turning points.
Social validation Seek validation from individuals who can be Recognize that a subordinate needs social
trusted to provide constructive feedback and are validation—particularly from their manager—for an
knowledgeable about the role, context, and one’s identity to “stick” and to provide ongoing validation
enactment of the relevant identity. as the identity is progressively assumed.
Regarding social comparison, focus on attainable Although nascent identities require ongoing
higher status peers or managers for purposes of validation, providing periodic (rather than ongoing)
inspiration (a desired self ), and focus on lower social validation of established identities helps to
status peers for purposes of affirmation (via keep identity enactment viable.
seeing how well one has progressed).
supply. And those functionalist studies that do test arguments have keyed on identification as a state
rather than a process, emphasizing static situational predictors and adjustment-related outcomes.
We thus see tremendous potential for future functionalist studies to examine part or all of the
identification process, including identity motives, organizational sensebreaking and sensegiving,
individual sensemaking and identity enactment, identity narratives, and social validation.
Second, our articulation of the model emphasized successful identity construction, begging the
question of how the process might go awry. This is critical because ineffective identity construction
is likely more than just the reverse of effective identity construction; it may have its own etiology,
with particular events, obstacles, and spirals that are not encountered when construction runs
smoothly. For example, how might a lopsided mix of identity motives impair construction, as
when particularly powerful motives for self-verification, self-expression, or self-continuity are
interpreted by one’s audience as insecurity, narcissism, and inflexibility, respectively, thereby
undermining social validation? How might conflicts between an emergent work-based identity
and other, extant identities derail construction, as when an occupational identity is misaligned
with a desired self (Kira & Balkin 2014)? What processes foster “identity gone wrong,” such as
overidentification (Dukerich et al. 1998), where a work-based identity drowns out other selves, and
identity foreclosure (Marcia 1966), where one prematurely accepts an ill-fitting or inappropriate
identity?
Third, although we have indicated that identity construction is strongly affected by the con-
text, we have not fleshed out what comprises context ( Johns 2006). Because individuals tend to
construct identities that resonate with their cultural context (Lee et al. 2015, Molinsky 2007), na-
tional culture provides one promising example. How might the identity construction process play
out differently cross culturally? We draw on Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions, speculating
on how construction may be shaped by three dimensions in particular. First, research indicates

that individuals construct their identity differently according to individualism/collectivism. For

instance, in a study spanning 18 nations and three regions, Becker et al. (2012) found that people
in individualistic cultures tend to address the motive for distinctiveness by highlighting personal
identities such as abilities and appearance, whereas those in collectivistic cultures do so by high-
lighting social position. Furthermore, we speculate that organizational members in collectivistic
cultures may be more likely to seek validation from those acting on behalf of the organization
rather than on their own accord (Brickson 2015). Second, we posit that individuals from higher
power distance cultures—where “the less powerful members of . . . organizations . . . expect and
accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede 2001, p. 98)—are more apt to take organi-
zational sensebreaking and sensegiving at face value (because it is likely perceived to come from a
higher power in the organization) and be more guarded and conservative in enacting their iden-
tities and formulating idiosyncratic identity narratives (because they are likely wary of upsetting
powerholders). Similarly, individuals from such cultures may put much greater stock in social
validation from their managers than from their peers. Third, it seems probable that individuals
from cultures with a long-term orientation—where more importance is attached to the future and
less to tradition—will invest greater time and energy in assessing their identity aptitudes (e.g.,
occupational preferences), planning and implementing their identity construction (e.g., gaining
needed credentials through night school), and reflecting upon their evolving identity narratives.
In such cultures, identity construction is more likely to represent a choreographed achievement.
Conversely, in short-term oriented cultures, identity construction is more likely a product of hap-
penstance, with identity narratives reflecting a less prospectively designed path. Thus, although
the fundamentals of identity construction are likely similar across cultures, future research should
unpack the potentially important culture-driven discrepancies in the specifics of the process.
In closing, there is little that is more elemental and essential to organizational life than con-
structing a situated and socially validated sense of self. Fortunately, through much interpretivist
research, the complex and dynamic process of identity construction is becoming increasingly well
understood.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Sue Ashford, Glen Kreiner, Fred Morgeson, and Kristie Rogers for their very helpful
comments.
LITERATURE CITED
Ainsworth S, Hardy C. 2004. Discourse and identities. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Discourse, ed.
D Grant, C Hardy, C Oswick, L Putnam, pp. 153–73. London: Sage
Alexander CN Jr, Wiley MG. 1981. Situated activity and identity formation. In Social Psychology: Sociological
Perspectives, ed. M Rosenberg, RH Turner, pp. 269–89. New York: Basic Books
Alvesson M, Ashcraft KL, Thomas R. 2008. Identity matters: reflections on the construction of identity
scholarship in organization studies. Organization 15(1):5–28
Alvesson M, Sveningsson S. 2003. Good visions, bad micro-management and ugly ambiguity: contradictions
of (non-)leadership in a knowledge-intensive organization. Organ. Stud. 24(6):961–88

Alvesson M, Willmott H. 2002. Identity regulation as organizational control: producing the appropriate
individual. J. Manag. Stud. 39(5):619–44
Amiot CE, de la Sablonniere R, Terry DJ, Smith JR. 2007. Integration of social identities in the self: toward
a cognitive-development model. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 11(4):364–88
Anseel F, Beatty AS, Shen W, Lievens F, Sackett PR. 2015. How are we doing after 30 years? A meta-analytic
review of the antecedents and outcomes of feedback-seeking behavior. J. Manag. 41(1):318–48
Aron A, Aron EN, Tudor M, Nelson G. 1991. Close relationships as including other in the self. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 60(2):241–53
Ashford SJ. 1989. Self-assessments in organizations: a literature review and integrative model. Res. Organ.
Behav. 11:133–74
Ashford SJ, Black JS. 1996. Proactivity during organizational entry: the role of desire for control. J. Appl.
Psychol. 81(2):199–214
Ashford SJ, Blatt R, VandeWalle D. 2003. Reflections on the looking glass: a review of research on feedback-
seeking behavior in organizations. J. Manag. 29(6):773–99
Ashford SJ, Cummings LL. 1983. Feedback as an individual resource: personal strategies of creating informa-
tion. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 32(3):370–98
Ashforth BE. 2001. Role Transitions in Organizational Life: An Identity-Based Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Ashforth BE, Harrison SH, Corley KG. 2008. Identification in organizations: an examination of four funda-
mental questions. J. Manag. 34(3):325–74
Ashforth BE, Harrison SH, Sluss DM. 2014. Becoming: the interaction of socialization and identity in or-
ganizations over time. In Time and Work, Vol. 1: How Time Impacts Individuals, ed. AJ Shipp, Y Fried,
pp. 11–39. London: Psychology Press
Ashforth BE, Rogers KM. 2012. Is the employee-organization relationship misspecified? The centrality of
tribes in experiencing the organization. In The Employee-Organization Relationship: Applications for the 21st
Century, ed. LM Shore, JAM Coyle-Shapiro, LE Tetrick, pp. 23–53. New York: Routledge
Bandura A 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall
Barley SR. 1989. Careers, identities, and institutions: the legacy of the Chicago School of Sociology. In
Handbook of Career Theory, ed. MB Arthur, DT Hall, BS Lawrence, pp. 41–65. Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Baumeister RF. 1989. Motives and costs of self-presentation in organizations. In Impression Management in the
Organization, ed. RA Giacalone, P Rosenfeld, pp. 57–71. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Baumeister RF. 1991. Meanings of Life. New York: Guilford Press
Baumeister RF, Leary MR. 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental
human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117(3):497–529
Baumeister RF, Tice DM. 1986. Four selves, two motives, and a substitute process self-regulation model. In
Public Self and Private Self, ed. RF Baumeister, pp. 63–74. New York: Springer
Becker M, Vignoles VL, Owe E, Brown R, Smith PB, et al. 2012. Culture and the distinctiveness motive:
constructing identity in individualistic and collectivistic contexts. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102(4):833–55
Beech N. 2011. Liminality and the practices of identity reconstruction. Hum. Relat. 64(2):285–302
Bem DJ. 1972. Self-perception theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 6:1–62
Beyer JM, Hannah DR. 2002. Building on the past: enacting established personal identities in a new work
setting. Organ. Sci. 13(6):636–52
Blåka G, Filstad C. 2007. How does a newcomer construct identity? A socio-cultural approach to workplace
learning. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 26(1):59–73
Brewer MB. 2012. Optimal distinctiveness theory: its history and development. In The Handbook of Theories of
Social Psychology, Vol. 2, ed. PAM Van Lange, AW Kruglanski, ET Higgins, pp. 81–98. London: Sage
Brewer MB, Gardner W. 1996. Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 71(1):83–93
Brickson S. 2000. The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes in demo-
graphically diverse settings. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25(1):82–101
Brickson SL. 2013. Athletes, best friends, and social activists: an integrative model accounting for the role of
identity in organizational identification. Organ. Sci. 24(1):226–45

Brickson SL. 2015. Organizations as internal value creators: toward a typology of value and a process model of “doing”
organizational identity. Work. Pap., Dep. Manag. Studies, Univ. Ill. Chicago
Brown AD. 2015. Identities and identity work in organizations. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 17(1):20–40
Burke PJ. 1991. Identity processes and social stress. Am. Sociol. Rev. 56(6):836–49
Cable DM, Gino F, Staats BR. 2013. Breaking them in or eliciting their best? Reframing socialization around
newcomers’ authentic self-expression. Adm. Sci. Q. 58(1):1–36
Cable DM, Kay VS. 2012. Striving for self-verification during organizational entry. Acad. Manag. J. 55(2):360–
80
Capozza D, Brown R, Aharpour S, Falvo R. 2006. A comparison of motivational theories of identification.
In Social Identities: Motivational, Emotional and Cultural Influences, ed. R Brown, D Capozza, pp. 51–72.
Hove, UK: Psychology Press
Cascón-Pereira R, Hallier J. 2012. Getting that certain feeling: the role of emotions in the meaning, construc-
tion and enactment of doctor managers’ identities. Br. J. Manag. 23(1):130–44

Caza BB, Wilson MG. 2009. Me, myself, and I: the benefits of work-identity complexity. See Roberts &
Dutton 2009, pp. 99–123
Chreim S, Williams BE, Hinings CR. 2007. Interlevel influences on the reconstruction of professional role
identity. Acad. Manag. J. 50(6):1515–39

Clarke CA, Brown AD, Hailey VH. 2009. Working identities? Antagonistic discursive resources and manage-
rial identity. Hum. Relat. 62(3):323–52
Collinson DL. 2003. Identities and insecurities: selves at work. Organization 10(3):527–47
Cooper D, Thatcher SMB. 2010. Identification in organizations: the role of self-concept orientations and
identification motives. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35(4):516–38
Curran GM. 1996. From “swinging hard” to “rocking out”: classification of style and the creation of identity
in the world of drumming. Symbolic Interact. 19(1):37–60
Darr A, Scarselletta M. 2002. Technicians, clients, and professional authority: structured interactions and
identity formation in technical work. N. Technol. Work Employ. 17(1):61–73
DeRue DS, Ashford SJ. 2010. Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity
construction in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35(4):627–47
DeRue DS, Ashford SJ, Cotton NC. 2009. Assuming the mantle: unpacking the process by which individuals
internalize a leader identity. See Roberts & Dutton 2009, pp. 217–36
Dubin R. 1992. Central Life Interests: Creative Individualism in a Complex World. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction
Dukerich JM, Kramer R, McLean Parks J. 1998. The dark side of organizational identification. See Whetten
& Godfrey 1998, pp. 245–56
Dutton JE, Roberts LM, Bednar J. 2010. Pathways for positive identity construction at work: four types of
positive identity and the building of social resources. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35(2):265–93
Elsbach KD. 2004. Interpreting workplace identities: the role of office décor. J. Organ. Behav. 25(1):99–128
Elsbach KD, Flynn FJ. 2013. Creative collaboration and the self-concept: a study of toy designers. J. Manag.
Stud. 50(4):515–44
Farmer SM, Van Dyne L. 2010. The idealized self and the situated self as predictors of employee work
behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 95(3):503–16
Fleming P, Sturdy A. 2011. “Being yourself” in the electronic sweatshop: new forms of normative control.
Hum. Relat. 64(2):177–200
Fugate M, Kinicki AJ, Ashforth BE. 2004. Employability: a psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and
applications. J. Vocat. Behav. 65(1):14–38
Gecas V. 1986. The motivational significance of self-concept for socialization theory. Adv. Group Process.
3:131–56
Gibson DE. 2003. Developing the professional self-concept: role model construals in early, middle, and late
career stages. Organ. Sci. 14(5):591–610
Gioia DA, Chittipeddi K. 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strateg. Manag.
J. 12(6):433–48
Glynn MA. 1998. Individuals’ need for organizational identification (nOID): speculations on individual dif-
ferences in the propensity to identify. See Whetten & Godfrey 1998, pp. 238–44

Greenberger DB, Strasser S. 1986. Development and application of a model of personal control in organiza-
tions. Acad. Manag. Rev. 11(1):164–77
Gubler M, Arnold J, Coombs C. 2014. Reassessing the protean career concept: empirical findings, conceptual
components, and measurement. J. Organ. Behav. 35(s1):s23–s40
Harquail CV. 1998. Organizational identification and the “whole person”: integrating affect, behavior, and
cognition. See Whetten & Godfrey 1998, pp. 223–31
Haslam SA, Ellemers N. 2005. Social identity in industrial and organizational psychology: concepts, contro-
versies and contributions. Int. Rev. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 20:39–118
Hatmaker DM. 2013. Engineering identity: gender and professional identity negotiation among women en-
gineers. Gender Work Organ. 20(4):382–96
Heise DR. 1977. Social action as the control of affect. Behav. Sci. 22(3):163–77
Hofstede G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across
Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2nd ed.
Hogg MA. 2007. Uncertainty-identity theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39(6):69–126
Hogg MA, Terry DJ. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Acad.
Manag. J. 25(1):121–40
Ibarra H. 1999. Provisional selves: experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Adm.
Sci. Q. 44(4):764–91
Ibarra H, Barbulescu R. 2010. Identity as narrative: prevalence, effectiveness, and consequences of narrative
identity work in macro work role transitions. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35(1):135–54
Johns G. 2006. The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31(2):386–408
Jorgenson J. 2002. Engineering selves: negotiating gender and identity in technical work. Manag. Commun.
Q. 15(3):350–80
Katz R. 1980. Time and work: toward an integrative perspective. Res. Organ. Behav. 2:81–127
Kessler T, Hollbach S. 2005. Group-based emotions as determinants of ingroup identification. J. Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 41(6):677–85
Kira M, Balkin DB. 2014. Interactions between work and identities: thriving, withering, or redefining the self?
Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 24(2):131–43
Kramer MW. 2010. Organizational Socialization: Joining and Leaving Organizations. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press
Kreiner GE, Hollensbe EC, Sheep ML. 2006. Where is the “me” among the “we”? Identity work and the
search for optimal balance. Acad. Manag. J. 49(5):1031–57
LaPointe K. 2010. Narrating career, positioning identity: career identity as a narrative practice. J. Vocat. Behav.
77(1):1–9
Lee ES, Park TY, Koo B. 2015. Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors:
a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 141(5):1049–80
Lewin K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, ed. D Cartwright. New York: Harper
& Brothers
Linde C. 2009. Working the Past: Narrative and Institutional Memory. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Loseke DR, Cahill SE. 1986. Actors in search of a character: student social workers’ quest for professional
identity. Symbolic Interact. 9(2):245–58
Louis MR. 1980. Surprise and sense making: what newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational
settings. Adm. Sci. Q. 25(2):226–51
Macur J. 2014. Cycle of Lies: The Fall of Lance Armstrong. New York: HarperCollins
Maitlis S. 2009. Who am I now? Sensemaking and identity in posttraumatic growth. See Roberts & Dutton
2009, pp. 47–76
Maitlis S, Christianson M. 2014. Sensemaking in organizations: taking stock and moving forward. Acad. Manag.
Ann. 8:57–125
Marcia JE. 1966. Development and validation of ego-identity status. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 3(5):551–58
Markus H, Nurius P. 1986. Possible selves. Am. Psychol. 41(9):954–69
Mayhew MG, Gardner J, Ashkanasy NM. 2010. Measuring individuals’ need for identification: scale devel-
opment and validation. Pers. Individ. Differ. 49(5):356–61

McCall GJ, Simmons JL. 1978. Identities and Interactions: An Examination of Human Associations in Everyday
Life. New York: Free Press. Rev. ed.
McLean KC, Pasupathi M. 2012. Processes of identity development: where I am and how I got there. Identity:
Int. J. Theory Res. 12(1):8–28
Mead GH. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society: From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Meister A, Jehn KA, Thatcher SMB. 2014. Feeling misidentified: the consequences of internal identity asym-
metries for individuals at work. Acad. Manag. Rev. 39(4):488–512
Meyer RD, Dalal RS, Hermida R. 2010. A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational
sciences. J. Manag. 36(1):121–40
Milton LP, Westphal JD. 2005. Identity confirmation networks and cooperation in work groups. Acad. Manag.
J. 48(2):191–212
Molinsky A. 2007. Cross-cultural code-switching: the psychological challenges of adapting behavior in foreign
cultural interactions. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32(2):622–40
Moore CD, Robinson DT. 2006. Selective identity preferences: choosing from among alternative occupational
identities. Adv. Group Process. 23:253–81
Morgeson FP, Mitchell TR, Liu D. 2015. Event system theory: an event-oriented approach to the organiza-
tional sciences. Acad. Manag. Rev. 40(4):515–37
Morrison EW. 1993. Newcomer information seeking: exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Acad.
Manag. J. 36(3):557–89
Obodaru O. 2012. The self not taken: how alternative selves develop and how they influence our professional
lives. Acad. Manag. Rev. 37(1):34–57
Park JS. 2014. After pain comes joy: identity gaps in employees’ minds. Pers. Rev. 43(3):419–37
Petriglieri JL. 2011. Under threat: responses to and the consequences of threats to individuals’ identities. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 36(4):641–62
Pilarska A. 2014. Self-construal as a mediator between identity structure and subjective well-being. Curr.
Psychol. 33(2):130–54
Pratt MG. 2000. The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: managing identification among Amway distributors.
Adm. Sci. Q. 45(3):456–93
Pratt MG. 2012. Rethinking identity construction processes in organizations: three questions to consider.
In Constructing Identity in and around Organizations, ed. M Schultz, S Maguire, A Langley, H Tsoukas,
pp. 21–49. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Pratt MG, Rockmann KW, Kaufmann JB. 2006. Constructing professional identity: the role of work and iden-
tity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Acad. Manag. J. 49(2):235–62
Ramarajan L. 2014. Past, present and future research on multiple identities: toward an intrapersonal network
approach. Acad. Manag. Ann. 8:589–659
Reid E. 2015. Embracing, passing, revealing, and the ideal worker image: how people navigate expected and
experienced professional identities. Organ. Sci. 26(4):997–1017
Roberts LM. 2005. Changing faces: professional image construction in diverse organizational settings. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 30(4):685–711
Roberts LM, Dutton JE, eds. 2009. Exploring Positive Identities and Organizations: Building a Theoretical and
Research Foundation. New York: Routledge
Roberts LM, Dutton JE, Spreitzer GM, Heaphy ED, Quinn RE. 2005. Composing the reflected best-self por-
trait: building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 30(4):712–
36
Saks AM, Gruman JA. 2012. Getting newcomers on board: a review of socialization practices and introduc-
tion to Socialization Resources Theory. In The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Socialization, ed. CR
Wanberg, pp. 27–55. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Schweingruber D, Berns N. 2005. Shaping the selves of young salespeople through emotion management.
J. Contemp. Ethnography 34(6):679–706
Shepperd J, Malone W, Sweeny K. 2008. Exploring causes of the self-serving bias. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass
2(2):895–908

Shipp AJ, Jansen KJ. 2011. Reinterpreting time in fit theory: crafting and recrafting narratives of fit in medias
res. Acad. Manag. Rev. 36(1):76–101
Smith LGE, Amiot CE, Smith JR, Callan VJ, Terry DJ. 2013. The social validation and coping model of
organizational identity development: a longitudinal test. J. Manag. 39(7):1952–78
Sonenshein S, Dutton JE, Grant AM, Spreitzer GM, Sutcliffe KM. 2013. Growing at work: employees’
interpretations of progressive self-change in organizations. Organ. Sci. 24(2):552–70
Sonnleitner TM. 1995. Yaqui voices: public schooling experiences of urban American Indian students. Bilingual
Res. J. 19(2):317–36
Strauss K, Griffin MA, Parker SK. 2012. Future work selves: how salient hoped-for identities motivate proactive
career behaviors. J. Appl. Psychol. 97(3):580–98
Sullivan HS. 1947. Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry. Washington, DC: WA White Psychiatr. Found.
Swann WB Jr. 1990. To be adored or to be known? The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification.
In Handbook of Motivation and Cognition, Vol. 2: Foundations of Social Behavior, ed. ET Higgins, RM
Sorrentino, pp. 408–48. New York: Guilford Press
Swann WB Jr, Johnson RE, Bosson JK. 2009. Identity negotiation at work. Res. Organ. Behav. 29:81–109
Swann WB Jr, Rentfrow PJ, Guinn JS. 2003. Self-verification: the search for coherence. In Handbook of Self
and Identity, ed. MR Leary, JP Tangney, pp. 367–83. New York: Guilford Press
Tajfel H, Turner JC. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Psychology of Intergroup
Relations, ed. S Worchel, WG Austin, pp. 7–24. Chicago: Nelson-Hall. 2nd ed.
Thomas R. 2009. Critical management studies on identity: mapping the terrain. In The Oxford Handbook of
Critical Management Studies, ed. M Alvesson, T Bridgman, H Willmott, pp. 166–85. Oxford, UK: Oxford
Univ. Press
Thornborrow T, Brown AD. 2009. “Being regimented”: aspiration, discipline and identity work in the British
Parachute Regiment. Organ. Stud. 30(4):355–76
Topping ME, Kimmel EB. 1985. The imposter phenomenon: feeling phony. Acad. Psychol. Bull. 7(2):213–
26
Tsui AS, Ashford SJ. 1994. Adaptive self-regulation: a process view of managerial effectiveness. J. Manag.
20(1):93–121
Turner JC. 1982. Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In Social Identity and Intergroup Relations,
ed. H Tajfel, pp. 15–40. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Turner JC. 1999. Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In Social
Identity: Context, Commitment, Content, ed. N Ellemers, R Spears, B Doosje, pp. 6–34. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell
Van Maanen J. 2010. Identity work and control in occupational communities. In Organizational Control, ed.
SB Sitkin, LB Cardinal, KM Bijlsma-Frankema, pp. 111–66. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Van Maanen J, Schein EH. 1979. Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Res. Organ. Behav. 1:209–
64
Vignoles VL. 2011. Identity motives. In Handbook of Identity Theory and Research, Vol. 1: Structures and Processes,
ed. SJ Schwartz, K Luyckx, VL Vignoles, pp. 403–32. New York: Springer
Vignoles VL, Manzi C, Regalia C, Jemmolo S, Scabini E. 2008. Identity motives underlying desired and feared
possible future selves. J. Pers. 76(5):1165–200
Vignoles VL, Regalia C, Manzi C, Golledge J, Scabini E. 2006. Beyond self-esteem: influence of multiple
motives on identity construction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90(2):308–33
Wallace HM, Tice DM. 2012. Reflected appraisal through a 21st century looking glass. In Handbook of Self
and Identity, ed MR Leary, JP Tangey, pp. 124–40. New York: Guilford Press. 2nd ed.
Watson TJ. 2009. Narrative, life story and manager identity: a case study in autobiographical identity work.
Hum. Relat. 62(3):425–52
Weick KE. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 2nd ed.
Weick KE. 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Whetten DA, Godfrey PC, eds. 1998. Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations. Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage
Wilson E, Deaney R. 2010. Changing career and changing identity: How do teacher career changers exercise
agency in identity construction? Soc. Psychol. Educ. 13(2):169–83

Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. 2001. Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 26(2):179–201
Ybema S, Keenoy T, Oswick C, Beverungen A, Ellis N, Sabelis I. 2009. Articulating identities. Hum. Relat.
62(3):299–322
Zhang Y, Liao J, Yan Y, Guo Y. 2014. Newcomers’ future work selves, perceived supervisor support, and
proactive socialization in Chinese organizations. Soc. Behav. Pers. 42(9):1457–72

OP03-FrontMatter ARI 4 March 2016 14:16
Annual Review
of Organizational
Psychology and
Organizational
Behavior
Contents Volume 3, 2016

Stumbling Toward a Social Psychology of Organizations: An

Autobiographical Look at the Direction of Organizational Research
Barry M. Staw p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Team-Centric Leadership: An Integrative Review
Steve W.J. Kozlowski, Stanton Mak, and Georgia T. Chao p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21
Mindfulness in Organizations: A Cross-Level Review
Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, Timothy J. Vogus, and Erik Dane p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p55
Themes in Expatriate and Repatriate Research over Four Decades:
What Do We Know and What Do We Still Need to Learn?
Maria Kraimer, Mark Bolino, and Brandon Mead p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p83
Identity Under Construction: How Individuals Come to Define
Themselves in Organizations
Blake E. Ashforth and Beth S. Schinoff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 111
Dyadic Relationships
Robert C. Liden, Smriti Anand, and Prajya Vidyarthi p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
Genetics and Organizational Behavior
Richard D. Arvey, Wen-Dong Li, and Nan Wang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 167
Safety Climate in Organizations
Mark A. Griffin and Matteo Curcuruto p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 191
To Seek or Not to Seek: Is That the Only Question? Recent
Developments in Feedback-Seeking Literature
Susan J. Ashford, Katleen De Stobbeleir, and Mrudula Nujella p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 213
Dynamic Modeling
Mo Wang, Le Zhou, and Zhen Zhang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 241
Learner Control and e-Learning: Taking Stock and Moving Forward
Kenneth G. Brown, Garett Howardson, and Sandra L. Fisher p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 267
vii
OP03-FrontMatter ARI 4 March 2016 14:16
Charisma: An Ill-Defined and Ill-Measured Gift

John Antonakis, Nicolas Bastardoz, Philippe Jacquart, and Boas Shamir p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293
The Nonconscious at Work
Michael G. Pratt and Eliana Crosina p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 321
How Technology Is Changing Work and Organizations
Wayne F. Cascio and Ramiro Montealegre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 349
Impression Management in Organizations: Critical Questions,
Answers, and Areas for Future Research
Mark Bolino, David Long, and William Turnley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 377
Employer Image and Employer Branding: What We Know and What

We Need to Know
Filip Lievens and Jerel E. Slaughter p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 407
The Social Context of Decisions

Richard P. Larrick p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 441
Adaptive Measurement and Assessment
Matt Barney and William P. Fisher Jr. p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 469
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/
errata/orgpsych
viii Contents

Identity Under Construction - How Individuals Come To Define Themselves in Organizations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Identity Under Construction - How Individuals Come To Define Themselves in Organizations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OP03CH05-Ashforth ARI 19 February 2016 13:59

Blake E. Ashforth and Beth S. Schinoff

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016. Keywords

IDENTITY: WHAT ARE INDIVIDUALS CONSTRUCTING AND WHAT

112 Ashforth · Schinoff

• Peripheral motives Constructing identity

Identity Construction and Possible Selves

www.annualreviews.org • Identity Construction in Organizations 113

enacted and salient to others

114 Ashforth · Schinoff

Social and Personal Identities

www.annualreviews.org • Identity Construction in Organizations 115

116 Ashforth · Schinoff

www.annualreviews.org • Identity Construction in Organizations 117

SENSEBREAKING AND SENSEGIVING: HOW DOES THE

118 Ashforth · Schinoff

SENSEMAKING: HOW DO INDIVIDUALS CONSTRUE

www.annualreviews.org • Identity Construction in Organizations 119

Sensemaking and Time

120 Ashforth · Schinoff

ENACTING IDENTITY: HOW DO FEELING, BEHAVING,

www.annualreviews.org • Identity Construction in Organizations 121

Interactions Between Affect, Behavior, and Cognition

122 Ashforth · Schinoff

as ‘Truth’—as if no other way of categorizing could exist” (p. 45).

IDENTITY NARRATIVES: HOW DO INDIVIDUALS

www.annualreviews.org • Identity Construction in Organizations 123

124 Ashforth · Schinoff

SOCIAL VALIDATION: HOW DO THE CONSTRUCTED

www.annualreviews.org • Identity Construction in Organizations 125

Social Validation of Movement Toward Desired Selves and Away

126 Ashforth · Schinoff

OUTCOMES: WHY DOES IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION MATTER?

2015).4 Indeed, because identity is foundational to an individual’s experience of the workplace,

Doubling Back: Feedback Loops

www.annualreviews.org • Identity Construction in Organizations 127

128 Ashforth · Schinoff

Table 2 Practical implications for individuals and managers

explore other possible identities. It is easy for organizations to overdo sensebreaking

www.annualreviews.org • Identity Construction in Organizations 129

130 Ashforth · Schinoff

that individuals construct their identity differently according to individualism/collectivism. For

www.annualreviews.org • Identity Construction in Organizations 131

132 Ashforth · Schinoff

tion and enactment of doctor managers’ identities. Br. J. Manag. 23(1):130–44

identity. Acad. Manag. J. 50(6):1515–39

www.annualreviews.org • Identity Construction in Organizations 133

134 Ashforth · Schinoff

www.annualreviews.org • Identity Construction in Organizations 135

136 Ashforth · Schinoff

www.annualreviews.org • Identity Construction in Organizations 137

Contents Volume 3, 2016

Stumbling Toward a Social Psychology of Organizations: An

Charisma: An Ill-Defined and Ill-Measured Gift

Employer Image and Employer Branding: What We Know and What

The Social Context of Decisions

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

You might also like