Identity Struggles in Merging Organizations

Abstract

Mergers as a type of organizational change call attention to questions of identity. In this article, the authors ask: How do people collectively reconstitute their group identities for themselves and others, and in particular, how do they renegotiate understandings of sameness and difference called into question by merging? The authors draw on qualitative case data from two different merger contexts within the health care sector to develop rich descriptions and a deeper understanding of the identity struggles of four groups of employees. They identified four patterns of identity work ranging from more proactive forms of positioning as “mavericks” or fighters” to more passive forms as “adapters” or “victims” as each group struggled to navigate an altered, fluid, and emerging landscape of potential resources for self-understanding and affiliation. The authors show how identity regulation and identity work manifest themselves in three domains of language, practices and space, and how identity regulation and identity work mutually interact. Thus, the negotiation of identity in merging is a dialectic process in which managerial identity regulation aimed at enhancing convergence across groups may be undermined both by groups’ attempts to reestablish differences and by a countervailing managerial need to accommodate (and thus sustain) differences in order to enable groups to locate themselves in the emerging entity.