Restricted accessOtherFirst published online 2011-5
The Role of Organizational Identification in the Communicative Constitution of an Organization: A Study of Consubstantialization in a Young Political Party
Concerns for organizational identification (OI) are recurrent in organizational communication research. However, few studies show how this process unfolds during everyday interactions. To address this issue, OI is conceived in this article as a process of “consubstantialization” that plays a central role in the coproduction of an organization’s substance. The value of this new way of viewing OI is demonstrated through a detailed analysis of a debate that focused on the constitution of a young political party in Quebec, Canada. This analysis shows how identification, as well as dis-identification and mis-identification, occur through the mobilization of different agents and how these intricate processes feed into the communicative constitution of an organization.
Albert, S., Ashforth, B.E., & Dutton, J.E. ( 2000). Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13-17.
2.
Alder, G.S., & Tompkins, P.K. (1997). Electronic performance monitoring: An organizational justice and concertive control perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 10(3), 259-288.
3.
Ashcraft, K.L., Kuhn, T.R., & Cooren, F. ( 2009). Constitutional amendments: "Materializing" organizational communication. In J. P. Walsh & A. P. Brief (Eds.), The academy of management annals (Vol. 3, pp. 1-64). London: Routledge.
4.
Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. ( 1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.
5.
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies of conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Banks, M. ( 2001). Visual methods in social research. London: SAGE.
7.
Barge, K.J., & Schlueter, D.W. (1988). A critical evaluation of organizational commitment and identification. Management Communication Quarterly, 2(1), 116-133.
8.
Barker, J.R. ( 1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 408-437.
9.
Barker, J.R. ( 1998). Managing identification. In D. Whetten & P. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 257-267). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
10.
Barker, J.R., & Cheney, G. ( 1994). The concepts and the practices of discipline in contemporary organizational life. Communication Monographs, 61(1), 19-43.
11.
Barker, J.R., & Tompkins, P.K. (1994). Identification in the self-managing organization: Characteristics of target and tenure. Human Communication Research, 21(2), 223-240.
12.
Brock, B.L., Burke, K., Burgess, P.G., & Simons, H.W. ( 1985). Dramatism as ontology or epistemology: A symposium. Communication Quarterly, 33(1), 17-33.
13.
Brummans, B.H.J. M. (2006). The Montréal School and the question of agency. In F. Cooren, J. R. Taylor, & E. J. Van Every (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Practical approaches to research into the dynamic of text and conversation (pp. 197-211). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum.
14.
Brummans, B.H.J.M. ( 2007). Death by document: Tracing the agency of a text. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(5), 711-727.
15.
Brummans, B.H.J.M., Cooren, F., & Chaput, M. ( 2009). Discourse, communication, and organisational ontology . In F. Bargiela-Chiappini (Ed.), The handbook of business discourse (pp. 53-65). Edinburgh, UK : Edinburgh University Press.
16.
Brummans, B.H.J.M., Putnam, L.L., Gray, B., Hanke, R., Lewicki, R.J., & Wiethoff, C. ( 2008). Making sense of intractable multiparty conflict: A study of framing in four environmental disputes. Communication Monographs , 75(1), 25-51.
17.
Bullis, C. ( 1991). Communication practices as unobtrusive control: An observational study. Communication Studies, 42(3), 254-271.
18.
Bullis, C., & Bach, B.W. ( 1989). Are mentor relationships helping organizations? An exploration of developing mentee-mentor-organizational identifications using turning point analysis. Communication Quarterly, 37(3), 199-213.
19.
Bullis, C., & Tompkins, P. ( 1989). The forest ranger revisited: A study of control practices and identification. Communication Monographs, 56(4), 287-306.
20.
Burke, K. ( 1945/1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
21.
Burke, K. ( 1950/1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
22.
Burke, K. ( 1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
23.
Burke, K. ( 1972). Dramatism and development. Barre, MA: Clark University Press.
24.
Callon, M. ( 1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: The domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St-Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action, and belief (pp. 196-233). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
25.
Callon, M., & Latour, B. ( 1981). Unscrewing the big Leviathan: How actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them do so. In A. V. Cicourel & K. Knorr-Cetina (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Towards an integration of micro- and macro-sociologies (pp. 277-303). Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
26.
Cheney, G. ( 1983a). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69(2), 143-158.
27.
Cheney, G. ( 1983b). On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of organizational identification. Communication Monographs, 50(4), 342-362.
28.
Cheney, G. ( 1991). Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities. Columbia, SC: The University of South Carolina Press.
29.
Cheney, G., & Christensen, L.T. (2001). Organizational identity: Linkages between internal and external communication. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 231-269). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
Cheney, G., & Tompkins, P. ( 1987). Coming to terms with organizational identification and commitment. Central States Speech Journal, 38(1), 1-15.
31.
Chreim, S. ( 2002). Influencing organizational identification during major change: A communication-based perspective. Human Relations , 55(9), 1117-1137.
32.
Connaughton, S.L. ( 2004). Multiple identification targets in examining partisan identification: A case study of Texas Latinos. Howard Journal of Communications, 15(3), 131-145.
33.
Cooren, F. ( 2004). Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. Organization, 11(3), 373-393.
34.
Cooren, F. ( 2006). The organizational world as a plenum of agencies. In F. Cooren, J. R. Taylor, & E. J. Van Every (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversation (pp. 81-100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
Cooren, F., Brummans, B.H.J. M., & Charrieras, D. (2008). The coproduction of organizational presence: A study of Médecins Sans Frontières in action. Human Relations, 61(10), 1339-1370.
36.
Cooren, F., Matte, F., Taylor, J.R., & Vasquez, C. ( 2007). A humanitarian organization in action: Organizational discourse as an immutable mobile. Discourse & Communication , 1(2), 153-190.
37.
Cooren, T., Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (Eds.). (2006). Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
Deetz, S. ( 1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
39.
Deetz, S., & Mumby, D.K. ( 1990). Power, discourse, and the workplace: Reclaiming the critical tradition. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 13 (pp. 18-47). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
40.
Derrida, J. ( 1978). Writing and difference. London: Routledge.
41.
DiSanza, J.R., & Bullis, C. ( 1999). "Everybody identifies with Smokey the Bear": Employee responses to newsletter identification inducements at the U.S. Forest Service. Management Communication Quarterly, 12(3), 347-399.
42.
Dutton, J., Dukerich, J., & Harquail, C. ( 1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239-263.
43.
Fairhurst, G.T., & Putnam, L.L. ( 2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14(1), 5-26.
44.
Fauré, B., Brummans, B.H.J. M., Giroux, H., & Taylor, J.R. ( 2010). The calculation of business, or the business of calculation? Accounting as organizing through everyday communication. Human Relations, 63(8), 1249-1273.
45.
Feldman, M. ( 1995). Strategies for interpreting qualitative data. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
46.
Fitch, K.L. & Sanders, R.E. ( 2005). (Eds.). Handbook of language and social interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
Foucault, M. ( 1975/1995). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage /Random House.
48.
Garfinkel, H. ( 1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge , UK: Polity Press.
49.
Garfinkel, H. ( 1992). Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In G. Watson & R. M. Seller (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 175-206). London: SAGE.
50.
Garfinkel, H. ( 2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
51.
Gautam, T., Van Dick, R.V., & Wagner, U. ( 2004). Organizational identification and organizational commitment: Distinct aspects of two related concepts. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7(3), 301-315.
52.
Gossett, L.M. ( 2002). Kept at arm’s length: Questioning the organizational desirability of member identification. Communication Monographs , 69(4), 385-404.
53.
Gossett, L.M. ( 2006). Falling between the cracks: Control and communication challenges of a temporary workforce. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(3), 376-415.
54.
Have, P. ten ( 1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
55.
Holmer-Nadesan, M. ( 1996). Organizational identity and space of action. Organization Studies, 17(1), 49-81.
56.
Humphreys, M., & Brown, A. ( 2002). Narratives of organizational identity and identification: A case of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 23(3), 421-447.
57.
Knippenberg, D. van, Knippenberg, B. van, Monden, L., & Lima, F. de (2002). Organizational identification after a merger: A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 233-252.
58.
Kozinets, R.V., & Belk, R.W. ( 2006). Videography. In V. Jupp (Ed.), The Sage dictionary of social research methods (pp. 318-320). London: SAGE.
59.
Kuhn, T. ( 2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. Organization Studies, 29(8-9), 1227-1254.
60.
Kuhn, T., & Nelson, N. ( 2002). Reengineering identity: A case study of multiplicity and duality in organizational identification. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(1), 5-38.
61.
Larson, G.S., & Pepper, G.L. ( 2003). Strategies for managing multiple organizational identifications: A case of competing identities. Management Communication Quarterly , 16(4), 528-557.
62.
Latour, B. ( 1993). We have never been modern (C. Porter, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
Latour, B. ( 1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, 228-245.
64.
Latour, B. ( 2002). Gabriel Tarde and the end of the social. In P. Joyce (Ed.), The social in question: New bearings in history and the social sciences (pp. 117-32). London : Routledge.
65.
Latour, B. ( 2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
66.
Law, J. (Ed.). (1991). A sociology of monsters: Essays on power, technology, and domination. London: Routledge.
67.
Law, J. & Hassard, J. (Eds.). (1999). Actor Network Theory and after. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
68.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. ( 1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
69.
Lindlof, T.R., & Taylor, B.C. ( 2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
70.
Mael, F.A., & Ashforth, B.E. (1992). Alumni and their Alma Mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification . Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.
March, J.G., & Simon, H.A. ( 1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley.
73.
McPhee, R.D., & Zaug, P. ( 2000). The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation. Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronique de Communication, 10(1/2) 1-16.
74.
McVea, J.F., & Freeman, R.E. ( 2005). A names-and-faces approach to stakeholder management: How focusing on stakeholders as individuals can bring ethics and entrepreneurial strategy together. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1), 57-69.
75.
Miller, K. ( 2002). The experience of emotion in the workplace: Professing in the midst of tragedy. Management Communication Quarterly , 15(4), 571-600.
76.
Miller, V.D., Casey, M., & Johnson, J. ( 2000). Reconsidering the organizational identification questionnaire . Management Communication Quarterly, 13(4), 626-658.
77.
Miller, V.D., Johnson, J.R., & Grau, J. ( 1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 22(1), 59-80.
78.
Morgan, J., Reynolds, C., Nelson, T., Johanningmeier, A., Griffin, M., & Andrade, P. ( 2004). Tales from the fields: Sources of employee identification in agribusiness. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(3), 360-395.
79.
Papa, M.J., Mohammad, A., & Singhal, A. ( 1997). Organizing for social change within concertive control systems: Member identification, empowerment, and the masking of discipline . Communication Monographs, 64(3), 219-249.
80.
Pink, S. ( 2001). Doing visual ethnography. London: SAGE.
81.
Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B.J. ( 1997). Conversation analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 64-91). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
82.
Pratt, M.C. ( 1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171-207). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
83.
Putnam, L. L., & Nicotera, A. M. (Eds.). (2009). Building theories of communication: The constitutive role of communication. New York: Routledge.
84.
Riketta, M. ( 2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358-384.
85.
Robitaille, A. ( 2005, October 24). Un grand bond pour la gauche québécoise. De la fusion UFP-Option citoyenne naîtra en janvier un nouveau parti souverainiste [One big leap for the Quebec Left. A new sovereignist party born from the fusion between the UFP and the Option Citoyenne]. Le Devoir, pp. A1-A8.
86.
Russo, T.C. ( 1998). Organizational and professional identification: A case of newspaper journalists. Management Communication Quarterly , 12(1), 72-111.
87.
Sass, J.S., & Canary, D.J. ( 1991). Organizational commitment and identification: An examination of conceptual and operational convergence. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55(3), 275-293.
88.
Scott, C.R. ( 1997). Identification with multiple targets in a graphically dispersed organization. Management Communication Quarterly , 10(4), 491-522.
89.
Scott, C.R. ( 2001). Establishing and maintaining costumer loyalty and employee identification in the new economy: A communicative response. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(4), 629-636.
90.
Scott, C.R., Connaughton, S.L., Diaz-Saenz, H.R., Maguire, K., Ramirez, R., Richardson, B. ( 1999). The impacts of communication and multiple identifications on intent to leave: A multimethodological exploration. Management Communication Quarterly, 12(3), 400-435.
91.
Scott, C.R., Corman, S.R., & Cheney, G. ( 1998). A structurational model of identification in the organization . Communication Theory, 8(3), 298-336.
92.
Silverman, S. ( 1993). Interpreting qualitative data methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: SAGE .
93.
Simon, H.A. ( 1976). Administrative behavior. New York : Macmillan.
94.
Stohl, C., & Cheney, G. ( 2001). Democracy participatory processes/paradoxical practices: Communication and the dilemmas of organizational democracy. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(3), 349-407.
95.
Tarde, G. ( 1893/1999). Monadologie et sociologie [Monadology and sociology]. Paris: Les empêcheurs de penser en rond.
96.
Tarde, G. ( 1898/1999). Les lois sociales: Esquisse d’une sociologie [Social laws: Sketch of a sociology]. Paris : Les empêcheurs de penser en rond.
97.
Taylor, J.R., & Van Every, E.J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
98.
Taylor, J.R., & Van Every, E.J. (2011). The situated organization: Case studies in the pragmatics of communication research. New York: Routledge.
99.
Thatcher, S.M.B., & Zhu, X. ( 2006). Changing identities in a changing workplace: Identification, identity enactment, self-verification, and telecommuting. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 1076-1088.
100.
Tompkins, P.K., & Cheney, G. ( 1983). Account analysis of organizations: Decision making and identification. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 123-146). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
101.
Tompkins, P.K., & Cheney, G. ( 1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In R. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 179-210). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
102.
Tompkins, P.K., Fisher, J.Y., Infante, D.A., & Tompkins, E.L. (1975). Kenneth Burke and the inherent characteristics of formal organizations: A field study. Speech Monographs, 42(2), 135-142.
103.
Whitehead, A.N. ( 1929/1978). Process and reality: An essay in cosmology . New York: Free Press.
104.
Wiesenfeld, B.M., Raghuram, S., & Garud, R. ( 1999). Communication patterns as determinants of organizational identification in a virtual organization. Organization Science , 10(6), 777-790.
105.
Wolfe, R.A., & Putler, D.S. ( 2002). How tight are the ties that bind stakeholder groups? Organization Science, 13(1), 64-80.
