This article examines how members of publicly discredited organizations discursively construct senses of internal legitimacy. Drawing on a case study of the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration—an organization that has been subject to lengthy and persistent public criticism—four paradoxical relations between discourses are identified and critically examined: acknowledgment/denial, voice/silence, unity/fragmentation, and image/substance. Based on the findings, three arguments are made: First, talk by members of discredited organizations about their organization, their organizational selves, and the criticism offers crucial resources for the construction of internal legitimacy. Second, constructions of internal legitimacy require members to relate to and navigate between paradoxes. Third, despite the complexity they impose, paradoxes provide members of discredited organizations with significant room for managing their internal legitimacy.
Alm AndreassenT.FossestølK. (2011). NAV ved et veiskille. Organisasjonsendring som velferdsreform [NAV at the crossroads: Organizational change as welfare reform]. Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal Akademisk.
2.
AlvessonM. (1990). Organization: From substance to image?Organization Studies, 11, 373-394. doi:10.1177/017084069001100303
3.
AlvessonM.EmpsonL. (2008). The construction of organizational identity: Comparative case studies of consulting firms. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24, 1-16. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2007.10.001
4.
AlvessonM.KärremanD. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1265-1281. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26586822
5.
AshforthB. E.GibbsB. W. (1988). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1, 177-194. doi:10.1287/orsc.1.2.177
6.
AskimJ.ChristensenT.FimreiteA.-L.LægreidP. (2010). How to assess administrative reform? Investigating the adoption and preliminary impacts of the Norwegian welfare administration reform. Public Administration, 88, 232-246. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01809.x
7.
BeechN. (2008). On the nature of dialogic identity work. Organization, 15, 51-74. doi:10.1177/1350508407084485
8.
BenoitW. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.
9.
BreitE. (2014). Discursive practices of remedial organizational identity work: A study of the Norwegian Labor and Welfare Administration. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30, 231-241. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2013.08.003
10.
BrownA. D.ToyokiS. (2013). Identity work and legitimacy. Organization Studies, 34, 875-896. doi:10.1177/0170840612467158
11.
BrunssonN. (2003). The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions and actions in organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
12.
BurkeK. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
ClarkeC.BrownA. D.Hope-HaileyV. (2009). Working identities? Antagonistic discursive resources and managerial identity. Human Relations, 62, 323-352. doi:10.1177/0018726708101040
15.
CostasJ. (2012). “We are all friends here”: Reinforcing paradoxes of normative control in a culture of friendship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21, 377-395. doi:10.1177/1056492612439104
16.
DeephouseD. L.SuchmanM. C. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In OliverC.SuddabyR.SahlinK. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49-77). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
17.
DowlingJ.PfefferJ. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122-136. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388226
18.
DroriI.HonigB. (2013). A process model of internal and external legitimacy. Organization Studies, 34, 345-376. doi:10.1177/0170840612467153
19.
DuttonJ. E.DukerichJ. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517-554. doi:10.2307/256405
20.
ElsbachK.KramerR. M. (1996). Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: Encountering and countering the Business Week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 442-476. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393938
21.
FaircloughN. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London, England: Routledge.
22.
FossestølK.Alm AndreassenT.BreitE.KlemsdalL. (in press). Managing institutional complexity in public sector reform: Hybridization in front-line service organizations. Public Administration.
23.
FrandsenS. (2012). Organizational image, identification, and cynical distance: Prestigous professionals in a low-prestige organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 351-373. doi:10.1177/0893318912438692
24.
GioiaD. A.ChittipeddiK. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 443-448. doi:10.1002/smj.4250120604
25.
GioiaD. A.SchultzM.CorleyK. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63-81. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.2791603
26.
GioiaD. A.ThomasJ. B. (1996). Identity, image and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 370-403. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2393936
27.
Hampden-TurnerC. (1981). Maps of the mind. New York, NY: MacMillan.
28.
HatchM. J.SchultzM. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31, 356-365.
29.
HirschmanA. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
HollandR. (1999). Reflexivity. Human Relations, 52, 463-485. doi:10.1177/001872679905200403
31.
HumphreysM.BrownA. D. (2002). Narratives of organizational identity and identification: A case study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 23, 421-447. doi:10.1177/0170840602233005
32.
JayJ. (2013). Navigating paradox as mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 137-159. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0772
33.
KreinerG. E.AshforthB. E.SlussD. M. (2006). Identity dynamics in occupational dirty work: Integrating social identity and system justification perspectives. Organization Science, 17, 619-636. doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0208
34.
KreinerG. E.HollensbeE. C.SheepM. L. (2006). Where is the “me” among the “we”? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1031-1057. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.22798186
35.
LemmergaardJ.MuhrS. L. (2012). Golfing with a murderer: Professional indifference and identity work in a Danish prison. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28, 185-195. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2011.10.001
36.
LewisM. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25, 760-776. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.3707712
37.
PollittC.BouckaertG. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—New public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian State (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
38.
PooleM. S.Van de VenA. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 14, 562-578. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4308389
39.
PriceK. N.GioiaD. A.CorleyK. G. (2008). Reconciling scattered images: Managing disparate organizational expressions and impressions. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17, 173-185. doi:10.1177/1056492608314991
40.
RavasiD.SchultzM. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 433-458. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794663
41.
RindovaV.PollockT. G.HaywardM. L. A. (2006). Celebrity firms: The social construction of market popularity. Academy of Management Review, 31, 50-71. doi:10.5465/AMR.2006.1937962
42.
RoperJ.Shoenberger-OrgadM. (2011). State-owned enterprises: Issues of accountability and legitimacy. Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 693-709. doi:10.1177/0893318911415598
43.
SilvermanD. (2011). Qualitative research (3rd ed.). London, England: Sage.
44.
SonparK.PazzagliaF.KornijenkoJ. (2010). The paradox and constraints of legitimacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 1-21. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0344-1
45.
SuchmanM. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571-610. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080331
VaaraE.MoninP. (2010). A recursive perspective on discursive legitimation and organizational action in mergers and acquisitions. Organization Science, 21, 3-22. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0394
48.
VaaraE.TienariJ.LaurilaJ. (2006). Pulp and paper fiction: On the discursive legitimation of global industrial restructuring. Organization Studies, 27, 789-810.
49.
VeilS. R.SellnowT. L.PetrunE. L. (2012). Hoaxes and the paradoxical challenges of restoring legitimacy: Domino’s response to its Youtube crisis. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 322-345. doi:10.1177/0893318911426685
50.
WæraasA.ByrkjeflotH.AngellS. I. (Eds.). (2011). Substans og framtreden: Omdømmehåndtering i offentlig sektor [Substance and appearance: Reputation management in the public sector]. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
51.
WeickK. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52.
ZimmermanM. A.ZeitzG. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27, 414-431. doi:10.5465/AMR.2002.7389921
