Struglers, Storytellers, Surfers & Others Alvesson

http://hum.sagepub.com

Human Relations

DOI: 10.1177/0018726709350372 2010; 63; 193 originally published online Jan 19, 2010; Human Relations

Mats Alvesson self-identities in organization studies

Self-doubters, strugglers, storytellers, surfers and others: Images of

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/63/2/193The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Tavistock Institute

can be found at:Human Relations Additional services and information for

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://hum.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://hum.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/63/2/193Citations

at Univ Complutense de Madrid on June 15, 2010 http://hum.sagepub.comDownloaded from

human relations

Corresponding author:

Mats Alvesson, Department of Business Administration, School of Economics & Management,

Lund University, PO Box 7080, Sweden.

Email: [email protected]

Self-doubters, strugglers,

storytellers, surfers and others:

Images of self-identities in

organization studies

Mats AlvessonUniversity of Lund, Sweden and University of Queensland Business School, Australia

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the key images of identity in organizations found in

the research literature. Image refers to the overall idea or conceptualization, capturing

how researchers relate to – and shape – a phenomenon. Seven images are suggested:

self-doubters, strugglers, surfers, storytellers, strategists, stencils and soldiers. These

refer to how the individual is metaphorically understood in terms of identity, that is,

how the researcher (research text) captures the individual producing a sense of self. The

article aims to facilitate orientation – or encourage productive confusion – within the

field, encourage reflexivity and sharpen analytic choices through awareness of options

for how to conceptualize self-identity constructions.

Keywords

construction, discourse, identity, organizational psychology, self

Introduction

Identity is a theme popular with scholars wanting to highlight individuals as well as collec-

tive phenomena. This article addresses the individual level in a social/organizational

context and thus the interface between individual and organizational identity, with an

emphasis on the self-identity aspect (Collinson, 2003; Watson, 2008). Kuhn (2006)

defines identity as ‘the conception of the self reflexively and discursively understood’

(p. 1340). Identity marks a separate area of interest from, for example, impression manage-

ment or external social categorizations, although these are of course important for identity

constructions (Jenkins, 2000). Such self-constructions are sometimes done through social

human relations

63(2) 193–217

© The Author(s) 2010

Reprints and permission: http://www.

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0018726709350372

hum.sagepub.com


194 Human Relations 63(2)

categories and organizational identification, so links to organizational identity certainly

exist (Humphreys and Brown, 2002), but the latter theme is not directly addressed here.

Many authors see issues of identity as potentially ‘leading to significant theoretical

and practical advances in the study of almost every aspect of organizational life’ (Haslam

and Reicher, 2006: 135). As with many other fields, organization studies are character-

ized by a fair amount of fashion consciousness, which, in turn, drives a significant num-

ber of identity studies. The current popularity and, perhaps, the overconsumption of self

and identity in social science (‘over used and under specified’, Pratt, cited in Brown,

2006: 734, see also Alvesson et al., 2008a), as well as the slippery notion of identity

means that it is not easy to get an overview of the area(s). Reviews rarely take the variety

of theoretical perspectives and key reference points seriously. Many reviewers tend to

structure the field in terms of two different (sometimes complementary) overall posi-

tions, providing fairly broad-brushed portraits. For example, authors refer to essentialist

and anti-essentialist approaches (Cerulo, 1997), social cognition (emphasizing social

schemas and information about self) and interactionism (focusing on symbolic meaning

in interaction) (Howard, 2000). Others find it useful to divide the field into three major

areas. Using Habermas’s (1972) framework of cognitive interests, Alvesson et al. (2008a)

relate studies of social identity, identity work and identity regulation to technical, herme-

neutic and emancipatory cognitive interests. Collinson (2003) identifies literature talking

about conformist, dramaturgic and resistant selves. These reviews are helpful but still

point at a fairly narrow set of options. There is more to be done in terms of encouraging

sensitivity about alternative ways of approaching identity.

It is common to be sceptical of conventional, ‘Western’ thinking, which is said to have

‘traditionally viewed human beings as unitary, coherent and autonomous individuals

who are separate and separable from social relations and organizations’ (Collinson, 2003:

527). This is then, perhaps not unsurprisingly, followed by critique for essentialism and

for a ’dualistic tendency artificially to separate individual from society, mind from body,

rationality from emotion’ (Collinson, 2003: 527). It is difficult not to agree with a cri-

tique saying that something that is dualistic and that ’artificially’ separates individual

from society is not so good. And there are still many authors who take a version of

this ‘traditional’ perspective. Acknowledging the multidimensional nature of the self-

concept, Leonard et al. (1999) propose three general sets of individuals’ identity attri-

butes: traits, competencies and values. Albert et al. (2000) claim that identity means that

one can ‘interact effectively with other entities over the long run’ and ‘a sense of identity

serves as a rudder for navigating difficult waters’ (p. 13). Stets and Burke (2000) suggest

that ‘a complete theory of the self would consider both the role and the group bases of

identity as well as identities based in the person that provide stability across groups, roles

and situations’ (p. 234). But, as will be explored in this article, many if not most contem-

porary texts on identity go beyond a view of individuals as unitary, coherent and autono-

mous and embrace a position somewhere in between a ‘traditional’ and a postmodernist

or ‘anti-essentialist’ view.

In the spirit of the in-between position, it is common to acknowledge less stable

aspects of identity, often with references to destabilizing faculties of dynamic social and

economic conditions. In contemporary business life in particular, social contexts are fre-

quently portrayed as unstable, ambiguous, and sometimes contradictory (Gioia et al.,


Alvesson 195

2000; Gubrium and Holstein, 2001; Jackall, 1988; Sennett, 1998; Watson, 1994). This

makes identity constructions precarious and calls for an emphasis on processual aspects

of identity. The significance and depth of contemporary organizational changes are mat-

ters of dispute (Alvesson and Thompson, 2005; Grey, 2005; McSweeney, 2006;

Thompson and Warhurst, 1998), but complexity and changes in contemporary social and

organizational life make identity a more open project and thus something to take seri-

ously. A variety of ideas about identity, reflecting differing attitudes towards the turbu-

lent and fragmented nature of society, various views of the individual and which elements

(discourses, social belongingness, existential themes) are crucial in identity construc-

tions have sprung up in the literature. Although perspectives such as (Western) ‘essen-

tialism’ versus constructionism (postmodernism) indicate radically different views, there

are a range of options, as we will see. We don’t have to choose between a mainly fixed

and a predominantly fluid view, nor between a sovereign self and a decentred one

(Dunne, 1996).1 In addition, there is a wide set of stability as well as process conceptu-

alizations. A more fine-tuned overview of the alternative positions is therefore called for.

This article indicates the range of contemporary ideas on identity constructions in

organizational and work contexts through the development of some concepts that may

help us to both navigate this difficult terrain and to attempt clarification of alternative

possibilities. The idea is to encourage self-critical distancing from and reflexivity about

a favoured position and to facilitate choices in thinking about, and doing, empirical

research on identity. The identification (or rather the construction) of a set of images of

individuals’ identity constructions, as they appear in the literature, is helpful. I follow

Morgan’s (1980, 1997) successful and thought-provoking exercise of bringing forward

the images (root metaphors) behind the explicit argumentation and analysis of identity. I

am using the slightly broader and looser concept of image here, rather than the similar,

but somewhat more specific, idea of root metaphor. These images capture key elements

in the gestalt and act as starting points in thinking about the subject matter. The images

are related to, but are not the same as, theoretical perspectives and lines of reasoning. An

image can be linked to various theories. This means that approaching a theoretical per-

spective by way of different images allows one to use that theoretical perspective in dif-

ferent ways, although not all images and theories can be linked. The article supplements

other overviews that emphasize theoretical traditions and definitions through suggesting

a set of images of the subject matter. The ambition is to inspire the field to take alterna-

tives into more serious consideration and to widen the imagination in terms of approach-

ing identity issues in organization studies. A more playful attitude is thus encouraged.

On ’method’: Modesty, irony and reflexivity

Issues around subjectivity – including identity – are very difficult to describe and inter-

pret. As Dunne (1996) puts it, ‘the self lacks the substantiality and discreteness of an

object which is amenable to direct description or explanation’ (p. 143). The theoretical

framework and the use of a particular vocabulary construct the subject matter, but it

would be unwise to reduce all empirical phenomena to just being a matter of the employ-

ment of a specific framework and discourse. When studying non-discrete and non-

substantial phenomena such as subjectivity, it is particularly important to develop ideas



and ways of thinking that reduce the inclination to impose a vocabulary and order onto

the studied subjectivities. We cannot completely avoid such impositions – and thus exer-

cise of power when developing knowledge (Foucault, 1980), also when trying to order a

field. This will be so whether we have chosen to normalize uncertainty and fluidity or

coherence and direction. Ideas surrounding reflexivity become important here (Alvesson

and Sköldberg, 2009; Alvesson et al., 2008b). Through systematically considering alter-

native viewpoints and opening up tensions, we can create some safety mechanisms in the

research process, which guard against one-dimensional and premature construction

work. A typology is not without mixed blessings, but makes it easier to remember and

consider alternative reference points for thinking. Awareness that there may exist another

vocabulary, one that is as good as or even better than the vocabulary that is actually in

use, in terms of saying something interesting about the subject matter, is an important

part of this process (Rorty, 1989). The production of a new vocabulary and the confronta-

tion of various alternative concepts may thus serve to reinforce an element of irony and

encourage its more explicit use in identity studies.

This article offers seven images of identity salient in the organization studies litera-

ture. A key consideration in this kind of work is the meaningfulness and manageability

of a set of images. As discussed above, identity reviews (e.g. Cerulo, 1997; Collinson,

2003; Howard, 2000; Markus and Wurf, 1987) only point at two or three theoretical

streams, which is limited and discourages a broader consideration of the variety of

images to consider. The seven images outlined here reflect a desire to facilitate further

distinctions and to suggest new options for studying identity. This article is based on

careful readings of the self-identity literature (in organization studies over the years,

including a large proportion of the articles on self-identity recently published in leading

organization studies journals (Academy of Management Journal, Academy of

Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Human Relations, Journal of

Management Studies, Organization Studies, Organization) and also texts frequently

referred to in these. This article is, however, concerned with offering ideas about images

of identity, not about the frequencies of which such are expressed. The intention is not to

vacuum-clean the literature for all possible images, but rather to indicate a spectrum of

salient ones, thus allowing an opening up for more analytical options. The idea is to get

a good understanding of what researchers, at a ‘deeper’ level, seem to mean by identity.

What basic images are used? Of most interest here are texts expressing a ‘strong’ concep-

tualization and/or cases conveying a clear overall idea of how to make sense of that case.

The view on identity then should include more than a general definition (the answer to

the question ‘who am I?’) and include a distinct idea that differentiates the text from

many others also addressing identity.

Methodologically, there is interplay between emergent ideas, attentions and inspira-

tion from additional readings and ideas. There is a hermeneutic circle between a gradu-

ally developed pre-understanding informing text readings and the efforts to interpret the

underlying ideas and meanings of texts in terms of the underlying image informing stud-

ies (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 2009). There are two moves here. The first methodological

move is to get an overall structure or framework for making comparisons. Two broad,

key dimensions were identified. One concerns what is typically constructed as the tradi-

tional Western view and efforts to negate it. The traditional position views identity as


Alvesson 197

robust, integrated and a clear reference and starting point for how individuals can orien-

tate themselves in life. The opposite position assumes a much more uncertain, precarious

and fluid kind of subjective reference point. The positions appear to reflect a crucial,

paradigm-like kind of distinction, salient in many writings comparing modernist (essen-

tialist) and post-modernist (constructionist) understandings (Cerulo, 1997; Howard,

2000; Rosenau, 1992; Sarup, 1988; Shotter and Gergen, 1989). This key dimension is

here seen as including a variety of possible views and not just two opposite fixed points.

My other key dimension is the degree of agency – the individual being active and

guided by both meaning and goals, over which there is at least an element of control.

This is a ‘classic’ key theme in social science. Humanistic researchers tend to give prior-

ity to meaning and intention and view the individual as a meaning-maker. They may

do this through narratives or strategies for developing identity (e.g. Giddens, 1991;

Ibarra, 1999; Pratt et al., 2006). Non-humanists – Marxists, structuralists, behaviourists,

discursivists – while disagreeing in other aspects, all locate powers creating subjectivity

primarily outside the individual, in structures, the situation or the Discourse (e.g. Ely and

Padavic, 2007; Foucault, 1977, 1980; Knights and Morgan, 1991; Townley, 1993). This

key dimension of agency has in various ways been expressed in different kinds of litera-

tures (e.g. Burrell and Morgan, 1979) and is an important part of my (and most other

contemporaries’) pre-understanding. Readings of the identity literature have confirmed

the relevance and significance of this dimension. I chose these two broad dimensions,

expressed as key dimensions in a considerable amount of the literature, as a loose frame-

work for identifying positions in the field.

The second methodological move transcends this loose two-dimensional framework

and tries to identify/ construct (as always it is a mix of input from what is ‘out there’,

i.e. in texts, and the invention of something) something distinct in various texts about

how the authors try to capture individuals in identity terms. Here, the idea is to go

beyond the broad similarities following from the use of the key dimensions and find

more distinct and unique key themes in the texts. Having identified/constructed a theme –

storytelling, existential anxiety, social identification, etc. – the idea is to hold on to

its distinctiveness without trying to reduce them to being fully grasped by the two-

dimensional framework (see Figure 1, placed later in the article).

These two moves then develop a broad terrain that offers some degree of overview,

but also allows for sensitivity to the unique features of images. One criterion for the

proposal of a specific image is that there should be several studies where it seems to be

expressed. Equally important is that an image captures an important orientation in con-

temporary identity research in organization studies. A third consideration concerns the

overall combination of aspects covered: the selected set of images should offer a good

framework, indicating a set of alternative ways of conceptualizing identity.

As is probably common in studies, this article is not an outcome of either deductive

or inductive work. It is neither based on the development and use of a strict framework –

which acts as a net for capturing the various big fish in the pond of identity studies.

Nor does it rely on a detailed (grounded theory-like) coding of various pieces of texts in

the literature. As with most studies, my approach is a complex mix of inputs and pre-

understandings, where readings and developed understandings over the years guide the

interpretation of the texts addressed.



Given the constructed, not to say artificial, nature of typologies, paradigm distinc-

tions, borders between positions and the arbitrariness of the labels put on whatever posi-

tion one wants to represent or propose (or invent), there are good reasons to remind

oneself and the reader that what is suggested here is not the only way of making sense of

the field. As Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997) point out, how we integrate and differenti-

ate earlier research in literature reviews is as much a matter of rhetorical moves as objec-

tive mappings.

The purpose of this article is to give a hopefully creative and illuminative overview of

some options in addressing identity constructions. There is a mapping element involved

here, but it is by necessity rough and rather than be too worried about whether everything

important ‘out there’ (other texts) is mirrored well ‘in here’ (in this text), it is perhaps

more important to consider the productive-functional aspects of the re-presentations of

what people may be up to in their constructions of others’ constructions of their selves.

I will now attend to the sets of images of identities, expressed in metaphorical ways,

referring specifically to the theoretical understandings of the key characteristics of indi-

viduals in terms of identity constructions. These are self-doubters, strugglers, surfers,

storytellers, strategists, stencils and soldiers (see Table 1 for a summary of the images).

Seven images on identity

Self-doubters: Insecurity as the key element of existence and social relations

Many contemporary researchers of identity in work and organizations emphasize insecu-

rity and anxiety as key elements of experience. The idea is that human existence is char-

acterized by the uncertainties that follow from a dependence on social relations, but that

social trends and contemporary society add heavily to this uncertainty. Collinson (2003),

for instance, argues that there is a ‘broad-sweeping shift from ascriptions to achieve-

ment’ leading to identities becoming more open and potentially allowing greater freedom

and more choices, but also resulting in increasing ‘precarious, insecure and uncertain

subjectivities’ (p. 530).

Insecurity thus seems to be the key element around which subjectivity and identity is

being formed and reshaped. Self-doubter therefore refers to the researcher’s image of the

identity construction’s quality as ultimately shaky. Knights and Willmott (1989, 1999)

claim that insecurity arises from ‘the impossibility of controlling the conditions that sup-

port a stable sense of identity’ (1999: 19). Not even wealth, status and power will do the

trick – those having accumulated this are among the most insecure of all, simply because

they have most to lose. Insecurity is seen as an existential condition. Authors informed

by a self-doubter image assume that there is an irreducible ambiguity at the heart of

identity construction and argue that individuals’ attachment to a particular sense of self

can reinforce insecurities. In their analyses, insecurity is privileged and appears, at the

end of the day, to be the basic element. Efforts to cope with it often lead to reinforced

insecurity. Drawing upon the psychoanalyst Lacan, Roberts (2005) points to the impos-

sibility of self-identity as a reflexively constituted sense of self. The perpetual anxiety is

here traced to ‘the socially constructed, and therefore unstable, character of any identifi-

cation’ (p. 632). Collinson (2003) also argues that whatever people do, they tend to


Alvesson 199T

ab

le 1

. A

n o

verv

iew

of th

e se

ven im

ages

Imag

e K

ey c

har

acte

rist

ics

T

heo

ry

Dri

ver,

chal

lenge

Exam

ple

s

Self-

doubte

r Tr

ying

to c

ope

with a

hig

h le

vel o

f Po

litic

al t

heo

ry,

Multitude

of so

cial

rel

atio

ns,

Colli

nso

n (

2003)

unce

rtai

nty

& in

secu

rity

ex

iste

ntial

ism

ex

iste

ntial

inse

curi

ty

Knig

hts

and

W

illm

ott

(1989)

Stru

ggle

r D

ealin

g w

ith c

ontr

adic

tions

and

Cri

tica

l man

agem

ent

Confli

ctin

g dem

ands

and

Sven

ings

son a

nd

co

nfli

cts

bet

wee

n s

elf-vi

ew a

nd

studie

s ch

alle

nge

s

Alv

esso

n (

2003)

exte

rnal

dem

ands

and c

onditio

ns

T

hom

as a

nd

D

avie

s (2

005)

Surf

er

Res

pondin

g to

a c

om

ple

x a

nd

Post

stru

ctura

lism

, M

ultitude

of dis

cours

es

Dee

tz (

1992)

m

ultip

le-d

iscu

rsiv

e w

orl

d lea

din

g dis

cours

e an

alys

is

dri

ving

the

indiv

idual

W

eedon (

1987)

to

fra

gmen

tation a

nd flu

idity

bet

wee

n d

iffer

ent

subje

ct

posi

tions

Story

telle

r C

reat

ion o

f m

eanin

g th

rough

N

arra

tive

theo

ry

Wan

t to

cre

ate

ord

er a

nd

Gid

den

s (1

991)

cr

afting

a per

sonal

nar

rative

of

dir

ection in life

Sim

s (2

003)

ones

elf

Stra

tegi

st

Cra

ftin

g a

funct

ional

iden

tity

, So

cial

izat

ion, c

aree

r B

eing

true

to s

elf ve

rsus

Ibar

ra (

1999)

pro

duci

ng

a sy

nth

esis

bet

wee

n

theo

ry, c

onfli

ct t

heo

ry

ove

radap

tation

D

ahle

r-Lar

sen (

1997)

‘a

uth

entici

ty’ an

d o

rgan

izat

ional

/

pro

fess

ional

adap

tation

Sten

cil

Shap

ing

of th

e in

div

idual

thro

ugh

Fo

uca

uld

ian p

ow

er

Exposu

re t

o c

onte

mpora

ry

Knig

hts

and

a

know

ledge

/pow

er r

egim

e th

eory

, inst

itutional

fo

rms

of (d

isci

plin

ary)

M

org

an (

1991)

cr

eating

a norm

aliz

ed s

ubje

ct

theo

ry

pow

er

To

wnle

y (1

993)

Sold

ier

Res

pondin

g to

the

avai

labili

ty o

f So

cial

iden

tity

theo

ry

Pre

ssure

and w

ant

to

Ash

fort

h a

nd

(a

ttra

ctiv

e) s

oci

al c

ateg

ori

es

su

bord

inat

e ones

elf to

a

Mae

l (1

989),

use

d for

soci

al a

nd o

rgan

izat

ional

grea

ter

whole

; affili

atio

n

Dutt

on e

t al

. (1994)

id

entific

atio

n



reinforce insecurity. This is the case if they put a lot of energy into, for example, a spe-

cific gender identity:

[P]reoccupation with securing clearly defined and coherent gender identities may further rein-

force, rather than resolve, the very insecurity these strategies were intended to overcome.

(Collinson, 2003: 533)

This is also the case with the simultaneous occupation of many subjective positions: ‘the

multiple nature of selves can thus reinforce ambiguity and insecurity’ (p. 534). Sennett

(1998) also emphasizes insecurity, but sees this as directly contingent upon economic

and social changes creating a working life, where flexibility is the key element. Here the

constant pressure on individuals to adapt and be responsive means that the social precon-

ditions for building character and identity are not there anymore and consequently peo-

ple experience difficulties finding meaning and direction in life. Self-doubt becomes

more explicit. The social roots are the basic elements, which is different from Knights

and Willmott who emphasize social conditions that mainly reinforce the strong existen-

tial insecurity associated with human nature per se.

For these authors, issues around identity are very much a matter of dealing with inse-

curity. At best, according to Knights and Willmott, this can be tolerated. Given the pre-

dominance of insecurity, and its related quality anxiety, identity projects will always (or

normally) be experiences of doubt, perhaps lurking beneath the surface. The individual

engaged in identity constructions can thus be conceptualized as a self-doubter – riddled

by the unpleasant and pervasive experiences of insecurity and anxiety. The self-doubter

image leads to a quite sad story of the individual, with a fairly strong pessimism around

the options for the creation of security and satisfaction in working life. The strong forces

of existential worries and the operations of contemporary business under ‘flexible capi-

talism’ threaten to undermine any identity-securing project.

Strugglers: Identity as a possible accomplishment or an uphill battle

While self-doubters refer to the idea of an individual experiencing a difficult and some-

what depressive situation, the alternative image of a struggler suggests a somewhat more

‘positive’ or optimistic version of individuals engaged in constructing a view of them

selves. The view of the identity constructer relates to more active efforts of oneself fight-

ing through a jungle of contradictions and messiness in the pursuit of a sense of self.

Insecurity and anxiety may be part of the picture, but not necessarily the defining fea-

tures and not necessarily the qualities that, at the end of the day, remain. Dealing with

insecurity is, according to the struggle view, not an uphill battle all the time.

There are different theoretical versions of this image, from psychoanalytical to post-

structuralist approaches. Some psychoanalytically oriented authors take a struggle perspec-

tive, particularly when being more ego- and self-oriented than orthodox. Freudians Brown

and Starkey (2000: 111)), for example, take seriously the anxieties and the fear of confront-

ing the ‘inevitable gap between the desire for a perfect self and the profound disappoint-

ment of never being able to realize this desire’. They also consider the defensive mechanisms

used to cope with these issues, along with the possibility through critical self-reflexivity


Alvesson 201

and dialogue, identity can be shaped and reshaped in a more integrated, wise and positive

sense. Coping with a changing reality therefore means understanding and militating against

ego defences such as denial and rationalization, while at the same time resisting the regres-

sive retreat from facing changes and instead dealing with the implications for self-identity.

Other authors are more interested in resistance to discourses, for example, in the imposition

of forms of management as a key element in struggles (e.g. Thomas and Davies, 2005) or

in how people try to sustain a positive and authentic sense of self in a context of contradic-

tory demands (Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003; Watson, 2008).

Ideas about the difficulty of identity struggles also vary; for some researchers it is

(typically) fairly light (e.g. Ibarra, 1999; Kreiner et al., 2006), for others it is much harder

and may involve self-alienation (Costas and Fleming, 2009). In the former case, the

struggler image may be less salient (useful) than in the latter. A basic conflict, a dilemma,

or contradictory forces operating on the subject are key characteristics of the situation in

which the identity construction work takes place.

The concept of identity work refers to people being engaged in forming, repairing,

maintaining, strengthening or revising the constructions that are productive of a sense of

coherence and distinctiveness. Identity work may, in complex and fragmented contexts,

either be more or less ongoing or be a theme of engagement during crises or transitions.

More generally, specific events, encounters, transitions, surprises, as well as more con-

stant strains, all serve to heighten awareness of the constructed quality of self-identity

and to compel more concentrated identity work. Conscious identity work is thus grounded

in at least a minimal amount of self-doubt and self-openness, typically contingent upon

a mix of psychological-existential worry and the scepticism or inconsistencies faced in

encounters with others or with our images of them (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002). The

idea of identity work is not necessarily confined to the struggle view, it can also be used

in relation to the self-doubter and storyteller images, but is perhaps often most relevant

to the former framing of identity.

Researchers emphasizing identity as struggle assume that there are contradictions,

frustrations and forces acting upon, and sometimes undermining, a self-identity, but

also that the individual, backed up by or being subjected to various ’resources’ some-

times can produce and sustain a self-image, neither independent of, nor totally victim-

ized by these forces. Compared with the self-doubter image, alignment is, in principle,

possible. Socially induced contradictions rather than existential anxieties are the key

driving force.

Compared with many of the other conceptualizations, the individual as a struggler for

self-identity has an element of mild heroism, even though the outcome can be tragic (see

e.g. Sveningsson and Alvesson, 2003).

The struggle metaphor becomes perhaps more interesting and offers a sharp reference

point when it indicates a social reality at odds with one’s self-view, where the individual

with skills, effort and luck may succeed in her efforts to construct a ‘positive’ identity.

From a poststructuralist view this places too much emphasis on the heroic individual,

reflecting Western conventional thinking. From another perspective it may also overem-

phasize the complexity and contradictory nature of the social world. Perhaps the contem-

porary world offers trajectories and means for identity constructions as often as, or more

often than, it raises obstacles to these.



Surfers: Identity as temporal positions

A third image also, similar to the self-doubter, draws attention to the radical openness

of the world, but this is not framed primarily in terms of insecurity and struggle, and

even less so in terms of anxiety. These existentialist characteristics of the subject are

decried as ‘essentialist’, or assuming some kind of (or hope for a) ‘core self’– with

some stable key characteristics. The surfer image is often based on poststructuralist

ideas, and so the subject is viewed as being constituted by discourse. Unstable language

implies unstable meanings and an unstable, decentred human subject, ‘a subject who is

multi-dimensional and without centre or hierarchical integration. It would give us a

process and a paradox, but never a beginning or an end’ (Sampson, 1989: 15). In this

view, the self is as much ‘out there’ – in the language and recipes being circulated

around in mass media – as inside the individual. Poststructuralism rejects the notion of

the autonomous, self-determining individual with a secure unitary identity as the centre

of the social universe. Although many other traditions have done so also (for example,

behaviourists, structuralists, role theorists and to some extent psychoanalysts), post-

structuralist authors have pushed this point strongly and in a sophisticated manner

(Deetz, 1992; Rosenau, 1992).

Sometimes this is backed up by postmodernist ideas about radical social changes

disrupting a coherent or stable sense of self (Shotter and Gergen, 1989). As society

becomes more fragmented and hyper-real or virtual (discourse and image become dis-

connected from any world reference, images reference other images) the identity-

stabilizing forces are lost. Gubrium and Holstein (2001), for example, talk about ‘the

almost dizzying array of institutions comprising the postmodern environment, a world

where selves are regularly decentered from their inner recesses and recentered in insti-

tutional life’ (p. 2). Based on this many authors have emphasized the role of language

and discourse in constituting an individual subject that does not exist outside language,

as ‘. . . identity is in flux, in a permanent state of becoming as various social and lin-

guistic constructs (or discourses) vie with another for supremacy’ (Thomas and

Linstead, 2002: 75).

Within this framework ‘identity’ is not necessarily the most appropriate term, but

many authors do use it. One compromise is to talk about ‘identity’, signalling the devia-

tion from most standard meanings. ‘Identity’ is seen as process, as an element in the flow

of events. Rather than to try to revise, integrate and reproduce ‘identity’, the important

thing is to let go and open up – engage in ’process subjectivity’ (Weedon, 1987), even

‘self-destruction’ (Roberts, 2005).

Process ideas are also expressed by people not inspired by poststructuralism. Ashforth

and Mael (1989), following social identity theory, claim that:

Individuals have multiple, loosely coupled identities, and inherent conflicts between their

demands are typically not resolved by cognitively integrating the identities, but by ordering,

separating, or buffering them. This compartmentalization of identities suggests the possibility

of double standards, apparent hypocrisy and selective forgetting.

(p. 154)


Alvesson 203

Compared with the other images mentioned, ‘identity’ is put in motion without much fric-

tion; it flows with the various forces and contingencies acting upon it. Pain and resis-

tance are less salient elements here, as the self – typically or at least ideally – is adaptable

and implicated by the discourses and varieties of social identities to which it is compli-

ant. The question is whether individuals are that fluid and sensitive to the discourses

calling upon them and, seemingly, triggering shifting subjectivities without much inertia.

Researchers guided by the surfer image may exaggerate the plasticity of humans (Cohen,

1994) and neglect the possibility that life history makes smooth adaptation difficult

(Handley et al., 2006).

Storytellers: A narrative self identity as stabilizer

Another image circles around a narrative self-identity that is associated with personal

history and orientations ‘outside’ the immediate work context, at least as conventionally

defined. McAdams (1996) talks about ‘personal myth’, a kind of ‘life story’ as a central

dimension in identity and something that potentially integrates the diversity of role

expectations common in modern life. It goes beyond role presentations (à la Goffman)

and discourse-driven subjectivity (à la poststructuralism) and points to a more integrated

and meaningfully created identity.

Following Giddens (1991), self-identity is then conceptualized as a reflexively orga-

nized narrative, derived from participation in competing discourses and various experi-

ences, which is productive of a degree of existential continuity and security. ‘Self-identity

is not a distinctive trait, or even a collection of traits, possessed by the individual. It is the

self as reflexively understood by the person . . . self-identity is continuity (across time

and space) as interpreted reflexively by the agent’ (p. 53). Self-identity is assembled out

of cultural raw material: language, symbols, sets of meanings, values, etc. These are

derived from countless numbers of interactions with others and exposure to messages

produced and distributed by agencies (schools, mass media), as well as early life experi-

ences and unconscious processes, all of which lead to ‘a coherent and vivifying life story

(which) provides the modern adult with that quality of selfhood that goes by the name of

identity’ (McAdams, 1996: 299). Such life stories or narratives have ‘the capacity to

integrate the individual’s reconstructed past, perceived present, and anticipated future,

rendering a life-in-time sensible in terms of beginnings, middles and endings’ (p. 298).

The impression is that this can be accomplished in a fairly autonomous way. Depending

on their capacities, individuals succeed or fail to create a narrative that gives meaning

and orientation in life.

There are two major problems here. First, the capacity of individuals to produce a

‘coherent and vivifying life story’ integrating experiences possibly pointing in diverse

directions. Second is whether a narrative, should one be created, has sufficient power

to accomplish a strong sense of continuity and security. Some critics doubt the pos-

sibility of crafting and maintaining a credible self-narrative. Roberts (2005) claims

that ‘such self-absorption is repeatedly problematized by the objectifications of self

by others’ (p. 637). Sims (2003) remarks that even though we create stories about our

selves and our situations, and try to live out some of them, these stories may be chal-

lenged, denied or simply ignored by others. Perhaps it is more common with a



plurality of diverse, even contradictory and disrupted life stories rather than a master

one creating temporal coherence? An emphasis on sets of organizational discourses

used for identity constructions would indicate this (Brown, 2006; Kuhn, 2006). This

critique would then point to an image of the identity constructor as a struggler, or pos-

sibly as a self-doubter, rather than a storyteller (or a combination of these images).

This is particularly true, Sims (2003) argues, for middle managers who are ‘com-

pelled to use a voice to make sense for others’, but ‘that sense may be carelessly

destroyed or ignored by your superiors, while being seen as self-serving and perhaps

weak witted by your subordinates’ (p. 1209) (see Beech, 2008, for an illustration).

Sometimes the emphasis on identity as narrative means a strong emphasis on process:

for example, Czarniawska-Joerges (1994) talks about ‘identity construction as a pro-

cess of narration where both the narrator and the audience formulate, edit, applaud,

and refuse various elements of the ever-produced narrative’ (p. 198). Often the idea of

identity as storytelling refers to a more established and lasting story. Critics thus want

to open up this perspective to take social interactions seriously, but at the core of most

illustrations of the storytelling view lies the idea that the individual, under normal

conditions, is the major author of the story of his or her life and that the interventions

of others are written into this narrative.

As we will see later, the images proposed here are not mutually exclusive, as the

theme of struggle or fairly frictionless shifts in identity can be ingredients in a story.

Also, the images addressed below can be incorporated and subsequently combined with

a storyteller metaphor. However, as a key image, storyteller emphasizes how the indi-

vidual narrates the situations, while the struggle and surfer metaphors emphasize a

broader set of forces and experiences at play, rather than ‘reducing’ them to episodes or

sources of inspiration for storytelling. In addition, most storytelling about identity does

not include any notion about (ongoing) struggle or surfing.

The storytelling image typically emphasizes a somewhat romantic view of the indi-

vidual as being fairly integrated and equipped with creativity and language skills, almost

like an artist. However, there are variations in how this image is used, as some authors

point to polyphony and touch upon issues of domination and power, putting their imprints

on the stories being produced (Brown, 2006; Humphries and Brown, 2002). The current

popularity of the narrative approach means that it is used in all sorts of, and sometimes

rather vague ways. ‘Story’ easily refers to everything and nothing. When applied in iden-

tity studies, it sometimes then does not reduce as much as reinforce the tendency to use

identity in an indistinct way.

Strategists: Crafting a functional identity

Another image of the individual in the context of identity construction suggests a subject

guided by interests and an ability to shape identity in accordance with an objective. An

individual might be eager to start a business or make a career as an executive, that might

engage in qualification acts, impression management, role-seeking and that might do

other things that serve to facilitate a specific identity. This goal or future-state oriented

project may also be a part of a collective enterprise. One way of capturing this is to think

about the individual as a strategist in relation to identity constructions.


Alvesson 205

Ibarra (1999), in a study of how young professionals develop their identities during

socialization, suggests that this is accomplished through three basic tasks: observing role

models, experimenting with provisional selves and evaluating results against internal

and external standards. People observe and build a repertoire of possible selves (Markus

and Nurius, 1986), which then are objects or themes of experimenting, for example,

through imitation of role models or ‘true-to-self strategies’. They then assess and modify

possible selves. This carving out of selves for work and career purposes means that, at

least to a degree, the entire process is active and strategic.

By rehearsing these clumsy, often ineffective, sometimes inauthentic selves, they learned more

about the limitations and potential of their repertoires and thus began to make decisions about

what elements to keep, refine, reject, or continue to search for.

(p. 779)

As people encounter new stages early identities need to be re-crafted or ‘revised with

experience’, requiring a ‘repertoire of resources from which they can construct diverse

self-presentation strategies’ (p. 783). Experiences of control and hope are part of the

identity strategy – this indicates a semi-rational crafting process that is often fairly

successful. Morgan Roberts (2005), for example, portrays professionals engaged in

impression management as reducing discrepancies between images and identities. The

identity strategy may, of course, fail or at least not be totally successful, for example,

if there is a shortage of good role models or demands call for inauthentic selves and

then the self-doubter or struggler images would in fact serve better in capturing any

seriously problematic efforts.

A different take on the identity subject as a strategist idea takes collective themes

more into account and places strategy in a political context. Individual and collective

identities are then intertwined in order to mobilize people for a social project. Dahler-

Larsen (1997) observed shifting identities in a study of Danish flight attendants on strike

in SAS (a Scandinavian airline firm). He found that people moved between seeing them-

selves as flight attendants, SAS members, veterans within the firm and Danes. These

shifts enabled them to create mobilization at various stages and in different situations.

This links with the surfer image, but is much more instrumental and strategic in nature.

It also places greater emphasis on how these people defined and redefined themselves on

the basis of politics and interests, rather than how other forces operated on them.

Examples of authors using the strategist-image include Koot (1997) who draws attention

to how ethnic identity can be mobilized in order to create competition and commitment, and

Humphries and Brown’s (2002) study of efforts to redefine organizational and professional

identities in a UK polytechnic trying to recreate itself as a forthcoming university.

The strategy image emphasizes the interest-driven, intentional aspects of identity. The

strategist can be part of either more personal projects (career, transitions, aspirations) or

political and conflict-laden contexts. It does not necessarily imply rationality or the sub-

ject being in control, as forces may operate on the subject being constructed in a way that

then informs the further construction efforts of a more strategic character. Career ideolo-

gies may, for example, operate on individuals trying to ‘strategize’ themselves in a

career-facilitating way (Grey, 1994). Conscious and active choices on the crafting of



identity for performativity based on objectives and interests are still seen as key aspects

of identity construction.

The use of this image tends to emphasize the individual as a master of identity con-

structions, which appears to exaggerate the level of control and the instrumentality

involved. Sometimes the view of identity becomes a bit shallow, fairly easily adjusted to

preferences and linked to a favoured image (e.g. Morgan Roberts, 2005). Some of the

writings drawing upon this image come close to self-help manuals or career advising

reports, while others show more similarities with political drama emphasizing how iden-

tity is invoked in political struggles.

Stencils: Identity bearing the imprints of discourse at work

A somewhat different take on identity, points to there being a standard or a template which

offers strong clues affecting how identity is constructed. The individual is assumed to sub-

ordinate him- or herself to this. Most uses of this image are inspired by Foucault. But also

institutional theory – emphasizing imitations and standardization tendencies – and critical

theory – pointing at the one-dimensionality associated with cultural domination (Marcuse,

1964) – are relevant here. Alternative terms for this image could be subjectified or scripted,

but I refer to this as the stencil image. The subject copies (or is copied by) a template in the

identity construction. As with the surfers, identity can here be used with quotation marks.

This image views the subject as mainly an effect of the Discourse (Alvesson and

Karreman, 2000) operating on it. It is not so much the individual being actively involved in

the construction of him- or herself as it is external powers doing this work. Foucauldians

and (other kinds of) poststructuralists reject the notion of the autonomous, self-determining

individual with a secure, unitary identity as the centre of the social universe. Discourses

produce subject positions – not that different from roles (but determined by institutional-

ized language rather than norms and expectations) – which individuals are located in

(locate themselves in). There is some overlap with the surfer image, which is also inspired

by poststructuralism, although by more language-focused versions than Foucault’s.

While the surfer image means an emphasis on the lightness of a multiple and fluid self,

the stencil view assumes a more ‘heavy’ and ‘fixed’ ‘self-identity’. This is typically con-

stituted and held in place by a single, dominant Discourse that essentially sets up an ideal

self for subjects to replicate, mainly as an effect of the forces operating on them. While

the surfer identity/identities is (are) fluid and, in a sense, ‘free’ or at least mobile, the

stencil identity is ‘productively repressed’ and put in place.

One of the most influential terms within this framework has been Foucault’s (1977)

concept of discipline. Training, work routines, appraisal systems, self-surveillance, and

experts are all exercising discipline in that they provide resources for normalization.

Through their operations, modern subjects are constituted whose sense of self-identity is

invested in the reproduction of these practices – not simply to achieve material rewards or avoid

punishment but to gain and confirm a (self-disciplining) sense of their own normality as sover-

eign subjects.

(Willmott, 1994: 106)


Alvesson 207

Normative experts, in particular, and the knowledge they create – or that creates (subjectifies)

them – provide a cover for the arbitrary and dominating discursive practices and facili-

tate normalization (Hollway, 1984, 1991). Collinson (2003) refers to this position as

assuming conformist selves, an outcome of regulatory practices. Arguably, identity regu-

lation is an important aspect of contemporary organizational control (Alvesson and

Willmott, 2002). Grey (1994), for example, explores how career structures and ambi-

tions can serve to structure and constrain how people define their selves – including their

future selves – along predictable and adaptable trajectories. Covaleski et al. (1998) high-

light the role of managerial techniques like mentoring and MBO in this regard.

Although Foucauldians, particularly in organization studies, frequently mention and

sometimes seem to exaggerate resistance (see Fleming and Spicer, 2003, for a critical

discussion), the key idea is that external powers are given priority in identity-defining

projects. There is no individual before Discourse works upon him or her. Sceptics raise

doubts about whether Discourse has such a strong impact. That subjects are ‘done to’

rather than ‘doing’ identity is not self-evident (Newton, 1998: 428). Critics also point out

that a lot of people’s experiences at work are ‘unmanaged’ and related to fantasies

(Gabriel, 1995). Arguably, quite a lot of identity constructions take place outside an axis

of (institutionalized) Discourse and resistance to it.

The stencil image paints a somewhat gloomy picture of identity, being tightly inter-

twined with and a product of the operations of power offering a hard-to-resist template.

For the self-doubter image researcher, however, the nightmare is produced by the uncer-

tainty and openness of the social world undermining identity security. In contrast, it is the

fixation and closure that represents the force of darkness for the stencil-focused scholar.

Soldiers: Identification with social units

Another image emphasizes how social categories are central for self-definition.

Belongingness to a social group or an organization is said to do the trick. It calls, how-

ever, for a high level of compliance and a willingness to refrain from strong claims

about individual unicity. In this sense it is similar to the stencil view. What may be

referred to as the soldier image is salient in many writings within the field of social

identity theory (SIT) (Haslam, 2004; Haslam and Reicher, 2006; Turner, 1984). As

mentioned in the section on surfers, parts of this stream emphasize process and situa-

tional variation of social identities contingent upon the presence of an outgroup mak-

ing the ingroup, and the associated social identity, salient and an important source of

identification. But most SIT-inspired work in organization studies has focused on more

static forms of identification – rather than on processes of identifying. Ashforth and

Mael (1989) define social identification as the ‘perception of oneness with or belong-

ingness to some human aggregate’ (p. 135). The interest here is in ‘the practices and

processes that are involved in aligning individual and organizational values’ (Pratt,

2000: 457). This implicates a fairly low degree of insistence on personal uniqueness.

Instead, the unit that one belongs to provides the source of identity (Brickson, 2000).

A key element here is ‘depersonalization, or seeing the self as an embodiment of the

in-group prototype’ (Stets and Burke, 2000: 231). Many students of organization view

organizational identification as significant:



When a person’s self-concept contains the same attributes as those in the perceived organiza-

tional identity, we define the cognitive connection as organizational identification.

Organizational identification is the degree to which a member defines him- or herself by the

same attributes that he or she believes define the organization.

(Dutton et al., 1994: 239)

Dutton et al. argue that ‘the perceived organizational identity – a member’s beliefs about the

distinctive, central, and enduring attributes of the organization – can serve as a powerful

image influencing the degree to which the member identifies with the organization’ (p. 244).

Advocates of the ‘loyal soldier’ view of identity share with the proponents of the

stencil image an emphasis on the conformist and adaptable nature of identity construc-

tions in organizations – although the former talk about the degree of identification and

the latter give some space for resistance – but they differ not least on the sources of iden-

tity and the consequences. The soldier image sees depersonalization and overlap between

perceived selves and organizations as key points and emphasizes mainly ‘positive fea-

tures’ (Dutton et al., 1994; Elsbach, 1999). In opposition to the ‘loyal soldier’ position of

perceived harmony between self-view and organizational identity, the stencil image

means a focus on power and, although its productive qualities are recognized, the tone is

gloomy and critical.

A critique of the organizational identification literature is that it tends to privilege the

organization as a source of identity and it operates with questionable assumptions about

individuals perceiving themselves, and their organizations, in similar and comparable

ways. One may question whether the typical individual, as for example Dutton et al. assume,

really defines ‘him – or herself by the same attributes that he or she believes define the

organization’ (Alvesson, 2003; Dahler-Larsen, 1997). The soldier image can, however,

also be used to illuminate occupational identities and other forms of social identification.

Some studies indicate that the use of collective categories and group belongingness for

the definition of oneself may not be so common (Siebers, 2009). The soldier image also

overemphasizes a static view of identification – one that frequently seems superficial and

misleading when closely scrutinized (Ashcraft and Alvesson, 2008).

In Table 1 and Figure 1 an overview of the seven positions and an effort to both relate

them to the two key dimensions and also to illustrate their internal relations are provided.

Comments on the framework

The aim of the framework is not to reflect on specific theories or texts, or on how indi-

viduals ‘actually’ construct identity (or are pre-constructed in self-definition). Rather, it

indicates central reference points (ideal types) for the conceptualization of the individual

as an identity constructor in the field of identity studies in organizations. There is seldom

a one to one relationship between a text and an image. One image (or root metaphor or

gestalt) does not capture everything in complex reasoning. Most authors would say that

there are securities and insecurities, identity constructions and the undermining of these,

things being done to and done by the subject whose identity is at stake. Scott et al. (1998)

for example, view identity as an anchor, but also emphasize the shifting targets for iden-

tification of individuals. Ashcraft (2007) too moves across some of the images suggested


Alvesson 209

above, in arguing that ‘occupational identity is an ongoing persuasive endeavour that

traverses time and space, across macro and micro messages, institutions and actors, that

serves to (re)organize work by mobilizing discourses of difference in response to lived

pressures and material circumstances’ (p. 15).

Differences between authors (texts) reflect which of these elements are privileged in

analysis and how the themes and their relationships are addressed. The image idea aims

to capture how the individual is conceptualized and portrayed in the identity construction

process. Some texts would express the view that there is a tendency towards coherence,

integration and distinctiveness easing uncertainty and fluidity, while others would see

the latter experiences as typically salient or lurking beneath the surface in contemporary

organizational life. Texts also vary in what they imagine the major source of this accom-

plishment or failure to be. Some would emphasize managerial regimes/other social

forces (e.g. post-bureaucratization, according to Sennett, 1998) while others view human

agency as central. In other words, the variation concerns whether it is contingency fac-

tors or the fragility or strength of human beings – as riddled with existential anxiety or as

Figure 1. The seven images in relation to each other. (To repeat, the domains indicated by the figure only indicate some of the key aspects differentiating the images.)



creative storytellers – that drive individuals towards fixed/integrated or diverse/fragmented

identity constructions.

As pointed out above, an image includes a theoretical idea, but is not the same as a

theory. Image and theory are neither independent nor directly implied by each other. Images

can to some extent be linked with different theories, and vice versa, although some combi-

nations do not work. In parts of social identity theory there are also combinations of

dynamic and relational, as well as static and ‘trait-like’ ingredients, sometimes salient in

one and the same text. On the one hand, the definitions of others and the self are mainly

relational and comparative (Ashforth and Mael, 1989: 154) and it is assumed that ‘most

individuals slide fairly easily from one identity to another’ (p. 148); on the other hand,

ideas of group identification and ‘cognition of oneness’ between self and organization

implies something fairly stable and fixed. The latter view, which dominates applications of

social identity theory in organization studies, is illuminated by the soldier image, but as the

first citation suggests, a surfer image is also possible as a guideline for users of SIT.

Similarly, within research drawing upon organizational identification, most emphasize a

soldier version of positive identification, but there are also examples of researchers with a

stronger focus on disidentification and, in particular, ambivalence, which then come closer

to the struggler view (e.g. Humphries and Brown, 2002; Pratt, 2000). Writings of

Foucauldian theorists, while typically based on an image of identity as stencil, may also –

when resistance is emphasized – be viewed as being guided by an image of struggle.

The point is thus that the level of image adds a different level of understanding to how we

conceptualize individuals as identity constructers (or as targeted for identity constructions

by management, discourse, social structures), as well as to broader ‘paradigm-like’ distinc-

tions (e.g. constructionism versus essentialism) and specific theories (this text is then similar

to Morgan, 1980). Through the conscious use of images – and perhaps through varying and

confronting these – specific theories can be used differently, and possibly more creatively.

The images can, of course, also be used in empirical work, as sensitizing devices in

fieldwork. It is possible to see existential anxiety, identity struggle, switching of subject

position and storytelling being targeted for subordination to a Discursive regime and being

strongly identified with a social aggregate as theoretically guided empirical themes. The set

of images then can be seen as a resource for more sensitive and less reductionistic empiri-

cal work and as useful for thinking through what could be observed and what questions

could be asked. The images then inform the design of a checklist to be used in inquiries. In

addition to using a specific theory (social identity theory, psychoanalysis, etc.) and being

interested in an empirical topic (socialization, motives, leadership) in relationship to iden-

tity conceptualizing – before, during and/or after fieldwork – the suggested framework

may add imaginativeness and guidelines for inquiry. Looking at and confronting various

images with each other may open up for redirections and novelty in studies.

Conclusion

This article offers an interpretation and a re-presentation of some contemporary ideas on

identity (self-identity) in organization studies. The ambition is not so much to provide a

detailed and uncontroversial map or sorting-machine, as to trigger awareness of alternative

conceptualizations and facilitate clearer choices for identity researchers. This means that it


Alvesson 211

becomes more important to point out some interesting variations, rather than to cover and

plug in all possibly important works on a knowledge map. One can here perhaps add that

the map metaphor is misleading. The field is very messy and shifting; it is difficult to pro-

duce re-representations, different vocabularies constitute the field in various ways and the

overview will, if read, also trigger changes. The challenge is to provide an overview while

acknowledging ambiguity, tensions and dynamics, and to give a productive framework for

options without ‘boxing’ in ideas and lines of thinking in rigid categories.

This article gives a quite different overview of the field than the available literature

reviews, which are focused on paradigms, specific theoretical perspectives or research areas.

Authors typically point towards two or three broad, and general, theoretical orientations –

such as ‘essentialism’ or ‘non-essentialism’ (Cerulo, 1997) or ‘identification with a collec-

tive’ or ‘parts of the self’ (Stryker and Burke, 2000: 284). Alternatively, literature reviews

emphasize a sub-area and then concentrate on theories in this. For instance, Pratt et al.

(2006) review socialization, transition and identity work approaches to the understanding of

professional identity construction. Or reviews go through the relationships between identity

and various topics or research areas, for example, handicap, family, social movements, etc.

(Howard, 2000). This article adds to the literature through a) pointing to a wide set of theo-

retical reference points and conceptualizations of identity, and b) addressing this on the level

of image, with a broad relevance for addressing a multitude of work and organizational

phenomena. Hopefully, this clarifies and broadens options for identity research. Through the

pointing out of tensions and variations within literature drawing upon these images, the

article also attempts to encourage creativity in how we can think about identity constructions

in organizations. Considering the relations between the images may be helpful here.

Two basic dimensions (or constellations of themes that are seen to be related) surface

in this work. One is the degree of insecurity, fluidity and ambiguity versus the degree of

coherence, robustness and integration of self-identity. The other is whose wide or narrow

shoulders the burden and joy of identity construction work falls upon. One extreme view

is to see this as a matter of individual effort and capacity (or lack of it): struggling with

aligning diverse forces, existential and/or socially induced insecurity and anxiety. The

other view is to see this as an outcome of various social forms and discursive forces,

where the identification with a standard for being – a dominant Discourse or a corporate/

occupational identity – offers a response to the questions of ‘who am I?’

These dimensions offer quite wide fields of inquiry, leading to a rich variety of posi-

tions and lines of reasoning. Rather than bringing the dimensions together through a

two-by-two matrix and fixing everything into four boxes, seven key images are identi-

fied/constructed. Each of these includes a central idea that goes beyond the two broad

dimensions used to emphasize comparisons, for example, existential insecurity or the

power effects of Discourse. The individual, preoccupied with self-identity, can thus be

understood as a:

!" Self-doubter: identity is viewed as circling around the irreducible, but socially

reinforced quality of insecurity and anxiety, undermining identity constructions.

!" Struggler: identity is understood as a struggle, at times uphill, enacted in order to

construct a self-identity that at least provides a temporal sense of coherence and a

reduction of fragmentation and pain.


!" Surfer: the subject is viewed as processual and open, meaning that in a dynamic

and turbulent world, the moves made between those subject positions offering

temporary identities take place without all that much friction or contest between

forces and ‘interests’.

!" Storyteller: the reflexive construction and re-production of a narrative of oneself

is viewed as a potentially effective way of dealing with the openness and uncer-

tainties of life.

!" Strategist: the individual tries to craft a sense of self (collective identification) that is

then to be mobilized for the accomplishment of a personal or collective objective.

!" Stencil: identity is seen as an effect of the operations of regulatory forces creating

a docile and conformist self, eager to replicate the dominant templates for being.

!" Soldier: social entities (formal organizations, collectivities), often made appealing

through managerial means (e.g. constructions of organizational identities), offer

material for self-definition by functioning as sources of identification.

This set of images is based on, and targets, organization studies (and to a minor extent

social psychological literatures) on individual identity constructions, but does not pre-

vent it from being potentially useful when thinking about identity in relation to various

collectivities (occupational or organizational identities).

But how can we use the framework within the intended area? One possibility is to

view these positions as a smorgasbord, thereby encouraging a holistic view and sensitiv-

ity in empirical work. Images can enrich fieldwork by suggesting possible questions and

lines of inquiry. A second option is to assume empirical variation, and to use the frame-

work as a set of resources for mainly inductive work, where data are seen as pointing at

a particular image that is, in turn, invoked to develop and refine results.

A counterpoint would be that we can not understand cases ‘neutrally’ and then deter-

mine which perspective and vocabulary ‘fit’ best. The image used informs the construc-

tion of any empirical phenomenon and provides an antidote to being narrowly captured by

empirical surface manifestations. The idea in this article is thus to regard these images as

alternative positions, based on not altogether compatible, and in some cases different,

ontologies and epistemologies. It could be argued that depth and coherence call for choos-

ing, cultivating and sticking with a particular image, therefore implying some in-depth

knowledge, even though there are other ways of formulating images than the one pre-

sented here. A more interesting research approach than working with an easy and apparent

fit between theory and empirical material is often to use a theory based on data that at first

glance does not actually seem to allow space for interpretation by that particular theory.

This tactic/style calls for both ambitious unpacking efforts and creative interpretation.

Identity is a difficult theme to study and it can easily involve everything and nothing. It

calls for sensitive interpretations. This article aims to encourage the use of carefully thought

through images and to support reflexive studies where the researcher keeps more than one

image in mind and is prepared to challenge his/her conceptualizations and lines of inquiry.

Acknowledgement

The author is grateful to Karen Lee Ashcraft, Yvonne Billing and Jacqueline Colleary for

help in polishing the text. The work with the article was facilitated by a grant from the

Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (FAS).

Alvesson 213

Note

1 In referring to various overall camps, one can be described by terms like integrated, robust,

sovereign, coherent and essentialism and the other by terms like insecurity, anxiety, fluidity and

incoherence. Of course, this categorization conceals that there are rather varied orientations,

alternative conceptualizations and ontological positionings that are framed also in other ways.

There are no necessary or automatic links between the phenomena referred to; insecurity and

fluidity do not always, or by definition, go together. A robust identity construction can be an

effect of the workings of power and is then not associated with sovereignty. Nevertheless, in

the literature as a whole, there are strong tendencies for researchers to work with sets of char-

acteristics as referred to above.

References

Albert S, Ashforth B, and Dutton J (2000) Organizational identity and identification. Academy of

Management Review 25: 13–17.

Alvesson M (2003) Interpretive unpacking: Moderately destabilizing identities and images in orga-

nization studies. In: Locke E (ed.) Research in the Sociology of Organizations. Amsterdam:

Elsevier, 3–27.

Alvesson M, Karreman D (2000) Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through

discourse analysis. Human Relations 53: 1125–49.

Alvesson M, Sköldberg K (2009) Reflexive Methodology, 2nd edn. London: SAGE.

Alvesson M, Thompson P (2005) Post-bureaucracy? In: Ackroyd S et al. (eds) Oxford Handbook

of Work and Organization Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 485–507.

Alvesson M, Willmott H (2002) Producing the appropriate individual. Identity regulation as orga-

nizational control. Journal of Management Studies 39: 619–44.

Alvesson M, Ashcraft K, and Thomas R (2008a) Identity matters: Reflections on the construction

of identity scholarship in organization studies. Organization 15: 5–28.

Alvesson M, Hardy C, and Harley B (2008b) Reflecting on reflexivity: Reappraising practice.

Journal of Management Studies 45: 480–501.

Ashcraft KL (2007) Appreciating the ‘work’ of discourse: Occupational identity and difference as

organizing mechanisms in the case of commercial airline pilots. Discourse & Communication

1: 9–36.

Ashcraft KL, Alvesson M (2008) The moving targets of dis/identification: Wrestling with the

reality of social construction. Manuscript, University of Utah, USA and Lund University,

Sweden.

Ashforth B, Mael F (1989) Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management

Review 14: 20–39.

Beech N (2008) On the nature of dialogic identity work. Organization 15: 51–74.

Brickson S (2000) The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes in

demographically diverse settings. Academy of Management Review 25: 82–101.

Brown AD (2006) A narrative approach to collective identities. Journal of Management Studies

43: 731–54.

Brown AD, Starkey K (2000) Organizational identity and learning: A psychodynamic perspective.

Academy of Management Review 25: 102–20.

Burrell G, Morgan G (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London:

Heinemann.



Cerulo K (1997) Identity construction: New issues, new directions. Annual Review of Sociology 23:

385–409.

Cohen A (1994) Self Consciousness. An Alternative Anthropology of Identity. London: Routledge.

Collinson D (2003) Identities and insecurities. Organization 10: 527–47.

Costas J, Fleming P (2009) Beyond dis-identification: A discursive approach to self-alienation in

contemporary organizations. Human Relations 62: 353–78.

Covaleski M, Dirsmith M, Heian J, and Samuel S (1998) The calculated and the avowed: Techniques

of discipline and struggles over identity in Big Six public accounting firms. Administrative

Science Quarterly 43: 293–327.

Czarniawska-Joerges B (1994) Narratives of indvididual and organizational identities. In: Deetz S

(ed.) Communication Yearbook 17. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 193–221.

Dahler-Larsen P (1997) Organizational identity as ‘crowded category’: A case of multiple and

quickly shifting ‘we’ typifications. In: Sackmann S (ed.) Cultural Complexity in Organizations.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 367–89.

Deetz S (1992) Democracy in an Age of Corporate Colonization. Albany: SUNY Press.

Dunne J (1996) Beyond sovereignty and deconstruction: The storied self. In: Kearney R (ed.) Paul

Ricoeur. The Hermeneutics of Action. London: SAGE.

Dutton J, Dukerich J, and Harquail C (1994) Organizational images and member identification.

Administrative Science Quarterly 43: 293–327.

Elsbach K (1999) An expanded model of organizational identification. Research in Organizational

Behaviour 21: 163–200.

Ely R, Padavic I (2007) A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences. Academy

of Management Review 32: 1121–43.

Fleming P, Spicer A (2003) Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and

resistance. Organization 10: 157–79.

Foucault M (1977) Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage.

Foucault M (1980) Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

Gabriel Y (1995) The unmanaged organization: Stories, fantasies and subjectivity. Organization

Studies 16: 477–501.

Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gioia D, Schulz M, and Corley K (2000) Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability.


Grey C (1994) Career as a project of self and labour process discipline. Sociology 28: 479–97.

Grey C (2005) About Studying Organizations. London: SAGE.

Gubrium J, Holstein J (2001) Introduction. Trying times, troubled selves. In: Gubrium J and

Holstein J (eds) Institutional Selves. New York: Oxford University Press.

Habermas J (1972) Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann.

Handley K, Sturdy A, Fincham R, and Clark T (2006) Within and beyond communities of practice:

Making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice. Journal of Management

Studies 43: 641–54.

Haslam A (2004) Psychology of Organizations, 2nd edn. London: SAGE.

Haslam A, Reicher S (2006) Social identity and the dynamics of organizational life. In: Bartel C,

Blader S and Wrzesniewski A (eds) Identity and the Modern Organization. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.


Alvesson 215

Hollway W (1984) Gender difference and the production of subjectivity. In: Henriques J et al. (eds)

Changing the Subject. London: Methuen, 227–63.

Hollway W (1991) Work Psychology and Organizational Behaviour. London: SAGE.

Howard J (2000) Social psychology of identities. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 367–93.

Humphries M, Brown AD (2002) Narratives of organizational identity and identification: A case

study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies 23: 421–47.

Ibarra H (1999) Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adapta-

tion. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 764–91.

Jackall R (1988) Moral Mazes. The World of Corporate Managers. New York: Oxford University

Press.

Jenkins R (2000) Categorization: Identity, social process and epistemology. Current Sociology 48:

7–25.

Knights D, Morgan G (1991) Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A critique.

Organization Studies 12: 251–73.

Knights D, Willmott H (1989) Power and subjectivity at work. Sociology 23: 535–58.

Knights D, Willmott H (1999) Management Lives. London: SAGE.

Koot W (1997) Strategic utilization of ethnicity in contemporary organizations. In: Sackmann S

(ed.) Cultural Complexity in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 315–339.

Kreiner G, Hollensbe E, and Sheep M (2006) Where is the ‘me’ among the ‘we’? Identity work and

the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal 49: 1031–57.

Kuhn T (2006) A ‘demented work ethic’ and a lifestyle firm. Discourse, identity and workplace

time commitments. Organization Studies 27: 1339–57.

Leonard N, Beauvais L, and Scholl R (1999) Work motivation: The incorporation of self-concept-

based processes. Human Relations 52: 969–98.

Locke K, Golden-Biddle K (1997) Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring inter-

textual coherence and ‘problematizing’ in organizational studies. Academy of Management

Journal 40: 1023–62.

Marcuse H (1964) One-Dimensional Man. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Markus H, Nurius P (1986) Possible selves. American Psychologist 41: 954–69.

Markus H, Wurf M (1987) The dynamic self-concept. A social psychological perspective. Annual

Review of Psychology 38: 299–337.

McAdams D (1996) Personality, modernity, and the storied self: A contemporary framework for

studying persons. Psychological Inquiry 7: 295–321.

McSweeny B (2006) Do we live in a post-bureaucratic époque? Journal of Organizational Change

Management 19: 22–37.

Morgan G (1980) Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative

Science Quarterly 25: 605–22.

Morgan G (1997) Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Morgan Roberts L (2005) Changing faces: Professional image construction in diverse organiza-

tional settings. Academy of Management Review 30: 685–711.

Newton T (1998) Theorizing subjectivity in organizations. The failure of Foucauldian studies?

Organization Studies 19: 415–47.

Pratt M (2000) The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway

distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly 45: 456–93.



Pratt M, Rockmann K and Kaufmann J (2006) Constructing professional identity: The role of

work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents.

Academy of Management Journal 49: 235–62.

Roberts J (2005) The power of the ‘imaginary’ in disciplinary processes. Organization 12: 619–42.

Rorty R (1989) Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosenau PM (1992) Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences. Insights, Inroads and Intrusions.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sampson E (1989) Deconstruction of self. In: Shotter J and Gergen K (eds) Texts of Identity.

London: SAGE, 1–19.

Sarup M (1988) An Introductory Guide to Post-structuralism and Post-modernism. Hemel

Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Scott C, Corman S, and Cheney G (1998) Development of a structurational model of identification

in the organization. Communication Theory 8: 298–336.

Sennett R (1998) The Corrosion of Character. New York: Norton.

Shotter J, Gergen K (eds) (1989) Texts of Identity. London: SAGE.

Siebers HG (2009) Struggles for recognition: The politics of racioethnic identity among Dutch

national tax administrators. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25: 73–84.

Sims D (2003) Between the millstones: A narrative account of the vulnerability of middle manag-

ers’ storying. Human Relations 56: 1195–211.

Stets J, Burke P (2000) Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 63:

224–37.

Stryker S, Burke P (2000) The past, present, and future of an identity theory. Social Psychology

Quarterly 63: 284–97.

Sveningsson S, Alvesson M (2003) Managing managerial identities. Human Relations 56: 1163–93.

Thomas R, Davies A (2005) Theorizing the micro-politics of resistance. Organization Studies

26: 683–706.

Thomas R, Linstead A (2002) Losing the plot? Middle managers and identity. Organization

9: 71–93.

Thompson P, Warhurst C (eds) (1998) Workplaces of the Future. London: Macmillan.

Townley B (1993) Foucault, power/knowledge, and its relevance for human resource management.


Turner J (1984) Social identification and psychological group formation. In: Tajfel H (ed.) The

Social Dimension, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Watson T (1994) In Search of Management. London: Routledge.

Watson T (2008) Managing identity, identity work, personal predicaments and structured circum-

stances. Organization 15: 121–43.

Weedon C (1987) Feminist Practice & Poststructuralist Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Willmott H (1994) Theorizing human agency: Responding to the crises of (post)modernity. In: Hassard

J and Parker M (eds) Towards a New Theory of Organizations. London: Routledge, 44–60.


Alvesson 217

Mats Alvesson is Professor of Business Administration at the University of Lund, Sweden and at

University of Queensland Business School, Australia. He is Honorary Professor at University of

St Andrews and Visiting Professor at Exeter University. Research interests include critical theory,

gender, power, management of professional service (knowledge intensive) organizations, leadership,

identity, organizational image, organizational culture and symbolism, qualitative methods and phi-

losophy of science. Recent books include Oxford Handbook of Critical Management Studies (Oxford

University Press, 2009, edited with Todd Bridgman and Hugh Willmott), Understanding Gender and

Organizations (SAGE, 2009, 2nd edn with Yvonne Billing), Reflexive Methodology (Sage, 2009, 2nd

edn, with Kaj Skoldberg), Changing Organizational Culture (Routledge, 2008, with Stefan

Sveningsson), Knowledge Work and Knowledge-intensive Firms (Oxford University Press, 2004),

Postmodernism and Social Research (Open University Press, 2002), and Understanding

Organizational Culture (SAGE, 2002). [Email: [email protected]]


Struglers, Storytellers, Surfers & Others Alvesson

Documents

Transcript of Struglers, Storytellers, Surfers & Others Alvesson