EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

Vol. 11, No. 2 (2006)

29

http://ejbo.jyu.fi/

Organizational

Identity and Trust

Abstract

This paper focuses on organizational identity and trust. The paper is being created from a theoretical point of view. Exploring concept and their interrelation is important and valuable scientific work with the purpose of better understanding their meaning and interrelation. This kind of conceptual and theoretical examination has an important task as a basis for theorizing and theory creation. Both identity and trust are multilevel notions. Both concepts describe an abstract phenomenon that is of growing interest in organization field of study. Despite of the conceptual ambiguity both identity and trust can be argued to be relative and qualitative by nature. In addition, they both are commonly seen as the property of a collective at the organizational level analysis. They both can be understood being affected by meanings, understanding and interpretation. They can also be understood being created and maintained in social interaction. There are several concepts that are related to the concept of organizational identity. In this paper we create a link between organizational identity and trust. The link can be understood by exploring organizational identity’s related concepts self-identity and identification. Both concepts are also crucial in understanding trust. In addition, in order to understand organizational identity’s and trust’s interrelation one must also explore the concept of commitment. Identity in an individual level, self-identity, can be characterized as individual’s theory of oneself. Identification in turn, has been defined as an individual’s sense of oneness or belongingness with an organization. Organizational identity can be understood as if a part of an answer relating to identification: To what is someone identifying themselves with? Commitment has commonly been characterized as the psychological strength of an individual’s attachment to the organization or as the relative strength of an individual’s identification with the organization and involvement in a particular organization. Trust in return is the key in creating greater commitment to an organization. Trust however, does not create identification. Instead we believe organizational identity affects the level of identification of individuals within organization which in return creates trust. In general the approach presented here encourages an enhanced awareness of interdependence and embeddedness of the concepts organizational identity, membership identification, commitment and trust.

Keywords

Organizational identity, self-identity, identification, trust, commitment

Anu Puusa

Ulla Tolvanen

Introduction

This paper focuses on organization identity and trust. The paper is created from a theoretical point of view. Exploring concepts and their interrelation is important and valuable research area with the purpose to better understand their meaning and interrelation. This kind of conceptual and theoretical examination has an important role as a basis for theorizing and theory creation. There are several concepts related to organizational identity. In this paper we create a link between organizational identity and trust. The link can be understood by exploring the concepts of self-identity and identification that are related to organizational identity. Identification is also a significant trust-making mechanism. In general the approach encourages an enhanced awareness of interdependence and embeddedness of the concepts. First, we explore the multilevel notion of organizational identity. Then, we present the concept of trust within organization. Finally, we conclude by building a bridge between these two phenomena.

Identity as a multilevel notion

Exploring identity has its origin in examining it at an individual level. The phenomenon has interested philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotelian in the ancient Greece. Concepts of identity and self can be perceived as the most important concepts in sociology and social-psychology. Identity at an individual level can be characterized as individual’s theory of oneself. Identity helps seek answers to questions like “who am I?” “Who do I want to be?” “Who could I be and what are my goals in life?” “How do I handle my relationships to other human beings?” “What is my place within society as a human being?” Thus, identity can be understood as referring to different meanings that individuals associate with themselves. Typically humans characterize themselves based on structural features of a group membership or with the help of characteristics that an individual him/herself associate with herself. In other words, identity is formed by different characterizations of oneself. It has also

EJBO Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies

Vol. 11, No. 2 (2006)

30

http://ejbo.jyu.fi/

been stated that identity illustrates the desire and need human beings have to interpret themselves as being part of something, a certain entity. Therefore, it can be concluded that humans have a natural desire to belong to a group. (Aaltio, 2004; Barney et al., 1998; Bernstein, 1986; Houtsonen, 1996; Huotelin, 1992; Rönnholm, 1999). According to the social identity theory, self-image is largely defined on the basis of how individuals are perceived and interpreted by others and how others bring out the impression they have formulated.

As time went by, researchers became interested in exploring the phenomenon of identity more systematically. They extended the research to identity and its illustration at a group level. Based on, for example the work conducted by Erickson (1964), it was discovered that not only does identity have an effect on how we perceive ourselves or how we categorize ourselves in relation to others, but it simultaneously creates team spirit between individuals in tight relationship and interaction with one another.

Finally, research was extended to organization level when Stuart Albert and David Whetten began their research at the University of Illinois in 1979. In the year of 1985, the very first definition of organizational identity was introduced. Albert and Whetten suggested that organization identity consists of those attributes that members feel are fundamental to the organization, uniquely descriptive of it and persisting within it over time. In other words, organizational identity refers to what is central, distinctive and enduring in an organization, when considering its past, present and the future. Organizational identity is commonly seen as the property of a collective. In other words, organization’s identity defines a more or less shared and collective sense of “who we are as an organization”.

Based on the previous chapter it is easy to understand that identity at the individual level and identity at the organization level are interrelated. Theory and research results have also indicated a close relationship between self-identity and organizational identity. (Ashfort & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; Elsbach & Kramer, 1996; Scott & Lane, 2000). The relationship between individual and organizational identities is regarded as reciprocal, such that organizational identities can influence individual behaviour, and individual behaviour can influence organizational identity. (Pratt & Foreman, 2000; Huemer et al., 2004) According to Empson (2004), organizational identity at the individual level represents the distinctive attributes which individuals associate with their membership of a particular organization. At the organizational level, on the other hand, identity is formed by the agglomeration of the distinctive attributes of individual members. Therefore it can be stated, that organizational members both shape and are shaped by their organizational membership through this dynamic dialectic process.

Identification and identity are constructs closely related to one another as well. Huemer et al. (2004) have also considered the interrelation and point out that consideration of identity of an organization is not unrelated to the question of identification. Organizational identity can be understood as a part of an answer relating to identification: To what is someone identifying themselves with? Or as Hatch & Schultz (2000) describe it: “Organizational identity, as the object of commitment and a sense of belonging, is seen as providing a cognitive and emotional foundation on which organizational members build meaningful relationships with the organization concerned. Identification has been defined as an individual’s sense of oneness or belongingness within an organization. (Mael & Ashfort, 1992)

The question of identification is relevant and current nowadays when organizations are going through constant changes. In addition, relationships between supervisors and subordinates constantly change as well. Identification as a construct can be understood as creating a kind of a mental bridge between an individual and an organization. It helps analyze the individual’s perception of herself, her relation to the surrounding world and therefore her relationship to her associated organization. Huemer et al. (2004) also suggests that identification processes provide links between identities at different levels. However, i.e. Rock & Pratt (2002), even though they agree with the interrelation, state that so far there has been little research on exactly how these processes can be managed over time and across contexts. Empson (2004) suggests that a well defined, clearly differentiated, widely shared, and positively construed organizational identity can

...