Organisational Identity and Self-Transformation by Seidl David;

Author:Seidl, David;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Routledge

4. Multiple Self-Descriptions

Empirically one can often find that organisations possess not only one but multiple self-descriptions. We can distinguish two cases: succession and co-existence of different self-descriptions.184 In the first case, an organisation uses specific identity semantics for a certain time only, after which it constructs a new one.185 As there exists only one ‘valid’ self-description at any one time,186 there is no competition (with regard to the organisation’s reproduction) between the various self-descriptions – autopoiesis only takes place in the respective present. In the second case, several self-descriptions are simultaneously involved in the organisation’s reproduction. In this respect (i.e. their concrete effect on the autopoiesis187) we can distinguish substitutable, complementary or conflicting relations between them.188

First, we want to look at the case where different semantics are substitutable for each other – that is to say, where their meaning is similarly confined: a change from one type of semantics to another does not make a difference to the organisation. In other words, self-descriptions are synonymous. It is like having two maps of a territory that use different signs and symbols but refer to the same characteristics of the territory. An example for such substitutable self-descriptions is the indexical expression ‘we’ with regard to the name of the organisation.189 The existence of several self-descriptions can be manifest or latent. By reflecting on its self-descriptions, the organisation becomes aware of the coexistence of several self-descriptions; i.e. the co-existence becomes manifest. Initially, this constitutes a problem for the organisation, as it is faced with two (or more) ‘selves’. The problem can be solved, however, if the organisation considers – or perhaps even declares – both sets of semantics to be equivalent. In terms of the metaphor of map and territory, the existence of two maps seems to indicate two different territories; however, by comparing the maps one might judge that both refer to the same territory and also to the same characteristics of that territory.

The second relation between self-descriptions that we want to look at can be described as complementarity, with regard to its effects on the organisation’s reproduction. This second relation is comparable to a situation where one has both a geographical and a political map of a territory. Analogously, self-descriptions can describe the organisation from different ‘perspectives’: for example, organisations can have several semantics dominated by different dimensions of meaning. Another possibility is that an organisation has different self-descriptions for different communicative contexts.190 Horvath and Glynn191 give the example of a healthcare co-operative whose two self-descriptions ‘family’ and ‘business’ functioned in that way. Ashforth and Mael192 give the example of a state university that would refer to its ‘teaching effectiveness’ when compared with other state universities, and to issues of relative funding when compared with private universities. Corley193 describes the differentiation of organisational identities according to the organisational hierarchy: while at higher levels of the hierarchy the identity is defined in the light of the organisation’s strategy, on lower levels it is related to its culture.

The existence of several self-descriptions is

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.