Strategies for the Resolution of Identity Ambiguity Following Situations of Subtractive Change

Abstract

This article applies the concept of identity ambiguity to the individual level of analysis, suggesting that identity ambiguity will likely follow certain scenarios of change in which an essential target of one’s identification is abruptly lost. This temporary absence of identification has thus far been understudied, and it is proposed that individuals perceive it as a negative experience, in which opportunities for reidentification are uncertain and unclear. It is further proposed that they will be driven to overcome this identity ambiguity through one of four distinct strategies. The choice of which strategy to adopt is moreover said to be influenced by the interaction between opposing factors: the strength of one’s organizational identification prior to the change and the degree to which the new setting is perceived as prestigious, distinct, and with values that are congruent to one’s personal values. Finally, a discussion of theoretical and managerial implications is provided.

Keywords

identity ambiguity identity transitions subtractive change identification

Changes in organizations have become commonplace over the past 30 years, and research in organizational studies has responded with an increased focus on how organizations and organizational members react to change (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001; Reissner, 2010). Many of these changes consist of subtractive changes, defined as instances in which an important aspect or attribute of the organizational context is permanently and abruptly removed (Corley & Gioia, 2004). Examples of subtractive changes include corporate spin-offs, mass layoffs, and radical technological shifts. Instances such as these can be especially challenging for organizational members, who suddenly find themselves with a lack of understanding of “who we are” as an organization and “who am I” as an organizational member in their new and unfamiliar context (Corley & Gioia, 2004). In this article, it is proposed that such subtractive changes will elicit the experience of identity ambiguity, understood here as the perceived loss of a strong target of identification, evoking confusion as to who individuals believe they are within their organizations and who they will be in the future (Corley & Gioia, 2004).

Similar ideas to identity ambiguity have been addressed by scholars engaged in the study of social identity theory and identity transitions (Ashforth, 2001; Chreim, 2002; Fiol, 2002). This past work has provided important insights on how individuals become identified or disidentified from their organizational setting (Ashforth, 2001; Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Fiol, 2002) and the way in which individuals promote or convey their identities to others (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999; Ibarra, 1999). However, the ways in which one’s social identity can be forcefully lost and the experiences of individuals at the particular point in time in which this happens and before a new identity comes into sight has thus far received limited attention.

Nevertheless, achieving a greater understanding of identity ambiguity is important, mainly because this experience is likely to be extremely uncomfortable and disconcerting. Considering that identification is said to serve the key purposes of safety, meaning, affiliation (Pratt, 1998), uncertainty reduction (Hogg & Terry, 2000), and self-esteem enhancement (Ashforth, 2001; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Pratt, 1998), an individual in a situation of identity ambiguity is likely to be deprived of the means by which to satisfy these critical needs. In addition, because strong organizational identification has also been known to correlate with several outcomes specifically relevant to organizational life such as turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Ashforth et al., 2008), identity ambiguity also has negative effects for the organization as a whole.

Finally, it is also suggested in this paper that individuals will exhibit varying responses to identity ambiguity and that an examination of these is critical to understand the dynamics of an individual’s identity in situations of subtractive change. Thus, the goal of this article is to increase our understanding of how identity ambiguity develops from subtractive change and to examine the outcomes associated with this ambiguity. It is proposed that individuals will tend to respond to identity ambiguity in predictable ways, depending on the strength of their identification with the attributes of their original organization and the degree to which they perceive the new organizational context to be prestigious, distinctive, and with core values that match their personal values.

This paper attempts to contribute to the identity literature in three ways. First, it extends prior work on subtractive change and its effect on identity, a topic that is still at a preliminary stage of theoretical development (Ashforth, 2001; Corley & Gioia, 2004). Second, it extends the relatively novel concept of identity ambiguity beyond the study of organizations (Corley & Gioia, 2004) to the individual level of analysis, addressing the causes and likely consequences of identity ambiguity for individuals. Third, it proposes a typology of responses to identity ambiguity, assuming that there is individual variation in strategies for dealing with this situation.

In the following sections, the current literature on identity transitions, subtractive change, and identity ambiguity will be further explored. A model will then be proposed that explains the different strategies that may be undertaken to resolve identity ambiguity and the factors that determine which of these strategies are most likely to be applied. Finally, opportunities for future research and management implications will be suggested based on the proposed model.

Theoretical Framework

Identity Transitions and Processes of Identification and Deidentification

Previous literature has addressed the process of identity change and the related dynamics of identification and deidentification (Ashforth, 2001; Ashforth et al., 2008). Identification refers to embracing a certain identity as one’s own and conferring to it a high degree of importance in determining how one sees oneself within the overall society (Ashforth, 2001; Ashforth et al., 2008). Deidentification, on the other hand, refers to the process of exiting a particular identity so that it no longer defines who one is or what role one occupies within a given organizational context (Ashforth, 2001). Processes of deidentification have been paid considerably less attention in recent literature than processes of identification, despite the importance of the former in enabling organizational change (Ashforth, 2001; Chreim, 2002; Corley & Gioia, 2004; Fiol, 2002).

Regarding identification, the literature proposes that by identifying with their work group or organization, individuals can satisfy needs such as safety, affiliation, self-enhancement, and meaning (Ashforth et al., 2008; Pratt, 1998). Identification is said to occur when individuals perceive a certain group or organization to be distinct, prestigious, and with core values that are similar to their personal values (Ashforth et al., 2008; George & Chattopadhyay, 2005). Identification is furthermore said to occur through a process of identity work, which consists of the act of forming, repairing, strengthening or maintaining one’s identity (Ashforth et al., 2008; Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006; Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003). This can occur through the crafting of identity narratives, or stories of the self, by which individuals define and affirm their identities (Ibarra & Barbulescu, 2010), or through enactment, in which one experiments and chooses between potential identities (Ibarra, 1999).

Because of the role that identification plays in ensuring high self-esteem (Hogg & Terry, 2000) and in meeting several individual psychological needs (Pratt, 1998), it is clear that transitions involving deidentification and identification can be troublesome to individuals. Minkler and Biller (1979) address this in proposing the concept of role shock, which may occur both when exiting a role and when entering a new one, and consists of a perception of sharp discontinuity where continuity had been expected, resulting in intense feelings of stress. In such situations, it has been argued that the stronger the initial identification and the more time this identification is in place, the more difficult deidentification will be (Ashforth, 2001).

Processes of identification and deidentification have also been analyzed in light of widely accepted theories of change, such as Lewin’s (1964) proposal that change occurs through subsequent phases of freezing, unfreezing, and refreezing, the latter taking place because there will always be a tendency to return to a state of equilibrium and stability, however different from the initial equilibrium this new state may be. Thus, when an organization undergoes significant change, individuals would deidentify from the original organization, and then reidentify with the new, changed organization. In doing so, they would essentially re-create their organizational identification (Ashforth, 2001; Fiol, 2002).

Finally, at the organizational level, it has been argued that organizational change can be seen as a series of shifts in individual organizational members’ patterns of identification (Chreim, 2002). Thus, when organizational members are very strongly identified with their organization, it is proposed that they would not deidentify, which in turn might impede major organizational change (Chreim, 2002; Fiol, 2002). Individuals may also hold on to obsolete patterns of identification because they are afraid of the unknown future (Tannenbaum & Hanna, 1985) and of the sense of discomfort and loss of meaning that they may experience if they deidentify from the organizational attributes with which they are familiar (Chreim, 2002). This fear and subsequent resistance are thought to be even more poignant the more one’s current target of identification is believed to be superior and more desirable than the new organizational context (Chreim, 2007).

Subtractive Change

Subtractive change has been defined as that in which a concrete aspect of the work environment that a person identifies with is removed or ceases to exist (Corley & Gioia, 2004). Examples of this include corporate spin-offs, demergers, plant closures resulting in mass layoffs, and the obsolescence of key technologies. In these situations, organizational elements that define one’s core occupation, cultural norms and values, or sense of self-efficacy are lost. This loss is not only concrete but is also beyond the control of the majority of individuals affected (Corley & Gioia, 2004).

Identification shifts following subtractive change are inherently different from those that occur spontaneously and voluntarily (Ashforth, 2001; Corley & Gioia, 2004). Previous research in the field of identification and career transitions has tended to focus primarily on the second case, in which individuals feel unsettled and therefore initiate a change in their career or in other targets of identification (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Ebaugh, 1988). While individuals engaged in self-initiated deidentification may believe that they have some degree of control regarding their situation, those facing subtractive change see themselves as having very little or no control over the external situation that prompted their need to deidentify.

Abrupt job loss for reasons clearly beyond individuals’ control, such as those initiated by corporate restructure programs and factory closures, are examples of subtractive change that can be very difficult to deal with. Viinamäki, Koskela, Niskanen, and Arnkill (1993) conducted a study among factory workers who received notice that their factory plant was closing. Among the respondents of this study, approximately half received a psychiatric diagnosis, the most common of which was depression. In a similar vein, a study conducted by Strully (2009) concluded that in comparison with an employed reference group, individuals faced with a company closure were 54% more likely to report only fair or poor health and 83% more likely to report a new health condition such as hypertension, arthritis, or diabetes.

Other examples of subtractive change include dramatic shifts in technologies and in organizational structures. For instance, Reissner (2010) explains how the shift from using a typewriter to using a computer was seen as a confusing and abrupt change for employees of a South African organization. These individuals saw themselves as typists, and the act of using a typewriter was very important in determining how they saw themselves at work.

Identity Ambiguity and the Perceived “Absence” of Identity

Corley and Gioia (2004) introduced the concept of identity ambiguity and applied it to the analysis of organizations but it has not yet been applied to the individual level of analysis. These authors propose that this concept is different from that of identity transition or conflict. In this case, instead of the issue being a shift between identities or a conflict between two or more simultaneous and conflicting identities, the issue is the lack of a sufficiently strong identity or the lack of clarity surrounding the meaning assigned to existing claims to identity. In situations of identity ambiguity, there is a great deal of confusion as to who people believe they are and where or who they will be in the future. This occurs specifically following situations of subtractive change, where an important target of identification is removed from the overall context and, as a result, there is a lack of clarity as to what the next target of identification will be and whether re-identification will be achieved (Corley & Gioia, 2004). While previous studies on deidentification and reidentification have addressed processes whereby an individual’s target of identification changes over time (Ashforth, 2001; Pratt, Rockmann, & Kaufmann, 2006), the temporary of absence of identification, in which opportunities for reidentification are unclear, has mostly been overlooked.

While not explicitly referring to the concept of identity ambiguity, other authors have explored similar ideas. Thus, Fiol (2002) addresses how deidentification before there has been reidentification to a new identity leads to feelings of loss of meaning, ambiguity, and uncertainty and necessarily involves a sense of disequilibrium and pain. This would occur when the sense of trust between the individual and the organization on which identification is based is disrupted or violated (Fiol, 2002). This sense of loss and absence of identity has much in common with what has already been proposed at the macro level by Corley and Gioia (2004) as identity ambiguity. However, in the study by Fiol (2002), the disidentification of organizational members was a process purposely and methodically carried out by the firm’s leaders so that the organization could eventually transition to a new and previously envisioned identity. Thus, while the lack of strong identification was real, there was a visible end in sight and new practices and expectations that were clearly outlined by organizational leaders. Identity ambiguity, on the other hand, is defined in this article as the lack of a strong identification accompanied by a lack of clarity as to whether, how, and when identification will be rebuilt.

Another construct that is close to identity ambiguity is identity liminality. This concept was introduced by Turner (1967), as an anthropological exploration of rites of passage, such as the transition from boy to man, in which focus is placed on the “betwixed and between” stage wherein the old identity is no longer in place and the new identity not yet reached. Identity liminality is said to originate from various triggering situations, which could be either intrapsychic or external to the individual, and it can be seen as a positive, liberating, and exciting experience, often accompanied by a clear prospect of a future target of identification (Ashforth, 2001; Beech, 2011). The main resemblance between identity ambiguity and identity liminality is the explicit focus on the moment within an identity transition in which one senses an absence of a strong identity. However, when experiencing identity liminality, individuals supposedly have clarity as to when and how identification is likely to reoccur and may regard the “between” stage as a necessary and worthwhile step in achieving an ulterior goal (Beech, 2011). In contrast, individuals experiencing identity ambiguity have very little information about whether, when and how they will eventually regain organizational identification and have the perception that they have very little control over this process. This lack of clarity as to the end of this state is likely to cause additional psychological discomfort and turmoil to individuals facing identity ambiguity.

In this paper, it is proposed that individual-level identity ambiguity will lead to a desire or drive to return to a state of identification. Remaining in a state of identity ambiguity is not a viable option as organizational identification is critical in constructing one’s sense of safety, meaning, and affiliation and enhancing one’s self-esteem (Ashforth et al., 2008; Pratt, 1998). Although some research has shown that subtractive changes such as unexpected job loss can ultimately be perceived as liberating (Zikic & Richardson, 2007), the positive aspects of this transition are likely to be mostly visible in hindsight, after one has acquired a new and positive social identity and therefore exited the situation of identity ambiguity. While in a situation of identity ambiguity, individuals are likely to have a strong sense of the reduction in self-esteem, affiliation, and meaning that are characteristic of weak identification, along with the added anxiety and uncertainty that accompanies the lack of knowledge about the future.

Proposed Model

The subsequent sections introduce a theoretical model that extends our understanding of the construct of identity ambiguity following subtractive change and proposes a typology of strategies that individuals are likely to undertake in response to identity ambiguity. This theoretical model is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Strategies for the resolution of identity ambiguity.

Forces Defining Strategies for Ambiguity Resolution

This model was designed based on the assumption that individuals in a state of identity ambiguity will attempt to regain identification in order to fulfill basic human needs such as a sense of affiliation and self-esteem (Pratt, 1998). Whether or not they succeed, and the different facet of this new identity for each individual, is argued to be a function of the interaction between two main forces. The first is the level of identification with the original organization prior to the onset of any major change, and it will pull against any resolution of ambiguity that involves identification with a new organizational target. The second force refers to the degree to which the organization is perceived as being prestigious, distinct and with core values that are congruent to one’s own values, which will pull in the direction of resolutions to ambiguity that involve identification to a new organizational target. These forces are illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Identity ambiguity resolution matrix.

Based on how they are affected by these forces, it is suggested that individuals will engage in specific strategies to cope with or resolve identity ambiguity. These strategies include both behavioral and cognitive responses oriented toward attaining or reestablishing a state of equilibrium.

Perceived Prestige, Distinctiveness and Value Congruence of the New Organizational Context

According to previous literature, individuals are most likely to identify with organizations that they perceive to be distinctive, prestigious, and with core values that are similar to their personal values (Ashforth et al., 2008; George & Chattopadhyay, 2005). Distinctiveness is understood to be that which clearly separates an organization from others and provides it with a unique identity. To identify with their organization, individuals must believe that they have a clear understanding of what are its main attributes and what makes it distinct from others (Dutton et al., 1994; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). As for prestige, identifying with an organization that is considered prestigious allows individuals to feel more prestigious themselves and therefore enhance their self esteem (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994). Finally, people tend to identify with organizations that they believe have values similar to their own, as this allows them to maintain a sense of self-integrity (Dutton et al., 1994). Thus, perceived prestige, distinctiveness, and congruence between work and personal values are the main elements of a new organization that will enable reidentification and act as a “pull factor” toward new identification.

Therefore, the following is proposed:

Proposition 1: The strategy chosen by individuals to resolve identity ambiguity depends on the degree of perceived distinctiveness, prestige, and congruence with personal values of their new situation. These factors tend to pull toward reidentification with the post-change organizational context.

Strength of Identification

Previous literature has attributed several positive psychological outcomes to strong organizational identification (Ashforth et al., 2008; Pratt, 1998). Furthermore, it is likely that when faced with unclear expectations about the future, such as in the case of subtractive change and its ensuing identity ambiguity, an enduring identification with the original pre-change organization will seem especially reassuring. However, the stronger one’s identification to the pre-change organization, the more difficult deidentification tends to be (Ashforth, 2001; Chreim, 2007). Hence, I propose that in attempting to find a resolution to perceived identity ambiguity, the strength of one’s identification to the initial attributes of the organization is essential in determining whether such a solution will be achieved and if so, what such a solution will be. Thus, the following is proposed:

Proposition 2: The strategy chosen by individuals to resolve identity ambiguity depends on the strength of their organizational identification prior to major subtractive change, so that the stronger their initial identification, the less open they are likely to be to change their identity.

Typology of Strategies for Identity Ambiguity Resolution

In developing a typology of strategies for resolving identity ambiguity, it is assumed, as noted earlier, that people who experience identity ambiguity will likely try to regain balance to their identity. Hence, a typology is proposed with four different strategies that are likely to occur depending on the individual and the context he or she is in. In addition, it is proposed that the most relevant forces driving this choice of strategy are the strength of identification with the original organization and the perceived prestige, distinctiveness, and value congruence between the new organizational context and one’s set of personal values. Below, I elaborate on this typology.

Identity Reconstruction

This strategy would take place in cases in which the new, post-change organization is perceived as highly prestigious, distinct, with core values congruent to one’s personal values, and identification to the pre-change organization is weak. This would be consistent with previous literature, as it has been suggested that in the context of change, when there is either weak identification or a strong new situation, individuals are likely to change their identity (Ashforth, 2001). Specifically, when the organization undergoes significant changes, people will tend to deidentify from the original situation, and then reidentify with the new, changed situation and in doing so, re-create their identity (Fiol, 2002).

As an example, Logan, Faught, and Ganster (2004) verified that when truck drivers became outsourced, they readily identified with their new employer if they considered it to have a higher reputation and be generally superior. In building this new identity, they identified with their new department and team members, achieving a completely different perception of their place within the organization. Thus, the following is proposed:

Proposition 3: When the new organizational context is perceived as prestigious, distinct, and with values congruent to one’s own values and original identification is weak, individuals will tend to change their identity to conform to the new situation.

Ambidextrous Identification

This strategy is most likely to be used when the new organizational context is perceived as prestigious, distinct, and with values that are congruent to one’s own core values, and identification with the original pre-change organization is strong. In this case, it is likely that individuals facing identity ambiguity would attempt to maintain their original identity while simultaneously identifying with the post-change organization. If this dual identification is truly strong and the resulting identity is integrated, there is no reason to believe that this state would be harmful to the individual or to the organization. In fact, it enables people to bring positive elements and lessons learned from both contexts, thus enriching their work experience.

Instances of simultaneous identification between two organizations have been known to take place following a merger between a small and a larger organization, in which many of the original work processes and cultural elements of the smaller organization cease to exist (Van Dick, Wagner, & Lemmer, 2004; Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg, Monden, & de Lima, 2002). In these situations, organizational members may maintain identification with the pre-change organization with which they were initially strongly identified, while simultaneously identifying with the new post-merger organization. Van Dick et al. (2004) describe this phenomenon in an instance of a merger between two hospitals, in which both are considered equally prestigious. In this case, many individuals were able to simultaneously identify with the two organizations and, as a result, experience positive work-related outcomes such as increased performance and increased job satisfaction. Hence, the following is proposed:

Proposition 4: When the new organizational context is perceived as prestigious, distinctive, and with core values that are congruent to one’s own, and pre-change identification is strong, individuals will tend to identify simultaneously with the new organizational context and with attributes of the pre-change organization.

Identity Maintenance

The strategy of identity maintenance is most likely to be undertaken when there is a strong level of identification with the original organizational attributes and a perception of low prestige, distinctiveness, and congruence with personal values in the new organizational context. In this case, individuals in situations of identity ambiguity will likely try their very best to maintain their previous identities, to which they are strongly attached and with which they define themselves. At the same time, since the conditions leading to reidentification are weak, they will have little impetus to change their identity.

An example of this scenario would be the case of the acquisition of a large local firm by a multinational firm, in which the local firm continues to operate in the same markets, maintains relationships with most of the same stakeholders, and retains the same staff. Colman and Lunnan (2011) describe such a case, in which following an acquisition, the employees of the smaller acquired firm were so deeply identified with their organization that they seek to maintain many of the organization’s culture and structures. Employees of this smaller organization also did not identify with the multinational organization and therefore attempted to apply their culture and structures to the new amalgamated organization (Colman & Lunnan, 2011). The risk of a scenario such as this is that future efforts to integrate or align the unit with the acquirer may be challenged or rendered more difficult.

Consistent with this example, previous research has suggested that strong identification with the original organization’s attributes can be a barrier to organizational change (Fiol, 2002; Pratt & Foreman, 2000). Furthermore, when the new organizational context is not perceived to be prestigious, distinctive, and with values that are congruent to one’s own values, one is less likely to attempt to craft a completely new identity (George & Chattopadhyay, 2004). Hence, the following is proposed:

Proposition 5: When the post-change organization is perceived as low in prestige, distinctiveness, and congruence between organizational and personal values, and pre-change identification is strong, individuals will tend to maintain their identity despite major subtractive changes.

Neutral Identification

When there are both weak levels of identification with the original organizational attributes and a perception of low prestige, distinctiveness, and congruence with personal values in the new organizational context, individuals will become accommodated in a state of neutral identification, characterized by an absence of organizational identification or disidentification (Elsbach, 1999; Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). This weakness of affiliation could then become a mode of self-definition and individuals in this situation may actually prefer to remain detached from their organizations as a defense mechanism, to avoid future disappointments such as those that originally prompted by the experience of identity ambiguity (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004). They then define themselves by their nonidentification, by remaining detached.

Neutral identification has been linked to weak organizational identity as well as to individual traits (Kreiner & Ashforth, 2004) and has been said to be a common consequence of subtractive change. For instance, Harvey, Novicevic, Zikic and Ready (2007) demonstrated that university faculty members often opt for a path of detachment, or neutral identification with their institution as a result of disappointments with past change initiatives. Although they continue to identify with academia in general, they maintain a weak identification with their university, especially if they see it as being low in prestige and distinctiveness, and with core values that do not match their personal values. Thus, the following is proposed:

Proposition 6: When the post-change organization is seen as low in prestige, distinctiveness, and with core values that are not similar to one’s own, and original identification is weak, individuals will adopt a state of neutral organizational identification.

Discussion

This article has proposed an explanatory model of how identity ambiguity manifests itself at the individual level of analysis. Specifically, it is proposed that identity ambiguity tends to follow subtractive change, that it is an experience that people naturally strive to overcome, and that it involves a great sense of uncertainty over if, when, and how identification will be regained. To overcome identity ambiguity, it is further proposed that individuals will employ one of four main strategies: identity reconstruction, ambidextrous identification, identity maintenance, and neutral identification. Finally, the main forces that interact to determine which strategy will be employed are the individual’s level of identification with organizational attributes in place before the change and the perception that the post-change organization is prestigious, distinctive, and with core values that are similar to one’s personal values.

The model proposed in this paper contributes to the existing literature in that it extends the concepts of identity ambiguity to the individual level of analysis. In doing so, it includes components that are particular to individuals rather than organizations, such as the assumption that individuals have an inherent drive to resolve situations of identity ambiguity that may be psychologically harmful to them. This article also contributes to the literature by extending prior work on subtractive change and its effect on identification and finally, by proposing a typology of strategies that people are likely to undertake in order to overcome identity ambiguity.

One of the implications of this paper is the notion that identity is a dynamic construct that can change in time from a situation of strong identification, to ambiguity, to several other possible states, only one of which would be clear reidentification. Given the very rapid rate of changes in organizational life today, driven both by organizations and by individuals, and the influence that processes of individuals’ identification and deidentification are said to have over organizational change (Ashforth, 2001; Chreim, 2002; Fiol, 2002), it is clear that such a view of identity as fluid, dynamic, and complex is indeed relevant to our current understanding of individuals within organizations.

Future Research Directions

Future studies may test the accuracy and boundaries of the proposed model and in this way significantly increase our understanding of the dynamics of identification change. In particular, since temporality and ongoing identity change are important aspects of the proposed model, longitudinal studies may be especially fruitful, as they would enable scholars to conduct a deep exploration of the stages that individuals go through from the moment they face subtractive change, to identity ambiguity, and finally to the strategies of ambiguity resolution. A qualitative investigation is also likely to be a worthwhile first step, as it would enable an analysis of the rich and detailed accounts regarding the experience of identity ambiguity. In fact, due to the complexity of identity and identification topics, qualitative studies have been widely adopted in this field (Ibarra, 1999; Kreiner et al., 2006; Pratt et al., 2006).

Furthermore, future studies may expand the framework proposed in this article to include a discussion of the psychological, organizational, and social consequences of pursuing each of these strategies. For example, while negative psychological consequences of remaining in a state of neutral identification as well as possible negative organizational consequences of individuals maintaining their pre-change identity are briefly mentioned in this article, further investigations may elaborate on these issues, thus expanding the discussion of the overall process by which individuals deal with identity in a context of change. An example of how this could be developed would be to assess individuals who have followed any of the four paths outlined in this article regarding their overall well-being and/or job satisfaction.

Finally, this article has not engaged in a comprehensive and specific discussion as to how professionals, who are identified mainly with the profession in which they are trained rather than with any one organization (Pratt et al., 2006), might deal with such situations. Therefore, theorists working in the area of occupations and occupational roles could investigate the relevance of identity ambiguity and the theoretical model proposed here to occupational changes or disruptions.

Implications for Practice

Subtractive changes, whether in the form of major organizational shifts or individual layoffs, have become an intrinsic part of the current dynamic labor market. Nevertheless, managers may have limited understanding of the negative psychological effects and sense of identity ambiguity that such changes cause to those involved. An increased understanding of this problem is relevant not only to individuals but also to the organization as a whole, since the absence of identification as well as the discomfort and negative psychological states that are said to accompany identity ambiguity may have a deleterious impact on individuals’ work performance and intent to stay in the organization (Ashforth et al., 2008; Mael & Ashforth, 1995).

Thus, it would behoove managers to consider some of the ways in which the experience of identity ambiguity can be accelerated and its effects mitigated. In particular, since one of the core problems of identity ambiguity is that one has no knowledge about how, when, and if identification will be regained, high-quality communication programs that offer increased transparency regarding the change process, and clarify the traits of the new organizational setting, may be effective in providing individuals with an increased sense of security regarding the future. An enhanced communication climate, defined as that in which there is a perception of high-quality communications in the organization (Goldhaber, 1993), has been shown to be linked to a sense of individuals’ involvement in their work group and organization (Bartels, Douwes, de Jong, & Pruyn, 2006) and offers a sense of footing when facing the instability of change.

Enhanced communication between management and organizational members is also critical in enabling positive outcomes after phases of identity ambiguity. Specifically, perceived prestige, distinctiveness, and congruence between organizational and personal values have been described in this article as the most important drivers of identification to a new organizational context following identity ambiguity. Thus, whenever possible, managers should prioritize these themes in their message to employees and strive to show how the post-change organization may in fact be seen as one that is prestigious, clearly distinct from others, and with values that closely match those of the majority of organizational members. Although it is ultimately the individual who must perceive the organization to be prestigious, distinctive, and with values that are congruent to their own in order to identify, management has an important role in demonstrating that these elements are present.

Thus, this paper contributes to organizational practice by raising awareness to the important effects of subtractive change on individuals’ sense of identity and self-definition within organizations. It also raises the need for enhanced communication programs on the part of managers, both in order to mitigate the negative psychological effects of identity ambiguity and to promote reidentification in the future.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to Christine Oliver and Rekha Karambayya for their friendly reviews and insightful contributions to this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Arthur

M. B.

Rousseau

D. M.

(1996). Introduction: The boundaryless career as a new employment principle. In Arthur

M. B.

Rousseau

D. M.

(Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ashforth

B. E.

(2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Ashforth

B. E.

Harrison

S. H.

Corley

K. G.

(2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325-374.

Ashforth

B. E.

Kreiner

G. E.

(1999). “How can you do it?” Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24, 413-434.

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.

Bartels

Douwes

de Jong

Pruyn

(2006). Organizational identification during a merger: Determinants of employees’ expected identification with the new organization. British Journal of Management, 17(Suppl. 1), s49-s67.

Beech

(2011). Liminality and the practices of identity reconstruction. Human Relations, 64, 285-302.

Chreim

(2002). Influencing organizational identification during major change: A communication-based perspective. Human Relations, 55, 1117-1137.

Chreim

(2007). Social and temporal influences on interpretations of organizational identity and acquisition integration: A narrative study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43, 449-480.

10.

Colman

H. L.

Lunnan

(2011). Organizational identification and serendipitous value creation in post-acquisition integration. Journal of Management, 37, 839-860.

11.

Corley

K. G.

Gioia

D. A.

(2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 173-208.

12.

Dutton

J. E.

Dukerich

J. M.

Harquail

C. V.

(1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.

13.

Ebaugh

H. R. F.

(1988). Becoming an ex: The process of role exit. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

14.

Elsbach

K. D.

(1999). An expanded model of organizational identification. In Sutton

R. I.

Staw

B. M.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 163-200). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

15.

Fiol

C. M.

(2002). Capitalizing on paradox: The role of language in transforming organizational identities. Organization Science, 13, 653-666.

16.

George

Chattopadhyay

(2005). One foot in each camp: The dual identification of contract workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 68-99.

17.

Goldhaber

G. M.

(1993). Organizational communication. Dubuque, IL: W. C. Brown.

18.

Greenwood

Hinings

C. R.

(1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1022-1022.

19.

Harvey

Novicevic

M. M.

Zikic

Ready

(2007). How to manage multiple faculty identifications during change. Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 1, 259-270.

20.

Hogg

M. A.

Terry

D. J.

(2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.

21.

Ibarra

(1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764-791.

22.

Ibarra

Barbulescu

(2010). Identity as narrative: Prevalence, effectiveness and consequences of narrative identity work in macro work role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 35, 135-154.

23.

Kreiner

G. E.

Ashforth

B. E.

(2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 1-27.

24.

Kreiner

G. E.

Hollensbe

E. C.

Sheep

M. L.

(2006). Where is the “me” among the “we”: Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1031-1057.

25.

Lewin

(1964). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper.

26.

Logan

M. S.

Faught

Ganster

D. C.

(2004). Outsourcing a satisfied and committed workforce: A trucking industry case study. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 147-162.

27.

Mael

Ashforth

B. E.

(1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123.

28.

Mael

F. A.

Ashforth

B. E.

(1995). Loyal from day one: Biodata, organizational identification, and turnover among newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48, 309-333.

29.

Minkler

Biller

R. P.

(1979). Role shock: A tool for conceptualizing stresses accompanying disruptive role transitions. Human Relations, 32, 125-140.

30.

Pettigrew

A. M.

Woodman

R. W.

Cameron

K. S.

(2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 697-713.

31.

Pratt

M. G.

(1998). To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification. In Whette

D. A.

Godfrey

P. C.

(Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 171-207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

32.

Pratt

M. G.

Foreman

P. O.

(2000). The beauty of and barriers to organizational theories of identity. Academy of Management Review, 25, 141-143.

33.

Pratt

M. G.

Rockmann

K. W.

Kaufmann

J. B.

(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, 235-262.

34.

Reissner

S. C.

(2010). Change, meaning and identity at the workplace. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23, 287-299.

35.

Strully

K. W.

(2009). Job loss and health in the US labor market. Demography, 46, 221-246.

36.

Sveningsson

Alvesson

(2003). Managing managerial identities. Human Relations, 56, 1163-1193.

37.

Tannenbaum

Hanna

R. W.

(1985). Holding on, letting go, and moving on: Understanding a neglected perspective on change. In Tannenbaum

Margulies

& Associates (Eds.), Human systems development (pp. 95-121). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

38.

Turner

(1967). The forest of symbols: Aspects of Ndembu ritual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

39.

Van Dick

Wagner

Lemmer

(2004). The winds of change: Multiple identifications in the case of organizational mergers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 121-138.

40.

Van Knippenberg

Monden

De Lima

(2002). Organizational identification after a merger: A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 233-252.

41.

Viinamäki

Koskela

Niskanen

Arnkill

(1993). Social support in relation to mental well-being among the unemployed: A factory closure study in Finland. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 47, 195-201.

42.

Zikic

Richardson

(2007). Unlocking the careers of business professionals following job loss: Sensemaking and career exploration of older workers. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 24, 58-73.