Understanding the Spirit of the Sectors: Exploring Identity in a New Era of Organizing

Abstract

While sector distinction debates often re-emerge during periods of cultural and institutional upheaval, none have considered an identity-orientation perspective. Identity orientation is a natural domain in which to address these debates as it considers the individualistic, relational, and collectivistic foundations of organizations. This study explores whether organizational members across sectors view their organization’s identity orientation differently. Findings suggest that member perceptions of identity orientation are significantly different across sectors and align with traditional sector values and motivations. However, no one sector can be defined solely as individualistic, relational, or collectivistic. These findings are discussed and future research paths laid out.

Keywords

sector identity sector comparisons public private distinction

Introduction

In periods of upheaval, when cultural and institutional environments challenge existing patterns of organizing, increased attention is focused on the similarities and differences of organizations across sectors (public, for-profit, and nonprofit) and their potential to both create and destroy value.¹ In the wake of industrialization, scholars and practitioners contemplated what the impacts of bureaucratization and professionalization might be on the roles that for-profit, nonprofit, and public organizations fulfilled in society (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Hwang & Powell, 2009). In a postindustrial global economy, it was devolution, managerialism, and marketization that sector debates centered on (Box et al., 2001; Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004). Today, in an era defined by integration and hyper-organization,² issues of blurring and hybridity define discussions of sector distinctiveness (Bromley & Meyer, 2015, 2017). While each different, all of these organizational revolutions have prompted questions about the purpose, identities, and behaviors of organizations within and across sectors and through what lens they can best be understood.

While expectations of organizations across sectors have evolved over time in response to changing institutional environments and cultural norms, for much of the last century organizational “sector” has served as a powerful symbol of identity, signaling to members appropriate values and legitimate behaviors. For-profit organizations, birthed from early notions of the market and private life, have historically been expected to act as efficient profit creators, focused on the actualization of economic self-interest and the amassing of shareholder wealth (Coase, 1993; Friedman, 1970; Mill, 1871). In comparison, government organizations, an outgrowth of public life and the nation-state, have been expected to act as social architects, effectively actualizing the public interest (Adams et al., 1988; Box et al., 2001; Hegel, 1820/1945; Rosenbloom & McCurdy, 2006; Stivers, 2000). Nonprofit organizations, a manifestation of the marriage between private life and the common good, have long been expected to serve the moral interests of individuals gathering together in voluntary association (de Tocqueville, 1840/2016; Soskis, 2020).

Despite these long-standing identities, today, thousands of for-profit companies across hundreds of countries endorse agreements to act morally (Donaldson & Walsh, 2015; Kettl, 2002). Nonprofits, now more organized and professional than ever, act on behalf of the government and embrace the market in their endeavors as socially responsible citizens (Bromley & Meyer, 2015; Eikenberry, 2009). Government organizations have embraced market-based practices, devolving and contracting out public services in the name of efficiency (Bryson et al., 2014; Hood, 1991; Kettl, 2000). Across all sectors, organizations are now recognized as social actors with their own rights and identities (Ashforth et al., 2020). These new realities have reignited debates about whether organizations in the for-profit, nonprofit, and public sectors have distinct and enduring identities or whether modern organizing processes have made sector membership less relevant.

Sector distinctions have been approached in a number of different ways over time. In the public and nonprofit universes, early research on sector differences focused primarily on instrumental organizational features such as goods produced, legal constraints, funding, internal procedures, and sources of authority (Bozeman, 1987; Breton & Wintrobe, 1982; Chubb & Moe, 1988; Hansmann, 1987; Perry & Rainey, 1988; Wamsley & Zald, 1973; Weisbrod, 1975). This research expanded our understanding of sector overlap and dimensionality, highlighting the close connection between organizational form and institutional environment (Bozeman, 1987; Frumkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004; Perry & Rainey, 1988). However, sector distinctions based on organizational form faded as the 20th century wore on (e.g., sector blurring), leading to the assertion that form and function may not always coincide (Powell, 2020).

While organizational forms may exhibit dimensionality and malleability over time as they conform to institutionally legitimized structures and cultural norms; function, or the purpose for which form is used, is more closely tied to expressive organizational features such as values and motivations. Given that values and motivations form the foundation of organizational identity, which is a relatively enduring meta-level construct, it may be better suited than form to capture similarities and differences both within and across sectors. Albert and Whetten (1985) define organizational identity as those features of an organization that are central (core), distinctive (different), and enduring (long-term). More specifically, organizational identity refers to the deepest values and commitments that organizations repeatedly commit to through time and across circumstances (Whetten, 2006). The purpose of this research is to explore the identity or spirit of the sectors through the lens of organizational identity orientation (OIO). Identity orientation is a natural domain to address sector distinction debates as it brings together enduring values and motivations that define who organizations are in relationship to others. More specifically, OIO asks, “who are ‘we’ as an organization” vis-à-vis others? Do we see our organizations primarily as independent entities motivated to be the best and outshine others (individualistic), as dyadic partners focused on each other’s inherent well-being (relational), or as members of a larger collective driven to advance the welfare of a group, cause, or community (collectivistic) (Brickson, 2005)? The comparative nature of identity orientation makes it ideal for capturing both the similarities and differences of organizations across sectors.

Across all sectors, organizations today find themselves trying to adapt to some of the most dramatic changes for relationships and social structures in recent history such as hyper-organization, globalization, scientific advancement and individual and organizational empowerment ( Bromley and Meyer, 2015, Bromley and Meyer, 2021; Ritzer & Dean, 2015). When environments are experiencing prolonged and radical change, meta level concepts such as OIO become important for understanding distinctions that are increasingly difficult to distinguish based on form alone (Albert et al., 2000; Bromley & Meyer, 2015). Understanding the identities associated with sector membership can help parse out whether or not distinctions across sectors exist in this new era of organizing, and if so, what impact they have on important organizational processes such as diversity, person–organization fit, recruitment, culture management, and social value production. From a theoretical perspective, a more nuanced understanding of sector identity may help us to better understand organizational types and their social impact potential globally, in a way that current legal and structural definitions cannot.

Drawing on data collected from hundreds of employees across sectors in the United States, this exploratory study attempts to bridge organizational research across disciplines and extend it using an identity-based perspective. The central research question is: do organizational members across sectors hold significantly different views of identity orientation? For example, do for-profit members view their organizations as more individualistic than members in other sectors? Conversely, do organizational members in the public sector view their organizations as more collectivistic than members in the for-profit sector? To answer these questions, OIO is defined and its theoretical dimensions discussed. Then, expectations of OIOs are explored in relationship to developmental trajectories and organizational characteristics observed in each sector. Six key hypotheses are presented. Next, data collection procedures, key variable measures, and exploratory methods are reviewed. Finally, results are reported and discussed.

The findings suggest that sectors reflect identity orientations aligned with traditional expectations and organizational characteristics defining core sector identities, though no one sector can be defined solely as individualistic, relational, or collectivistic. The implications of these findings are discussed and future research paths laid out.

OIO: What Is It and Why Does It Matter?

According to Whetten (2006), “organizations are best known by their deepest commitments,” or “what they repeatedly commit to be through time and across circumstances,” (p. 224). These commitments, which reflect an organization’s highest values and act as “institutional reminders of significant organizing choices”, form the foundation of its identity (Whetten, 2006, p. 224). It is widely understood that identity is a key driver of organizational behavior and action (Brickson, 2007; Dutton & Dukerich, 1991). One critical way that identity informs organizational behavior is that it helps us to understand how entities relate with one another (Brickson, 2005). Organizations need a clear sense of who they are to interact effectively with others, and, others need to know who an organization is to effectively interact with it (Albert et al., 2000).

OIO speaks directly to this important facet of organizational identity. Research indicates that organizations take on anthropomorphic identities that are divorced from any particular leader or individual (Ashforth et al., 2020; Ashforth & Mael, 1996). As such, OIO refers to members’ associations between this notion of the organization as a whole and others (Brickson, 2005, p. 580). In other words, OIO speaks to the entitativity of an organization and is separate and distinct from any individual’s identity orientation. Each identity orientation is comprised of four elements including (a) locus of organizational self-definition, (b) salient traits/values, (c) social motives, and (d) comparison referents.

How an organization is defined and compared to others, and its primary motivations and values will differ significantly depending on whether it espouses an individualistic, relational, or collectivistic identity orientation (Brickson, 2002). For example, in individualistic organizations where differentiation is key and organizational self-interest is the primary motivator, members might refer to their organization as “the best” or “unlike any other.” Conversely, characteristics connecting an organization to close partners or a larger group are more salient in relational and collectivistic organizations that use dyadic and collective role standards as comparison referents. Employees might describe a relational organization as a “caring and compassionate partner” and a collectivistic organization as one that “emphasizes making contributions to its community.” These organizations seek primarily to maximize the well-being of particular others or the collective, respectively. (See Brickson, 2005 for a full review).

Finally, each identity orientation is thought to be associated with the production of diverse forms of social value ranging from power and wealth generation to social capital creation and engendering dignity (See Brickson, 2007 for a full review). Each orientation left unchecked can also generate negative outcomes, such as excessive competition, co-dependency, and over conformity. Table 1 summarizes these points.

Table 1.

Components of Organizational Identity Orientation.

OIO	Locus of organizational self-definition	Salient traits and values	Basis for motivation vis-à-vis stakeholders	Comparison referent	Social value potentiality	Potential pitfalls
Individualistic	Individual organization, sole entity set apart from others	Those distinguishing the organization from other entities	Organizational self-interest	Interorganizational comparison	Generate high levels of wealth (potential to reinvest or redirect), are maximally efficient and innovative, promote virtues such as bravery, risk-taking, and heroism	Overemphasis of economic values, excessive competition, strict adherence to technical rationality
Relational	Interentity and relationship partner	Those connecting the organization dyadically to particular others	Particular other’s benefit	Comparison to role standard	Generate high levels of personalization and understanding, provide tailored care to meet specialized needs, help build organizational capacity, and promote virtues such as empathy and dependability	Issue avoidance, codependency, manipulation, loss of perspective
Collectivistic	Collective (group or community) part of a larger impersonal whole	Those connecting the organization to a larger, more impersonal cause or community	Greater collective’s welfare	Intergroup comparison and in-group comparison	Generate social capital and a sense of citizenship, build unity and spur social change, and promote virtues such as conscientiousness, fairness, and principled	Overemphasis on conformity, promotion of us versus them mentality, exclusion of dissimilar viewpoints

Source. Adapted from Brickson (2005, 2007).

Note. OIO = organizational identity orientation.

The answer to the question, “who are ‘we’ as an organization” in relationship to others, not only informs organizational identity and behavior but situates an entity in a much larger institutional space. The unique space embodied by organizations gives them power and helps them shape their impact in society. While the aim of this article is not to explore the outcomes of OIO across sectors, procuring a baseline understanding of how organizational members view identity orientation today can contribute to an understanding of sector identity and a more robust view of the interests and values being met by organizations across sectors and those in need of support. The remainder of this review will examine OIO across sectors, taking into account the cultural norms that have shaped each one, and how these have manifest in organizational characteristics and behaviors.

Understanding Identity Across Sectors

Over the last century, organizations have faced pressures such as bureaucratization, marketization, and hyper-organization (Bromley & Meyer, 2015; Frumkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004; Meyer, 1979). Unsurprisingly, much of the empirical work examining sector differences from a structural perspective has indicated degrees of differences rather than presence or absence of structural features across sectors (Bozeman & Loveless, 1987; Pope et al., 2018; Pugh et al., 1969; Rainey et al., 1995; Rainey & Bozeman, 2000). While structures are fluid and tied to cultural norms of organizing (Bennis, 1967), arguably function is tied to identity, which while not immutable, is enduring (Whetten, 2006). As such, the focus here is not on the structural distinctions of organizations across sectors but rather the emotive elements that define who organizations are in relationship to others.

Using an OIO lens, this section explores individualistic, relational, and collectivistic elements present in the for-profit, nonprofit, and public sectors and proposes six hypotheses explicating the relationship between sector membership and perceptions of OIO. Organizational elements that can be used to help discern identity orientation are diverse and may include the values, traits, and motivations of organizations and employees, as well as how organizations manage internal and external relationships (Brickson, 2005, 2007). This section explores the values and motivations of employees and organizations across sectors and examines different relationship patterns present in human relations practices, socialization processes, and partnerships to develop an understanding of possible sector identities.

Individualistic OIO Across Sectors

Some of the earliest conceptualizations of private life center on the importance of independence and individual rights. In the wake of industrialization rose the classical liberalist view of society, which championed a private life defined by natural rights, individualism, and the uninterrupted pursuit of ones’ own self-interest. (Locke, 1967; Mill, 1871; Smith, 1776/1976, p. 231–233). This vein of thinking has been central to cultural and organizational development in the United States where both capitalism and bureaucracy have flourished (Weber, 1930/2000). These ideas have manifest in individualistic organizational identities stressing utilitarian ideologies (Albert & Whetten, 1985; Gioia & Thomas, 1996; Glynn, 2000) and individualistic identity orientations (Brickson, 2005; Brickson, 2007). Organizations with individualistic OIOs champion independence and the pursuit of the organization’s own interests.

Corporations have been viewed as the primary legal and structural vehicles to pursue organizational interests in the market more efficiently (Williamson, 1975). This form of organization has been used by public and private organizations alike. In a 1948 budget message, President Truman cited the corporate form as, “peculiarly adapted to the administration of government programs,” of a commercial nature (Seidman, 1952). Furthermore, the individualistic ideologies undergirding the corporate form, which stress efficiency, economy, and organizational self-interest, have been intertwined to varying degrees with both early public and nonprofit organizations, as well as more recent reform movements in these sectors (Bozeman, 2007; Bryson et al., 2015; De Tocqueville, 1840/2016; Eikenberry, 2009; Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Glynn, 2000; Jeffries, 1977). However, despite the individualistic undertones of 20th century organizational life across all sectors in the United States, individualism has arguably been most central to the development of organizational life in the private for-profit sector.

Scholars and practitioners have long debated the role that for-profit corporations should play in society and whether they should be defined by individualism, independence, and shareholder profit or interdependence and the collective welfare of stakeholders (Berle, 1931; Dodd, 1932; Freeman & Reed, 1983). Some for-profit actors have taken seriously collective interests and the role that ethics, stakeholder values, and social responsibility play in the pursuit of profit; though many have done so with “apologetic acquiescence’ or as an instrumental strategy to achieve a competitive advantage (Brickson, 2007; Weitzner & Deutsch, 2019). On the whole, it has long been assumed that expanding the role of the firm to include other-orienting interests beyond the organization and its ability to generate shareholder value, would lead to less economically profitable business overall (Weitzner & Deutsch, 2019). As a result, by the middle of the 20th century, the identity of for-profit organizations largely coalesced around the efficient pursuit of profit and the maximization of organizational self-interest (Bator, 1958; Coase, 1993; Donaldson & Walsh, 2015; Friedman, 1962; Stout, 2012).

Individualistic OIO captures these ideas at a meta-level and is a useful construct for understanding the fundamental importance of independence and self-interested motivations to organizations in the for-profit sector. In organizations characterized by individualistic identity orientations, relationships are often based on weak ties, and internal stakeholder relationships are managed through calculative and transactional polices (Brickson, 2007). When comparing for-profit and nonprofit organizations in the environmental industry, Egri and Herman (2000) found transactional and instrumental human relations practices, such as the punishment of subordinates, to be used more frequently in for-profit settings. In a similar vein, De Graaf and Van der Wal (2008) found the atmosphere in for-profit organizations to be more competitive, materialistic, and status based than in public sector organizations. These findings align with those of Agle et al. (1999), which indicate that among for-profit CEO’s, the traditional view of the firm as efficient profit-maker remains dominant.

In addition to the management of internal stakeholder relationships, research also indicates the importance of individualistic traits and values to for-profit organizations. Posner and Schmidt (1992) found that American managers in the for-profit sector rank individualistic traits and values such as effectiveness and productivity in their top five, while ranking collectivistic values such as community and service to the public, last. Similarly, both Lan and Rainey (1992) and Van der Wal and De Graaf (2008) find that among managers, those in the private for-profit sector value other-orienting traits, such as social justice and meaningful public service, much less than those in the public sector. In fact, attention to social values and goals is often described as a form of “window dressing” or “marketing tool” by managers in for-profit organizations (Van der Wal et al., 2008). Taken together, these research findings show the centrality of individualistic traits and values to for-profit organizations, in comparison to their public and nonprofit counterparts.

In addition to traits and values, research indicates that external relationship patterns between nonprofit and for-profit organizations tend to reflect individualistic characteristics such as instrumentality and weak ties (Brickson, 2007). For example, while businesses are increasingly partnering with nonprofits, entering into shared value initiatives and hiring corporate sustainability officers, the undergirding logic is often instrumental in nature, emphasizing symbolic value to the business and wealth maximizing interest of shareholders (Jensen & Meckling, 1976; Mackey et al., 2007; Porter & Kramer, 2006). While studies highlight many benefits associated with corporate social responsibility initiatives, such as image enhancement and employee motivation (Kaul & Luo, 2018), research indicates that some for-profit employees primarily see their organization’s purpose as making money and view this as the organizations primary benefit to the public (De Graaf and Van der Wal, 2008).

While business organizations are diverse in structure, purpose, and core values and it is impossible to characterize any sector as solely individualistic, the development of private, corporate life, in tandem with the findings here, indicate that individualistic identity traits, values, and practices, may be more common in for-profit organizations than in organizations in the nonprofit and public sectors. Although nonprofit and public organizations are also diverse, and have incorporated individualistic elements into their identities, current research indicates that these traits and values may be more problematic than they are helpful as actors struggle to deal with conflicting values, motivations, and identities (Boardman & Moore, 2020; Glynn, 2000; Thomasson, 2020). Conversely, in the for-profit sector, a self-regarding view of the organization and its interests has largely been considered paradigmatic and a core feature of for-profit identity for nearly a century (Harrison et al., 2019).

According to Whetten and Mackey (2002) social actors, such as organizations, require identities or a functional self-concept to interact effectively with others. These identities signal how entities are both similar to and different from other organizations and outline social expectations and accountability standards. While not unmalleable, identity orientation is generally resistant to change as it deals with fundamental assumptions about the nature of independence and interdependence. Furthermore, while organizations may be able to make an aspect of their identity temporarily more salient in response to environmental pressures, incongruities in an organizations’ identity orientation, or the way in which they relate to the world, may be more problematic (Brickson, 2002). The findings presented here indicate that many employees in the for-profit sector view their organizations as displaying values and practices in line with individualistic identity orientations and may struggle to integrate other-orienting perspectives in authentic and meaningful ways. While varied OIOs are certainly expected to be present in the private for-profit sector, I hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1: Organizational members in the public sector will view their organizations as significantly less individualistic than members in the for-profit sector.

Hypothesis 2: Organizational members in the nonprofit sector will view their organizations as significantly less individualistic than members in the for-profit sector.

Collectivistic OIO Across Sectors

While individualism and related notions of private life have been influential in shaping organizational identities and orientations in the United States, even the earliest and most staunch natural rights individualists recognized that in order for individuals to pursue their own self-interest in the private realm, a distinct arena to look after the public interest was necessary (Benn & Gauss, 1983, p. 51; Hegel, 1820/1945; Rousseau, 2008). Emergent in classical republicanism and the Jeffersonian vision of U.S. society, was the notion that individuals should be empowered to see, formulate, and enact the “common good” on behalf of the “community” or “whole body” politic (Kemmis, 1990, p. 12). Core to classical republican thought was the idea that individuals could rise above their own self-interest to pursue collective other-orienting interests. From an organizational perspective, the motivation to pursue the well-being of a “social” or “collective” other has manifest in collective identities and collectivistic identity orientations. In organizations espousing collectivistic identity orientations, the notion of interdependence is central, and the motivation to pursue the collective’s goals is paramount.

In a democracy, government organizations are uniquely equipped to pursue collective values (Benn & Gauss, 1983). However, the pursuit of public and collective values is “not the exclusive province of government, nor is government the only set of institutions having public value obligations,” (Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007, p. 373–364). Rather, many organizations in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors have embraced collectivistic structures and ideologies. In the for-profit sector, the cooperative organizational form has long been used to pursue collectivistic goals such as community welfare, equity, and democracy (Coop–International Cooperative Alliance, 2019; Pittman, 2018). Empirical evidence indicates that for-profit cooperatives in the beverage industry are in fact more collectivistic than their for-profit counterparts operating under a noncooperative structure (Brickson, 2005). In addition to form, many for-profits have also embraced collectivistic ideologies and entered into collective impact initiatives and shared value partnerships that aim to pursue both social and economic goals (Langer, 2018). This evolution has led business leaders and scholars to formally reaffirm the collective role of businesses in society and acknowledge their impact on those impacted by wealth creation (Donaldson & Walsh, 2015; Harrison et al., 2019).

Although some for-profit organizations pursue collective interests, the government is considered the primary authority of the public sector in the United States, charged with ensuring the well-being of its citizens (Benn & Gauss, 1983; Bozeman, 2007). Alongside the state, nonprofit organizations have also been instrumental in serving collective, democratic interests (Edwards & Foley, 2001; Eikenberry, 2009; Elshtain, 1999; Salamon, 1999; Salamon & Anheier, 1998). The motivation to serve collective, other-orienting interests has been used to differentiate public and nonprofit organizations from organizations in the for-profit sector, where instrumental, organizational interests dominate (Blau & Scott, 2003). These collectivistic underpinnings have shaped numerous administrative movements in both sectors and underlie much of the theory exploring the unique roles and purposes of these organizations (Berger & Neuhaus, 1977; Box, 2007, p. 597; Eikenberry, 2009; Frederickson, 1980; Lohmann, 1989).

The motivation to pursue the well-being of a “social” or “collective” other is embodied, from an organizational perspective in collectivistic OIOs. Organizations defined by collectivistic identity orientations often form relationships based on a common purpose or agenda and are extremely motivated to pursue the collective’s welfare (Brickson, 2007). While the expectations of public and nonprofit organizations are varied and the relative importance of collectivistic identity traits have varied over time in response to institutional pressures and administrative reforms (Bromley & Meyer, 2015; Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Hood, 1991), studies looking at relationship formation, values, and organizational processes confirm the central importance of collectivistic elements in these sectors.

Research findings indicate that actions taken to form relationships in nonprofit and public sectors are often directed by the collective interests of the organization’s core constituency. Balser and McClusky (2005) find that before entering into partnerships, nonprofit executive directors first ask “are these the right people,” “are the missions the same,” and do the benefits outweigh the costs for our core constituents? Similarly, Ospina et al. (2002) find that the interests of a nonprofit organizations’ core constituency shape how the organization will respond to stakeholder demands, new projects, and funding opportunities. In government organizations, similar patterns have emerged which show that citizen interests shape policy-making and implementation at the local level (Handley & Howell-Moroney, 2010). While not directly addressing identity orientation, these findings indicate that public and nonprofit organizations are often extremely motivated to pursue the collective welfare of a group, cause or community core to their operations, and this motivation shapes how the organization manages relationships with others.

Research indicates that internal stakeholder relationships patterns in public and nonprofit organizations, like external ones, often reflect collectivistic qualities. According to Brickson (2007), ideological psychological contracts are often core to the employment relationship in collectivistic organizations. Ideological psychological contracts oblige, “the organization to support a broad cause, thus giving employee’s legitimate claim to participate towards that cause,” (Brickson, 2007, p. 877). Several studies show that ideological currency, whether in the form of organizational pride or mission alignment, are important predictors of job selection and satisfaction in the public and nonprofit sectors (Brown & Yoshioka, 2003; Lee, 2016; Lyons et al., 2006). Christensen et al. (2017) suggest that creating attraction and socialization processes that nurture collectivistic values can help create strong psychological contracts and enhance organizational performance in the public sector.

In addition to shaping internal and external relationships, collectivistic traits and values are also of central importance to public and nonprofit employees and organizations Van der Wal et al. (2008). For example, Holt (2018) confirms that collective public service values, such as helping others in the community and working to correct inequalities, directly affect the likelihood that an individual will choose to work in the public and nonprofit sectors versus the for-profit sector. Similarly, Word and Park (2015) find that intrinsic collective values such as serving the public interest are important motivators for individuals seeking work in the nonprofit sector. Conversely, in government agencies and nonprofit organizations, managers rated individualism as the least important value to their organization (Miller-Stevens et al., 2015).

The findings presented here indicate that matching collectivistic traits and values of individuals with organizations in the public and nonprofit sector may lead to organizational identification and positive organizational outcomes. From and identity perspective, this would make sense, given that organizational identification, and the alignment of individual and organizational orientations, may be more important than other lower-order identity features for creating positive organizational outcomes (Brickson, 2013). While organizations in the public and nonprofit sectors are diverse and reflect a multitude of values, research findings indicate that collectivistic elements are core characteristics of nonprofit and public sector values and processes. Organizational identity reflects choices made about what types of social actor the organization will be, the values it will reflect and the character structure that will define how it is both similar to and different from other organizations (Whetten & Mackey, 2002).

While for-profit organizations are incorporating collectivistic elements into their operations, often they are still secondary to the pursuit of profit, when using traditional corporate forms (Kennedy et al., 2020). Conversely, while nonprofit and public organizations are incorporating more individualistic elements into their environments, research indicates that such processes of hybridization have caused confusion and are often felt to be fundamentally contradictory to the organizations’ collective missions (Boardman & Moore, 2020; Glynn, 2000; Thomasson, 2020), OIO is thought to be a relatively stable feature of organizational identity as it is guided by fundamentally different perspectives on the nature of independence and interdependence (Brickson, 2007). Given this stability, in conjunction with the research findings presented here, I hypothesize that while diverse orientations are likely to exist in the public and nonprofit sectors:

Hypothesis 3: Organizational members in the public sector will view their organizations as more collectivistic than members in the for-profit sector.

Hypothesis 4: Organizational members in the nonprofit sector will view their organizations as more collectivistic than members in the for-profit sector.

Relational OIO Across Sectors

Individualism and collectivism have been studied from cultural, political, and economic perspectives, as well as, at the individual, organizational, and institutional levels of analysis. The duality of these concepts, encompassed sometimes as the “self” and “other,” “private,” and “public,” or “independent” and “interdependent” is foundational to organizational research on the public–private distinction which has debated whether and how organizations across sectors are unique (Benn & Gauss, 1983; Blau & Scott, 2003; Perry & Rainey, 1988). Less central to the sector distinction debate, but foundational to evolving cultural and organizational dimensions, is the space where these dualities meet. Bosanquet (1951) referred to this space as that which is outside of government but also, “more than private, and demands in some way the best attention of the community,” (p. 127). De Tocqueville (1840/2016) referred to the interdependence of public and private interests as “self-interest rightly understood” and observed its manifestation in early U.S. associational life. More specifically, de Tocqueville (1840/2016) explains that self-interest rightly understood manifests from the recognition that ones’ own interests overlap with the interests of others, and pursuing these interpersonal interests are good for society.

From an organizational perspective, the motivation to pursue interpersonal interests, centered on reciprocity and trust defines a relational identity orientation. While De Tocqueville (1840/2016) views relational activity as unique to voluntary nonprofit associations, relational properties are not uncommon to organizations in both the for-profit and public sectors. In the public sector, relational elements undergird research on employees, work environments, and the sector as a whole. For example, research on street-level bureaucrats emphasizes the relational value created by frontline public service workers such as nurses, teachers, and social workers (de Boer, 2020). New theories in public administration also champion relational values such as listening, empathy, and care, given the deep interpersonal emotional labor that many public sector employees perform (Dolamore, 2019; Mastracci, 2021; Stivers, 1995). Empirical research has buttressed these nascent theories, finding the incorporation of relational activities and job characteristics such as building close relationships and forming emotional connections with clients can engender positive organizational outcomes in public organizations (van der Voet & Steijn, 2019).

Like organizations in the public sector, relational properties are also common among organizations in the for-profit sector. For example, family firms have generated nonfinancial value in the form of socioemotional wealth to their members (Gómez-Mejía, 2007; Zellweger & Astrachan, 2008). This type of emotional value is comprised of relational elements such as intimacy, affect, and belonging (Zellweger et al, 2012). Research findings also indicate that relational values and identity orientations characterize organizations in diverse for-profit industries ranging from engineering to legal services (Brickson, 2005; Fletcher, 1998). Furthermore, for-profit managers have increasingly indicated the importance of relational values within their organizations (Posner & Schmidt, 1992; Posner & Schmidt, 1984). While central to many public and for-profit organization, relational elements have also been met with skepticism in these sectors given the ontological currents defining appropriate business and government activity (Fletcher, 1998; Stout, 2012).

As stated by Powell (2020), nonprofits, “result from the legal incorporation of activities that represent the varied interests and identities that members of civil society hold,” (p. 7). While some nonprofit organizations may be geared toward individualistic efforts such as coalescing power or gaining notoriety, most often their identities have been categorized either as democratic or collective in nature (Eikenberry, 2009) or care-centered and relational (Sandberg & Elliott, 2019). Relational, care-centered approaches to the nonprofit sector, view these organizations as empathic and sympathetic partners that take care of others. This type of relational work is often characterized by deep and ongoing relationships and has long been a cornerstone of nonprofit identity (Jindra et al., 2020). At the organizational level, these relational elements manifest in relational OIOs. Organizations espousing relational orientations emphasize strong dyadic relationships based on concern and trust and are extremely motivated to ensure the specific needs of particular others.

Research findings related to nonprofit organizational values and practices consistently reflect the elements of relational orientations. For example, empirical evidence shows that relational organizational values such as compassion are more likely to attract workers to the nonprofit sector, than are collectivistic public values (Ballart & Rico, 2018; Winter & Thaler, 2016). In line with extant theory (Brickson, 2007) research also indicates that nonprofit workers value relational organizational policies that support individual needs, such as a sense of belonging and emotional attachment (Knapp et al., 2017). In comparison to workers in the public and for-profit sectors, research findings indicate that nonprofit workers are more satisfied with their jobs if helpfulness and a concern for their personal welfare are core characteristics of their work environment (Stater & Stater, 2019). If starting their own organization, Child et al. (2015) find that relational and expressive elements, such as the importance of care and helping others often lead individuals to choose incorporation in the nonprofit sector versus for-profit sector.

Taken together, these findings paint a picture of relational OIOs as an important presence in the public, for-profit, and nonprofit sectors. From an identity perspective, organizations have to act in accordance with either historical or normative role standards (Whetten, 2006). These bases of action help organizations gain legitimacy and avoid acting out of character. In the public sector, while relational elements are present and growing in influence, up until now, they have largely been considered to be at odds with the sectors’ collectivistic foundation (Stout, 2012). By design, government organizations have been structured to serve collective needs via representation of the average citizen. As such, dominant organizational identities and orientations centered on dyadic concerns or tailored care, have been seen at best as problematic, and at worst as undermining equity and representative democracy.

Compared to public organizations, relational elements have defined the historical and normative role standards of many for-profit organizations, whether though the production of emotional value in family firms, or the customer service revolution. However, relational orientations have largely been overlooked in the for-profit sector, and their worth downplayed, historically (Fletcher, 1998). Conversely, interdependent, relational, and care-centered work has long shaped the role, purposes, and identities of many nonprofit organizations; and, research findings indicate that relational elements define employee motivations and characterize both internal and external stakeholder relationship processes in the sector. While identity orientation is not immutable, it is generally understood to be a relatively stable feature of identity given that each orientation is guided by fundamentally different perspectives on reality and the nature of independence and interdependence. Furthermore, although OIO is a result, in part, of organizational structure, to the extent that organizations can choose their immediate environment and interaction partners, they do have a considerable amount of control in shaping this facet of identity (Brickson, 2007).

Based on this, I believe that relational identity orientations will be present in each sector. However, the extent to which members characterize their organizations as relational is likely higher in sectors where historical and normative role standards have legitimized them, and also where organizations have more freedom to define their relationships with stakeholders. Given this, I hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 5: Organizational members in the public sector will view their organizations as less relational than members in the nonprofit sector.

Hypothesis 6: Organizational members in the for-profit sector will view their organizations as less relational than members in the nonprofit sector.

Data, Measures, and Methods

This research uses data from the National Cross-Sector Organizational Studies Project (NCOSP). The NCOSP was a mixed-methods multiphase project administered using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk Platform during 2017. To participate in and complete the final online survey portion of the project, respondents were required to identify their sector of employment, live, and work in the United States and be over the age of 18. Respondents that completed the survey accurately and completely received 0.85 cents. The final sample consisted of 601 respondents, distributed nearly evenly across the public (35.27%), nonprofit (31.28%), and for-profit (33.41%) sectors. Industries represented within each sector were diverse. In the for-profit sector five industries including professional, technical and scientific, health and human services, marketing sales and services, and manufacturing and construction made up nearly 60% of respondents. In the nonprofit sector, three industries including, education, health, and human services accounted for 75% of respondents and in government, education, public health and veterans affairs, and justice, public order, and public safety accounted for nearly 70% of the respondents.

Similar to standard internet samples, approximately 60% of respondents were women and 40% were men (Buhrmester et al., 2011). Most (68%) report ages from 22 to 40, with the next largest group (22%) being aged 41 to 52. Over 70% of respondents have a 4-year College Degree or Higher and the mean salary falls within the 50 to 59 K range. As compared to national estimates, white (76.9%) and Asian (6%) individuals are slightly over represented while Hispanic (5%) and African American (7%) individuals are underrepresented (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). The limitations of this sampling approach are addressed in the discussion section. A full list of sample statistics is available in Appendix A.

This study tests six hypotheses to better understand member perceptions of their organization’s identity orientation across sectors. The primary dependent variables, individualistic OIO, relational OIO, and collectivistic OIO, are previously validated, multidimensional-averaged indexes that capture each of the four theoretical components of OIO (Brickson, 2005; Langer, 2018; Langer & Feeney, 2021). For example, in response to items such as “my organization is extremely motivated to outshine other similar organizations” (individualistic basis for motivation) survey participants would respond to Likert-type scale options where 5 = completely like my organization and 1 = not at all like my organization. The primary independent variable of interest in this exploratory study is sector of employment. Three dummy variables representing each sector were created 1/0 = for-profit, 1/0 = nonprofit, and 1/0 = government. Control variables included organizational size, whether the organization is production or service oriented, race, gender, education, tenure, and position within the organization. See Appendix B for a full list of measures, as well as descriptive and reliability statistics.

This research aims to explore the relationship between an organizations’ sector membership and member views of the organizations’ identity orientation. Based on this aim, and because the dependent variables are continuous, the primary method of analysis is ordinary least squares regression (OLS). Three OLS models are run using robust standard errors to correct for slight variations in normality and heteroskedasticity common in cross-sectional analysis. There were no strong correlations between the independent variables and all variance inflation factor (VIF) scores were well below 5 (highest VIF = 1.54/mean VIF = 1.16) a conservative cutoff used to determine multicollinearity (Acock, 2012, p. 269; Berk, 2004). Both standardized and unstandardized coefficients are reported to aid interpretation of the models.

Results

The purpose of this analysis is to determine if organization member’s perceptions of OIO align with identity expectations as outlined in the literature. More specifically, Hypotheses 1 and 2 posit that organizational members in the public and nonprofit sectors will view their organizations as less individualistic than those in the for-profit sector. Hypotheses 3 and 4 posit that organizational members in public and nonprofit sectors will view their organizations as more collectivistic than members in the for-profit sector. Finally, Hypotheses 5 and 6 suggest that organizational members in the nonprofit and for-profit sectors will view their organizations as more relational than those in the public sector.

The results of the three OLS models can be found in Table 2. Overall, the findings indicate that in most instances, members in the for-profit, nonprofit, and public sectors view the identity orientation of their organizations significantly differently. In line with Hypothesis 1, the findings show that members in the public sector view their organizations as significantly less individualistic than members in the for-profit sector view their organization’s (b = −0.23, p < .05). The standardized coefficient for this variable (β = −0.13) is the second largest in the model, suggesting its relative importance for explaining the relationship between sector membership and member views OIO among public sector employees. While nonprofit employees also view their organizations as less individualistic than for-profit employees, this difference is not significant here, therefore disconfirming Hypothesis 2.

Table 2.

Member Views of Organizational Identity Orientation Across Sector.

	Individualistic OIO				Collectivistic model				Relational model
Independent Variables	Coef	RSE	t	β	Coef	RSE	t	β	Coef	RSE	t	β
Sector
For-profit	−0.08	0.09	−0.94	−.04	—	—	—	—	0.24	0.11	2.25**	.12
Nonprofit	−0.23	0.10	−2.44**	−.13	0.62	0.09	6.80***	.32	0.44	0.09	4.96***	.22
Government	—	—	—	—	0.40	0.10	4.16***	.21	—	—	—	—
Org-level controls
Service orientation	0.03	0.11	0.23	.01	0.35	0.14	2.47**	.12	0.28	0.15	1.87	.17
Organizational size	0.07	0.02	3.78***	.15	−0.01	0.02	−0.40	−.02	−0.08	0.02	−3.73***	−.15
Indv-level controls
Female	0.14	0.07	1.92	.08	−0.07	0.07	1.00	.04	0.15	0.08	1.94 *	.08
White	−0.08	0.09	−0.83	−.03	−0.02	0.09	−0.26	−.01	−0.02	0.10	−0.23	−.01
Education	−0.06	0.03	−1.77	−.08	0.05	0.03	1.48	.06	0.01	0.03	0.38	.02
Tenure	−0.01	0.03	−0.38	−.02	0.02	0.03	0.78	.03	0.05	0.03	1.70	.06
Position	−0.02	0.04	−0.41	−.02	−0.04	0.04	−0.84	−.03	0.01	0.05	0.14	.01
Constant	3.49	0.02	17.41		3.00	0.23	13.79		3.13	0.27	11.42

Note. OIO = organizational identity orientation; RMSE = root mean square error.

Individualistic model: number of obs = 575; F(9, 565) = 3.62; p > F = 0.0003; R² = 0.1505; RMSE = 0.85666.

Relational model: number of obs = 575; F(9, 565) = 7.12; p > F = 0.0000; R² = 0.0930; RMSE = 0.0930.

Collectivistic model: number of obs = 575 (9, 565) = 8.49; p > F = 0.0000; R² = 0.1311; RMSE = 0.83855

***

p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; p < 0.10.

When it comes to views of collectivism, members in the public and nonprofit sectors view their organization’s identity orientation as significantly more collectivistic than do members in the for-profit sector (b = 0.40, p <.01; b = .62, p <.01). The standardized coefficient for the nonprofit sector is (β = 0.32) and for the public sector is (β = 0.21). These are the largest in the model, suggesting that sector membership is of premiere importance for explaining member views their organization’s collectivistic identity orientation, and thereby confirming Hypotheses 3 and 4. Finally, the results indicate that members in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors view their organizations as significantly more relational than members in the public sector view their organizations (b = 0.24, p < .05; b = .44, p < .01). The standardized coefficient for nonprofit sector membership is (β = 0.22) the largest in the model. For for-profit sector membership, the standardized coefficient is (β = 0.12), the fourth largest in the model. The results confirm Hypotheses 5 and 6, which posit that members in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors will view their organizations as significantly more relational than members in the public sector.

It is worth noting that no consistent patterns emerged across sectors between individual-level controls and perceptions of OIO. The only significant relationship that emerged was between gender and views of relational identity orientations. More specifically, this finding indicates that females are more likely to view their organizations as relational than their male counterparts (b = 0.15, p < .05). Of the significant factors associated with views of relational identity orientation, the standardized coefficient was the smallest for gender (β = 0.08). The only organizational-level control significant across more than one model was organization size. Organizational size was positively (b = 0.07) and significantly (p < .01) associated with views of individualism and also had a significant negative association with views of relationalism (b = −0.08, p < .01). While these findings do not detract from those at the sector level, future studies should continue to examine these associations to parse out their impact within and across sectors.

As shown in Table 3, all of the hypotheses were confirmed except Hypothesis 2 which posited that organizational members in the nonprofit sector would view their organizations as significantly less individualistic than members in the for-profit sector. The implications of the findings outlined in Table 3 are discussed in the following section.

Table 3.

Review of Findings.

Hypothesis	Description	Confirmed?
Hypothesis 1	Organizational members in the public sector will view their organizations as significantly less individualistic than members in the for-profit sector	YES
Hypothesis 2	Organizational members in the nonprofit sector will view their organizations as significantly less individualistic than members in the for-profit sector	NO
Hypothesis 3	Organizational members in the public sector will view their organizations as significantly more collectivistic than members in the for-profit sector	YES
Hypothesis 4	Organizational members in the nonprofit sector will view their organizations as significantly more collectivistic than members in the for-profit sector	YES
Hypothesis 5	Organizational members in the for-profit sector will view their organizations as significantly more relational than members in the public sector	YES
Hypothesis 6	Organizational members in the nonprofit sector will view their organizations as significantly more relational than members in the public sector	YES

Discussion

The findings presented here are important in that they point to three sectors that while diverse in orientation, are also distinct. Members in the for-profit sector define their organizations primarily as independent and seeking to maximize the welfare of the organization. Conversely, members in the public sector and nonprofit sector primarily define their organizations as interdependent and emphasize other-orienting values and motivations. However, while public organizations are often thought of broadly as “other-orienting,” these results also indicate a finer-grained differentiation exists, whereby social identities and relationships that serve a collective purpose more closely define member perceptions of OIO than relational identities where relationships are an end in themselves (Brickson, 2005; Etzioni, 1975). This would make sense, given that public organizations have traditionally been designed to be accountable to the collective public not individualized, dyadic interests. Contrary to much of the sector blurring literature (See Child et al., 2015 as an exception), these results may indicate that sector is a symbolically sustaining construct that highlights the shared identity claims of organizational members and defines “who” organizations are in relationship to others.

While the findings from this study show that member perceptions of OIO differ significantly across sectors, they also indicate that diverse identity orientations exist within each sector. In other words, no one sector can be described as solely individualistic, collectivistic, or relational. Given the cross-sectional and exploratory nature of this research, I cannot say if this within sector diversity has always existed or whether it has increased in light of cultural and environmental changes to the nature of organizing. However, given that, “society’s needs are multiple and that organizations of each orientation only address a subset of those needs,” we can affirm that organizational diversity, in this regard, is important if we are to meet a variety of social and economic goals (Brickson, 2007, p. 883). Stated another way, the findings indicate that each sector has the potential to produce diverse forms of social value. Recognizing this potential and examining the determinants of diverse OIOs within each sector is an avenue of research that can build upon the findings here and help us to understand if any orientations are in excess and where needs are not being met (Brickson, 2007).

In some ways, the findings presented here may both reassure and worry critics that see the influence of individualistic values as a threat to the other-orienting identities of public and nonprofit organizations. To the extent that individualistic identity orientations capture the essence of marketized reforms, it appears as though the spirit of individualism is alive in both the public and nonprofit sectors. Furthermore, as the results show, average views of individualism in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors are not significantly different. One could make the argument that the developmental trajectories of organizations in the for-profit and nonprofit sectors are inextricably linked to the importance of individualistic values and motivations (de Tocqueville, 1840/2016; Donaldson & Walsh, 2015), and therefore, it makes sense that no significant differences in views of individualism are observed here. Conversely, one could also ask whether such a finding is reflective of the cultural changes and administrative reforms which have championed individualistic values and motivations for much of the last half century (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Friedman, 1970). Such questions cannot be tested without longitudinal data, but these findings suggest that this would be a fruitful avenue for further research that could contribute to the literature on sector blurring and hybridity.

Taken together, these findings provide rich insights into the ways members across sectors view the fundamental nature of organizational independence and interdependence. While this research has increased our understating of identity orientation and sector identity, it is not without its limitations. First, while scholars have replicated both surveys and laboratory experiments using the Mturk platform and though evidence indicates that causal inferencing using convenience samples such as Mturk are reliable (Berinsky et al., 2012; Mason & Suri, 2012; Mullinix et al., 2014), because Mturk samples are nonrandom, generalizability is limited, and results should be interpreted only as exploratory, not definitive. Future studies could strengthen and extend this research by replicating the findings among a truly random sample of respondents both within and across sectors. Furthermore, while the findings from this study can help us to understand what sector identity looks like today, and theory can be used as a window to the past to help interpret why sector differences might exist, the data here are cross-sectional. Ideal future studies will continue to examine these trends from a longitudinal perspective. Despite these drawbacks, this research provides a solid foundation for future theoretical inquiries into OIO and sector theory.

Bennis (1967) once noted that, “every age develops an organizational form appropriate to its genius” (p. 220). Whether hierarchical, market-oriented, networked or hyper-organized, new organizational forms have emerged over the last century to meet the demands of the day. However, while forms evolve, the findings from this study ask us to reflect on the relationship between form and function, organization and purpose, sector and identity. To what extent have administrative reforms impacted sector identity? Conversely, to what extent has sector membership acted as a bulwark against reforms that champion conflicting identities? These questions cannot be fully answered by the findings from this study, but the results suggest that organizational members see sector as a symbolically sustaining construct, even though diverse identity orientations are reflected in each sector. Dedication to scholarship that advances new ways of thinking about the complexities of sector membership can help to establish to what degree diverse identity orientations are represented within and across sectors, what particular types of value are being created by these diverse organizations, and where needs are not being met. In this way, we will be better able to help all organizations realize their fullest positive potential whether individualistic, relational, or collectivistic.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix B

Descriptive Statistics and Variable Measures.

Dependent variables	Obs.	Mean/SD	Minimum/maximum	Description
Individualistic identity orientation	601	11.79/5.67	1/25	Measure was created from the following survey items that comprise previously validated scale of individualistic identity orientation • My organization can be described as unique and unlike any other • My organization emphasize how different it is from other similar organizations • My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it maintains its distinctiveness from other similar organizations • My organization is extremely motivated to outshine other similar organizations Cronbach’s Alpha α = .78
Relational identity orientation	601	14.38/6.41	1/25	Measure was created from the following survey items that comprise previously validated scale of relational identity orientation • My organization can be described as warm • My organization emphasizes the importance of deep interpersonal relationships • My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it is able to maintain close relationships with individual clients, customers, citizens or stakeholders • My organization is extremely motivated to connect with others in a close and personal way Cronbach’s Alpha α = .85
Collectivistic identity orientation	601	15.65/6.45	1/25	Measure was created from the following survey items that comprise previously validated scale of collectivistic identity orientation • My organization can be described as cause driven • My organization emphasizes the importance of its affiliation with a group, cause or broader community • My organization considers itself to be “doing well” when it contributes to the well-being of a broader group, cause or community • My organization is extremely motivated to advance the welfare of a broader community or cause Cronbach’s Alpha α = .83
Independent variables
For-profit	601	0.33/0.47	1/0	Dichotomous variable 1 = PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT company or business 0 = NONPROFIT tax exempt or charitable organization AND 0 = GOVERNMENTAL agency (city, county, state, or federal)
Nonprofit	601	0.31/0.46	1/0	Dichotomous variable 1 = NONPROFIT tax exempt or charitable organization, 0 = PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT company or business AND 0 = GOVERNMENTAL agency (city, county, state, or federal)
Public	601	0.35/0.48	1/0	Dichotomous variable 1 = GOVERNMENTAL agency (city, county, state, or federal), 0 = NONPROFIT tax exempt or charitable organization AND 0 = PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT company or business
Controls
Position in org	596	2.43/0.81	1/6	1 = temp/contractor, 2 = hourly, 3 = salary, 4 = manager, 5 = director/senior manager, 6 = executive
Level of education	596	4.87/1.24	1/8	1 = less than high school, 2 = high school/GED, 3 = some college, 4 = 2-year college degree, 5 = 4-year college degree, 6 = master degree, 7 = professional degree (Juris Doctor, Doctor of Medicine),8 = doctoral degree
Tenure	596	2.66/1.25	1/6	1 = less than 1 year, 2 = 1–5 years, 3 = 6–10 years, 4 = 11–15 years, 5 = 16–20 years, 6 = 20+ years
Org size	576	3.42/1.80	1/6	1 = 1–49 employees, 2 = 50–250 employees, 3 = 251–500 employees, 4 = 501–1,000 employees, 5 = 1,001–4,999 employees, 6 5k+employees
Service orientation	598	0.89/0.31	1/0	1 = service-oriented org that provided service to clients or customers, 0 = production-oriented org that makes or manufactures good/products for sale

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr. Kelly LeRoux, Dr. Mary Feeney, Dr. Shelley Brickson and two anonymous reviewers for their insight and feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Julie Langer

Notes

Author Biography

Julie Langer is an assistant professor in the Department of Public Administration at Northern Illinois University. She studies how organizations are used as vehicles for the expression of identity and what this means for their ability to both create and destroy value in society. Her research has been published in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, American Review of Public Administration, and Review of Public Personnel Administration and Public Management Review. Her latest work on organizational identity orientation (with M. K. Feeney) is forthcoming in The Handbook of Research on Motivation in Public Administration.

References

Acock

A. C.

(2012). A gentle introduction to Stata. Stata Press.

Adams

G. B.

Bowerman

P. V.

Dolbeare

K. M.

Stivers

(1988). Joining purpose to practice: A democratic identity for the public service. Dialogue, 10(4), 57–91.

Agle

B. R.

Mitchell

R. K.

Sonnenfeld

J. A.

(1999). Who matters to Ceos? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.

Albert

Ashforth

B. E.

Dutton

J. E.

(2000). Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 13–17.

Albert

Whetten

D. A.

(1985). Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 263–295.

Anheier

Ben-Ner

(1997). Shifting boundaries: Long-term changes in the size of the for-profit, nonprofit, cooperative and government sectors. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 68(3), 335–353.

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

F. A.

(1996). Organizational identity and strategy as a context for the individual. Advances in Strategic Management, 13, 19–64.

Ashforth

B. E.

Schinoff

B. S.

Brickson

S. L.

(2020). My company is friendly, “mine’s rebel”: Anthropomorphism and shifting organizational identity from “what” to “who.” Academy of Management Review, 45(1), 29–57.

Ballart

Rico

(2018). Public or nonprofit? Career preferences and dimensions of public service motivation. Public Administration, 96(2), 404–420.

10.

Balser

McClusky

(2005). Managing stakeholder relationships and nonprofit organization effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(3), 295–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.70

11.

Bator

F. M.

(1958). The anatomy of market failure. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 72(3), 351–379.

12.

Benn

Gauss

(1983). Public and the private: Concepts and action. In Benn

Gauss

(Eds.), Public and private in social life (pp. 7–11). St. Martin’s Press.

13.

Bennis

(1967). Organizations of the future. Personnel Administration, 30(5), 6–19.

14.

Berger

P. L.

Neuhaus

R. J.

(1977). To empower people: The role of mediating structures in public policy. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

15.

Berinsky

A. J.

Huber

G. A.

Lenz

G. S.

(2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368.

16.

Berk

R. A.

(2004). Regression analysis: A constructive critique (vol. 11). SAGE.

17.

Berle

A. A.

Jr. (1931). Corporate powers as powers in trust. Harvard Law Review, 44(7), 1049–1074.

18.

Blau

P. M.

Scott

W. R.

(2003). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. Stanford University Press.

19.

Boardman

Moore

(2020). Local government mixed enterprises. In Billis

Rochester

(Eds.), Handbook on hybrid organizations (p. 66–81). Edward Elgar Publishing.

20.

Bosanquet

(1951). The philosophical theory of the state. Macmillian.

21.

Box

R. C.

(2007). Redescribing the public interest. The Social Science Journal, 44(4), 585–598.

22.

Box

R. C.

Marshall

G. S.

Reed

B. J.

Reed

C. M.

(2001). New public management and substantive democracy. Public Administration Review, 61(5), 608–619.

23.

Bozeman

(1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organizational theories. Jossey-Bass.

24.

Bozeman

(2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Georgetown University Press.

25.

Bozeman

Loveless

(1987). Sector context and performance: A comparison of industrial and government research units. Administration & Society, 19(2), 197–235.

26.

Breton

Wintrobe

(1982). The logic of bureaucratic conduct. Cambridge Books.

27.

Brickson

S. L.

(2002). Organizational identity orientation: Making the link between organizational identity and organizational behavior [Doctoral dissertation]. Harvard University.

28.

Brickson

S. L.

(2005). Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations’ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4), 576–609.

29.

Brickson

S. L.

(2007). Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 864–888.

30.

Brickson

S. L.

(2013). Athletes, best friends, and social activists: An integrative model accounting for the role of identity in organizational identification. Organization Science, 24(1), 226–245.

31.

Bromley

Meyer

J. W.

(2015). Hyper-organization: Global organizational expansion. Oxford University Press.

32.

Bromley

Meyer

J. W.

(2017). “They are all organizations” the cultural roots of blurring between the nonprofit, business, and government sectors. Administration & Society, 49(7), 939–966.

33.

Bromley

Meyer

J. W.

(2021). Hyper-management: Neoliberal expansions of purpose and leadership. Organization Theory, 2(3), 26317877211020327.

34.

Brown

Yoshioka

(2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in employee retention. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14, 15–18.

35.

Bryson

J. M.

Crosby

B. C.

Bloomberg

(2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 445–456.

36.

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5.

37.

Child

Witesman

Spencer

(2015). The blurring hypothesis reconsidered: How sector still matters to practitioners. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1831–1852.

38.

Christensen

R. K.

Paarlberg

Perry

J. L.

(2017). Public service motivation research: Lessons for practice. Public Administration Review, 77(4), 529–542.

39.

Chubb

J. E.

Moe

T. M.

(1988). Politics, markets, and the organization of schools. American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1065–1087.

40.

Coase

R. H.

(1993). The nature of the firm: Origins, evolution, and development. Oxford University Press.

41.

Coop–International Cooperative Alliance. (2019, March). What is a Cooperative—Cooperative Identity. International Cooperative Alliance. https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/what-is-a-cooperative

42.

de Boer

(2020). How do citizens assess street-level bureaucrats’ warmth and competence? A typology and test. Public Administration Review, 80(4), 532–542.

43.

De Graaf

Van der Wal

(2008). On value differences experienced by sector switchers. Administration & Society, 40(1), 79–103.

44.

De Tocqueville

(2016). Self-interest rightly understood. In Moody

Breeze

(Eds.), The philanthropy reader (1st ed., pp. 78–80). Routledge. (Original work published 1840)

45.

DiMaggio

Powell

W. W.

(1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

46.

Dodd

E. M.

(1932). For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law Review, 45, 1145–1163.

47.

Dolamore

(2019). Detecting empathy in public organizations: Creating a more relational public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 43(1), 58–81.

48.

Donaldson

Walsh

J. P.

(2015). Toward a theory of business. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 181–207.

49.

Dutton

J. E.

Dukerich

J. M.

(1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 517–554.

50.

Edwards

Foley

M. W.

(2001). Civil society and social capital: A primer. In Beyond Tocqueville: Civil society and the social capital debate in comparative perspective (pp. 1–14). Hanover, NH: Tufts University Press.

51.

Egri

C. P.

Herman

(2000). Leadership in the North American environmental sector: Values, leadership styles, and contexts of environmental leaders and their organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 571–604.

52.

Eikenberry

A. M.

(2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 582–596.

53.

Eikenberry

A. M.

Kluver

J. D.

(2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.

54.

Elshtain

J. B.

(1999). A call to civil society. Society, 36(5), 11–19.

55.

Etzioni

(1975). Comparative analysis of complex organizations (rev. ed.). Simon and Schuster.

56.

Fletcher

J. K.

(1998). Relational practice: A feminist reconstruction of work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7(2), 163–186.

57.

Frederickson

(1980). New public administration. University of Alabama.

58.

Freeman

R. E.

Reed

D. L.

(1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88–106.

59.

Friedman

(with the assistance of Rose D. Friedman). (1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press.

60.

Friedman

(1970). A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 13(1970), 32–33.

61.

Frumkin

Galaskiewicz

(2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 283–307.

62.

Gioia

D. A.

Thomas

J. B.

(1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative science quarterly, 370–403.

63.

Glynn

M. A.

(2000). When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organization Science, 11(3), 285–298.

64.

Gómez-Mejía

L. R.

Haynes

K. T.

Núñez-Nickel

Jacobson

K. J.

Moyano-Fuentes

(2007). Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 106–137.

65.

Handley

D. M.

Howell-Moroney

(2010). Ordering stakeholder relationships and citizen participation: Evidence from the community development block grant program. Public Administration Review, 70(4), 601–609.

66.

Hansmann

(1987). The effect of tax exemption and other factors on the market share of nonprofit versus for-profit firms. National Tax Journal, 40(1), 71–82.

67.

Harrison

J. S.

Phillips

R. A.

Freeman

R. E.

(2019). On the 2019 business roundtable “statement on the purpose of a corporation.” Journal of Management, 46(7), 1223–1237.

68.

Hegel

G. W. F.

(1945). Philosophy of right ( Knox

T. M.

, Trans.). Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1820)

69.

Holt

S. B.

(2018). For those who care: The effect of public service motivation on sector selection. Public Administration Review, 78(3), 457–471.

70.

Hood

(1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.

71.

Hwang

Powell

W. W.

(2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(2), 268–298.

72.

Jørgensen

T. B.

Bozeman

(2007). Public values an inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381.

73.

Jeffries

(1977). Private policing: An examination of in-house operations. Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto.

74.

Jensen

M. C.

Meckling

W. H.

(1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

75.

Jindra

Paulle

Jindra

I. W.

(2020). Relational work in the struggle against poverty: Balancing scholarly critiques and emancipatory practices in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(1), 160–179.

76.

Kaul

Luo

(2018). An economic case for CSR: The comparative efficiency of for-profit firms in meeting consumer demand for social goods. Strategic Management Journal, 39(6), 1650–1677.

77.

Kemmis

(1990). Community and the politics of place. University of Oklahoma Press.

78.

Kennedy

E. D.

Beaton

Haigh

(2020). Increasing social impact among social enterprises and traditional firms. In Billis

Rochester

(Eds.), Handbook on hybrid organizations (p 251–272). Edward Elgar Publishing.

79.

Kettl

D. F.

(2000). The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 488–497.

80.

Kettl

D. F.

(2002). The transformation of governance: Public administration for twenty-first century America. Johns Hopkins University.

81.

Knapp

J. R.

Smith

B. R.

Sprinkle

T. A.

(2017). Is it the job or the support? Examining structural and relational predictors of job satisfaction and turnover intention for nonprofit employees. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(3), 652–671.

82.

Lan

Rainey

H. G.

(1992). Goals, rules, and effectiveness in public, private, and hybrid organizations: More evidence on frequent assertions about differences. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(1), 5–28.

83.

Langer

J. A.

(2018). Organizational identity and the nature of stakeholder relationships in the blended age of organizing (Order No. 10956941). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (2086083157).

84.

Langer

J. A.

Feeney

M. K.

(2021). Organizational identity orientation: A public sector research agenda. In Stazyk

E. C.

Davis

R. S.

(Eds.), The handbook of research on motivation in public administration. Edward Elgar Publishing.

85.

Lee

(2016). Comparison of job satisfaction between nonprofit and public employees. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45, 295–313.

86.

Locke

(1967). Locke: Two treatises of government. Cambridge University Press.

87.

Lohmann

R. A.

(1989). And lettuce is nonanimal: Toward a positive economics of voluntary action. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 18(4), 367–383.

88.

Lyons

S. L.

Duxbury

L. E.

Higgins

(2006). A comparison of the values and commitment of private sector, public sector, and parapublic sector employees. Public Administration Review, 66, 605–618.

89.

Mackey

T. B.

Barney

J. B.

(2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 817–835.

90.

Mason

Suri

(2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23.

91.

Mastracci

S. H.

(2021). Dirty Work and Emotional Labor in Public Service: Why Government Employers Should Adopt an Ethic of Care. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 0734371X21997548.

92.

Meyer

M. W.

(1979). Debureaucratization? Social Science Quarterly, 60(1), 25–34.

93.

Mill

J. S.

(1871). Principles of political economy: With some of their applications to social philosophy (vol. 1). Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer.

94.

Miller-Stevens

Taylor

J. A.

Morris

J. C.

(2015). Are we really on the same page? An empirical examination of value congruence between public sector and nonprofit sector managers. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(6), 2424–2446.

95.

Mullinix

Druckman

Freese

(2014). The generalizability of survey experiments [Institute for Policy Research Northwestern University Working Paper Series]. Cambridge University Press

96.

Ospina

Diaz

O’sullivan

J. F.

(2002). Negotiating accountability: Managerial lessons from identity-based nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(1), 5–31.

97.

Perry

J. L.

Rainey

H. G.

(1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182–201.

98.

Pittman

(2018). History of cooperatives in the United States: An overview. Center for Cooperatives, University of Wisconsin. https://resources.uwcc.wisc.edu/History_of_Cooperatives.pdf

99.

Pope

Bromley

Lim

Meyer

J. W.

(2018). The pyramid of nonprofit responsibility: The institutionalization of organizational responsibility across sectors. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(6), 1300–1314.

100.

Porter

M. E.

Kramer

M. R.

(2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.

101.

Posner

B. Z.

Schmidt

W. H.

(1984). Values and the American manager: An update. California Management Review, 26(3), 202–216.

102.

Posner

B. Z.

Schmidt

W. H.

(1992). Values and the American manager: An update updated. California Management Review, 34(3), 80–94.

103.

Powell

(2020). What is the nonprofit sector? In Powell

W. W.

Bromley

(Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (p. 3–18). Stanford University Press.

104.

Pugh

D. S.

Hickson

D. J.

Hinings

C. R.

Turner

(1969). The context of organization structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(1), 91–114.

105.

Rainey

H. G.

Bozeman

(2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447–470.

106.

Rainey

H. G.

Pandey

Bozeman

(1995). Research note: Public and private managers’ perceptions of red tape. Public Administration Review, 55(6), 567–574.

107.

Ritzer

Dean

(2015). Globalization: A basic text. John Wiley.

108.

Rosenbloom

D. H.

McCurdy

H. E.

(Eds.). (2006). Revisiting Waldo’s administrative state: Constancy and change in public administration. Georgetown University Press.

109.

Rousseau

J. J.

(2008). Discourse on political economy and the social contract. Oxford University Press.

110.

Salamon

L. M.

(1999). The nonprofit sector at a crossroads: The case of America. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 10(1), 5–23.

111.

Salamon

L. M.

Anheier

H. K.

(1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 9(3), 213–248.

112.

Sandberg

Elliott

(2019). Toward a care-centered approach for nonprofit management in a neoliberal era. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 41(3), 286–306.

113.

Seidman

(1952). The theory of the autonomous government corporation: A critical appraisal. Public Administration Review, 12(2), 89–96.

114.

Smith

(1976). The wealth of nations. (Original work published 1776) Oxford: Clarendon Press

115.

Soskis

(2020). A history of associational life and the nonprofit sector in the United States. In Powell

W. W.

Bromley

(Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (p. 23–80). Stanford University Press.

116.

Stater

K. J.

Stater

(2019). Is it “just work?” The impact of work rewards on job satisfaction and turnover intent in the nonprofit, for-profit, and public sectors. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(4), 495–511.

117.

Stivers

(1995). Settlement women and bureau men: Constructing a usable past for public administration. Public Administration Review, 55(6), 522.

118.

Stivers

(2000). Resisting the ascendancy of public management: Normative theory and public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 22(1), 10–23.

119.

Stout

(2012). Competing ontologies: A primer for public administration. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 388–398.

120.

Thomasson

(2020). The Swedish corporate model. In Billis

Rochester

(Eds.), Handbook on Hybrid Organizations (p 135–150). Edward Elgar Publishing.

121.

U.S. Census Bureau (2019). Quick Facts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219

122.

van der Voet

Steijn

(2019). Relational job characteristics and prosocial motivation: A longitudinal study of youth care professionals. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(1), 57–77.

123.

Van der Wal

De Graaf

Lasthuizen

(2008). What’s valued most? Similarities and differences between the organizational values of the public and private sector. Public Administration, 86(2), 465–482.

124.

Wamsley

G. L.

Zald

M. N.

(1973). The political economy of public organizations. Public Administration Review, 33(1), 62–73.

125.

Weber

(2000). The protestant ethic and the “spirit” of capitalism and other writings. Penguin. (Original work published 1930)

126.

Weisbrod

(1975). 975. Toward a theory of the voluntary nonprofit sector in a three sector economy. Altruism, morality and economic theory.

127.

Weitzner

Deutsch

(2019). Why the time has come to retire instrumental stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 694–698.

128.

Whetten

D. A.

(2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3), 219–234.

129.

Whetten

D. A.

Mackey

(2002). A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation. Business & Society, 41(4), 393–414.

130.

Williamson

O. E.

(1975). Markets and hierarchies. The Free Press.

131.

Winter

Thaler

(2016). Does motivation matter for employer choices? A discrete-choice analysis of medical students’ decisions among public, nonprofit, and for-profit hospitals. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(4), 762–786.

132.

Word

Park

S. M.

(2015). The new public service? Empirical research on job choice motivation in the nonprofit sector. Personnel Review, 44(1), 91–118.

133.

Zellweger

T. M.

Astrachan

J. H.

(2008). On the emotional value of owning a firm. Family Business Review, 21(4), 347–363.

134.

Zellweger

T. M.

Kellermanns

F. W.

Eddleston

K. A.

Memili

(2012). Building a family firm image: How family firms capitalize on their family ties. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(4), 239–250.