Voicing an identity: Unpacking the identity sources of member voicing

Abstract

The communication of nonnominated members who voluntarily disseminate organization-supportive messages on their social media platforms has become a central topic in the field of public relations. While such ‘member voicing’ is generally encouraged, management often struggle to prevent unfavorable representations. Previous studies have demonstrated an extensive use of explicit control practices, including strict social media policies, but has paid little attention to less obtrusive forms of control. This conceptual article argues that unobtrusive forms of control play a significant role in shaping member voicing. Specifically, member voicing is discussed as a specific type of identity performance where members enact values and desires to present a situationally relevant identity. In voicing their organization, members are argued to draw on identity material from three partly overlapping sources: (1) values fabricated and imposed by management, (2) (social) identities desired by members themselves (‘who they want to be’), and (3) conduct expected and celebrated by peers (e.g. colleagues). The identity performance of member voicing, thus, is permeated by organizational and social ideals and expectations, participating in constituting members’ perception of ‘who they are’. While the enactment of member voicing is not determined in any detail, the paper suggests that members always speak from within a web of preconstructed values, and as such with a constrained voice.

Keywords

Member voicing identity performance constrained voicing discipline unobtrusive control

The practice of letting organizational members represent their organization has become a central theme in the field of public relations (Thelen, 2020). This is unsurprising given the impact that organizational members can have on external publics’ perception of an organization (Kenny et al., 2011). Social media has further increased interest in the role members play in communicating about their organization. Studies show how members share official posts, present their work, or generally express pride in their workplace on their own social media channels (Sergi and Bonneau, 2016; Smith et al., 2017; Van Zoonen et al., 2014). Many of these members are so-called nonnominated, that is, “staff members within organizations who voluntarily disseminate organization-supportive messages to external audiences” (Walden and Westermann, 2018: 423; see also Kim and Rhee, 2011; Mazzei et al., 2012). As research demonstrates, such communication is perceived as more authentic and credible than formal organizational communication (Kim and Rhee, 2011). In addition, it tends to reach more people (Miles and Mangold, 2014), boost sales, attract talent, retain members, and strengthen their engagement (Thelen, 2020). Therefore, in many organizations, management encourages members to distribute positive messages (Banghart et al., 2018; Thelen, 2020; Weber, 2013). How members represent their organization is, however, not an unregulated practice. Rather, member voicing can be viewed as a way for organizations to capitalize members’ voices, expanding both members’ responsibilities and the reach of managerial control. In this conceptual article, I explore the disciplinary dimensions of nonnominated member voicing on social media.

Research on nonnominated voicing can be divided into two overall strands. The first strand consists of research that investigates and maps various internal factors that can foster positive communication, including internal communication (Kim and Rhee, 2011; Men, 2014; Walden and Westermann, 2018), organizational culture (Men and Jiang, 2016; Miles and Mangold, 2004), and leadership style (Men, 2014; Miles and Mangold, 2004; Zhang et al., 2019). The second strand of research explores the phenomenon of nonnominated voicing as such. Here, a central theme is the question of how to balance the risks and benefits of members’ communication. As Weber (2013: 289) explains, “Companies want the personable approachable voices of employees yet remain fearful about what they might say.” The fear of losing control, reputation breakages, and inconsistent communication have led researchers to propose several control measures, including social media policies, training, and surveillance (e.g. Dreher, 2014; Macnamara and Zerfass, 2012). Empirical studies have shown that organizations have likewise adopted such obtrusive tools to control members’ communication (e.g. Banghart et al., 2018; Weber, 2013).

Although not theorized in those particular terms, a critical reading of empirical studies of member voicing suggests that members’ voices are also permeated by unobtrusive forms of control. Unobtrusive control refers to managerial attempts to have members identify and marry their values to those of the organization with the objective of ensuring organizational-supportive behavior without supervision (Tompkins and Cheney, 1985). As a large corpus of research demonstrates, identity, and specifically how management utilizes its power to manipulate members’ identities, are central for understanding the operations of unobtrusive control (e.g. Alvesson and Willmott, 2002). Such regulation also participates in ensuring that members communicate positively about their organization and is thus crucial to understand member voicing. The disciplinary operations of member voicing cannot, however, be fully understood if members’ desire to develop and present particular identities (Endrissat et al., 2017), as well as their inclination to conform to cultural norms to be recognized by important others (e.g. colleagues; Mead, 1934), are not accounted for.

Member voicing, as I will argue in this article, constitutes a specific type of identity performance where particular identities are invoked, enacted, and presented. In such performances, members construct situationally relevant identities by drawing on identity material from three partly overlapping sources: identities provided by management, identities desired by members themselves, and identities recognized and approved by others. In the remainder of this paper, I unfold this argument. First, a review of extant studies of nonnominated voicing is made, with a particular focus on those control measures that have been exposed by previous studies. Establishing that the literature predominantly has discussed obtrusive forms of control, I next introduce identity as the key site of unobtrusive control technologies. Drawing on literature that views identities as ongoing multidimensional and situated constructions, members’ identity performance is argued to be shaped by organizational, social, and cultural values. Based on theories and concepts presented in research on identity and unobtrusive control, I propose and discuss three identity sources members are likely to invoke and enact in member voicing: identities provided by management, desired by the members, and approved by others. In particular, by drawing on empirical examples provided in extant literature, I discuss the unobtrusive dimensions of social media policies, how provided identities often take precedence over desired identities, and suggest that members’ self-surveillance practices ensure a voicing acceptable by management and colleagues. Finally, I discuss the implications of member voicing and suggest that a reiterative enactment of a situated identity has sedimentation effects that shape members’ perceptions of who they are and constitute them as representatives. The paper contributes to the literature on nonnominated member voicing by uncovering how voluntary communication about one’s organization always is conducted within relations of power, resulting in what I shall call “constrained voicing”.

Nonnominated member voicing

The notion that members’ communication is crucial to the success of an organization is far from new. Front-line personnel, salespeople, and customer service representatives have long been considered the public faces and voices of organizations (Kenny et al., 2011; Marchand, 1998), and as such, central to efforts to establish, maintain, and rebuild organizations’ reputations (Gotsi and Wilson, 2001; Hatch and Schultz, 2003). Social media has, however, expanded both the possible reach of member voicing as well as who counts as a representative of an organization (Banghart et al., 2018; Weber, 2013). A key issue in the literature involves how to balance the personalization of organizational messages that members contribute with, with demands for a distinct organizational voice. Prescriptive studies on the subject have proposed several tools for ensuring that member voicing supports the organization. For example, managers are encouraged to implement social media policies (Culnan et al., 2010; Dreher, 2014; Gallaugher and Ransbotham, 2010; Linke and Zerfass, 2013; Macnamara and Zerfass, 2012; O’Connor et al., 2016), educate members at all levels (Dreher, 2014; Gallaugher and Ransbotham, 2010; Linke and Zerfass, 2013; Macnamara and Zerfass, 2012; O’Connor et al., 2016), use incentives and rewards (monetary as well as status, such as “Best Blogger Award”; Dreher, 2014), and monitor communication (Macnamara and Zerfass, 2012; O’Connor et al., 2016).

Empirical studies have shown that organizations look for ways to navigate the possibilities and threats associated with member voicing. A common thread in this research is the ambiguity, contradictions, tensions, and paradoxes that appear to arise when managers try to balance encouraging and restraining voicing. Macnamara and Zerfass (2012) report that interviewed communication practitioners, including social media specialists, oscillated between speaking of “open approaches” to their members’ social media communication and explicit management attempts to regulate social media usage, including through policies, training, editing, and comprehensive monitoring. In their case study of how organizations approach members’ social media activities, Rokka et al. (2014) identifies various contradictions in approaches by management, such as “encouraging versus restricting employees in online participation” and “centralizing versus decentralizing responsibility and leadership.” Similarly, Weber’s (2013) Banghart et al.’s (2018) studies on social media policies illustrate how these documents are riddled with ambiguity and contradictions. As Weber (2013: 297) states,

These competing desires for proactive and protective approaches to social media appear prominently in both the voice and the content of social media policies, many of which almost simultaneously espouse enthusiasm for the potential of social media and concern about its dangers to the company.

In their study of when, where, how, and what social media policies regulate, Banghart et al. (2018: 349) identify the presence of an ambiguous logic, which “explicitly address boundaries, yet articulate inconsistent assumptions and incompatible specifications for how employees should navigate boundaries in their use of social media.” The authors argue that such ambiguity, rather than providing discursive openings (see Deetz, 1992) for members and room for interpretation and exploration, is “likely to constrain and complicate interpretation and action” (Banghart et al., 2018: 349; see also Stohl et al., 2017). They conclude that the explicit and implicit purpose of social media policies is to steer and restrict social media activities and thereby encourage only certain representations of the organization.

The ambiguities and tensions that riddle the literature and practice of member voicing imply that more overt forms of discipline do not fulfill their purposes and that management needs to find new ways to ensure its control over organizational messages. Obtrusive control, in other words, appears largely unfit in regards to member voicing. This is also noted by Dreher (2014) who without further discussion writes that “social media training should address the benefits and opportunities of employees’ participation in the social web, and ensure that employees understand and embrace their organization’s corporate character, its values, beliefs and mission” (Dreher, 2014: 350; emphasize added). Such prescribed adoption of managerially provided values suggests the application of unobtrusive forms of control. Indeed, while member voicing involves a (formal) decentralization of organizational messages, favorable communication involves what Rose (1999) has called a “responsibilisation” of members. Such expanded responsibility for organizations’ communication demands members who think, feel, and act as if the success of the organization hinges on them (see Heide et al., 2018). Unobtrusive control, in other words, plays a crucial role in member voicing.

The situated identity of member voicing

Unobtrusive control primarily refers to those attempts made by management to control members’ behavior by disciplining their “insides,” that is, their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and aspirations (Deetz, 1995; Kunda, 1992; Ray, 1986; Sewell, 1998; Tompkins and Cheney, 1985; Thornborrow and Brown, 2009). Through members’ internalization, identification, and enactment of organizational values in work-related practices, organizational-supportive decisions can be ensured without supervision (Simon, 1978; see also Barnard, 1938; Tompkins and Cheney, 1985). During the last 20 years, the identity construction of members has been viewed as a key site of unobtrusive control (Alvesson, 2010; see also Brown, 2021). Consequently, identity is central in any exploration of nonnominated member voicing.

In this paper, identities are understood as ongoing multidimensional constructions involving processes of constituting, maintaining, (re)negotiating, and (re)presenting who one “is” (Brown, 2021; see also Callero, 2013). Such identity work is conducted in and through reflexive performances that involve reiteratively enacting situationally relevant identities in talking, writing, and doing (Butler, 1993, 1998; Giddens, 1991). While the idea of performance might suggest deliberately choosing to “put on a Goffmansque act,” every act invokes norms, values, and desires that inform and shape how identities are performed and enacted. Identity construction, in other words, is always fashioned within power relations that guide not only what a person does and communicates but also how the person understands itself (“Who am I?”) and its proper conduct (“How should I act?”; Alvesson et al., 2008; see also Tracy and Trethewey, 2005).

The concept of identity regulation is often employed when studying managements’ attempts to subjectify members in ways that tie them to the organization (see e.g. Alvesson and Willmott, 2002). As Kuhn (2006; see also Garrety, 2008; Kuhn et al., 2008) notes, however, identities performed in organizational settings are not necessarily the one-to-one implementation of managerial produced values. Rather, they are always informed by many sources, leading Kuhn to speak of identity construction as influenced by intersecting arrays of discursive resources. Discursive resources are “’tools’ that guide interpretations of experience and shape the construction of preferred conceptions of persons and groups; in so doing, they participate in identity regulation and identity work” (Kuhn et al., 2008: 163). As such they also guide members’ communication and are observable, for instance, in concepts and expressions used (Kuhn, 2006).

Discursive resources nicely capture the dynamics of identity construction: they enable identity formation as much as they constrain it (see also Giddens, 1984; Wieland, 2010). By implication, resources help members know what to communicate while simultaneously restraining their voices. Yet, there is no determination involved; identity performances can display a “tilt” towards managerially provided identity discourses, but they may also tilt toward discourses produced in other contexts, such as social identities or cultural norms (see Kuhn, 2006).

Discursive resources are highly useful when discussing the disciplinary dimensions of member voicing. As I will argue, the identity performance of member voicing is shaped by intersecting arrays of discursive resources. While managerial values constitute a crucial resource (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002; Kuhn, 2006), members’ identities are simultaneously shaped by desires to develop and present certain identities (Markus and Nurius, 1986) and to be recognized by others (e.g. colleagues; Mead, 1934). Together, these discursive resources influence the voicing performed. The fact that many sources shape and constitute a particular identity performance implies that member voicing and the identity construction involved can be a tension-filled practice characterized as it is by the copresence of different values, motives, ambitions, and aspirations that members negotiate and conform to (Ashforth and Schinoff, 2016; O’Brien and Linehan, 2018). In the following, I further unfold the different discursive resources that influence member voicing, pursuing the argument that members construct a situationally relevant identity through the reiterated enactment of discursive resources provided by management, desired by members, and approved by others.

Provided identities

The values that management constructs and provides are crucial discursive resources that shape members’ identity construction and performances in organizational contexts (Alvesson and Willmott, 2002; Fleming and Spicer, 2014). While the employment of provided identities implies the conspicuous infliction of values on members, it aims at regulating members’ identities in ways ensuring that no further obtrusive control is needed. That is, once internalized and enacted by members, such values should operate through members’ self-management.

Although provided identities is a disciplinary form that has been employed for years, it has become central in times when members are positioned as key communicators and representatives for their organization by both management and external publics (e.g. Müller, 2016). As Tracy and Trethewey (2005: 172) note, “employees are now, more than ever, asked to work on their very selves as part and parcel of their jobs.” The external focus of member voicing foregrounds the organizational brand since it today often comprises the main official representation of organizations, describing what the organization is and what it offers publics (Kornberger, 2010). As such, the brand is employed to organize and ensure communicative coherence and consistency and has come to constitute a favored discursive resource for management to impose on members (Kärreman and Rylander, 2008; see also Ind, 2007; Karmark, 2005). Endrissat et al. (2017) call management’s expectations that members adopt, internalize, and enact brand values a top-down process in which members are “being branded inside-out” (see also Sullivan et al., 2013; Vásquez et al., 2013). This subordination of members is not only a common component in onboardings of new members but tends to be a continuous activity without end date during which management utilizes its power to inflict provided identities on its subordinates (Ainsworth and Hardy, 2004; Fleming and Sturdy, 2011). Such practices imply that many of those members who choose to communicate about their organization invoke and enact discursive resources internalized before their actual voicing(s).

The disciplinary practice of providing identities is thus suggested by formulations found in many social media policies cited in extant literature, which indirectly ask members to voice their organizations in ways that conform to the brand. While these policies often explicitly state the dos and don’ts of members’ social media communication, exposing their obtrusive character, many also include references to the brand persona that members should communicate. Thereby they imply an underlying unobtrusive dimension and interest in shaping members’ identities. An example of this is the American coffee chain Starbucks’ social media policy, which contains the wording, “Let’s celebrate and share in social media what it means #tobeapartner – with each other, our customers, and the world – in the ways only #starbucksparters can!” (Starbucks, 2021b; see also Banghart et al., 2018). This policy appears to encourage members to use their voice to communicate their own experiences and interpretations of and perspectives on the organization. As such, it can be considered an invitation to rather free voicing. Nevertheless, while the policy does not explicate what a “starbuckspartner” is or what is expected from such a partner, the Starbucks website provides a clear description of how a member should act:

With our partners, our coffee and our customers at our core, we live these values: Creating a culture of warmth and belonging, where everyone is welcome; Delivering our very best in all we do, holding ourselves accountable for results; Acting with courage, challenging the status quo and finding new ways to grow our company and each other; Being present, connecting with transparency, dignity and respect. (Starbucks, 2021a)

This presentation of how Starbuck’s members behave, suggests that Starbucks uses its brand to regulate members’ identities by providing a rather specific persona dictating how members should be, namely warm, inclusive, conscientious, brave, and innovative. This is an identity that management expects members to enact and perform in all situations in which they relate to the organization, including when voicing the organization using the specific hashtag provided. The implications of such enactment might be far-reaching since the reiterated representation of provided identities is likely to strengthen the same (Ashforth and Schinoff, 2016) and influence how members view themselves (Hodgson, 2005), namely as loyal and devoted rather than questioning or opposing (Tracy and Trethewey, 2005).

Members’ adoption and enactment of provided identities suggest what Tracy and Trethewey (2005) have called “strategized subordination,” which is a self-surveillance practice aimed at ensuring one’s own conformation and compliance to managerial goals, including when management is not looking. Since it is performed on social media, member voicing is more visible than many other activities conducted by members as it does not demand the physical presence of management (or any other public). Such visibility is thus likely to heighten members’ self-surveillance, ensuring that their communication fit management’s expectations (Christensen and Christensen, 2022). As Foucault (1977: 200) notes, visibility is after all “a trap,” and the mere feeling of being watched induces people to act in disciplined ways, watching over what they do and say. The feeling of being watched and evaluated by management is thus likely to be a central component of member voicing. In their study of members’ social media engagement, Smith et al. (2017: 982), for example, report that interviewed members operated with the sentiment that the organization was watching and that their voicings were proceeded by adaptions of their communication. One interviewee explicitly expressed concern about management watching, stating, ‘I would never post something that my employer would then see and be able to use negatively towards me […] so I think there’s definitely that fear to not post negative things about the organization’ (Smith et al., 2017: 984). Members’ strategized self-subordination is, in other words, often enough to ensure the enactment of provided identities and favorable voicings.

Desired identities

Members’ identity construction in an organizational context is, however, not reduceable to management’s attempts to regulate identities. Members may also desire to develop and present identities they find attractive, being informed both by discursive resources produced in organizational settings, and in “external” contexts. The notion of desired identities thus foregrounds members’ active exploration and development of possible selves (Markus and Nurius, 1986).

One prime type of desired identities is based on the discursive resources supplied by the organization. As Anteby (2008: 203) states, members “have a vested interest in enacting desired occupational identities at work, ostensibly with the hope of using those identities to be or become who they desire” (see also Brannan et al., 2015; Thornborrow and Brown, 2009). Similarly, members’ willingness to voice their organization might be an outcome of wanting to publicly present and strengthen a salient work-related identity. As Smith et al. (2017: 983) note, interviewees’ jobs and employers “were central to who they were; ‘I communicate about [my employer] on social media because it’s an integral aspect of my identity.’” Whether this identification is an outcome of members sharing organizational values prior to joining the organization or successful identity regulation, is, however, an empirical question.

A second type of desired identities that members might wish to develop or display at work are salient social identities. Indeed, some organizations invite and encourage members to express such identities (Ashcraft, 2013). For instance, in their study of a grocery store hiring aspiring artists, Endrissat et al. (2017) show how management seeks to build brands from the “outside-in” by providing identity incentives, mobilizing, confirming, and strengthening identities that members prefer or express outside the organization. Similarly, Land and Taylor (2010) demonstrate that while the owners of a surfer shop actively used members’ surfer lifestyle to extract brand meaning and values, members could express this desired identity at work. In such organizations, members are not “being branded” but “doing branding” by enacting their brand-relevant identities and lifestyles (Endrissat et al., 2017; see also Vásquez et al., 2013). In other words, these members are enabled in their desired identity work by being offered a stage on which to present or work on whom they want to be, simultaneously as they are voicing the organization in brand-strengthening ways (see also Ashforth and Schinoff, 2016). Related to like practices are more general calls to “authenticity” and members to “be themselves” and “have fun at work” (Fleming, 2009; Fleming and Sturdy, 2011). Such discursive resources have all been produced in contexts external to organizations (see Kuhn, 2006).

Research on member voicing suggests that this particular practice entails a public platform that members can use to develop or display desired selves such as successful, working for the right organization, professional, smart, witty etc. (e.g. Markus and Nurius, 1986). For example, Weber (2013: 300) writes, “For employees, social media tools like blogs offer employees agency to express themselves and offer personal opinions and experiences.” This offering is also observable in some social media policies cited in extant literature that encourage members to voice their organization in highly personal ways. For example, the Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk (cited in Banghart et al., 2018: 355) writes, “It is a conversation. Talk to your readers like you would talk to real people […] Don’t be afraid to bring in your own personality and say what’s on your mind.” This form of invitation implies a far-reaching automatization of members introducing the possibility to invoke and be guided by discursive resources produced in other contexts and self-initiated exploration of possible selves.

However, the opportunity to develop and present desired identities is often restrained to those that support the organization, forcing members to enact the “right” version of themselves (Fleming, 2009; Fleming and Sturdy, 2011). This observation has led Endrissat et al. (2017; see also Anteby, 2008) to talk of “engaging” unobtrusive control, foregrounding how members, seduced by the identity opportunity, engage in self-discipline to ensure compliance. This form of discipline is for example evident in the ambiguity of many social media policies (see Weber, 2013). On the one hand, such policies invite members to communicate about their organization using their “personal”, “natural”, or “authentic” voice yet on the other hand ask them to integrate provided identity resources in their voicing. The office supply company Xerox’s social media policy, cited in Weber (2013: 302) is a case in point, illustrating this equivocality well:

Write in your natural voice; authenticity is important […]. Make sure you’re comfortable with the Xerox Brand identity (both verbal and visual) and seek to reflect it in your social media engagements. […] It’s important to align with our overall tone of voice, look, and feel.

As suggested by this example, provided identities may well take precedence over desired identities as key discursive resources. This tilt towards provided discursive resources implies that the identity opportunity involved in member voicing is circumscribed. In her study of a moral brand that specializes in handmade cosmetics, Jeanes (2013) highlights the tension inherent in this type of discipline: while organizations provide a platform on which members can express their personal values and engagement, willingly ”doing” the brand, members simultaneously experience pressure to conform to certain ideas about what the organization is. Endrissat et al. (2017: 509) term this practice “identity capture” and describe how it occurs when “the coopting of already formed and desired subjectivities takes precedence over trying to persuade individuals to adapt to identity templates sanctioned by the corporation.” Similarly, while management’s encouragement to voice the organization in personal ways at first suggests an opportunity for members’ desired identity construction, it can instead come to reinforce members’ subordination (see Tracy and Trethewey, 2005).

Approved identities

While provided and desired discursive resources play central roles in members’ identity performances, the disciplinary dimensions of member voicing cannot be explained with reference only to these. A critical reading of previous studies suggests that also pre-organizational discursive resources in the shape of cultural expectations on members’ performances, evaluated and approved by important others, influence member voicing (see also Christensen and Christensen, 2022). The notion of approved identities foregrounds members’ basic needs to be socially validated, accepted, and recognized by the people they are surrounded by (Mead, 1934). The importance recognition plays in member voicing is illustrated in Smith et al.’s (2017: 982) study, during which one interviewee shared that she “enjoyed the ‘boosts of impressions’” when the organization retweeted social media content she produced and thought it was “fun to see that [the organization] knew I posted something about them.” As suggested by Ashforth and Schinoff (2016: 125), the social validation gained from behaving in approved ways is likely to lead to “greater internalization of the identity”. That is, members want to continue being viewed as “good” members and thus repeat conduct valued by others. The desire to be accepted and approved will thus lead members to manage themselves according to those images they have of others’ expectations (Athens, 1994; Mead, 1934).

Previous studies indicate that colleagues are a crucial other who both mediate cultural norms and whose approvement and recognition members seek. In their study of employees’ social media use, Van Zoonen et al. (2014: 852) describe how “colleagues may question the validity of information if it does not reflect their perception of the person and ultimately may result in alienation of followers on social media.” Therefore, according to the authors, members should refrain from expressing idealized versions of themselves and instead opt for “actual versions of the self” (Van Zoonen et al., 2014: 852). Similarly, in Smith et al.’s (2017: 983) study, an interviewee stated that “who you are in person and who you are on social media needs to be consistent.” Accounts like these indicate an essentialist understanding of identity and, more importantly, that colleagues often constitute a critical producer of approved identities. Interestingly, this phenomenon highlights how social norms and values participate in validating accepted behavior in organizational settings (Christensen and Christensen, 2022; Watson, 2008; Wieland, 2010). The idea that people should act consistently is not organization-specific but rather a highly valued norm, especially in Western society (Callero, 2013), and is closely connected to the notions of trustworthiness and authenticity. What is enacted when members seek to present themselves coherently is thus in fact cultural norms.

Colleagues’ role in mediating cultural norms suggests that the discursive resources informing the identity performance of member voicing are both vertical and horizontal. In his research on concertive control, Barker (1993, 1999) even suggests that the type of discipline emanating from colleagues can be much stronger and more enslaving than that exercised by management (see also Sewell, 1998). While management, supervisors included, now and then look in another direction, colleagues may be present at all times, increasing the likelihood of a reiterated identity performance that is adapted to fit colleagues mediated cultural expectations of members’ voicings.

Discussion

To voice one’s organization on social media involves a public performance in which the member not only represents the organization in personal ways but also uses a more or less specific identity. This identity is fashioned by discursive resources provided by management, desired by the member, and approved by colleagues, and constitutes a situated identity (Figure 1). A situated identity, as Ashforth and Schinoff (2016: 116) note, is “germane to a particular organizational context.” The performance of such an identity can therefore prove highly valuable to the organization since external publics will likely perceive it as a more authentic representation of the organization.

Figure 1.

The situated identity of member voicing.

If publics view such communication as representing the organization, members’ voicings will be participating in building the organizational brand (Ind, 2007). What members write, in other words, always has the potential to shape others’ perceptions of what the organization stands for. Member voicing can therefore be placed next to practices such as brand ambassador (see Smith et al., 2018) and influencer marketing (Brown and Hayes, 2008) that also involve decentralized communication. Whenever communication is decentralized, however, there is a built-in threat of reputation and brand breakage that managers need to handle. While influencers are likely to be disciplined by the threat of not being rehired, management’s power over organizational members entails the utilization of both obtrusive and unobtrusive techniques to ensure favorable communication.

The concepts of performance and situated identity imply that members who engage in voicing their organization simply put on an act with no further implications. As I have discussed, that is far from the case. Rather, as Tracy and Trethewey (2005: 176) note, performances can be highly consequential since “identity is largely created in relation to managerialist discourses that encompass an organizationally prescribed ideal, a process that produces an organizationally defined self that comes to be understood and experienced as real and of one’s own choosing.” Similarly, the vertical control exercised by colleagues and the self-surveillance members engage in to conform to expected and accepted behavior are significant for members’ identity construction (Athen, 1994; Mead, 1934). As research on identity demonstrates, displaying behaviors that are in accordance with a particular identity increases the likelihood of internalizing and perceiving that identity as a part of oneself (Ashforth and Schinoff, 2016). In other words, the confirmation and conformation involved in the repeated enactment of discursive resources have sedimentation effects that influence and shape the members’ sense of who they are (Butler, 1993). Identity is in this way permeated by power since organizational, social, and cultural values are not only played in member voicing but are—or are in the process of becoming—second nature (see Hodgson, 2005). The identity performance of member voicing is therefore not simply a representational phenomenon but constitutes the member as an organizational representative. These observations have several implications discussed below.

First, an identity that is regularly enacted and that moreover may be viewed as offering desired identity incentives is likely to strengthen both the situated identity and its position vis-à-vis other identities (see Piliavin et al., 2002). As Tracy and Trethewey (2005: 184) note, an organizationally relevant identity can “play a role in multiple facets of life.” While these researchers discuss the consequentiality of identity performance with reference to how a correctional officer’s brutal experiences changed her, “minor” changes in attitudes and priorities can also seriously impact other identities. Members’ willing enactment of member voicing without compensation, including perceiving this as a “natural part” of contemporary work (Heide et al., 2018; Van Zoonen et al., 2014), implies the normalization of a somewhat new subject position and an increased (self-)subordination observable and exemplified by the dissolution of work boundaries. As Banghart et al. (2018: 346) demonstrate, many social media policies challenge and blur the personal/professional, work/nonwork, and private/public boundaries in ways that manifest a perception of members as always first and foremost members “no matter when, where, or how they communicate” (see also Müller, 2016). While this illustrates a more general development where members’ behaviors are increasingly taken to stand for or represent the organization for which they work 24/7, it also implies that the practice of member voicing is not necessarily only conducted during work hours. Thereby, it potentially affects other identities, including partner, parent, volunteer, et cetera. Importantly, in some cases, practices of member voicing might lead to what Tracy and Trethewey (2005) call “perpetually deferred self.” Such an identity tends to be created by members who prioritize work life over home life, imagining but never enacting a desired future that includes time for family, friends, and community engagement.

Second, the “voluntariness” of member voicing needs revisiting. Whereas this practice is presented to offer an agentic position to speak from, it ironically masks unobtrusive forms of control. That is, the enablement of identity performance proffered by discursive resources tends to obscure its simultaneous restraints on agency (see Kuhn et al., 2008; see also Herndl and Licona, 2007). In the case of the situated identity of member voicing, the array of discursive resources is likely to tilt toward managerially and culturally created structures. In addition to foregrounding the deeply social nature of identity and communication, this demonstrates that unconstrained voicing is impossible: while the participation in member voicing might be voluntary, what members voice is not.

Importantly though, there is no determinacy involved and the relation between members’ agency and structures is always an empirical question. Indeed, whereas “actors do not select discursive resources as if arranged on a menu […] it is the overarching vision of the organizational self each assemblage of discourses conveys that provides greater or fewer options for self-creation.” (Kuhn, 2006: 1354). As such, there might be room for negotiations, creativity, and individuality in identity performances (see O’Brien and Linehan, 2018; see also Mead, 1934).

The conceptual exploration of the identity performance of member voicing calls for further empirical studies. Such studies should focus on what discursive resources members draw on, how they construct a situationally relevant identity, and with what consequences. To study the implications of provided identities, organizational self-descriptions can be compared with members’ voicings, providing insight into how provided identity material guides and informs members’ communication. Moreover, while social media policies may offer little insight into provided identities (but see Barker, 1993, 1999 for a discussion of the unobtrusiveness of obtrusive control), a combined analysis of such policies with other organizational documents such as self-descriptions could illuminate their implicit unobtrusiveness. However, a fuller understanding of the operations of provided identities cannot be obtained without exploring members’ perceptions, ideas, and feelings about their participation in member voicing. Thus, research should investigate why members engage in voicing their organization, how they feel about their communication, and how they perceive it to influence their relationship to the organization, their situated identity, and other (salient) identities.

Examinations of desired identities should focus on how members perceive and understand the attractiveness of engaging in member voicing. This can help to provide insight into how members use social media platforms in their identity work. Furthermore, whether members experience pressure to conform to and express only certain identities should be investigated. Research should explore how such pressure manifests and is perceived as well as its consequences for members’ communication, identity work, and identification. Finally, to further explore the implications of approved identities, future studies should investigate which “others’” recognition members find important and with what consequences for their communication. By empirically exploring the identity performance of member voicing, the complex dynamic that situated identities involve can be unpacked.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the constructive and insightful feedback that I received from the Editor and the two anonymous reviewers.

ORCID iD

Emma Christensen

Author biography

Emma Christensen (Ph.D.), is postdoctoral researcher at Roskilde University (Denmark). Christensen’s overall research interests are communicative constitution, performativity, discipline, and expectations. From communicative and sociological perspectives she currently studies the materialization and impact of ideas, visions, and norms in practices of artificial intelligence, strategizing, and member voicing. Her research appears in Organization Theory, Management Communication Quarterly, Corporate Communication: An International Journal, the International Journal of Strategic Communication, and elsewhere.

References

Ainsworth

Hardy

(2004) Discourse and identities. In: Grant

Oswick

Putnam

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Discourse. London: Sage, 153–173.

Alvesson

(2010) Organizational culture: meaning, discourse, and identity. In: Ashkanasy

Wilderom

CPM

Peterson

(eds) The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 11–28.

Alvesson

Ashcraft

Thomas

(2008) Identity matters: reflections on the construction of identity scholarship in organization studies. Organization 15(1): 5–28.

Alvesson

Willmott

(2002) Identity regulation as organizational control: producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies 39(5): 619–644.

Anteby

(2008) Identity incentives as an engaging form of control: Revisiting leniencies in an aeronautic plant. Organization Science 19(2): 202–220.

Ashcraft

(2013) The glass slipper: incorporating occupational identity in management studies. Academy of Management Review 38(1): 6–31.

Ashforth

Schinoff

(2016) Identity under construction: how individuals come to define themselves in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour 3(1): 111–137.

Athens

(1994) The self as soliloquy. The Sociological Quarterly 35(39): 521–532.

Banghart

Etter

Stohl

(2018) Organizational boundary regulation through social media policies. Management Communication Quarterly 32(3): 337–373.

10.

Barker

(1993) Tightening the iron cage: concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 38(3): 408–437.

11.

Barker

(1999) The Discipline of Teamwork. Participation and Concertive Control. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

12.

Barnard

(1938) The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

13.

Brannan

Parsons

Priola

(2015) Brands at work: the search for meaning in mundane work. Organization Studies 36(1): 29–53.

14.

Brown

(2021) Identities in and around organizations: towards an identity work perspective. Human Relations. Epub ahead of print 24 February 2021. DOI: 10.1177/0018726721993910

15.

Brown

Hays

(2008) Influencer Marketing. Who Rally Influences Your Consumers? Burlington: Butterworth Heinemann.

16.

Butler

(1993) Bodies that Matters: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. London: Routledge.

17.

Butler

(1998) The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Stanford, CS: Stanford University Press.

18.

Butler

(2005) Giving and Account of Oneself. New York: Fordham University Press.

19.

Callero

(2013) The Myth of Individualism. How Social Forces Shape Our Lives. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

20.

Christensen

(2022) The interpellated voice: the social discipline of member communication. Management Communication Quarterly. Epub ahead of print 11 February 2022. DOI: 10.1177/08933189211068790.

21.

Culnan

McHugh

Zubillaga

(2010) How large U.S. companies can use Twitter and other social media to gain business value. MIS Quarterly Executive 9(4): 243–259.

22.

Deetz

(1992) Democracy in an Age of Corporate Colonization. Developments in Communication and the Politics of Everyday Life. Albany: State University of New York Press.

23.

Deetz

(1995) Transforming Communication, Transforming Business: Building Responsive and Responsible Workplaces. New York: Hampton Press.

24.

Dreher

(2014) Social media and the world of work. A strategic approach to employees’ participation in social media. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 19(4): 344–356.

25.

Endrissat

Kärreman

Noppeney

(2017) Incorporating the creative subject: branding outside-in through identity incentives. Human Relations 70(4): 488–515.

26.

Fleming

(2009) Authenticity and the Cultural Politics of Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

27.

Fleming

Spicer

(2014) Power in management and organization science. The Academy of Management Annals 8(1): 237–298.

28.

Fleming

Sturdy

(2011) Being yourself in the electronic sweatshop: new forms of normative control. Human Relations 64(2): 177–200.

29.

Foucault

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

30.

Gallaugher

Ransbotham

(2010) Social media and customer dialog management at Starbucks. MIS Quarterly Executive 9(4): 197–212.

31.

Giddens

(1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of Berkeley: California Press.

32.

Giddens

(1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

33.

Gotsi

Wilson

(2001) Corporate reputation management: ‘Living the brand’. Management Decision 39(2): 99–104.

34.

Hatch

Schultz

(2003) Bringing the corporation into corporate branding. European Journal of Marketing 37(7/8): 1041–1064.

35.

Heide

von Platen

Simonsson

, et al. (2018) Expanding the scope of strategic communication: towards a holistic understanding of organizational complexity. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4): 452–468.

36.

Herndl

Licona

(2007) Agency, Kairos, and the possibilities of social action. In: Zachary

Thralls

(eds) Communicative Practices in Workplaces and the Professions: Cultural Perspectives on the Regulation of Discourse and Organizations. London: Routledge, 133–154.

37.

Hodgson

(2005) ‘Putting on a professional performance’: performativity, subversion and project management. Organization 12(1): 51–68.

38.

Ind

(2007) Living the Brand: How to Transform Every Member of Your Organization into Brand Champion. London: Kogan Page Publishers.

39.

Jeanes

(2013) The construction and controlling effect of a moral brand. Scandinavian Journal of Management 29(2): 163–172.

40.

Karmark

(2005) Living the brand. In: Schultz

Antorini

Csaba

(eds) Corporate Branding. Purpose/People/Process. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School, 103–126.

41.

Kenny

Whittle

Willmott

(2011) Understanding Identity and Organizations. London: SAGE Publications.

42.

Kim

Rhee

(2011) Strategic thinking about employee communication behavior (ECB) in public relations: Testing the models of megaphoning and scouting effects in Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research 23(3): 243–268.

43.

Kornberger

(2010) Brand Society. How Brands Transform Management and Lifestyles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44.

Kuhn

(2006) A ‘demented work ethic’ and a ‘lifestyle firm’: discourse, identity, and workplace time commitments. Organization Studies 27(9): 1339–1358.

45.

Kuhn

Golden

Jorgenson

, et al. (2008) Cultural discourses and discursive resources for meaning/ful work. Constructing and disrupting identities in contemporary capitalism. Management Communication Quarterly 22(1): 162–171.

46.

Kunda

(1992) Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

47.

Kärreman

Rylander

(2008) Managing meaning through branding: the case of a consulting firm. Organization Studies 29(1): 103–125.

48.

Land

Taylor

(2010) Surf’s up: work, life, balance and brand in a new age capitalist organization. Sociology 44(3): 395–413.

49.

Linke

Zerfass

(2013) Social media governance: regulatory frameworks for successful online communications. Journal of Communication Management 17(3): 270–286.

50.

Macnamara

Zerfass

(2012) Social media communication in organizations: the challenge of balancing openness, strategy, and management. International Journal of Strategic Communication 6(4): 287–308.

51.

Markus

Nurius

(1986) Possible selves. American Psychologist: Journal of the American Psychological Association 41(9): 954–969.

52.

Marchand

(1998) Creating the Corporate Soul. The Rise of Public Relations and Corporate Imagery in American Big Business. Berkeley: The University of California Press.

53.

Mazzei

Kim

J-N

DellOro

(2012) Strategic value of employee relationships and communicative actions: overcoming corporate crisis with quality internal communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication 6(1): 31–44.

54.

Mead

(1934) Mind, Self, and Society. From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

55.

Men

(2014) Why leadership matters to internal communication: linking transformational leadership, symmetrical communication, and employee outcomes. Journal of Public Relations Research 26(3): 256–279.

56.

Men

Jiang

(2016) Cultivating quality employee-organization relationships: the interplay among organizational leadership, culture, and communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication 10(5): 462–479.

57.

Miles

Mangold

(2004) A conceptualization of the employee branding process. Journal of Relationship Marketing 3(2–3): 65–87.

58.

Miles

Mangold

(2014) Employee voice: untapped resource or social media time bomb? Business Horizon 57(3): 401–411.

59.

Müller

(2016) ‘Brand-centered control’: a study of internal branding and normative control. Organization Studies 38(7): 895–915.

60.

O’Brien

Linehan

(2018) Problematizing the authentic self in conceptualizations of emotional dissonance. Human Relations 72(9): 1530–1556.

61.

O’Connor

Schmidt

Drouin

(2016) Helping workers understand and follow social media policies. Business Horizon 59(2): 205–211.

62.

Piliavin

Grube

Callero

(2002) Role as resource for action in public service. Journal of Social Issues 58(3): 469–485.

63.

Ray

(1986) Corporate culture: the last frontier of control? Journal of Management Studies 23(39): 287–297.

64.

Rokka

Karlsson

Tienari

(2014) Balancing acts: managing employees and reputation in social media. Journal of Marketing Management 30(7–8): 802–827.

65.

Rose

(1999) Inventiveness in politics. Economy and Society 28(3): 467–493.

66.

Sergi

Bonneau

(2016) Making mundane work visible on social media: a CCO investigation of working out loud on Twitter. Communication Research and Practice 2(3): 378–406.

67.

Sewell

(1998) The discipline of teams: the control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer surveillance. Administrative Science Quarterly 43(2): 397–428.

68.

Shotter

(1994) Social accountability and the social construction of ‘you’. In: Shotter

Gergen

(eds) Texts of Identity. London: Sage, 133–151.

69.

Simon

(1978) Administrative Behavior. A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations. New York: Free Press.

70.

Smith

Kendall

Knigthton

, et al. (2018) Rise of the brand ambassador: social stake, corporate social responsibility and influence among the social media influences. Communication Management Review 3(19): 6–29.

71.

Smith

Stumberger

Guild

, et al. (2017) What’s at stake? An analysis of employee social media engagement and the influence of power and social stake. Public Relations Review 43(5): 978–988.

72.

Starbucks (2021a) Culture and values: starbucks coffee company. Available at: https://www.starbucks.com/careers/working-at-starbucks/culture-and-values (accessed 2 February 2021).

73.

Starbucks (2021b) Social media guidelines for Canada and U.S. partners. Available at: https://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/f945dbfa51904618982409e9c09c58b6.pdf (accessed 2 February 2021).

74.

Stohl

Etter

Banghart

, et al. (2017) Social media policies: implications for contemporary notions of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 143(3): 413–436.

75.

Sullivan

Gosling

Schroeder

(2013) On being branded. Scandinavian Journal of Management 29(2): 121–122.

76.

Thelen

(2020) Internal communicators’ understanding of the definition and importance of employee advocacy. Public relations review 46(4): 1–11.

77.

Thornborrow

Brown

(2009) ‘Being regimented’: aspiration, discipline and identity work in the British parachute regiment. Organization Studies 30(4): 355–376.

78.

Tompkins

Cheney

(1985) Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In: McPhee

Tompkins

(eds) Organizational Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions. Beverly Hills: Sage, 179–210.

79.

Tracy

Trethewey

(2005). Fracturing the real-self-fake-self dichotomy: moving toward “crystallized” organizational discourses and identities. Communication Theory 15(2): 168–195.

80.

van Zoonen

van der Meer

Verhoeven

(2014) Employees work-related social-media use: His master’s voice. Public Relations Review 40(5): 850–852.

81.

Vasquez

Sergi

Cordelier

(2013) From being branded to doing branding: studying representation practices from a communication-centered approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management 29(2): 135–146.

82.

Walden

Westermann

CYK

(2018) Strengthening the tie: Creating exchange relationships that encourage employee advocacy as an organizational citizenship behavior. Management Communication Quarterly 32(4): 593–611.

83.

Watson

(2008). Managing identity: Identity work, personal predicaments and structural circumstances. Organization 15(1): 121–143.

84.

Weber

(2013) Constrained agency in corporate social media policy. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 43(3): 289–315.

85.

Wieland

SMB

(2010) Ideal selves as resources for the situated practice of identity. Management Communication Quarterly 24(4): 503–528.

86.

Zhang

Liu

Wang

(2019) How transformational leadership positively impacts organizational citizenship behavior in successful Chinese social work service organisations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 30(4): 467–485.