British Journal of Management, Vol.

18, S1–S16 (2007)

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00522.x

Social Identity, Organizational Identity

and Corporate Identity: Towards an
Integrated Understanding of Processes,
Patternings and Products
Joep P. Cornelissen, S. Alexander Haslam* and John M. T. Balmerw
Leeds University Business School, Maurice Keyworth Building, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK, *School of
Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon EX4 4QG, UK, and wBradford University School of
Management, Emm Lane, Bradford BD9 4JL, UK
Email: jpc@lubs.leeds.ac.uk [Cornelissen]; A.Haslam@exeter.ac.uk [Haslam];
j.balmer@bradford.ac.uk [Balmer]

This paper provides an overview of previous work that has explored issues of social,
organizational and corporate identity. Differences in the form and focus of research into
these three topics are noted. Social identity work generally examines issues of cognitive
process and structure; organizational identity research tends to address the patterning
of shared meanings; studies of corporate identity tend to focus on products that
communicate a specific image. Nonetheless, across these areas there is general
consensus that collective identities are (a) made viable by their positivity and
distinctiveness, (b) fluid, (c) a basis for shared perceptions and action, (d) strategically
created and managed, (e) qualitatively different from individual identities and (f) the
basis for material outcomes and products. This paper calls for greater cross-fertilization
of the three identity literatures and discusses requirements for the integration of micro-
and macro-level analyses.

Introduction The reasons for the interest in identity across

In recent years, interest in issues of organiza-
tional and corporate identity has dramatically
increased (Albert, Ashforth and Dutton, 2000;
Corley et al., 2006; Haslam and Ellemers, 2005;
Schultz, Hatch and Larsen, 2000). This has been
associated with a commensurate increase in the
volume of empirical and theoretical work that
explores identity and identification processes as
well as the outcomes and products these lead to.
As well as using an assortment of methodologies,
this work also spans multiple disciplinary do-
mains and literatures – incorporating ideas and
perspectives from corporate communications,
management, marketing, organizational beha-
viour, social and organizational psychology,
personnel and human resources, and strategy.
these domains and literatures are historically also
quite diverse. These include preoccupations with
visual design and logos (in marketing), the social
categorization of individuals (in social and
organizational psychology), integration of visual
identity, corporate public relations and manage-
ment communication messages (in corporate
communications and marketing), institutiona-
lized culture and organizational performance (in
strategy), customer reactions to and identification
with organizations (in marketing), and employee
sense-making and motivation (in management
and organizational behaviour). However, in
recent years these lines of enquiry have started
to overlap and inter-penetrate (e.g. the marketing
and corporate communications literatures; see
Van Riel and Balmer, 1997). This has led many

r 2007 British Academy of Management

S2
commentators to argue that, whereas in the past
these fields tended to exist (and could be
advanced) quite independently, there is now
value in – and indeed a pressing need for –
interdisciplinary cross-fertilization (Brown et al.,
2006). Consistent with this integrationist agenda,
there have recently been a number of conscious
attempts to bridge the various literatures identi-
fied above (e.g. Balmer and Greyser, 2002, 2003;
Brickson, 2005, in press; Hatch and Schultz,
1997, 2002; Schultz, Hatch and Larsen, 2000).
At the same time, and sitting alongside the call
for interdisciplinary cross-fertilization, an in-
creasing number of writers have stressed the need
for a ‘strengthening’ of our conceptualizations of
identity. This has been associated with calls (a) to
make the different ontological and epistemologi-
cal foundations underlying identity research
in organizations explicit (Corley et al., 2006;
Cornelissen, 2002, 2006; Faurholt Csaba and
Bengtsson, 2006), (b) to develop a consistent and
parsimonious terminology (Brown et al., 2006),
(c) to understand how identities are actually
constructed at different levels (individual and
group, organizational and extra-organizational,
stakeholder and consumer) (Haslam and Ellemers,
2005; Haslam, Postmes and Ellemers, 2003) and
(d) to explore mechanisms and consequences of
identification more systematically (Haslam, 2001;
Van Dick, 2001; Van Knippenberg and Ellemers,
2003).
Against this background, this special issue was
conceived with the explicit aim of bringing
together strands of identity-related scholarship
that might speak to, and integrate, group (social
identity), organizational (organizational identity)
and institutional and customer (corporate iden-
tity) domains. It is testament to the breadth of
interest in such a project that nearly 40 manu-
scripts were submitted for editorial consideration.
Space considerations meant that we could pub-
lish only five papers and our final selection
focused on those submissions that most clearly
met the brief of promoting innovative theorizing
about social, organizational and corporate iden-
tity and the connections between them.
Our aim in the present paper is to conceptua-
lize these contributions in light of the emerging
field of ‘identity and organization’ as a whole.
Here the heterogeneity of identity research across
disciplines and literatures raises important ques-
tions about the extent to which a truly cumulative
J. P. Cornelissen, S. A. Haslam and J. M. T. Balmer
body of knowledge is emerging and about the
form of possible integration. For example, theore-
tical perspectives on the foundations of organiza-
tional identity range from a social psychological
emphasis on cognitive principles (e.g. of accessi-
bility and fit; Oakes, Turner and Haslam, 1991),
through a quasi-economic focus on organizational
assets and social capital (e.g. Ibarra, Kilduff and
Tsai, 2005), to a sociological examination of social
structure and institutional behaviour (e.g. Corne-
lissen, 2006). As research advances in each of the
discipline-based subfields of identity research, it
becomes increasingly important to consider the
extent of (and opportunities for) integration
across these separate traditions. For without
addressing the question of integration, we run
the risk of propagating a highly fractionated
Babel-esque view of intra- and extra-organiza-
tional identity processes and their manifestations
(Schultz, Hatch and Larsen, 2000). Moreover, a
limited appreciation of the links across disciplin-
ary perspectives is likely to prove inefficient and
unparsimonious as researchers fail to take advan-
tage of theoretical and empirical progress in other
areas and simply ‘rediscover’ what is known
already (Cardador and Pratt, 2006; Ellemers et al.,
2003; Haslam et al., 2003; Pfeffer, 1997).
In the remainder of this paper, we therefore
address a number of key questions in order to
assess the state of knowledge about identity
accumulated from the perspectives of different
disciplines. Are there points of convergence
across different disciplines? Are researchers in
different fields investigating unrelated aspects of
identity or are they treading the same ground?
And finally, but perhaps most importantly, what
key – and potentially unifying – themes are
emerging from research and where are there
opportunities for greater cross-fertilization?
Identity and organization
Definitions
The increase in theoretical and research attention
to identity and identification within and across
organizational contexts can, in part, be attributed
to the richness and profundity of the core
‘identity’ concept. In the organizational domain
this spans multiple levels of analysis (Brown,
2001) – individual (relating to people’s personal
sense of self within the organization), group
Social, Organizational and Corporate Identity S3

(relating to the shared identity of teams and
sections within an organization), organizational
(relating to the identity of the organization as a
whole) and cultural (relating to commonalities in
identity across organizations and within a society
as a whole). Moreover, the versatile and gen-
erative way in which the identity concept can be
applied is credited with having opened up a
multitude of avenues for theoretical development
and revelation (Albert, Ashforth and Dutton,
2000, p. 13; Gioia, Schultz and Corley, 2002).
Indeed, in Pratt and Foreman’s (2000b, p. 141)
words, theoretical development surrounding the
constructs of organizational identity and corpo-
rate identity is characterized by an ‘amazing
theoretical diversity’. Amongst other things, this
means that the term ‘identity’ has been concep-
tualized from very different theoretical perspec-
tives and has been used to refer to very different
conceptual objects (e.g. self-knowledge, beliefs,
discourse, capabilities or structures) (see also
Schultz, Hatch and Larsen, 2000).
From a linguistic perspective, this polysemy or
‘interpretive viability’ refers to the plurality and
openness of interpretation associated with the
notion of identity – which becomes even more
pronounced when coupled with reference to a
‘social’, ‘organizational’ or ‘corporate’ entity.
This has contributed to the concept’s rapid and
wide promulgation across different literatures as
it resonated with, and hence was incorporated
into, other meanings in existing academic schools
and research traditions. For example, in the
marketing and corporate communications
literatures, it connected with existing questions
concerning the way in which companies position
and promote themselves to others (Van Riel
and Balmer, 1997), while in the social psycho-
logical literature it connected with questions
about ways in which collective self-esteem
could be enhanced by defining in-groups as
positive, distinct and enduring (Tajfel and
Turner, 1979; see also Dutton, Dukerich and
Harquail, 1994).
As a result of this rapid uptake, the concepts of
social, organizational and corporate identity have
been comprehended and applied in very different
ways and to very different research questions.
Indeed, these differences in emphasis can be seen
in the primary definitions of these constructs (i.e.
those most prevalent in particular research
literatures) that are presented in Table 1. Here
it is apparent that social identity (after Tajfel,
1972, p. 31) tends to be seen as an internalized
knowledge structure, organizational identity tends
to be seen as a system of shared meaning, while
corporate identity tends to be seen as a projected
image. Nevertheless, it is apparent that secondary
(i.e. less common) definitions reflect sensitivities
compatible with the primary focus of research in
other areas. So, for example, while the basis and
form of shared meaning is a primary concern in
the literature on organizational identity (e.g.
Gioia, Schultz and Corley, 2002), this is also a
discernable theme in work on both social and
corporate identity.

Table 1. Definitions of social, organizational and corporate identity constructs

Construct Primary definition Secondary definition Illustrations of (1) primary and (2)
secondary definitions

Social identity Individuals’ knowledge that they
belong to certain groups
together with the emotional and
value significance of that group
membership
Organizational The shared meaning that an
identity organizational entity is
understood to have that arises
from its members’ (and others’)
awareness that they belong to it
Corporate identity The distinctive public image that a
corporate entity communicates
that structures people’s
engagement with it
The shared meaning that a group is
understood to have that arises
from its members’ (and others’)
awareness that they belong to it
Individuals’ knowledge that they
belong to particular
organizational groups together
with the emotional and value
significance of that group
membership
The shared meaning that a
corporate entity is understood
to have that arises from its
members’ (and others’)
awareness that they belong to it
(1) I am proud to be in Group X
(2) As managers, we do A well and
B badly
(1) Department X is good at C but
bad at D
(2) I am proud to be in Department
X
(1) Bank X is good at E
(2) Bank X is good at E but bad
at F
S4 J. P. Cornelissen, S. A. Haslam and J. M. T. Balmer

The research terrain
Given the size and diversity of the literature, a
comprehensive review is beyond the scope of the
present treatment (for representative recent
reviews, see Balmer, 2001; Cornelissen, 2006;
Haslam and Ellemers, 2005; Van Dick, 2001).
Instead, we draw on the work that is showcased
in this special issue and on other representative
work to map the terrain of research on identity
and organization. Figure 1 represents a sum-
mary framework for organizing the literature
based on the relative positioning of work along
key dimensions of analytic focus (internal
versus external) and analytic form (cognitive
versus symbolic). The first dimension refers to
the locus of identity, i.e. whether the attribution
of an identity to a collective or organization
involves individuals and groups internal (e.g.
employees) or external (e.g. customers) to an
organization. The second dimension refers to
the analytic form or nature of identity. At the
cognitive end of the dimension, identity is
defined as involving a mental framework,
categorization or set of beliefs and attributions
in the minds of individuals. On the other hand,
the symbolic end of the same dimension defines
identity as the symbolic manifestation or
projection (through language, artifacts and
behaviour) of an identity.
What we observe here is that, as the above
definitions imply, research into social identity
(primarily in the social psychological literature)
has tended to attend to internal, cognitive factors
in its focus on identity processes at the level of
individual group members within the organiza-
tion. On the other hand, research into corporate
identity (in the marketing and communications
literatures) has traditionally placed an emphasis
on external, symbolic factors in its focus on
identity products (i.e. material manifestations of
identity). Located between these traditions, re-
search on organizational identity has reflected a
concern with both the internal and external
aspects of identities, but has tended to address
the patterning of those meanings (e.g. their form
and content) and the way they are negotiated
within the dynamic interactions of organiza-
tional life. These differences in emphasis can be
drawn out by considering the key developments,
insights and themes in each area of research in
turn.

Research emphasis
Products:
• Materials and artifacts
(e.g. logos, advertising
symbolic slogans)
Corporate • Tangible content/structure
• Concrete instantiations of
identity
single identity
• Perceptions and reactions of
powerful stakeholders

Patterning:
• Internal and external
Analytic features of different
Organizational
Form identities
identity • Potential variability of
identity
• Contextual/negotiated
meanings of identities for
multiple parties
Process:
• Categorization and
Social judgement of self and
others
cognitive identity
• Potential fluidity of
identity and identification
• Contextual and negotiated
aspects of multiple
internal Analytic external identities
Focus • Conflict between identities

Figure 1. Overview of social, organizational and corporate identity constructs

Social, Organizational and Corporate Identity
Social, organizational and corporate
identity: key developments, insights
and themes
Social identity
The concept of social identity emerged from
social psychological research that examined the
causes and consequences of individuals seeing
themselves, and being seen by others, and as part
of a social group (Ashforth and Mael, 1989;
Tajfel, 1972, Tajfel and Turner, 1979; for a
detailed review see Haslam and Ellemers, 2005).
Within social psychology the concept of social
identity grew from an awareness of the reality of
the group and of its distinctive contribution to
social cognition and behaviour. A core idea here
was that, as well as being external features of the
world, groups are also internalized so that they
contribute to a person’s sense of self (Turner,
1982). Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) social identity
theory suggests that after being categorized in
terms of a group membership, and having defined
themselves in terms of that social categorization,
individuals seek to achieve or maintain positive
self-esteem by positively differentiating their
ingroup from a comparison outgroup on some
valued dimension. This quest for positive distinc-
tiveness means that when people’s sense of self is
defined in terms of ‘we’ (i.e. social identity) rather
than ‘I’ (personal identity), they strive to see ‘us’
as different from, and preferably better than,
‘them’ in order to feel good about who they are
and what they do.
Later work from the perspective of self-
categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987, 1994)
strove to formalize the conditions under which
particular social identities become salient and the
consequences of this for perception and action.
Here one of Turner’s (1982) key insights was that
social identity actually allowed intergroup beha-
viour to take place – as he put it ‘social identity is
the cognitive mechanism that makes group
behaviour possible’ (p. 21). A related insight was
that a sense of shared social identity is the basis
for social influence and organization (Turner, 1999;
see also Haslam, 2001). This is because when
people perceive themselves to share group mem-
bership with another person in a given context
they not only expect to agree with that person on
issues relevant to their shared identity but are
also motivated to strive actively to reach agree-
S5
ment and to coordinate their behaviour in
relation to those issues.
Applying these ideas to the organizational
domain (e.g. Haslam, 2001; Haslam et al., 2003;
Hogg and Terry, 2000, 2001), it has been argued
that organizational identity is in effect simply a
particular form of social identity – one associated
with membership of a given organization or
organizational unit (Haslam, 2001). Moreover,
the logic of the social identity approach suggests
that where features of social context make a given
organizational identity salient for organizational
members then this is the basis for a range of
critical organizational behaviours – including
leadership, group motivation, communication,
and indeed organization itself (Bartel, 2001;
Ellemers, De Gilder and Haslam, 2004; Haslam
et al., 2003; Pratt, 1998; Turner and Haslam,
2001; Tyler and Blader, 2000). Critically, too, it is
also the basis for people to take on organiza-
tional roles and for them to exercise collective
power (Haslam and Reicher, 2007; Pratt and
Foreman, 2000a; Reicher, Haslam and Hopkins,
2005; Turner, 2005).
Working from this theoretical application of
social identity principles, organizational identity
is, as Haslam et al. (2003) suggest, both a
‘psychological and social reality’ and a ‘mental
and material fact’. This is because it encompasses
not only the cognitive categorization processes
that take place in the minds of individuals, but
also the collective activities and products to
which those processes lead (e.g. Postmes, 2003;
Postmes, Haslam and Swaab, 2005). In this
respect, a key premise of organizational applica-
tions of the social identity approach is that once a
particular organizational identity has become
salient for a particular organizational group and
once the particular norms and values associated
with that identity have been internalized, then
that identity not only structures the psychology
of individuals (e.g. their beliefs, attitudes and
intentions) but also allows that psychology to be
translated into the structures and products (e.g.
the plans and visions, goods and services,
practices and institutions) that are the material
building blocks of organizational life.
Organizational identity
Traditionally, however, the concept of organi-
zational identity was conceived to be an
S6
organizational-level phenomenon that was distinct
from individual and collective levels of analysis
(Albert, 1998; Albert and Whetten, 1985; Gioia,
1998). From this perspective, although constituted
by the cognitions of individual organizational
members (or indeed groups within the organiza-
tion), organizational identity was ultimately seen
as taking on a form and dynamic of its own. This
line of thinking was based on the dominant view
that an organization is not a collective composed
of individuals but is, in a metaphorical sense, a
single organism or human being that can have an
identity and ask the self-referential and phenom-
enological question ‘Who am I (as an organiza-
tion)?’ (Cornelissen, 2002, 2005, 2006; Gioia, 1998;
Hatch and Schultz, 2002).
Following this reasoning, and adopting an
organizational level of analysis, a large number
of writers have argued that this understanding of
the identity of the whole organization forms the
basis for information processing and sense-
making within organizations (see Putnam, Phillips
and Chapman, 1996). According to this view,
organizational identity can be seen as an inter-
pretative system, or as a set of shared cognitions,
or as shared language and behaviours. The first
two of these ideas are accommodated within the
common conception of organizational identity as
either a cognitive frame (Brickson, 2005, in press;
Dutton and Dukerich, 1991; Dutton, Dukerich
and Harquail, 1994; Elsbach and Kramer, 1996;
Scott and Lane, 2000) or a perceptual lens
(Dukerich, Golden and Shortell, 2002; Fiol,
2002; Gioia, Schultz and Corley, 2000; Gioia
and Thomas, 1996; Labianca et al., 2001) that
guides individuals’ sense-making (Table 1). In
other words, organizational identity is seen as a
self-definition or cognitive self-representation
adopted by organizational members that is ‘gen-
erally embedded in deeply ingrained and hidden
assumptions’ (Fiol and Huff, 1992, p. 278) and
refers to those features that are perceived ‘as
ostensibly central, enduring, and distinctive in
character [and] that contribute to how they define
the organization and their identification with it’
(Gioia and Thomas, 1996, p. 372). The third idea
relates to the argument that organizations are, in
effect, unitary actors with identities that emerge
from their language and behaviour (Powell and
DiMaggio, 1991). Aligned with the notion that
an identity is symbolically enacted (Mead, 1934),
organizations are seen to construct an identity
J. P. Cornelissen, S. A. Haslam and J. M. T. Balmer
through their symbolic behaviour and language
use within particular organizational fields (Czar-
niawska and Wolff, 1998). From this perspective,
organizational identity is constructed through
language (e.g. the development of corporate
names, rhetoric, myths, narratives and stories;
Glynn and Abzug, 2002) and culturally patterned
practices (e.g. organizational dress, ideological
scripts, artifacts, rites and rituals; Glynn, 2000;
Pratt and Rafaeli, 1997). It serves the overall
objectives of (a) differentiating the organization
from other comparison organizations (Lamertz,
Heugens and Calmet, 2005) and (b) legitimizing
the organization for stakeholders in its environ-
ment (Fiol, 2001; Hatch and Schultz, 2002;
Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). In this respect it
has been argued that any account of organiza-
tional identity needs to ‘be situated within
institutional dynamics’ that attend to the sym-
bolic process through which organizations mimic
or contrast themselves from rival organizations
(Glynn and Abzug, 2002, p. 277; see also
Brickson, 2005). It is argued that this is because
only an institutional perspective of this form can
capture organizations’ unique status as ‘actors’
(Hatch and Schultz, 2002, p. 1004; Whetten and
Mackey, 2002, p. 395).
Corporate identity
The concept of corporate identity grew out of a
preoccupation in the design, marketing and
corporate communications communities with
the ways in which organizations present them-
selves to external audiences (Table 1) – e.g. in
their visual images as well as through more
elaborate forms of corporate advertising and
communications (Lippincott and Margulies,
1957). Initially, the term was restricted to logos
and other elements of visual design, but it grad-
ually came to encompass communications and all
forms of outward-facing behaviour in the mar-
ketplace (Birkigt and Stadler, 1986; Henderson
et al., 2003; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997).
Company logos came to be seen as part of a
process of corporate image formation and
projection, leading to customer perceptions and
corporate associations (e.g. Birkigt and Stadler,
1986; Olins, 1978; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997).
In recent years, the meaning of corporate
identity has once more been extended, so that
now this is seen not just as involving the visible
Social, Organizational and Corporate Identity
outward presentation of a company, but also the
set of intrinsic characteristics or ‘traits’ that give
the company its specificity, stability and coher-
ence (Balmer, 1998; Larçon and Reitter, 1979).
The leap in reasoning here is that a corporate
identity is not merely a projected image in the
form of visual design and communication, but is
fundamentally concerned with ‘what the organi-
zation is’ – encompassing the strategies and
culture specific to the organization in particular
(Balmer, 1995, pp. 32–37, 1998). Where indivi-
dual human beings express a sense of personal
distinctness, a sense of personal continuity and
a sense of personal autonomy, organizations
equally have their own individuality and unique-
ness that they express in their dealings with
others. And just as the identity of individuals
may come to be anchored in some combination
of gender, nationality, profession, social group,
life-style, educational achievements or skills, so
an organization’s may be anchored in some
specific combination of geographical place, na-
tionality, strategy, founding, core business, tech-
nology, knowledge base, operating philosophy or
organization design. Among the most important
traits identified by scholars are those relating to
strategy, structure, culture and company history
(Melewar and Karaosmanoglu, 2006; Moingeon
and Ramanantsoa, 1997). These organizational
traits provide an organization with specificity,
stability and coherence (Larçon and Reitter,
1979; Moingeon and Ramanantsoa, 1997; Ra-
manantsoa, 1989). In this sense, the notion of
corporate identity ‘traits’ resembles the concep-
tualization of organizational identity (Albert and
Whetten, 1985) as involving identity anchors that
are central (inimitable organizational traits),
distinctive (differentiated from other organiza-
tions) and enduring (stable over time).
The chief significance of this changing view of
corporate identity within the marketing and
communication literatures is that it clearly
connects with the concept of organizational
identity outlined above. For now corporate
identity is seen to relate to the general meaning
of a corporate entity that resides in the values,
beliefs, roles and behaviour of its members as
well as in the shared symbols and other artefacts
that they create – in particular, through branding
(Schroeder and Salzer-Mörling, 2006). Accord-
ingly, empirical research on corporate identity
has explored links between a corporate identity,
S7
as the projected image of the organization, and
both (a) its underlying organizational identity or
culture (Balmer and Greyser, 2002, 2003; Schultz,
Hatch and Larsen, 2000) and (b) its received
image in the eyes of stakeholders such as
employees (e.g. Simoes, Dibb and Fisk, 2005)
and customers and consumers (e.g. Bhattacharya
and Sen, 2003).
In relation to these links, researchers emphasize
that it is strategically important for organizations
to achieve ‘alignment’ or ‘transparency’ at multi-
ple levels (e.g. Balmer and Greyser, 2002; Balmer
and Soenen, 1999; Fombrun and Rindova, 2000;
Hatch and Schultz, 2001; Simoes, Dibb and Fisk,
2005). According to Fombrun and Rindova
(2000, p. 94), transparency is ‘a state in which
the internal identity of the firm reflects positively
the expectations of key stakeholders and the
beliefs of these stakeholders about the firm reflect
accurately the internally held identity’. Along
these lines, researchers stress the particular
importance of consonance between (a) organiza-
tional identity as articulated by senior managers
and as experienced by employees, and (b)
corporate identity (i.e. the image projected by
the organization) and corporate reputation (i.e.
the images held of the organization by individuals
and groups outside of it). Importantly, too, where
these elements are non-aligned (so that the
rhetoric of corporate identity does not match the
experienced reality), a range of sub-optimal out-
comes is anticipated – including employee disen-
gagement, customer dissatisfaction and general
organizational atrophy (Borgerson, Magnusson
and Magnusson, 2006; Hatch and Schultz, 2001,
2002).
Links between literatures
The above discussion of research into social,
organizational and corporate identity clearly
demonstrates how recent developments in these
literatures have started to see these concepts as
overlapping and in many ways compatible with
one another. Indeed, notwithstanding differences
in terminology and (meta) theoretical orienta-
tion, there is much to suggest that the processes
and products that each literature explores at a
different level of analysis are fundamentally
connected. In the most basic terms, this for the
simple reason that a social identity can be
S8
grounded in organizational group membership
and hence be an organizational identity, and
an organizational identity can relate to a
corporate entity and inform the perceptions and
interaction of its stakeholders and hence be a
corporate identity. A key question, though, is
whether, over and above content-related differ-
ences in analytic focus, there are qualitative
differences between these three forms of identity
that make attempts at integration misguided and
misleading.
It is certainly the case that a number of re-
searchers have expressed doubt on this point. For
example, in their discussion of corporate brands,
Faurholt Csaba and Bengtsson (2006, p. 126)
assert that
Efforts to explore and understand the nature,
sources and formation of social and cultural
identity do not represent a coherent body of work.
The multifarious contributions draw on a wide
array of research traditions and do not provide a
common conceptual framework or generally
agreed-upon agenda. . . . Attempts to conceptualize
identity are, if not futile, then problematical since
most enquiries are critical of the notion of integral,
ordinary and unified identity. For this reason, it is
not useful to engage in an extended effort to define
precisely what social identity is.
Notwithstanding such scepticism, our basic posi-
tion on this point is that while there are certainly
important differences between social, organiza-
tional and corporate identities, there is no ‘Iron
Curtain’ between them that makes the insights of
one literature irrelevant to, or irreconcilable with,
those of another. In the first instance, this claim is
based on evidence that many of the key insights
that emerge independently in these literatures are
compatible with each other, and hence point to a
number of common truths about collective
identity in general.
These insights are summarized in Table 2 and
suggest that collective identities (whether social,
organizational or corporate) are (a) made viable
as a function of their positivity and distinctive-
ness, (b) inherently fluid rather than fixed, (c) a
basis for shared perceptions and action, (d)
strategically created and managed (i.e. with a
more or less conscious intention to differentiate a
group or organizational unit from others), (e)
associated with behaviour that is qualitatively
different from that associated with lower-order
J. P. Cornelissen, S. A. Haslam and J. M. T. Balmer
identities and (f) the basis for achievement of
higher-order material outcomes and products.
It is also the case, though, that while these
points of contact exist, many have not been fully
teased out in previous treatments. Not least, this
is because they are examined and expressed in
rather different ways in different literatures.
Research which speaks to the fluidity of identities
serves to illustrate this point. Within the social
psychological literature this has typically been
explored in experimental studies which manip-
ulate features of comparative and normative
context and assess the quantitative impact of this
on an individual’s representation of ingroups and
outgroups (e.g. Doosje et al., 1998; Haslam and
Turner, 1992). In contrast, within the organiza-
tional literature this has typically been explored
in archival and qualitative case studies which
identify and map variability in the content of
people’s representations and accounts of organi-
zational identities as a function of situational and
strategic concerns (e.g. Elsbach, 1999; Svenigsson
and Alvesson, 2006). Studies in the marketing
and communications literatures also tend to be
archival and qualitative, yet rather than being
based on individuals’ accounts, these tend to
document changes in the artefacts and other
material manifestations of corporate identity that
occur in response to historical and other fluctua-
tions in market conditions and forces (e.g. Grant,
1999).
Significantly, too, this use of different meth-
odologies also reflects the desire of researchers in
different disciplinary traditions to provide quite
different forms of insight (see also Figure 1). As
intimated above (a) social psychological demon-
strations of identity fluidity are generally de-
signed to test theories of psychological process
(e.g. categorization, judgement), (b) organiza-
tional research aims to make statements about
the patterning of behaviour (e.g. content, struc-
ture), and (c) marketing and communication
research tends to be geared towards taxono-
mies of both corporate and market strategies
and products such as logos and symbols
(Henderson and Cote, 1998; Van Riel and Van
den Ban, 2001). For this reason, many of
the challenges that confront researchers who
attempt integration across social, organizational
and corporate literatures are methodological
and practical as much as conceptual and
theoretical.
Table 2. Common insights across social, organizational and corporate identity literatures
Insight
(a) The positivity and
distinctiveness of collective
identities contributes to their
viability
(b) Collective identities are
inherently fluid and flexible
rather than fixed
(c) Collective identity is a basis for
shared perceptions and action
(d) Collective identity can be
strategically manufactured and
managed
(e) Higher-order identities lend
themselves to behaviour that is
qualitatively different from that
associated with lower-order
identities
(f) Collective identity is a basis for
the achievement of higher-order
material outcomes and products
Research literature (and representative reference)
Social identity
People identify with groups that are
positive and distinct; when people
define themselves in terms of group
membership they strive to make that
group positive and distinct (Tajfel and
Turner, 1979)
The form and meaning of social identities
is sensitive to changing features of
comparative and normative context
(Haslam and Turner, 1992)
The construal of social information is
structured by patterns of social
identification (Oakes, Haslam and
Turner, 1994)
Leaders are entrepreneurs of social
identity whose influence derives from
their capacity to define themselves as
representative of a social category
(Reicher, Haslam and Hopkins, 2005)
Social identity is a basis for group
behaviour which transforms the
psychology of the individual (Turner
and Oakes, 1986)
Social identity makes collective action and
the material facts of organization
possible (Haslam et al., 2003)
Organizational identity
Organizational identities are defined by
identity anchors that capture the
organization’s central and distinctive
features (Albert and Whetten, 1985)
Organizational identities are characterized
by ‘adaptive instability’ so that they
respond to change but give the
appearance of constancy and order
(Gioia, 1998)
Organizational identity is a cognitive
frame or perceptual lens that provides a
basis for sense-making (Gioia and
Thomas, 1996)
Leaders in organizations use strategic and
symbolic mechanisms to construct elite
identities that promote engagement and
trust (Alvesson and Robertson, 2006)
Organizational identity emerges from, and
is (re)produced by, distinctive forms of
communication and practice (Gioia,
1998)
The symbolic dimensions of
organizational life derive from and
reflect organizational identity (Glynn
and Abzug, 2002)
Corporate identity
Corporate identities are defined around a
corporation’s distinctive features; where
these are positive, this contributes to
corporate success (Balmer, 1995)
Corporate identities and brands need to be
fluid to respond to dynamic changes in
the external world (Grant, 1999)
Social, Organizational and Corporate Identity
Stakeholders’ orientation to a corporation
is informed by its corporate identity
(Hatch and Schultz, 2001)
Corporations can (and need to) manage
their image in order to engage
employees and other stakeholders
(Gray and Balmer, 1998)
Corporate identity has emergent
‘corporate branding’ consequences that
transcend the specifics of particular
identity markers (Schroeder and Salzer-
Mörling, 2006)
Corporate identity underpins and is
communicated by the outward signs of
the corporate entity (e.g. its logo and
advertising) (Lippincott and Margulies,
1957)
S9
S10
Conclusion: Requirements for an
integrated understanding of identity in
organizations
The above review suggests that it is possible to
make important connections between the con-
cepts of social, organizational and corporate
identity and, moreover, that there is value in
attempting to move towards an integrated under-
standing of these concepts that clarifies and
explains the basis of those connections. In order
for this to be achieved, and in line with points
that emerge from the other contributions in this
special issue, we believe that there are (at least)
three important requirements for future research.
The need for methodological pluralism
Following on from the observation in the previous
section that research methodology can itself
present barriers to understanding, it is important
to acknowledge the dangers that are inherent in
forms of ‘methodolatry’ which prioritize the way
that questions are answered over the questions
that are actually asked (Moscovici, 1972; Reicher,
2000). At the same time there are also perils in a
form of ‘methodological apartheid’ whereby
researchers who favour different analytic techni-
ques and philosophies (qualitative versus quanti-
tative, observational versus survey, realist versus
idealist) simply agree to leave each other alone.
These are particular risks in the area of identity
research where, as noted above, the evolution of
distinct sub-disciplines already gives the field
quite a fractionated feel (e.g. so that social
identity theorists tend to employ quantitative
methods, while researchers interested in corpo-
rate identity rely much more heavily on qualita-
tive tools). On top of this, the existence of these
divisions is associated with a certain amount of
suspicion about the methods that researchers in
other ‘camps’ employ and an associated reluc-
tance to take on board the ideas that emerge from
them. Indeed, this lack of trust can itself be seen
as a manifestation of the different social, organi-
zational (and corporate) identities that define the
professional lives of the researchers themselves
(Kramer and Tyler, 1996). Along the lines of
Rink and Ellemers’ (2007) contribution to this
volume, managing these differences in order to
maximize opportunities not only for harmonious
J. P. Cornelissen, S. A. Haslam and J. M. T. Balmer
coexistence but for productive and creative
synergy can therefore be seen as a classic exercise
in harnessing the dividends of diverse identities
(see also Haslam, Eggins and Reynolds, 2003;
Van Knippenberg and Haslam, 2003).
In line with Rink and Ellemers’ own solution to
this potential problem and the general philosophy
of organic pluralism (Haslam, 2001), we suggest
that the most fruitful way forward involves (1)
recognizing the existence of differences associated
with lower-level identities (e.g. as qualitative or
quantitative researchers), (2) working to create
superordinate identities which anticipate and
celebrate this diversity as a self-defining feature,
and then (3) using the range of methodological
skills and specialisms encompassed by that iden-
tity as a source of strength rather than weakness.
In this vein, it is clear that the different
methodologies employed and drawn upon in the
papers that follow – including experimental,
survey, case study and archival methods – do
not detract from the value of this special issue but
rather illustrate the range of powerful analytical
resources upon which researchers can draw in
order to advance both theory and practice.
The need to examine processes of identity formation
In more content-specific terms, a second require-
ment for future research is to address the
important question of how the identities that
underpin the patternings and products of orga-
nizational life are actually formed and constructed
(as well as re-formed and re-constructed). This is
a question that organizational and corporate
identity research is now beginning to address
(Corley and Gioia, 2004; Hatch and Schultz,
2002), but one that has long been at the heart of
social identity scholarship (Haslam and Ellemers,
2005; Postmes, 2003; Turner, 1985).
In the past researchers have attempted to
capture aspects of this process (and signalled
their importance) with reference to terms such as
‘bridging’ and ‘buffering’ (Meznar and Nigh,
1995), ‘mimicking’ (Whetten and Mackey, 2002),
‘expressing’ and ‘mirroring’ (Hatch and Schultz,
2002). However, some would argue that verbs of
this form are incapable of properly describing
and explaining actual processes of identity
(re)formation. In large part this is because,
following Sandelands and Drazin (1989), they
can be seen to be ‘self-fulfilling’ in the sense that
Social, Organizational and Corporate Identity
their grammatical form implies the very out-
comes they purport to explain (a point recently
echoed by Ferraro, Pfeffer and Sutton, 2005).
In order to do justice to these processes we
believe there may be particular value in revisiting
the literature on entitativity which has emerged
from social cognitive accounts of identity and
group formation (Campbell, 1958; Turner, 1985).
Building on earlier Gestalt theorizing, Campbell
himself identified four principles which served to
make groups entitative: common fate, proximity,
similarity and pregnance (akin to the idea of
affordance; Gibson, 1966; see Greeno, 1994). More
recently, self-categorization theorists have refined,
elaborated and found support for a number of
related hypotheses which point to the ways in
which social identities form on the basis of
principles of accessibility and fit (suggesting that
identities become salient to the extent that
perceivers have been exposed to them in the past
and those identities represent a coherent resolution
of observed patterns of similarity and difference)
(Oakes, Haslam and Turner, 1994; Reynolds et al.,
2004; Turner, 1985). Significantly, though, there
have been only limited applications of these ideas
to organizational or corporate settings and hence
their potential remains under-explored in this
domain (but see Riketta and Van Dick, 2007;
Van Dick et al., 2005; Van Knippenberg and Van
Schie, 2000). Nevertheless, papers in this special
issue draw on such ideas to make powerful points
about processes and outcomes in areas of diversity
management (Rink and Ellemers, 2007), franchis-
ing (Ullrich et al., 2007) and cooperative network-
ing (Riketta and Nienaber, 2007; see also work on
communication by Postmes, 2003).
The need to connect observations of micro-level
identity phenomena to macro-level models of
identity process
Related to the previous point, a third requirement
for future research is to connect observations of
structural or macro-level phenomena with micro-
level analyses of process. In effect, this involves
attempting to ensure that the three levels and forms
of analysis identified in Figure 1 are fully articulated
with each other. This does not deny the importance
of research that has raised awareness of key macro-
issues and challenges – for example, the challenge
of achieving and sustaining strong corporate
reputations with stakeholders, of developing a
S11
coherent narrative or image (corporate identity)
of oneself as an organization, of managers and
employees sharing a coherent and distinctive set of
values and beliefs (Van Riel and Balmer, 1997).
Instead, it ‘fills out’ such macro-level accounts with
description and explanation of the socio-structural
and psychological processes which underpin such
phenomena. By the same token, this attempt at
articulation does not deny the importance of
research which has explored ‘basic’ categorization
and representational processes – for example,
specifying determinants of category salience, inter-
nal category structure or prototypicality (McGarty,
1999; Turner, 1985). Rather it calls for more
research to clarify how exactly these feed into
larger-scale systems, strategies and structures in
organizational and corporate contexts.
In this way, rather than prioritizing a particular
level and form of analysis, an integrated approach
to identity research needs to bridge distinctions
between social, organizational and corporate
domains – and associated concerns with process,
patterning and product – in order to provide a
more comprehensive understanding of identity-in-
action. Again, there are signs that this concern for
dynamic integration is starting to inform research
activity. Examples include work which demon-
strates how successful organization is contingent
upon leaders’ identity-embedding practices (Reich-
er, Haslam and Hopkins, 2005), how strategies of
social creativity underpin the construction of
organizational identities that facilitate a willingness
to do ‘dirty work’ (Ashforth and Kreiner, 1999),
and how different forms of organizational citizen-
ship are underpinned by organizational identities
defined at different levels of specificity (Ellemers,
De Gilder and Van den Heuvel, 1998; Van Dick
et al., 2005). Consistent with such an agenda, work
featured in this special issue also explores the
relationship between organizational image and
corporate identity and the manner in which they
are underpinned by instrumental and symbolic
considerations that change as a function of a
person’s vantage point (as applicant or employee;
Lievens, Van Hoye and Anseel, 2007) and their
national identity (Jack and Lorbiecki, 2007).
Final comment
It is clearly the case that as a manifesto for
future research the above comments are both
S12
speculative and contentious. Certainly, there is
every reason to believe that researchers in the
future will continue to study social, organiza-
tional and corporate identity in the ways that
they have in the past and with little concern for
engagement across sub-disciplines of the form
encouraged here. In itself, this is no bad thing.
Indeed, it is only because scholars within
particular disciplinary traditions have been com-
mitted to advancing their own particular research
agenda that identity research as it stands presents
such a rich and diverse smorgasbord of method,
theory, perspective and practice.
Our sense, however, is that the time is now ripe
for constructive dialogue across these literatures
in order to promote a more integrated under-
standing of the role that collective identity plays
in creating the meaning, the form, and indeed the
very possibility of organizational life. The pro-
spects of such dialogue are enhanced by recogni-
tion of the fact that – despite very real differences
in orientation – identity work shares, and has
exposed, a considerable amount of common
ground (e.g. as suggested by Table 2). Moreover,
this ground is neither trivial nor banal. Instead it
defines identity research as distinct from, and in
advance of, theory and practice in many other
branches of organizational and social science. As
such, it is a platform both for identification and
for progress.
References
Albert, S. (1998). ‘The definition and meta-definition of
identity’. In D. A. Whetten and P. Godfrey (eds), Identity
in Organizations: Building Theory through Conversations,
pp. 1–13. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Albert, S. and D. A. Whetten (1985). ‘Organizational identity’.
In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior, 8, pp. 263–295. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Albert, S., B. E. Ashforth and J. E. Dutton (2000). ‘Organiza-
tional identity and identification: charting new waters and
building new bridges’, Academy of Management Review, 25,
pp. 13–17.
Alvesson, M. and M. Robertson (2006). ‘The best and the
brightest: the construction, significance and effects of elite
identities in consulting firms’, Organization, 13, pp. 195–224.
Ashforth, B. E. and G. Kreiner (1999). ‘ ‘‘How can you do it?’’:
dirty work and the dilemma of identity’, Academy of
Management Review, 24, pp. 413–434.
Ashforth, B. E. and F. Mael (1989). ‘Social identity theory and
the organization’, Academy of Management Review, 14,
pp. 20–39.
J. P. Cornelissen, S. A. Haslam and J. M. T. Balmer
Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). ‘Corporate branding and connoisseur-
ship’, Journal of General Management, 21, pp. 24–46.
Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). ‘Corporate identity and the advent of
corporate marketing’, Journal of Marketing Management, 14,
pp. 963–996.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). ‘Corporate identity, corporate
branding and corporate marketing: seeing through the fog’,
European Journal of Marketing, 35, pp. 248–292.
Balmer, J. M. T. and S. A. Greyser (2002). ‘Managing the
multiple identities of the organization’, California Manage-
ment Review, 44, pp. 72–86.
Balmer, J. M. T. and S. A. Greyser (2003). Revealing the
Corporation: Perspectives on Identity, Image, Reputation,
Corporate Branding and Corporate-Level Marketing. London:
Routledge.
Balmer, J. M. T. and G. B. Soenen (1999). ‘The ACID test of
corporate identity management’, Journal of Marketing
Management, 15, pp. 69–92.
Bartel, C. A. (2001). ‘Social comparisons in boundary-spanning
work: effects of community outreach on member’s organiza-
tional identity and identification’, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 46, pp. 379–413.
Bhattacharya, C. B. and S. Sen (2003). ‘Consumer–company
identification: a framework for understanding consumers’
relationships with companies’, Journal of Marketing, 67,
pp. 76–89.
Birkigt, K. and M. Stadler (1986). Corporate Identity:
Grundlagen, Funktionen und Beispielen. Landsberg an Lech:
Verlag Moderne Industrie.
Borgerson, J. L., M. E. Magnusson and F. Magnusson (2006).
‘Branding ethics: negotiating Benneton’s identity and image’.
In J. E. Schroeder and M. Salzer-Mörling (eds), Brand
Culture, pp. 171–185. London: Routledge.
Brickson, S. E. (2005). ‘Organizational identity orientation,
forging a link between organizational identity and organiza-
tions’ relations with stakeholders’, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 50, pp. 576–609.
Brickson, S. E. (in press). ‘Organizational identity orientation:
the genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social
value’, Academy of Management Review.
Brown, A. D. (2001). ‘Organization studies and identity: towards
a research agenda’, Human Relations, 54, pp. 113–121.
Brown, T., P. Dacin, M. Pratt and D. Whetten (2006). ‘Identity,
intended image, construed image, and reputation: an inter-
disciplinary framework and suggested methodology’, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, pp. 95–106.
Campbell, D. T. (1958). ‘Common fate, similarity, and other
indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social
entities’, Behavioural Science, 3, pp. 14–25.
Cardador, M. and M. Pratt (2006). ‘Identification management
and its bases: bridging management and marketing perspec-
tives through a focus on affiliation dimensions’, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 34, pp. 174–184.
Corley, K. G. and D. A. Gioia (2004). ‘Identity ambiguity and
change in the wake of a corporate spin-off’, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 49, pp. 173–208.
Corley, K., C. Harquail, M. Pratt, M. Glynn, C. Fiol and
M. Hatch (2006). ‘Guiding organizational identity through aged
adolescence’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, pp. 85–99.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2002). ‘On the ‘‘organizational identity’’
metaphor’, British Journal of Management, 13, pp. 259–268.
Social, Organizational and Corporate Identity
Cornelissen, J. P. (2005). ‘Beyond compare: metaphor in
organization theory’, Academy of Management Review, 30,
pp. 751–764.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2006). ‘Metaphor and the dynamics of
knowledge in organization theory: a case study of the
organizational identity metaphor’, Journal of Management
Studies, 43, pp. 683–709.
Czarniawska, B. and R. Wolff (1998). ‘Constructing new
identities in established organization fields’, International
Studies of Management and Organization, 28, pp. 32–56.
Doosje, B., S. A. Haslam, R. Spears, P. J. Oakes and
W. Koomen (1998). ‘The effect of comparative context on
central tendency and variability judgements and the evalua-
tion of group characteristics’, European Journal of Social
Psychology, 28, pp. 173–184.
Dukerich, J. M., B. R. Golden and S. M. Shortell (2002).
‘Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: the impact of
organizational identification, identity, and image on the
cooperative behaviors of physicians’, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 47, pp. 507–533.
Dutton, J. E. and J. M. Dukerich (1991). ‘Keeping an eye on
the mirror: image and identity in organizational adaptation’,
Academy of Management Journal, 34, pp. 517–554.
Dutton, J. E., J. M. Dukerich and C. V. Harquail (1994).
‘Organizational images and member identification’, Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 39, pp. 239–263.
Ellemers, N., D. De Gilder and S. A. Haslam (2004).
‘Motivating individuals and groups at work: a social identity
perspective on leadership and group performance’, Academy
of Management Review, 29, pp. 459–478.
Ellemers, N., D. De Gilder and H. Van den Heuvel (1998).
‘Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and beha-
vior at work’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, pp. 717–730.
Ellemers, N., S. A. Haslam, M. J. Platow and D. Van
Knippenberg (2003). ‘Social identity at work: developments,
debates, directions’. In S. A. Haslam, D. Van Knippenberg,
M. J. Platow and N. Ellemers (eds), Social Identity at Work:
Developing Theory for Organizational Practice, pp. 3–28.
New York: Psychology Press.
Elsbach, K. D. (1999). ‘An expanded model of organizational
identification’. In B. M. Staw and R. I. Sutton (eds), Research
in Organizational Behavior, 21, pp. 163–200.
Elsbach, K. D. and R. D. Kramer (1996). ‘Members’ responses
to organizational identity threats: encountering and counter-
ing the Business Week rankings’, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, pp. 442–476.
Faurholt Csaba, F. and A. Bengtsson (2006). ‘Rethinking
identity in brand management’. In J. E. Schroeder and
M. Salzer-Mörling (eds), Brand Culture, pp. 118–135.
London: Routledge.
Ferraro, F., J. Pfeffer and R. Sutton (2005). ‘Economics
language and assumptions: how theories can become self-
fulfilling’, Academy of Management Review, 30, pp. 8–24.
Fiol, C. M. (2001). ‘Revisiting an identity-based view of
sustainable competitive advantage’, Journal of Management,
27, pp. 691–699.
Fiol, C. M. (2002). ‘Capitalizing on paradox: the role of
language in transforming organizational identities’, Organi-
zational Science, 13, pp. 653–666.
Fiol, M. and A. S. Huff (1992). ‘Maps for managers: where are
we? where do we go from here?’, Journal of Management
Studies, 29, pp. 269–285.
S13
Fombrun, C. and V. Rindova (2000). ‘The road to transpar-
ency: reputation management at Royal Dutch/Shell’. In
M. Schultz and M. J. Hatch (eds), The Expressive Organiza-
tion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The Senses Considered as Perceptual
Systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Gioia, D. A. (1998). ‘From individual to organizational
identity’. In D. Whetten and P. Godfrey (eds), Identity in
Organizations: Building Theory through Conversations,
pp. 17–31. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gioia, D. A. and J. B. Thomas (1996). ‘Identity, image and
issue interpretation: sensemaking during strategic change in
academia’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, pp. 370–403.
Gioia, D. A., M. Schultz and K. G. Corley (2000). ‘Organiza-
tional identity, image and adaptive instability’, Academy of
Management Review, 25, pp. 63–81.
Gioia, D. A., M. Schultz and K. G. Corley (2002). ‘On celebrating
the organizational identity metaphor: a rejoinder to Corne-
lissen’, British Journal of Management, 13, pp. 269–275.
Glynn, M. A. (2000). ‘When cymbals become symbols: conflict
over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra’,
Organization Science, 11, pp. 285–298.
Glynn, M. A. and R. Abzug (2002). ‘Institutionalizing identity:
symbolic isomorphism and organizational names’, Academy
of Management Journal, 45, pp. 267–280.
Grant, J. (1999). The New Marketing Manifesto: The 12 Rules
for Building Successful Brands in the 21st Century. London:
Texere.
Gray, E. R. and J. M. T. Balmer (1998). ‘Managing corporate
image and corporate reputation’, Long Range Planning, 31,
pp. 695–702.
Greeno, J. G. (1994). ‘Gibson’s affordances’, Psychological
Review, 101, pp. 336–342.
Haslam, S. A. (2001). Psychology in Organizations: The Social
Identity Approach. London: Sage.
Haslam, S. A. and N. Ellemers (2005). ‘Social identity in
industrial and organizational psychology: concepts, contro-
versies and contributions’, International Review of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 20, pp. 39–118.
Haslam, S. A. and S. D. Reicher (2002). A User’s Guide to ‘The
Experiment’: Exploring the Psychology of Groups and Power.
London: BBC Worldwide.
Haslam, S. A. and S. D. Reicher (2007). ‘Social identity and the
dynamics of organizational life: insights from the BBC Prison
Study’. In C. Bartel, S. Blader and A. Wrzesniewski (eds),
Identity and the Modern Organization, pp. 135–166. New
York: Erlbaum.
Haslam, S. A. and J. C. Turner (1992). ‘Context-dependent
variation in social stereotyping 2: The relationship between
frame of reference, self-categorization and accentuation’,
European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, pp. 251–277.
Haslam, S. A., R. A. Eggins and K. J. Reynolds (2003). ‘The
ASPIRe model: actualizing social and personal identity
resources to enhance organizational outcomes’, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, pp. 83–113.
Haslam, S. A., T. Postmes and N. Ellemers (2003). ‘More than
a metaphor: organizational identity makes organizational life
possible’, British Journal of Management, 14, pp. 357–369.
Haslam, S. A., D. Van Knippenberg, M. Platow and N.
Ellemers (eds) (2003). Social Identity at Work: Developing
Theory for Organizational Practice. New York: Psychology
Press.
S14
Hatch, M. J. and M. Schultz (1997). ‘Relations between
organizational culture, identity and image’, European Journal
of Marketing, 31, pp. 356–365.
Hatch, M. J. and M. Schultz (2001). ‘Are the strategic stars
aligned for your corporate brand?’, Harvard Business Review,
pp. 128–135.
Hatch, M. J. and M. Schultz (2002). ‘The dynamics of
organizational identity’, Human Relations, 55, pp. 989–1018.
Henderson, P. W. and J. A. Cote (1998). ‘Guidelines for selecting
or modifying logos’, Journal of Marketing, 62, pp. 14–30.
Henderson, P. W., J. A. Cote, S. M. Leong and B. Schmitt
(2003). ‘Building strong brands in Asia: selecting the visual
components of image to maximize brand strength’, Interna-
tional Journal of Research in Marketing, 20, pp. 297–313.
Hogg, M. A. and D. J. Terry (2000). ‘Social identity and self-
categorization processes in organizational contexts’, Acad-
emy of Management Review, 25, pp. 121–140.
Hogg, M. A. and D. J. Terry (2001). Social Identity Processes in
Organizations. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Ibarra, H., M. Kilduff and W. Tsai (2005). ‘Zooming in and
out: connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers
of organizational network research’, Organization Science,
16, pp. 359–371.
Jack, G. and A. Lorbiecki (2007). ‘National identity, globaliza-
tion and the discursive construction of organizational
identity’, British Journal of Management, 18, Special Issue,
pp. S79–S95.
Kramer, R. M. and T. R. Tyler (eds) (1996). Trust in
Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Labianca, G., J. F. Fairbank, J. B. Thomas, D. A. Gioia and
E. E. Umphress (2001). ‘Emulation in academia: balancing
structure and identity’, Organization Science, 12, pp. 312–
330.
Lamertz, K., P. P. M. A. R. Heugens and L. Calmet (2005).
‘The configuration of organizational images among firms in
the Canadian beer brewing industry’, Journal of Management
Studies, 42, pp. 817–843.
Larçon, J. P. and R. Reitter (1979). Structures de Pouvoir et
Identité de L’enterprise. Paris: Nathan.
Lievens, F., G. Van Hoye and F. Anseel (2007). ‘Organizational
identity and employer image: towards a unifying framework’,
British Journal of Management, 18, Special Issue, pp. S45–
S59.
Lippincott, J. G. and W. P. Margulies (1957). ‘The corporate
look: a problem in design’, Public Relations Journal, 13, p. 27.
Lounsbury, M. and M. A. Glynn (2001). ‘Cultural entrepre-
neurship: stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of re-
sources’, Strategic Management Journal, 22, pp. 545–564.
McGarty, C. (1999). The Categorization Process in Social
Psychology. London: Sage.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Melewar, T. C. and E. Karaosmanoglu (2006). ‘Seven dimen-
sions of corporate identity: a categorisation from the
practitioners’ perspectives’, European Journal of Marketing,
40, pp. 846–869.
Meznar, M. and D. Nigh (1995). ‘Buffer or bridge? Environ-
mental and organizational determinants of public affairs
activities in US firms’, Academy of Management Journal, 38,
pp. 975–997.
J. P. Cornelissen, S. A. Haslam and J. M. T. Balmer
Moingeon, B. and B. Ramanantsoa (1997). ‘Understanding
corporate identity; the French school of thought’, European
Journal of Marketing, 31, pp. 383–395.
Moscovici, S. (1972). ‘Society and theory in social psychology’.
In J. Israel and H. Tajfel (eds), The Context of Social
Psychology: A Critical Assessment. London: Academic Press.
Oakes, P. J., S. A. Haslam and J. C. Turner (1994). Stereotyping
and Social Reality. Oxford: Blackwell.
Oakes, P. J., J. C. Turner and S. A. Haslam (1991). ‘Perceiving
people as group members: the role of fit in the salience of
social categorizations’, British Journal of Social Psychology,
30, pp. 125–144.
Olins, W. (1978). The Corporate Personality: an Inquiry into the
Nature of Corporate Identity. London: Design Council.
Pfeffer, J. (1997). New Directions for Organization Theory:
Problems and Prospects. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Postmes, T. (2003). ‘A social identity approach to communica-
tion in organizations’. In S. A. Haslam, D. Van Knippen-
berg, M. J. Platow and N. Ellemers (eds), Social Identity at
Work: Developing Theory for Organizational Practice, pp. 81–
97. New York: Psychology Press.
Postmes, T., S. A. Haslam and R. Swaab (2005). ‘Social influence
in small groups: an interactive model of identity formation’,
European Review of Social Psychology, 16, pp. 1–42.
Powell, W. W. and P. J. DiMaggio (1991). The New
Institutionalism in Organization Theory. Chicago, IL: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). ‘To be or not to be: central questions in
organizational identification’. In D. A. Whetten and
P. C. Godfrey (eds), Identity in Organizations: Building
Theory through Conversations, pp. 171–207. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pratt, M. G. and P. O. Foreman (2000a). ‘Classifying manage-
rial responses to multiple organizational identities’, Academy
of Management Review, 25, pp. 18–42.
Pratt, M. G. and P. O. Foreman (2000b). ‘The beauty of and
barriers to organizational theories of identity’, Academy of
Management Review, 25, pp. 141–152.
Pratt, M. G. and A. Rafaeli (1997). ‘Organizational dress as a
symbol of multilayered social identities’, Academy of
Management Journal, 40, pp. 862–898.
Putnam, L., N. Phillips and P. Chapman (1996). ‘Metaphors of
communication and organization’. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy and
W. Nord (eds), Handbook of Organizational Studies,
pp. 375–408. London: Sage.
Ramanantsoa, B. (1989). ‘Histoire et identité de l’enterprise’,
Revue Française de Gestion, January/February, pp. 107–111.
Reicher, S. D. (2000). ‘Against methodolatry’, British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 39, pp. 1–6.
Reicher, S. D. and N. Hopkins (2001). Self and Nation:
Categorization, Contestation and Mobilisation. London: Sage.
Reicher, S. D., S. A. Haslam and N. Hopkins (2005). ‘Social
identity and the dynamics of leadership: leaders and followers
as collaborative agents in the transformation of social
reality’, Leadership Quarterly, 16, pp. 547–568.
Reynolds, K. J., P. J. Oakes, S. A. Haslam, J. C. Turner and
M. K. Ryan (2004). ‘Social identity as the basis for group
entitativity: elaborating the case for the ‘‘science of groups
per se’’’. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd and O. Corneille (eds),
The Psychology of Group Perception: Perceived Variability,
Social, Organizational and Corporate Identity
Entitativity and Essentialism, pp. 317–333. New York:
Psychology Press.
Riketta, M. and S. Nienaber (2007). ‘Multiple identities and
work motivation: the role of perceived compatibility between
nested organizational units’, British Journal of Management,
18, Special Issue, pp. S61–S77.
Riketta, M. and R. Van Dick (2007). ‘Foci of attachment in
organizations: a meta-analytic comparison of the strength
and correlates of workgroup versus organizational identifica-
tion and commitment’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67,
pp. 490–510.
Rink, F. and N. Ellemers (2007). ‘Diversity as a basis for shared
organizational identity: the norm congruity principle’, British
Journal of Management, 18, Special Issue, pp. S17–S27.
Sandelands, L. E. and R. Drazin (1989). ‘On the language of
organization theory’, Organization Studies, 10, pp. 457–478.
Schroeder, J. E. and M. Salzer-Mörling (eds) (2006). Brand
Culture. London: Routledge.
Schultz, M., M. J. Hatch and M. H. Larsen (eds) (2000). The
Expressive Organization: Identity, Reputation and Corporate
Branding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scott, S. G. and V. R. Lane (2000). ‘A stakeholder approach to
organizational identity’, Academy of Management Review, 25,
pp. 43–62.
Simoes, C., S. Dibb and R. P. Fisk (2005). ‘Managing corporate
identity: an internal perspective’, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 33, pp. 153–168.
Svenigsson, S. and M. Alvesson (2006). ‘Managing managerial
identities: organizational fragmentation, discourse and iden-
tity struggle’, Human Relations, 56, pp. 195–224.
Tajfel, H. (1972). ‘La catégorization sociale’. In S. Moscovici (ed.),
Introduction à la Psychologie sociale, Vol. 1, pp. 272–302.
Paris: Larousse.
Tajfel, H. and J. C. Turner (1979). ‘An integrative theory of
intergroup conflict’. In W. G. Austin and S. Worchel (eds),
The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, pp. 7–24.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Turner, J. C. (1982). ‘Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social
group’. In H. Tajfel (ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup
Relations, pp. 15–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, J. C. (1985). ‘Social categorization and the self-concept:
a social cognitive theory of group behavior’. In E. J. Lawler
(ed.), Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research,
Vol. 2, pp. 77–121. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Turner, J. C. (1999). ‘Some current issues in research on social
identity and self-categorization theories’. In N. Ellemers, R.
Spears and B. Doosje (eds), Social Identity: Context,
Commitment, Content, pp. 6–34. Oxford: Blackwell.
Turner, J. C. (2005). ‘Explaining the nature of power: a three-
process theory’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 35,
pp. 1–22.
Turner, J. C. and S. A. Haslam (2001). ‘Social identity,
organizations and leadership’. In M. E. Turner (ed.), Groups
S15
at Work: Advances in Theory and Research, pp. 25–65.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Turner, J. C. and P. J. Oakes (1986). ‘The significance of the
social identity concept for social psychology with reference to
individualism, interactionism and social influence’, British
Journal of Social Psychology, 25, pp. 237–252.
Turner, J. C., M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher and M. S.
Wetherell (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-
categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Turner, J. C., P. J. Oakes, S. A. Haslam and C. A. McGarty
(1994). ‘Self and collective: cognition and social context’,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, pp. 454–463.
Tyler, T. R. and S. Blader (2000). Cooperation in Groups:
Procedural Justice, Social Identity and Behavioural Engage-
ment. New York: Psychology Press.
Ullrich, J., J. Wieseke, O. Christ, M. Schulze and R. Van Dick
(2007). ‘The identity-matching principle: corporate and organi-
zational identification in a franchising system’, British Journal
of Management, 18, Special Issue, pp. S29–S44.
Van Dick, R. (2001). ‘Identification in organizational contexts:
linking theory and research from social and organizational
psychology’, International Journal of Management Review, 4,
pp. 265–284.
Van Dick, R., U. Wagner, J. Stellmacher and O. Christ
(2005). ‘Category salience and organizational identification’,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78,
pp. 273–285.
Van Knippenberg, D. and N. Ellemers (2003). ‘Social identity
and group performance: identification as the key to collective
effort’. In S. A. Haslam, D. Van Knippenberg, M. Platow
and N. Ellemers (eds), Social Identity at Work: Developing
Theory for Organizational Practice, pp. 29–42. New York:
Psychology Press.
Van Knippenberg, D. and S. A. Haslam (2003). ‘Realizing the
diversity dividend: exploring the subtle interplay between
identity, ideology and reality’. In S. A. Haslam, D. Van
Knippenberg, M. J. Platow and N. Ellemers (eds), Social
Identity at Work: Developing Theory for Organizational
Practice, pp. 61–77. New York: Psychology Press.
Van Knippenberg, D. and E. C. M. Van Schie (2000).
‘Foci and correlates of organizational identification’, Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, pp.
137–147.
Van Riel, C. B. M. and J. M. T. Balmer (1997). ‘Corporate
identity: the concept, its measurement and management’,
European Journal of Marketing, 31, pp. 340–356.
Van Riel, C. B. M. and A. Van den Ban (2001). ‘The added
value of corporate logos: an empirical study’, European
Journal of Marketing, 35, pp. 428–440.
Whetten, D. A. and A. Mackey (2002). ‘A social actor
conception of organizational identity and its implications
for the study of organizational reputation’, Business and
Society, 41, pp. 393–414.
S16 J. P. Cornelissen, S. A. Haslam and J. M. T. Balmer

Joep Cornelissen is Reader in Corporate Communications at Leeds University Business School. His
research interests include corporate communications, the construction of organizational and
corporate identities, and the use of metaphor in management and organization theory and practice.
He is author of Corporate Communications: Theory and Practice (Sage). His research articles on
metaphor have appeared in Academy of Management Review, Organization Studies, British Journal
of Management, Psychology and Marketing and the Journal of Management Studies. He is currently
an Associate Editor of the Journal of Management Studies.

Alex Haslam is Professor of Social and Organizational Psychology at the University of Exeter.
Together with colleagues, his work focuses on the study of social identity in social and
organizational contexts, as illustrated by his most recent book Psychology in Organizations: The
Social Identity Approach (2nd edn, 2004). A Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Advanced Research,
he is a former editor of the European Journal of Social Psychology and Kurt Lewin award winner.

John M.T. Balmer is Professor of Corporate Brand/Identity Management at Bradford School of

Management. His publications have appeared in California Management Review, International
Studies of Management and Organizations and the European Journal of Marketing. With Stephen
Greyser (Harvard Business School), he is the author of Revealing the Corporation (2003). In 1994 he
founded the International Corporate Identity Group (ICIG), a multidisciplinary academic/
practitioner forum. He has worked with the Swedish Crown, the BBC, WPP Group and other
organizations.