Organization Science informs ®

Vol. 18, No. 4, July–August 2007, pp. 711–723 doi 10.1287/orsc.1070.0267

issn 1047-7039
eissn 1526-5455
07
1804
0711 © 2007 INFORMS

Unraveling HRM: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in

a Management Consulting Firm
Mats Alvesson, Dan Kärreman
Department of Business Administration, Lund University, P.O. Box 7080, S 220 07 Lund, Sweden
{mats.alvesson@fek.lu.se, dan.karreman@fek.lu.se}

T his paper addresses human resources management (HRM) systems and practices in a large multinational management
consultancy firm. The firm invests considerable resources in HRM, and is frequently praised by employees for its
accomplishments in hiring, developing, and promotion. However, this general faith in HRM does not align particularly well
with employees’ experiences and perceptions of the specific HRM practices in the firm. The paper critically interprets the
meaning and the functions of the HRM system and the beliefs supporting it. The paper suggests a reinterpretation of HRM
systems and practices based on a cultural-symbolic perspective. It introduces the concepts of excess ceremonialism, identity
projects, and aspirational control to highlight and interpret the significance of organizational symbolism in accounting for
the role of HRM systems and practices, and the various effects of HRM systems and practices on employee identity and
compliance.
Key words: HRM; assessment; identity; organizational culture; symbolism; contradictions

Introduction 1988, Longenecker et al. 1987, Townley 1999) in favour

The principal resource in knowledge-intensive firms is
the competence of the work force (Alvesson 1995,
2000; Löwendahl 1997; Maister 1993). In this sense,
knowledge-intensive firms underscore a general trend in
organization analysis: They emphasize the crucial signif-
icance of personnel—or human resources to use a more
contemporary label (cf. Pfeffer 1994, Tichy et al. 1982).
Human resources management (HRM) is argued to be a
core strategic activity (e.g., Boxall and Steeneveld 1999;
Lengnick-Hall and Lengnick-Hall 1988; Tichy et al.
1982, p. 47). HRM focuses on what can be broadly
described as the human side of an enterprise: recruit-
ment, training, staffing, career planning and develop-
ment, compensation, and labour relations (Steffy and
Grimes 1992).
In this paper, we investigate the HRM system and
practices of a large international management consul-
tancy firm. The firm claims to have and use a ratio-
nal and ambitious HRM system in which people are
assessed and developed into a highly competent, moti-
vated, and well-functioning work force. People praise
the system for its usefulness to junior personnel and for
its capacity to deliver an effective work force. The firm
seems to be an examplar of an organization benefitting
from large investments in HRM.
However, as one would perhaps expect, there is a lot
of variation in the application of HRM policies, lead-
ing to strong deviations from the suggested normative
order. This is consistent with earlier in-depth research
that has revealed widespread doubt about the rational-
ity of assessment and promotion (Barlow 1989, Jackall
711
of emphasizing uncertainties and politics. In a com-
plex, ambiguous world calling for pragmatic behaviour,
it makes sense that HRM practices such as promotion be
loosely coupled with earlier assessments and feedback.
Interestingly, the general perception among organiza-
tional members is not that the HRM system is pragmatic,
incoherent, and politicized. On the contrary, organiza-
tional members unequivocally express strong beliefs in
the HRM system’s capacity to deliver on its promise
in a rational and consistent way. They claim that the
HRM system delivers good feedback, fair assessment,
input plus resources for improvement, and meritocratic
promotion. They think it works. As a consequence, the
deviations mentioned above—and fleshed out in detail
below—were received as surprising and puzzling events.
We have a similar reaction of surprise and puzzlement,
but with regards to the predominant trust of HRM. How
can we understand that organizational members believe
in the HRM policies so strongly? Why and how do
they not take the experiences of shortcomings seriously?
This calls for taking the meanings people ascribe to the
HRM system seriously. Thus, we study HRM from a
culture-identity perspective (cf. Alvesson 2002, Brown
1995, Czarniawska 1992, Eisenberg and Riley 2001,
Frost et al. 1985, Kunda 1992, Martin 1992, Smircich
1983a). A key dimension here is identity, at individ-
ual (Alvesson and Willmott 2002, Collinson 2003) and
organizational levels (Albert and Whetten 1985, Dutton
et al. 1994, Hatch and Schultz 2002). HRM practices are
viewed as vehicles for the construction of meanings and
“stories” about the individuals—who they are—and the
 Alvesson and Kärreman: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting Firm
712
organization—its distinctiveness and coherence. HRM is
not viewed as an objective-functional system but as a
meaning-creating device, which organizational members
use to develop and reproduce meanings about who they
are and what their firm represents.
The paper tells two stories: One about HRM prac-
tices and one about meanings and identities around
HRM. The first story tells how the realization of ambi-
tious HRM designs face formidable problems. The sec-
ond tells how, despite these difficulties, people still use
HRM systems, practices, and ideologies for the con-
struction of positively loaded meanings about organi-
zational identity and the identities of the employees.
The observation that failed practices are accompanied by
successful symbolism offers the overall framing of this
paper. The theoretical purpose of the paper is to develop
a new, cultural-theoretical understanding of ambitious
HRM, emphasizing its role in aligning individual and
organizational identity.
HRM and Organizational Culture
The HRM literature is strongly dominated by the
assumption that recruitment, assessment, and develop-
ment processes deal with people who have stable sets
of skills and capacities, and that these characteristics are
necessary to objectively investigate and measure, thus
making so-called job-performance prediction possible
(Steffy and Grimes 1992, Iles and Salaman 1995). Main-
stream HRM researchers claim that company perfor-
mance is positively affected by HRM practices (Delaney
and Huselid 1996, Guest 1999, Huselid 1995, Huselid
et al. 1997, MacDuffie 1995; for a critique of method-
ological difficulties of making such claims, see Legge
2005, Marchington and Grugulis 2000, Purcell 1999).
Common distinctions involve soft and hard HRM sys-
tems (Tyson 1995), perhaps better labeled as high- and
low-commitment ones (Legge 2005, Watson 2004). Soft
or high-commitment HRM is characterized by long-term
relationships, caring, and personal development. Hard or
low-commitment HRM is characterized by exploitative
and short-term relationships.
These broad distinctions say little about the more
nuanced ideas and meanings of how organizations view
their employees. Thus, we will follow an alternative
route, which suggests that the individual is produced,
rather than discovered, in HRM processes (Deetz 2003,
Iles and Salaman 1995, Steffy and Grimes 1992, Town-
ley 1993). HRM practices, in this sense, create what they
allegedly discover. Although HRM is typically seen as a
functional tool, this perspective indicates that HRM may
be more powerfully understood as a device that provides
shared meanings about the corporate universe, thus being
instrumental in sustaining the normative order.
In this sense, HRM practices may be understood as
key providers and manifestations of culture and cul-
tural material in organizations. HRM and organizational
Organization Science 18(4), pp. 711–723, © 2007 INFORMS
culture are frequently viewed as closely related. Jackson
and Schuler (1995), for example, view “organizational
culture as inextractably bound to HRM and therefore not
meaningful if separated from it” (p. 238), but they do not
express any theoretical view on culture or use it as an
interpretive device. Culture is often reduced to a variable
affecting HRM or as a managerial tool for accomplish-
ing the wanted workforce (Beer et al. 1984). As Bowen
and Ostroff (2004) note, “little attention has been given
to the social constructions that employees make of their
interactions with HRM” (p. 206), arguably a key aspect
from a cultural perspective.
We use the term “culture” as a concept for a way
of thinking that particularly highlights symbolic phe-
nomena. Culture is viewed as “a framework of mean-
ing, a system of reference that can generate both shared
understandings and the working misunderstandings that
enable social life to go on. These frameworks of mean-
ing are cultivated, negotiated, and reproduced within
behavioural enactments


” (Batteau 2001, p. 726). Cul-
turally speaking, HRM phenomena are understood in
terms of the symbolism and meanings that they com-
municate and/or group members ascribe to (or interpret
from) arrangements and practices. From this point of
view, promotion practices are significant not because
they promote the better candidate, but because they
tell us what it means to be the better candidate. They
articulate and propagate shared understandings on the
meaning of promotion and candidature in this con-
text. Similarly, cultural resources—rituals, myths, sto-
ries, language use—are important building blocks in
organizational members’ identity work.
Based on a cultural framework, we investigate HRM
as a meaning-creating device for identity construction.
Identity is often seen as indicating the characteristics,
the coherence, and the distinctiveness of a person, group,
or organization (Albert and Whetten 1985). In dynamic
contexts—such as most contemporary organizations—
identities are unstable, making it more reasonable to
talk about temporary forms of coherence rather than
something fixed and stable (Gioia et al. 2000). This is
relevant not only with relationship to constructions of
what the organization stands for (organizational iden-
tity, Albert and Whetten 1985, Dutton et al. 1994, Hatch
and Schultz 2002), but also in terms of how individuals
define themselves and their specific orientations (Dunne
1996, Sveningsson and Alvesson 2003). People in orga-
nizations engage in identity work, aiming to achieve a
feeling of a coherent and strong sense of self, which is
necessary for coping with work tasks and social inter-
actions (Alvesson and Willmott 2002). In particular, in
occupations and organizations characterized by instabil-
ity and a multitude of groups and interactions, iden-
tity work becomes crucial (Alvesson 2004, Deetz 1998).
Identities are constituted, negotiated, reproduced, and
Alvesson and Kärreman: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting Firm
Organization Science 18(4), pp. 711–723, © 2007 INFORMS
threatened in social interaction, in the form of narratives,
and also in material practices.
We pay particular attention to how HRM may influ-
ence what we refer to as identity projects. This refers to
individuals’ definitions of their selves in the light of their
ongoing development and imagined future (e.g., Grey
1994 on career as self-projects and Markus and Nurius
1986 on possible selves). Identity projects include long-
term orientations and self-improvement efforts supported
by cultural norms and guidelines structured by a spe-
cific social architecture (e.g., an HRM system). Identity
projects bear the imprints of organizational arrangements
and are prone to efforts of identity regulation (Alvesson
and Willmott 2002), rather than emerging more or less
spontaneously.
The paper is structured as follows: After a brief note
on methodological considerations we provide a short
description of the case. This leads to a close reading of
actual HRM practices, followed by an analysis of HRM
in relationship to organizational identity and individual
identity. Finally, we suggest that HRM aligns construc-
tions of organizational identity with individual identity
projects through what we refer to as excess ceremonial-
ity and aspirational control.
Method
This paper follows an interpretive approach in organi-
zation studies (e.g., Geertz 1973, Smircich 1983b). We
employ a hermeneutic reading in which there is a cir-
cular move between part and whole, and the preun-
derstanding that what the researcher brings with her
into research is actively used, qualified, challenged, and
developed in the research process (Alvesson and Sköld-
berg 2000). Rather than a straightforward codifying of
empirical material, one tries to go beyond the surface
and look for something less obvious, or less easily
revealed in a (quick) coding process. The totality of the
text is also borne carefully in mind, which means that
variation and contradiction within interviews are taken
seriously.
Fieldwork was conducted using an open and emer-
gent approach (Alvesson and Deetz 2000), asking ques-
tions such as, what is going on here? and, what do the
natives think they are up to? No specific ideas (hypothe-
ses) apart from a broad interest in studying management
and employment practices from a cultural perspective,
guided the study from the start. Exact research ques-
tions were formulated after a good understanding of the
site being studied had been developed, thus giving space
for unexpected empirical material to affect the research
process and results.
Interviewees’ references to a so-called feedback cul-
ture and a strong focus on formal assessments, frequent
promotions, and a preoccupation with career steps and
titles aroused our curiosity. A useful guideline in this
713
kind of study is to look out for significant deviations
from what could have been expected, given a strong
familiarity with the literature in a field. This makes it
possible to produce a mystery, offering an interesting
source of further thinking in itself, but also giving impe-
tus for solving the mystery and thus adding new knowl-
edge (Alvesson and Kärreman 2007, Asplund 1970). In
our case, the mystery was a strong faith among people
in the firm in the HRM system, while at the same time
there was a perception that the system failed in a lot of
specific instances.
The study is comprised of interviews as well as obser-
vations of a variety of organizational gatherings. Obser-
vations included closely following a project group at
work during two days (and half a night!), and attend-
ing training sessions, a meeting about promotions, the
yearly meeting of all managerial staff, as well as external
events such as presentations of the firm to students, and
so on (see Table 1 for details). We also studied documen-
tary material (e.g., manuals for giving feedback, project
methodology). We thus utilized the three means avail-
able for qualitative research, “asking questions,” “hang-
ing around,” and “reading texts” (Dingwall 1997). This
paper reports mainly on the interview material and one
observation, but is informed by other kinds of data.
We conducted 59 interviews with 51 people. All inter-
views were conducted in Swedish and took place in
Stockholm, Güteborg, and Lund. About half were cho-
sen for various specific reasons of being able or willing
to provide a good overview and/or deeper viewpoints
(e.g., contact persons, CEO, ex-students of ours, sub-
jects recommended for interviews), and half were cho-
sen as a matter of convenience (e.g., being available
for interviews during days we were doing fieldwork).
People from all parts of the organization were inter-
viewed: the CEO, partners, consultants on various lev-
els of seniority, support staff, newly recruited organiza-
tional members, and so on. Our interviews covered dif-
ferent business areas and the entire spectrum from job
applicants to ex-employees, although most interviewees
were working in the firm. We worked hard to get good
access to a business not well known for its openness
to research or mass media (O’Shea and Madigan 1998).
Participant observation, contact with ex-students from
our department working in the firm, repeated interviews
with people who appeared to have some distance from
the firm and were willing to air critical comments with-
out being biased were tactics used in order to facilitate
“deep access.”
Due to our open approach, we did not restrict our-
selves to a strict interview protocol. Instead, we based
interview questions on different sets of common themes
that consequently have been adapted to (a) the stage
in the research process, and (b) the particular devel-
opments of each interview, related to the interviewee’s
specific work situation, seniority, and experiences. As
 Alvesson and Kärreman: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting Firm
714 Organization Science 18(4), pp. 711–723, © 2007 INFORMS

Table 1 Interviewee Sample Overview we are hierarchical for sure, but that’s the way we oper-
ate” and that creates a sense of security because you
Level No. of participants No. of interviews
know exactly where you are, and that everybody has the
Consultants opportunity to move up in the pyramid. Expectations are
Partner & Associate 10 10 another central feature. That you, given your role, are
Partner expected to do certain things, and that you meet, exceed,
Manager 12 15 or, in the worst case, fail to meet your expectations. (For-
Consultant 12 12 mer senior manager)
Staff
Research (knowledge 4 8 Most consultants are recruited directly from the larger
management) Scandinavian universities. Degrees in business admin-
Finance 3 3 istration or engineering are mandatory. All employees
HR 3 4
(even partners) are expected to take part in various
Outsiders recruitment efforts, such as presenting the firm at univer-
Ex-employees 2 2
Customers 5 5
sities, interviewing and assessing job seekers, and gener-
ally looking out for people to hire. The HR department
Total 51 59
administers recruitment, but consultants decide on who
will be employed. The firm is generally understood to
our understanding of the field developed, our lines of be a career firm. Initial advancement is expected to be
inquiry followed suit. We moved back and forth between swift for the individual. There are five basic levels: ana-
(a) details about HRM practices and how people related lyst, consultant, manager, senior manager, and partner.
to these and the broader organizational context, and New personnel typically start as analysts, are expected
between (b) looking for patterns and coherence versus to master that role within 12–18 months, and after two to
paying attention to fragmentation and discrepancies. In four years as consultants be promoted to managers. After
this way, we were able to refine our understanding of the manager level, advancement becomes more difficult.
the themes that emerged without providing excessive a The employees at Excellence are constantly evalu-
priori closure to fieldwork practices. ated. Evaluation is organized in two main processes.
First, employees are evaluated in relation to their indi-
vidual development. This process is labeled A-sheeting
The Case (A stands for appraisal) and is carried out three to four
Excellence is a large, fast-growing up-market manage- times every year. Second, employees are ranked by their
ment consulting firm employing over 25,000 people superiors in a process labeled banding. Banding occurs
worldwide. We focus on the Scandinavian subsidiary, once a year and influences salary.
which employs approximately 700 people. Excellence Excellence invests heavily in the training and devel-
specializes in management consultancy, with a focus opment of individual employees: courses, competence
on implementation of organizational changes involving development groups, workshops, invited speakers, and
information technology (IT). The firm targets large orga- publications available for those interested. Junior consul-
nizations as customers. It is very successful and has a tants are also paired with a senior consultant, who oper-
positive reputation worldwide. ates as his or her counsellor—which is also the official
The HRM system is, as mentioned above, designed title. The counsellor, who takes on the task as mentor
in a way that closely matches the normative ideal typ- voluntarily, helps the junior consultant with career devel-
ically voiced by proponents of strategic HRM. Recruit- opment, tries to shelter him or her from exploitation by
ment practices, career structure, appraisal systems, and overambitious project managers, and communicates to
development and training are all designed in an elabo- the higher echelons of the firm hierarchy.
rate fashion and allocated considerable time and money.
Below we briefly specify the parts of Excellence’s HRM
system that this study addresses—recruitment, career HRM: Ambiguity, Pragmatics, and Politics
structure, appraisal and evaluation systems, develop- The HRM practices at Excellence may appear to be con-
ment, and promotion. sistent and built into an integrated framework. However,
The HRM system is generally seen as an important a closer look reveals several illuminating deviations and
and vital symbol for the firm, and a key to understanding discrepancies from policies. We discuss two themes in
how the firm works. detail. One concerns the nature and character of the feed-
The career and the pyramid [i.e., organizational hierar- back provided by the HRM system. The other relates
chy] is absolutely central. It expresses the logic for how to the output of the HRM system, i.e., the delivery of
precisely everything works. You almost know this before optimal HR “products” in the form of the promotion
you enter the firm. In the recruitment process there is a and hierarchical location of people to positions matching
lot of talk about “we are a pyramid, we work that way, their competence and contributions.
Alvesson and Kärreman: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting Firm
Organization Science 18(4), pp. 711–723, © 2007 INFORMS
HRM practices at Excellence are replete with feed-
back mechanisms—employees talk about a feedback
culture. Organizational members are actively encouraged
to give and seek feedback in all situations, but the formal
system with frequent appraisals seems to dominate:
It’s very formalized. Every project feeds a feedback
database consisting of 20–25 preformed criteria, where
you are graded based on hierarchical level, summarized
in strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations that are
supposed to be followed by a discussion. This is done
after the project is concluded, about six weeks after. But
you need feedback and guidance during the whole pro-
cess. On the whole, I think that there is a balance between
pointing out when it is not quite good and encouraging
when you are doing well. (Consultant)
Interestingly, the highly formalized character of the feed-
back seems to devalue its effects. Superiors often do not
have time to do it properly. Part of the problem is that
it is difficult to provide rich feedback because this may
call for careful monitoring, excellent judgment, language
skills, and the allocation of considerable time. As one
partner said: “We are too kind. Feedback tends to be
vague and positive.” The evaluation system rarely pro-
duces differentiated and nuanced feedback (distinguish-
ing between good and bad performances), and thus was
viewed as problematic to use as input for promotion.
The problem is that sometimes there is a lot of inflation-
ary grading. You participated in a reasonably successful
project, and you think that you have worked with some-
body who was really great, and tend to give them good
grades. And then when you look at the whole popula-
tion, if we should just look at the grading, everybody
would have been promoted and we obviously can’t do
that. (Partner)
Another deviation in the system is evident in the way
the appraisal and evaluation procedures actually work.
According to the norm, A-sheets are written and per-
formed by project managers. However, it seems that
in practice organizational members often write their
A-sheets themselves.
I wrote my own A-sheet again at the Dairy project. I‘even
wrote the evaluation, both contribution and summary.
Then the project manager edited it somewhat. It is not
supposed to work this way, but it does. (Consultant)
The so-called banding is another example of how prac-
tice sometimes deviates from the norm. In principal the
banding process is a simple additive process of putting
together evaluations carried out during the period, in
particular the relevant A-sheets. However, A-sheets have
little direct impact on the banding process.
I was surprised when I became involved in the band-
ing process, that A-sheets meant so little. I thought they
were important but it was evident that other aspects mat-
tered more. In practice, it is recommendations and com-
ments from project managers that decide. As a freshman,
715
you think that A-sheets are the thing. A couple of good
A-sheets become a good banding. But there is no clear
connection between A-sheets and your banding. Rather,
your banding depends on what project managers think
about you. (Manager)
According to our informants at junior levels and in sup-
port functions, it is sometimes difficult to see a pattern or
specific criteria that apply for promotion to the partner
level.
[Partner promotion] has signalling effects, for example,
that the people promoted are skilled in management or
selling, or can produce the best margins or


it is a com-
municative act for the rest of us. But as an observer, you
can’t really see a natural pattern. There is no established
truth on what it takes to be a partner here



I don’t
know why Patrick became a partner and why Paul didn’t.
I don’t know what Patrick has done to qualify as a part-
ner. There is no difference in seniority. Paul appears to be
very good. Patrick appears to be very good. Why Patrick
and why not Paul? (Support staff manager)
This perception is presumably not shared by senior peo-
ple and may reflect limited insights of the part of those
not having the entire picture of people’s qualifications.
However, an observation of a meeting about promo-
tion underscores difficulties in accomplishing rationality
in the decision process. The meeting gathers about 20
senior people who discuss individuals suggested to be
considered for promotion. Due to the recession, top man-
agement has decided that a maximum of three people
can be promoted from consultant to manager at this time.
Chairperson Eva goes briefly through all 21 names on
the list and adds that in several situations the counsellors
did not recommend promotion.
Chairperson: So, as you can see, we recommend Burton,
Wally and Erik to be promoted. Burton based on his
months at level and extensive experience, Wally based
on his entrepreneurial skills combined with his ability to
interact with clients, and finally Erik based on strong go-
to-market skills and a clear profile within wireless solu-
tions. There have been concerns regarding why we do
not promote all delivery consultants at our most impor-
tant client, GlobalTech. The answer is that we would like
to promote people with different profiles. Comments?
Anton: I am at Product Ltd right now and I would
like to position Jonathan as our number one candidate.
To quote John B.: “I finally have a manager on my
team,” and I strongly oppose that we promote Wally and
Erik instead of the implementation people at GlobalTech
because these are our major revenue generators. It will
send the wrong signals in the organization.
Hulda: I agree with Anton, it would be strange not to pro-
mote the SAP people at GlobalTech. I would not know
what to say to my counselee!
Anders: I agree with Anton regarding Jonathan. And then
we have Anna, Cecily, and Clare. These three people
have sold more and managed larger projects than most
of the managers in Sweden.
 Alvesson and Kärreman: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting Firm
716
Chairperson: Can you rank them?
Anders: Well, perhaps Oskar or Anton can do that?
Oskar: Anna, Cecily, and Clare should be treated as a
group. They cannot be separated. What line of thinking
do you follow when you say that Wally and Erik should
be promoted instead of them!?
Chairperson: Dick, do you want to comment?
Dick: I have worked a lot with Wally. He is an
entrepreneur and has managed to open up a new client
for us. He is a key resource at this new client and has
managed to maintain a good relationship with the exec-
utive team. He has also continuously received very good
feedback.




Oskar: But Clare is rated higher than Wally. How does it
work? I don’t understand!
Chairperson: As you said, we cannot promote Clare
alone. Then we must promote the other GlobalTech
people.
Oskar: Then I don’t think we should promote Wally!
Chairperson: That might be the case.
Hulda: We must give credit to those selling at
GlobalTech. We should not promote Wally if we do not
promote the SAP people at GlobalTech!
George: The people who sell shall be rewarded, but
we also need to reward people that can start from
scratch with new clients. Wally has done just that and
I am extremely confident with him. I think we should
shuffle around and promote some additional people at
GlobalTech, but I’m not able to tell which.
Sixten: Wally is not as “heavy and sharp” as a few of
the GlobalTech people at the list. Do not regard Wally’s
eagerness to get promoted as a reason for promotion!
Helmut: Let me emphasize the strength of Clare! We
also need to consider Bert. He is performing very well at
GlobalTech in China.




Chairperson: Thank you for your comments.
In the meeting a wide span of different, and to
some extent conflicting, criteria for promotion are
being used, e.g., historical rating, experience (months at
level), entrepreneurial skills, loyalty with the “cash-cow
project,” client interaction, selling skills, project man-
agement skills, degree of specialization, but also more
metaphorical qualities like “heavy and sharp” and “a guy
that can walk on water” (the latter statement not being
reported in our excerpt). It was emphasized that one
must promote people working within a special area so
that people will not be discouraged from working there
in the future. A large number of different names are
put forward as most worthy of promotion. There is a
Organization Science 18(4), pp. 711–723, © 2007 INFORMS
strong tendency for people to promote those they are
closely associated with—as counsellors, project man-
agers, and/or those working in the same area. There is a
very strong political undertone during the meeting: Peo-
ple form coalitions and act in line with their own group
interests to promote their own candidates. There is no
explicit challenging of the organizational politics—being
loyal to your allies and protogees seems to be a value
embedded in the organizational culture.
Based on the chairman’s initial comments on pro-
motion of the implementation people at GlobalTech,
followed by Anton’s, Hulda’s, and Anders’s strong reac-
tions, we can see that the fact that two of three sug-
gested candidates (Wally and Erik) are picked outside
GlobalTech is something that is controversial (approxi-
mately 75% of the firm’s Industry Group work at Glob-
alTech). That might send “strange signals,” i.e., if you
are loyal, chargeable, secure continued assignments, and
work with relatively standardized tasks (SAP implemen-
tation) over a long time at our most important client, it
is not necessarily the fastest way to success!
After the meeting Burton and Wally are promoted. In
the case of Burton this seems predictable (his seniority
was not disputed), but there was little consensus about
the worth of Wally. Here it can be noted that Clare
was assessed more favourably than Wally by her project
managers during the time up to the meeting, and a large
group argued against Wally’s promotion, but neverthe-
less he was the one promoted.
Political aspects also matter in other contexts, for
example, in the tactic of junior people “teaming up” with
a senior person as a way of surviving in the firm.
The art of surviving here is to team up with a superior
who has already teamed up with his or her superior. Then
you work together. (Consultant)
Coalitions and personal interests generally play a role in
assessments, promotions, and task assignments. Senior
people want to have discretion and be able to make deci-
sions based on their personal interests and preferences
(e.g., on who to work with) without being constrained
by aggregates of previous assessments (Barlow 1989,
Longenecker et al. 1987).
There are thus many deviations from the espoused
ideals and ambitions of the HRM system. This may be
reasonable because, overall, pragmatic HRM considera-
tions, and whether this serves the firm better than try-
ing to maximise the ideal of meritocracy and trying to
reward and promote people based on competence and
performance is hard to say. Strikingly, however, and this
is why our case is of great interest, organization mem-
bers do not share the world-weary view of the HRM
systems presented above. Actually, all of our informants
tend to think that the HRM system delivers. Even dis-
senters appear convinced that the HRM system works, to
the extent that they tend to blame it for converting people
Alvesson and Kärreman: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting Firm
Organization Science 18(4), pp. 711–723, © 2007 INFORMS
into corporate clones. There is a widespread belief that
the corporate system for selection, ranking, developing,
and promotion is reliable and that the resulting hierar-
chy expresses valid differences in technical and man-
agerial competence. The elaborate formal differentiation
system is assumed to register the actual competence of
the employees.
Thus, hierarchy is valued at Excellence, not only
because it provides a unitary chain of command, but also
because it is believed to accurately express competence.
It is the meritocratic value of differentiation that makes
hierarchy—and the differences in power it expresses—
perceived as legitimate and even necessary among orga-
nizational members.
The reason why it works at Excellence is because peo-
ple get promoted, not because they have been working a
certain number of years at the firm, but because they are
ready to take the responsibility. They have the experience
and they have the competence. And, usually, you create
respect in relation to the lower levels of the organiza-
tion, and pay and economic compensation come with the
responsibility. (Partner)
In practice, it seems to be difficult not to use seniority
as an important criteria. This is illustrated by the case of
Burton above, who is seen as well worthy of promotion
“based on his months on level and extensive experience”
(chair person).
The confidence in the ability to produce, assess, and
structure competencies in a formal system is worth not-
ing. Little doubt is raised whether human capacities
are that well-ordered, transparent, and capable of being
differentiated along hierarchical lines, or whether the
assessments and other HRM operations exhibit a high
degree of rationality and precision in dealing with these
capacities. Several of our informants said, when asked
why they have applied for work at Excellence, that
employment in the firm would look good on their CVs
and make them more attractive in the labour market.
Many, in particular at higher hierarchical levels, credited
the HRM system for being responsible for the good rep-
utation of Excellence’s personnel on the labour market.
Our reputation is very good concerning our employees.
If you have five years at Excellence on your CV, then
they don’t care to look at your degree etc. They prac-
tically don’t care to look at anything at all, they just
say: “Okay, here is the job if you want it.” They know
that the quality of the people we hired is assured, and
that we have trained and developed them. This makes
our employees very attractive to everything from head-
hunters or ex-employees to, well, other consultancy firms
too, that know us quite well. (Manager)
(Other companies) know that we have rigorously tested
them (the employees) before they were offered and that
we also have developed and educated them. Our people
are very attractive. (Consultant)
717
Here it is assumed that the labour market confirms the
constructions of Excellence as an organization guaran-
teeing the reliable assessment and improvement of peo-
ple. Employment plus a few years at the firm means it is
widely recognized that you—and the HRM system—are
very good.
How can we understand this in the light of all the
reported experiences of deviations from prescribed HRM
policies and ideals? A fruitful path is to view HRM
not in objective, rational, and functional terms but as
related to organizational identity and individual identity
constructions.
HRM and Organizational Identity
Many functionalist HRM researchers believe that the
success of an HRM system is closely related to the
validity of the practices and the consistency of HRM
messages. Bowen and Ostroff (2004), for example, em-
phasize the need to establish “an unambiguous perceived
cause-effect relationship in reference to the HRM sys-
tem’s desired content-focused behaviours and associated
employee consequences” (p. 210, italics in original).
However, in our study it is clear that strong experiences
contradicting the perceived instrumentality, validity, and
consistency of HRM do not mean that employees lose
faith in the HRM system.
One reason for this is the way the HRM system
communicates and symbolizes the core identity of the
organization. Excellence employees see what is distinc-
tive and typical for the firm very much in terms of
HRM themes. One interviewee compares Excellence
with another medium-sized consultancy firm he worked
for earlier (Administrative Consulting), and emphasizes
the superiority of the former in its people development
and screening process, resulting in a very fine match
between level and capacity of people.
At Administrative Consulting, there is a hierarchy as
such, but older people, so to speak, could be in the
middle of the pyramid. And there was also people who
advanced in the organization, but who lacked the respect
and the knowledge that they should have. So already by
that time, some of the credibility of this project organi-
zation was damaged, even if there were attempts, during
my time there, to professionalize this approach. There
were a couple of seniors who didn’t perform very well.
These people don’t exist at Excellence, or at least they
are extremely rare, they just don’t stay. There is an
“up-or-out”-system. It is not brutal. People are not sacked
because they fail in a project. But over a longer period,
in one way or another, these people disappear. (Partner)
I am not familiar with any other company that puts in
so much effort in their rating and promotion processes
as we do. Imagine all the executives who are involved in
this process, twice a year, when we go through the merits
of every single person in this company! (Partner)
 Alvesson and Kärreman: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting Firm
718
In the case of Excellence, the HRM structures and prac-
tices go far beyond the requirement to follow broadly
shared myths in order to attain legitimacy (Meyer and
Rowan 1977). The firm is seen as extraordinary in
its attendance to developing and assessing employees.
Even with half of the time, energy, and costs allo-
cated to HRM, Excellence would meet expectations
on legitimacy. Compared to what Meyer and Rowan
have in mind, we can talk about excess ceremoniality.
This involves much more “intense” or “thick” mean-
ings, attention, and symbolic output than are needed
to comply with institutionalized expectations. Excess
ceremoniality refers to arrangements that gain credibil-
ity through being detached from operational efficiency,
going beyond legitimacy, and standing out as something
special, original, and superior. The concept highlights
the ceremonial underpinnings of HRM practices, such
as assessments and development. It is important to point
out that ceremony in this context does not refer to win-
dow dressing—as Meyer and Rowan’s meaning of the
term may lead us to believe. Rather, excess ceremoni-
ality draws on an anthropological understanding of cer-
emony: It points to important nonrational (or situated
rational) conduct in the face of unresolvable uncertainty,
aimed to preserve a sacred set of beliefs. The excess
ceremoniality in HRM practices creates a strong connec-
tion between organizational identity,1 individual identity
projects, and production; this connection is not created
through technical accuracy or relevance, but through the
minds and feelings of those exposed to it (living in and
through it).
Although Meyer and Rowan point at what is general
and average, the idea of organizational identity indicates
constructions of what is specific and distinct. As will
be developed below, this self-view affects employees’
identifications with the firm and their sense of who and
how they are. The HRM structures signal to external and
internal audiences that this firm knows what it is doing
and that the personnel who are promoted are thoroughly
bona fide. HRM is thus about “the creation of the orga-
nization’s view of itself” (Keenoy and Anthony 1992,
p. 238), i.e., organizational identity (see also Broms and
Gahmberg 1983, who refer to many organizational mes-
sages as autocommunication).
There is also an external side to the organization’s
view of itself: identity and image interplay (Alvesson
2004, Hatch and Schultz 2002). How others view one-
self is important for self-understanding. Why buy the
firm’s—very expensive—services? Why try extra hard to
get a job and continue in this firm? One reason would
be the beliefs in a high level of competence that the
firm develops, maintains, and then offers, indicated by
the HRM system and all the procedures, time, attention,
and energy that characterize it. In this sense, the HRM
system provides both meaning and instruction.
Organization Science 18(4), pp. 711–723, © 2007 INFORMS
A key aspect of Excellence is the claim of efficient use
of hierarchy. The HRM structures and practices, thus, do
not just legitimize hierarchy, but fuel it with value and
meaning associated with organizational identity. Why
should one willingly obey superiors, and accept sub-
ordination? It is because a lot of brainpower has been
invested in building systems that make it possible to
decide the competence of people and because an enor-
mous amount of energy goes into the activities that make
these systems work.
Hierarchy tends to have negative connotations, but I think
it has advantages. You take care of your subordinates and
your superiors are supposed to take care of you. So you
have a caring environment, which I think is good. For
me, hierarchy is not negative. It provides security. (Senior
manager)
The HRM apparatus indicates to people that they live in
an organizational world where the formal systems guar-
antee the competence of people, senior people take a lot
of responsibility for junior people, that the system is fair;
and that it is the abilities and efforts of the employees
that account for their successes or lack thereof. Being a
member of this firm is believed to confirm one’s value.
They work for a firm with a good reputation. It feels a
bit posh to work for Excellence Consulting. Eventually,
one develops a magnificent narcissist disorder, and thinks
that one is a very good person in other areas. I think
that is a satisfying feeling for younger people, “I am suc-
cessful.” And the people we recruit have always wanted
to be successful. They have always been dependent on
strokes from the environment. And they get the strokes
here. They have been A-kids since birth. (Manager)
In a sense, organizational members engage in system
justification (Jost et al. 2003, 2002; Rabinowitz 1999).
System justification occurs when “people


perform
cognitive and ideological work on behalf of the social
system to preserve the sense that authorities are fair
and legitimate” (Haines and Jost 2000, p. 222). Sys-
tem justification is typically used to explain why under-
privileged groups embrace the status quo (the working
class supporting capitalism, women supporting patri-
archy, and so on). However, this kind of system justifica-
tion is unlikely at Excellence, at least in undiluted forms,
because all positions—except the partnership level—
are perceived as transitional. Due to the blurring of
boundaries between workers/managers/owners, and the
relentless pressure—propelled by the HRM system—to
aspire to become a partner, system justification blends
seamlessly with identification, thus making system jus-
tification a central theme in identity work among orga-
nizational members.
HRM systems and rituals thus symbolize a kind of
rationality that makes compliance the only reasonable
response. It encourages a leap of trust that is called for in
settings in which there are no proofs or solid experiences
Alvesson and Kärreman: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting Firm
Organization Science 18(4), pp. 711–723, © 2007 INFORMS
indicating what to expect from the future (Möllering
2001). It allows people to rationalize their position
in a system that may appear to be old-fashioned—
particularly in the professional sector—in terms of for-
mal hierarchy and preoccupation with rules, standards,
and titles.
The Excellence people use this symbolism to help con-
struct a positive, secure view of themselves, as well as
for their organization. This means that (inter)subjectively
gratifying meanings, rather than distanced observation
and reasoning, guide construction processes. As fused
with and, in a sense “subordinated” to (a key aspect of)
organizational identity (who we are), HRM is not sub-
jected to “reality tests” (critical scrutiny) in such a way
as may be the case with issues less close to a sense of
who we are (I am).
HRM and Identity Constructions of
Individuals
Obviously, people typically draw on a variety of social
categories in doing identity work. In professional orga-
nizations like Excellence, people tend to invest a lot of
themselves in work and in their careers (Grey 1994).
Because they enter the firm after university, and do in
most cases expect to progress in the organization, the
employment in Excellence forms a basis for individual
identifications and provides cultural meanings and com-
petences for the formation of selves.
The many, frequent, and, for the individuals, important
activities associated with HRM are central here. This
is the case from a senior, as well as a junior, position.
The HRM—manifesting and reinforcing organizational
identity—affects the identity constructions through par-
ticipating in the production as well as consumption of
feedback, rankings, promotions, assignment planning,
training activities, and so on (Covaleski et al. 1998 make
a similar point about mentoring). Of course, both senior
and junior people contribute to the construction of HRM
in interactions, but people in senior positions tend to pro-
duce more feedback, advice, assessments, and decisions,
whereas junior people receive or consume their seniors’
feedback to a higher degree.
HRM as a Source of Producer Identity. Given the
significance ascribed to HRM and the frequency and
ceremonial thickness of many HRM activities like the
promotion meeting we briefly described above, these
activities offer material for identity constructions of
senior people. When people offer feedback and coun-
seling, do the ratings, and decide about promotions,
they constitute themselves as devoted facilitators, care-
takers, developers, and evaluators of others. HRM, then,
is enacted as identity projects not only for people at
the receiving end of HRM, but also at the producing
end of such activities. They may act politically, but this
is not how they construct themselves or their corporate
practices.
719
HRM as a Source of Receiver Identity. Identifica-
tion also occurs through outcomes of HRM activi-
ties and the general idea (identity) of the firm as an
ambitious competence-developing system. Individuals
are constantly worked on through feedback, evaluations,
mentoring, and allocation of increasingly demanding
work and training; this indicates a specific trajectory in
which possible (future-directed views of) selves (“I will
become


”) are also a part of their self-view (Markus
and Nurius 1986). Direction, progress, and future posi-
tions are key aspects. HRM activities and the construc-
tion of the organizational identity increase the credibility
of career steps and titles, and boost self-esteem.
The Excellence brand stands for professionalism. It
means that I’m serious and professional in my work.
I must confess that I like the aura of the Excellence
brand. I know that I was recruited to an elite and that
I am still considered to be worthy of an organization that
recruits the best students, has the best clients, and makes
a lot of money. We hire one out of hundred who apply
for work here. We have long and trying tests and evalua-
tions and I have passed them all. Excellence is successful.
We have passed ThinkIT as the most attractive employer
among students at this country’s leading business school.
(Consultant)
Of course, a large part of the personnel, the most junior
and senior excluded, are interchangeably and regularly
positioned as both producers and receivers of HRM:
They give feedback and receive it, decide on promotion
of juniors, and are subjects for the promotion decisions
of their seniors. HRM activities, then, affect identity
from two angles. HRM becomes fused with strong
identity-loaded meaning and plays an important role in
who people think they are and how they see themselves.
The Alignment of Organizational Identity
and Individual Identity Projects
Thus, in this paper, we conceptualize (high-commit-
ment) HRM as an identity-aligning project. As such, it
works as a major linking mechanism between organi-
zational identity and individual identity regulation (see
also Covaleski et al. 1998). It means organizational iden-
tity claims about what the organization stands for are
expressed in a clear, distinct, and coherent way. From
this point of view, it becomes easier to understand the
widespread cognitive dissonance on HRM matters at
Excellence—why the people at Excellence tend to cover
up and rationalize discrepancies in the HRM system.
There is simply too much at stake; the motives and social
mechanisms tend to privilege positive meanings and save
identity (at organizational and individual levels). In this
sense, the HRM system is partly secured through the
social psychology of self-serving bias (Babcock et al.
1996, Sedikides et al. 1998).
Whereas an outsider sees discrepancies in HRM prac-
tices, the insider experiences discredit to an integrated
 Alvesson and Kärreman: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting Firm
720
system of faith. In this sense, the HRM system employs
organizational identification cuing through the embed-
ding of employees within the organizational community
(Scott and Lane 2000). Excess ceremoniality fuels and
expresses organizational identity and makes it possible
for people to retain their faith despite experiences of
HRM practices deviating from the plan. The fusion of
identity and HRM make questioning the latter an unwel-
come option—it would imply also questioning oneself
and would undermine vital resources for identity con-
structions.
The HRM system not only embeds stakeholders within
the organizational community, it also is highly involved
in constituting the community, in terms of construction
of the organization and individual identity projects. This,
in combination with the ubiquitous and all-embracing
framing of HRM practices as identity-regulating tools
(feedback systems and sessions, competence develop-
ment programs, promotion, and so on), makes the pre-
scribed “reality” signified by the HRM system far more
plausible and pervasive than the run-ins organizational
members have with actual HR reality—with its share of
weak feedback, the porosity of competence claims, and
ambiguous and politicized promotions. Because HRM
as system and policy are strongly communicated in the
organization and people’s individual experiences of prac-
tices are not—they are hesitant in raising skepticism—
these experiences tend to be compartmentalized and
carry less weight for beliefs than prescribed HRM real-
ity.
HRM, thus, seems to work in ways that make organi-
zational life easier for the individuals through structur-
ing, supporting, and constraining their identity projects.
Key elements here seem to be:
• Emotional coping: uncertainty and existential an-
xiety—key issues around identity struggles (Knights and
Willmott 1989, Collinson 2003)—are being reduced but
also channeled through the ingredients of “balanced
feedback,” regulated promotion, and the use of ritualistic
form. HRM offers a clear structure for dealing with inse-
curity. Although the HRM system may lead to surprises
in practice, it provides powerful instruction on how the
world ought to work: Hard work pays off, hierarchy mir-
rors competence, and merits prevail. It provides meaning
to temporary stations for the individual’s identity project:
As a junior consultant this and this is expected, seniority
means that and that.
• Providing cognitive clues: HRM as a symbol sys-
tem and a set of practices facilitates people’s to develop-
ment of the cultural competences necessary for handling
adaption processes to the corporate career world prop-
erly; thus dealing better with emotional, relational, and
practical matters. As Swidler (1986) points out, culture
influences action not primarily by providing values and
norms, but rather by providing particular competencies
Organization Science 18(4), pp. 711–723, © 2007 INFORMS
and tools for how to manoever in a complex organiza-
tional world. In Bourdieu’s (1979) terms, HRM activities
can be viewed as concentrated lessons in the learning of
the social field in which people act, and the habitus—
cultural disposition—needed to make people appear to
operate competently in it.
• Normative ordering: in HRM discourse and practice
normative elements are being highlighted and embraced,
not just in terms of competence, hard work, and devel-
opment, but also in terms of order, structure, and so
on. This underscores communal aspects of the identity
projects, fostering a sense of solidarity and loyalty to the
firm and to colleagues. The normative ordering provided
through the HRM system makes temporary stations in
individual identity projects legitimate and meaningful,
even at subordinate levels, thus counteracting oppor-
tunism.
The alignment of identity projects clearly involves
the exercise of organizational control. However, the
main mode of control operating here differs from tradi-
tional forms of control such as behavioural, structural,
output, and normative control, as well as disciplinary
power. What is at stake here is neither time independent
like “pure” normative control (where internalized values
reach beyond time and space), nor fairly precise future
directed control as most instrumental and performance-
related motives are (where the bonus/wage raise, pro-
motion, or visible result is targeted). Here we instead
have the fusion of a sense of self (identity), the strug-
gle to maintain and improve skills, the prospect of real-
izing objectives and get (instrumental) rewards (wage
increases, rapid promotion), and the desire to comply
with and live up to a specific normative order (being a
blend of instrumental and value-oriented elements). We
label this aspirational control.2 Put bluntly, aspirational
control occurs through tying the self with a particular
career idea and prospect, linked to a prescribed identity
project, thus forming a trajectory, including a sense of
a projected self (associated with anticipated position).
The HRM part of aspirational control is supported by
material forms of power involved in the structure around
identity projects and in the exercise of aspirational con-
trol. As one interviewee remarked about problems of
raising critique,
To use a typical Excellence expression: You must be con-
structive. It means that you must contribute in a way that
leads forwards. If not, you’re seen as destructive. And
that is not good. In the end it may effect your banding
and also the wage. (Consultant)
Thus, there is careful surveillance of people express-
ing negative opinions or telling nonaffirmative stories,
and regular exercise of sovereign power—senior peo-
ple having control over promotions and other material
rewards. Thus, they are able to, both subtly and not so
subtly, prevent those who potentially obstruct the domi-
nance of this culture from doing so.
Alvesson and Kärreman: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting Firm
Organization Science 18(4), pp. 711–723, © 2007 INFORMS
Conclusion
Overall, we make three points in this paper: (1) the
actual practices of HRM can easily fall far behind and
contradict ambitious HRM objectives, ideologies, sys-
tems, and procedures; (2) HRM may feed into orga-
nizational and individual identity projects; and (3) the
success of HRM—the inclination of people to take this
seriously and ascribe positive meaning to it—is contin-
gent on social mechanisms, such as excess ceremoniality
and aspirational control, that facilitate the willing sus-
pension of disbelief. All this indicates the need to rethink
conventional ideas about HRM.
HRM researchers feel that they “now can say with
increasing confidence that HRM works” (Guest 1999,
p. 188) and they can mobilize empirical studies indi-
cating that ambitious use of HRM practices has posi-
tive effect on performances (Huselid 1995, MacDuffie
1995). Perhaps it (often) works, but how? Mainstream
HRM research views this to be a matter of the competent
realization of plans and intentions, leading to a sys-
tem characterized by instrumentality, validity, and con-
sistency (Bowen and Ostroff 2004). Our study suggests
that other mechanisms may be even more important.
It also demonstrates the usefulness of observing actual
HRM practices, rather than treating them as a black-
boxed phenomenon that reliably converts particular input
to predictable outcomes.
We have studied a large, successful management con-
sultancy firm with very ambitious HRM systems and
procedures, characterized by experiences of frequent
deviations from policies in feedback, ranking, promo-
tion, and assignment planning. Our study once again
reminds us about the difficulties of organizations ful-
filling technocratic fantasies when it comes to people
issues. It confirms the common experience of in-depth
case studies that “organizational life seldom lives up to
the facade of order it presents” (Batteau 2001, p. 728).
At Excellence, this does not prevent people from
having faith in the HRM system on a general level,
indicating discrepancies between an overall assessment
and specific experiences. This indicates that HRM may
“work,” not in a technical-rational sense, but in terms
of people sometimes using it for the constructions of
meanings, values, and orientations that help them cope
with work and develop a positive self-view, partly asso-
ciated with organizational affiliation. We thus suggest
a reconceptualization of HRM from a system of struc-
tures and practices leading to effective people processing
through techniques to a set of meanings and symbols
that organizational members draw on in producing a par-
ticular view of the organization as well as themselves.
This view means a certain selectivity and closure in how
people make sense of their experiences.
We particularly emphasize the existence and impor-
tance of excess ceremoniality. The concept suggests that
the success of the HRM system depends less on the
721
quality or rationality of the HRM arrangements, and
more on their sheer quantity and intensity and the back-
up of supportive ideologies. This empowers the HRM
system with a rich symbolic density that is highly per-
suasive. The large amount of people-processing systems
and practices circling around in the firm strongly commu-
nicates cultural meanings and values such as rationality,
improvement, effort, individualism, fairness, compliance,
order, differentiation, and transparence. This forms the
basis of what is distinctive about the organization and
how people relate to it, i.e., organizational identity.
We also suggest that HRM is instrumental in consti-
tuting and sustaining the identity projects of the employ-
ees based on these meanings. This concerns efforts of
constructing identity of individuals within the frame of
organizational identity and of HRM providing a facili-
tating and controlling structure for these projects. HRM
involvement in individual identity projects affects both
those subordinates being processed and those superiors
doing the processing. The frequent HRM activities links
ideas about the organization and the individual; they
provide points and mechanisms of identification, where
organizational identity and cultural ideas become man-
ifested and attached to the identity constructions and
aspirations of the individuals.
The symbolic significance for identity constructions
may mean that detached observations and logical rea-
soning play a limited role in the formation of beliefs.
HRM is enacted for the telling of positive stories about
the organization and its members (e.g., no other com-
pany puts so much effort in their rating and promotion
processes as we do). HRM is used by people in their
meaning constructions against the ambiguity, fragmen-
tation, and arbitrariness of the social world in general
and the consultancy work in particular. Constructions
of HRM reduce insecurity, facilitate cognitive-cultural
competence, and exhibit the normative order. From this
follows an inclination to suspend doubt about the tech-
nical efficiency of HRM practices.
The impact of the HRM systems and practices is thus
not necessarily only, or even mainly, about developing
people with potential. The impact may be as much in
terms of affecting motivation, self-confidence, and com-
pliance: We suggest that this occurs through aspira-
tional control. This is the management control aspect
of identity projects. Self-esteem becomes tightly linked
to career progress. The elaborated HRM systems make
you get what you deserve, it is assumed. There is lit-
tle socially acknowledged space for people to rationalize
failures. Apart from encouraging and maintaining high
ambitions, it thus makes it difficult to retreat from these,
at least within the specific organizational context. The
disciplinary effects are often strong when people con-
nect their self-esteem and ambitions—i.e., their identity
projects—closely to the HRM systems and the organi-
zational hierarchy.
 Alvesson and Kärreman: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting Firm
722
Acknowledgments
An early draft of this paper was presented at the 2003 Euro-
pean Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) conference,
Copenhagen. The authors thank Thomas Armbruster, Max-
ine Robertson, Graham Sewell, André Spicer, Paul Thompson,
Stacey Wieland, and Hugh Willmott, as well as Organiza-
tion Science editors David Courpasson and Linda Argote and
anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts of this
paper. The research project on which this paper is based was
funded by Jan Wallander and Tom Hedelius’ Research Foun-
dation and Vinnova.
Endnotes
1
We use terms like organizational identity, elements, and
mechanisms as metaphors and/or as economical expressions,
assuming—or at least hoping—that neither we nor the reader
falls into the trap of reification.
2
Foucauldian ideas perhaps come closest to what we are
addressing, where labelling, classification, and ranking plus
confessions and the providing of templates for being are
emphasized (e.g., Foucault 1976, 1980; Townley 1993). Aspi-
rational control, however, goes beyond this and emphasizes
the regulation of ambitions and orientations in relationship to
experiences and anticipations of a trajectory. It also empha-
sizes the blend of normative control and material rewards.
Studies of professional service firms by Covaleski et al.
(1998) and Grey (1994) point at similar aspects. Covaleski
et al. address mentoring and Management by Objectives
(MBO) as integrating individual and corporate goals, respec-
tively “realizing corporate clones when people avow organi-
zational imperatives as their own” (p. 300). Grey investigates
career orientation as a self-project. Our contribution to the
power/control literature is that we show the role of the entire
HRM system in relationship to organizational identity operat-
ing as an overall identity regulating control structure, and that
we offer the concept of aspirational control.
References
Albert, S., D. A. Whetten. 1985. Organizational identity. Research in
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 7. L. L. Cummings, B. M. Staw,
eds. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 263–295.
Alvesson, M. 1995. Management of Knowledge-Intensive Companies.
de Gruyter, New York.
Alvesson, M. 2000. Social identity and the problem of loyalty
in knowledge-intensive companies. J. Management Stud. 37
1101–1122.
Alvesson, M. 2002. Understanding Organizational Culture. Sage,
London, UK.
Alvesson, M. 2004. Knowledge Work and Knowledge-Intensive Firms.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Alvesson, M., S. Deetz. 2000. Doing Critical Management Research.
Sage, London, UK.
Alvesson, M., D. Kärreman. 2007. Constructing mystery: Empirical
matters in theory development. Acad. Management Rev. Forth-
coming.
Alvesson, M., K. Sköldberg. 2000. Reflexive Methodology. Sage,
London, UK.
Alvesson, M., H. Willmott. 2002. Producing the appropriate individ-
ual: Identity regulation as organizational control. J. Management
Stud. 39(5) 619–644.
Organization Science 18(4), pp. 711–723, © 2007 INFORMS
Asplund, J. 1970. Om undran inför samhället. Argos, Uppsala,
Sweden.
Babcock, L., X. Wang, G. Loewenstein. 1996. Choosing the wrong
pond: Social comparisons in negotiations that reflect a self-
serving bias. Quart. J. Econom. 111 1–19.
Barlow, G. 1989. Deficiencies and the perpetuation of power: Latent
functions in management appraisals. J. Management Stud. 26(5)
499–517.
Batteau, A. 2001. Negations and ambiguities in the cultures of orga-
nizations. Amer. Anthropologist 102(4) 726–740.
Beer, M., B. Spector, P. R. Lawrence, D. Quinn Mill, R. E. Walton.
1984. Managing Human Assets. The Free Press, New York.
Bourdieu, P. 1979. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bowen, D., C. Ostroff. 2004. Understanding HRM-firm performance
linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Acad.
Management Rev. 29(2) 203–221.
Boxall, P., M. Steeneveld. 1999. Human resource strategy and com-
petitive advantage: A longitudinal study of engineering consul-
tants. J. Management Stud. 36(4) 443–463.
Broms, H., H. Gahmberg. 1983. Communication to self in organiza-
tions and cultures. Admin. Sci. Quart. 28(3) 482–495.
Brown, A. 1995. Organizational Culture. Pitman, London, UK.
Cohen, A. 1974. Two-Dimensional Man. An Essay in the Anthropol-
ogy of Power and Symbolism in Complex Society. Routledge and
Kegan Paul, London, UK.
Collinson, D. 2003. Identities and insecurities. Organization 10(3)
527–547.
Covaleski, M., et al. 1998. The calculated and the avowed: Tech-
niques of discipline and struggles over identity in Big Six public
accounting firms’. Admin. Sci. Quart. 43 293–327.
Czarniawska, B. 1992. Exploring Complex Organizations. Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Deetz, S. 1998. Discursive formations, strategized subordination, and
self-surveillance. A. McKinley, K. Starkey, eds. Foucault, Man-
agement, and Organization Theory. Sage, London, UK.
Deetz, S. 2003. Disciplinary power, conflict suppression, and human
resource management. M. Alvesson, H. Willmott, eds. Studying
Management Critically. Sage, London, UK.
Delaney, J. T., M. A. Huselid. 1996. The impact of human resource
management practices on perceptions of organizational perfor-
mance. Acad. Management J. 39 949–969.
Dingwall, R. 1997. Accounts, interviews, and observations. G. Miller,
R. Dingwall, eds. Context and Method in Qualitative Research.
Sage, London, UK.
Dunne, J. 1996. Beyond sovereignty and deconstruction: The storied
self. R. Kearney, ed. Paul Ricoeur. The Hermeneutics of Action.
Sage, London, UK.
Dutton, J., J. Dukerich, C. Harquail. 1994. Organizational images and
member identification. Admin. Sci. Quart. 43 293–327.
Eisenberg, E., P. Riley. 2001. Organizational culture. F. Jablin,
L. Putnam, eds. New Handbook of Organizational Communica-
tion. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Foucault, M. 1976. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1. Pantheon,
New York.
Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other
Writings 1972–1977. Pantheon, New York.
Foucault, M. 1988. Technologies of the self. L. H. Martin, H. Gutman,
P. H. Hutton, eds. Technologies of the Self. University of
Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA.
Alvesson and Kärreman: Identity, Ceremony, and Control in a Management Consulting Firm
Organization Science 18(4), pp. 711–723, © 2007 INFORMS
Frost, P. J., L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, J. Martin. 1985. Orga-
nizational Culture. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Geertz, C. 1973. Interpretations of Culture. Basic Books, New York.
Gioia, D. A., M. Schultz, K. G. Corley. 2000. Organizational iden-
tity, image, and adaptive instability. Acad. Management Rev. 25
63–81.
Grey, C. 1994. Career as a project of the self and labour process
discipline. Sociology 28 479–497.
Guest, D. 1999. Human resource management and performance:
A review and research agenda. R. Schuler, S. Jackson, eds.
Strategic Human Resource Management. Blackwell, Oxford,
UK, 263–276.
Haines, E. L., J. T. Jost. 2000. Placating the powerless: Effects of
legitimate and illegitimate explanation on affect, memory, and
stereotyping. Soc. Justice Res. 13 219–236.
Hatch, M. J., M. Schultz. 2002. The dynamics of organizational iden-
tity. Human Relations 55 989–1018.
Huselid, M. A. 1995. The impact of human resource management
practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial per-
formance. Acad. Management J. 38 635–672.
Huselid, M. A., S. E. Jackson, R. S. Schuler. 1997. Technical and
strategic human resource management effectiveness as determi-
nants of firm performance. Acad. Management J. 40 171–188.
Iles, P., G. Salaman. 1995. Recruitment, assessment, and selection
J. Storey, ed. Human Resource Management—A Critical Text.
Thomson Learning, London, UK.
Jackall, R. 1988. Moral Mazes. The World of Corporate Managers.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Jackson, S., R. Schuler. 1995. Understanding human resource man-
agement in the context of organizations and their environment.
Annual Rev. Psych. 46 237–264.
Jost, J. T., B. W. Pelham, M. R. Carvallo. 2002. Non-conscious forms
of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for
higher status groups. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 38 586–602.
Jost, J. T., B. W. Pelham, O. Sheldon, B. N. Sullivan. 2003. Social
inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf
of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among
the disadvantaged. Eur. J. Soc. Psych. 33 13–36.
Keenoy, T., P. Anthony. 1992. HRM: Metaphor, meaning, and moral-
ity. P. Blyton, P. Turnbull, eds. Reassessing Human Resource
Management. Sage, London, UK.
Knights, D., H. Willmott. 1989. Power and subjectivity at work. Soci-
ology 23(4) 535–558.
Kunda, G. 1992. Engineering Culture. Control and Commitment in a
High-Tech Corporation. Temple University Press, Philadelphia,
PA.
Legge, K. 2005. Human resource management. S. Ackroyd, R. Batt,
P. Thompson, P. S. Tolbert, eds. Oxford Handbook of Work and
Organization Studies. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Lengnick-Hall, C., M. Lengnick-Hall. 1988. Strategic human resource
management: A review of the literature and a proposed typology.
Acad. Management Rev. 13(3) 454–470.
Longenecker, C., D. Gioia, H. Sims. 1987. Behind the mask: The pol-
itics of employee appraisal. Acad. Management Executive 1(3)
183–193.
Löwendahl, B. 1997. Strategic Management in Professional Ser-
vice Firms. Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen,
Denmark.
723
MacDuffie, J. P. 1995. Human resource bundles and manufacturing
performance: Organizational logic and flexible production sys-
tems in the world auto industry. Indust. Labor Relations Rev.
48(2) 197–221.
Maister, D. 1993. Managing the Professional Service Firm. Free
Press, New York.
Marchington, M., I. Grugulis. 2000. “Best practice” human resource
management: Perfect opportunity or dangerous illusion? Inter-
nat. J. Human Resource Management 11 905–925.
Markus, H., P. Nurius. 1986. Possible selves. Amer. Psychologist 41
954–969.
Martin, J. 1992. The Culture of Organizations. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Meyer, J., B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: Formal
structure as myth and ceremony. Amer. J. Sociol. 83 340–363.
Möllering, G. 2001. The nature of trust: From Georg Simmel to a
theory of expectation, interpretation, and suspension. Sociology
35(2) 403–420.
O’Shea, J., C. Madigan. 1998. Dangerous Firm. Management Con-
sultancies and the Businesses They Save and Ruin. Penguin,
Harmondsworth, UK.
Pfeffer, J. 1994. Competitive Advantage Through People. Harvard
Business Press, Boston, MA.
Purcell, J. 1999. Best practice and best fit: Chimera or cul-de-sac?
Human Resource Management J. 9(3) 26–41.
Rabinowitz, J. L. 1999. Go with the flow or fight the power? The
interactive effects of social dominance orientation and perceived
injustice on support for the status quo. Political Psych. 20 1–24.
Scott, S. G., V. R. Lane. 2000. A stakeholder approach to organiza-
tional identity. Acad. Management Rev. 25 43–62.
Sedikides, C., K. W. Campbell, G. D. Reeder, A. J. Elliot. 1998. The
self-serving bias in relational context. J. Personality Soc. Psych.
74 378–386.
Smircich, L. 1983a. Studying organizations as cultures. G. Morgan,
ed. Beyond Method. Strategies for Social Research. Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Smircich, L. 1983b. Implications for management theory. L. Putnam,
M. Pacanowsky, eds. Communication and Organizations. An
Interpretive Approach. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Steffy, B., A. Grimes. 1992. Personnel/organizational psychology—A
critique of the discipline. M. Alvesson, H. Willmott, eds. Criti-
cal Management Studies. Sage, London, UK.
Sveningsson, S., M. Alvesson. 2003. Managing managerial identities:
Organizational fragmentation, discourse, and identity struggle.
Human Relations 56(10) 1163–1193.
Swidler, A. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. Amer.
Sociol. Rev. 51 273–286.
Tichy, N., C. Fombrun, M. Devanna. 1982. Strategic human resource
management. Sloan Management Rev. 23(2) 47–61.
Townley, B. 1994. Reframing Human Resource Management. Sage,
London, UK.
Townley, B. 1999. Practical reason and performance appraisal.
J. Management Stud. 36(3) 287–306.
Tyson, S. 1995. Human Resource Strategy: Towards a General Theory
of HRM. Pitman, London, UK.
Van Maanen, J., G. Kunda. 1989. “Real feelings”: Emotional expres-
sion and organizational culture. B. M. Staw, L. L. Cummings,
eds. Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 11. JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT.
Watson, T. 2004. HRM and critical social science analysis. J. Man-
agement Stud. 41 447–467.