ABSTRACT
Organisational Identity Introduction Over the last few years, interest in concepts of organisational identity has grown among social scientists.1 The literature is expanding rapidly. The concept of organisational identity has even found its way into textbooks.2 However, although the idea of organisational identity has been subjected to much scrutiny and debate, definitions and conceptualisations of the topic remain essentially contested.3 On the basis of our theory of organisation as an autopoietic system we can offer a new understanding of organisational identity, in which other concepts of identity can be integrated. Here, identity is conceptualised as constructed by the organisation in a dynamic self-referential process. This is a ‘genetic’ perspective on identity that is primarily concerned with the process of production of selfdescription and only secondarily with its form and content. In the first section of this chapter we will give a general overview of different concepts of organisational identity in the relevant literature. In the second section we will explore new concepts of identity based on an understanding of organisations as autopoietic systems. We will focus particularly on the concept of organisational self-description as an organisation’s description of its own unity. In the third section we will differentiate between various forms of self-descriptions and in the last section we will analyse the phenomenon of multiple selfdescriptions. 1. Concepts of Organisational Identity in the Literature The literature on organisational identity can roughly be divided into three groups:4 corporate identity, substantive identity, and reflective identity. Each of them is concerned with a different identity question. The first one addresses the question: how does the organisation present itself as a unified and distinguishable system to its different audiences? The second one poses the question: what is the unity of the
1 On the topics discussed in this chapter see Seidl (2003a). 2 E.g. Hatch (1997). 3 Cf. Albert (1998). See also the exchange of views between Cornelissen (2002a; 2002b) and Gioia and colleagues (2002a; 2002b); Haslam et al. (2003).
