Conceptual Expansion into Organizational Identity Change

IntroductionOrganizational identity is a self-awareness in the face of the question "who are we? " Albert and Whetten (1985) published a study that incorporated the concept of organizational identity into the field of business management, and showed that among the countless characteristics of organizations, there are three criteria for organizational identity. The three criteria proposed by Albert and Whetten (1985) are often expressed using one word for each criterion: (a) central, (b) distinctive, and (c) enduring.Table 1 summarizes how the three criteria suggested by Albert and Whetten (1985) are expressed in a well-known paper by Sato (2013a) that cited Albert and Whetten (1985) in a research review on organizational identity. Albert and Whetten (1985) used the words "central," "distinctive," and "enduring" (Albert & Whetten, 1985, p. 265); hence, the same set of expressions is often used in other papers.The expressions (a) central, (b) distinctive, and (c) enduring reinforce the traditional image of identity as being (a) unparalleled, (b) unique, and (c) unchanging over time. For example, the representative work on social identification by Ashforth and Mael (1989) cites Albert and Whetten (1985) as follows. "Albert and Whetten (1985) argued that an organization has an identity to the extent there is a shared understanding of the central, distinctive, and enduring character or essence of the organization among its members. " (Albert & Whetten, 1985, p. 27). Ashforth and Mael (1989) intentionally use the singular forms of "an identity" and "a shared understanding. " Thus, Ashforth and Mael (1989) understand organizational identity as a single thing in the theory of organizational identity explained by Albert and Whetten (1985), following a traditional image of identity.However, the true assertion of Albert and Whetten (1985) in regard to organizational identity is (a') claimed central character (if identities are stated, several identities may exist and not just one), (b') claimed distinctiveness (if a comparison with others and self-classification can be performed, then an identity need not be unique), and (c') claimed temporal continuity (if an identity has continuity, it may change over time). This means that (a) central, (b) distinctive, and (c) enduring are an expansion of the traditional criteria, and by using the expanded criteria, the concept of identity can be extended to organizations. This should be understood as an attempt to enable the analysis of organizational identity, in particular the analysis of organizational identity change.As is shown in Table 1, it may be convenient to express the three criteria for organizational identity demonstrated by Albert and Whetten (1985) by using one word for each criterion. However, even if we assume that later researchers had a proper understanding of the assertions of Albert and Whetten (1985), because these criteria are cited using just one word for each, the original meaning of these criteria are left described in the most abstract terms. In some cases, it may be possible that they are misunderstood, as they overlap with the traditional definition of image (i.e., unparalleled, unique, and unchanging) to identity.For example, while "claimed distinctiveness" in Albert and Whetten (1985) includes the concept of self-classification, the single word "distinctiveness" does not connote self-classification. In addition, Albert and Whetten (1985) assumed that organizational identity may change over time, and they explained the continuity of change as "claimed temporal continuity. " The single word "enduring" carries no such connotation of continuity.In this study, we reconsider the examples used by Albert and Whetten (1985) and confirm in what manner the three criteria of organizational identity have been expanded upon.Claimed Central CharacterOne criterion of organizational identity is a "claimed central character. …