Sloan School of Management Working Paper 4291-02 December 2002 Robust Identities or NonEntities ? Typecasting in the Feature Film Labor Market

We provide a framework for reconciling two seemingly incompatible claims regarding identity in social and economic arenas: (a) that complex, multivalent identities are advantageous because they afford greater flexibility; and (b) that simple, generic identities are advantageous because they facilitate interpretation by key audiences. Following Faulkner (1983), we argue that these claims do not conflict with one another but that they apply to different contexts. A generic identity is helpful in gaining the recognition necessary for sustained participation in a social arena. However, as one becomes better established, the limitations entailed by a simple, “typecast” identity increasingly rival the benefits. We test these hypotheses in an analysis of the labor market for actors in the feature film industry. Interviews with key informants and analysis of comprehensive data from the Internet Movie Database support the proposed theoretical framework. In addition, the evidence supports the salience of the hypothesized typecasting processes even in the presence of related processes based on underlying skill differences and social networks. Our results have important implications for research on identity formation in various social arenas, categorical boundaries in external labor markets, and more generally, the interplay between actor and position inherent in market dynamics. Robust Identities or Non-Entities? 1 An agent/casting director sees too many resumes and headshots to avoid immediately classifying the person in his mind. I’ll be honest: there is no real thought going into this. Do you fit? Fine. Not? Fine. People are traded and paraded. —Hollywood talent agent Introduction Is it better to have a simple identity or one that is more complex? The influential notion of “robust action” suggests that assuming a well-defined identity is problematic because it lowers an actor’s freedom of action (Padgett and Ansell 1993; cf., Leifer 1988, 1991; Stark 1996). As personified by Cosimo DeMedici in Padgett and Ansell’s account (1993: 1262-1265), actors who have multivocal identities, in that they could potentially be associated with multiple roles or groups, retain flexibility in responding to interactants whose more narrowly defined identities induce commitments to restricted lines of action. Earlier versions of this idea may be found in role theory and symbolic interactionism. For example, Goffman introduced the concept of role distance to describe how a role occupant may demonstrate that her identity is not fully encapsulated in the role (Goffman 1961). Similarly, labeling theory (e.g., Becker 1973) is predicated on a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby the application of an (negative) identity tag to an individual restricts his or her ability to act in a way that is inconsistent with that attribution. Conversely, successful avoidance of a label means that one may potentially be accepted in other (positively valued) roles. Whereas simple identities introduce constraints on future courses of action, complex identities entail greater flexibility and therefore seem preferable. But this conclusion runs counter to theories that analyze the sources of order in markets and organizational fields. As Zuckerman points out (1999: 1403), common to such different perspectives as neoinstitutionalism (Meyer and Rowan 1977; DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Scott 2001), White’s market model (White 2002), and marketing theory (e.g., Bronnenberg and Vanhonacker 1996; Urban, Hulland, and Weinberg 1993) is the assumption that actors face pressure to demonstrate adherence to the forms, roles, 1 The idea that multivalence is beneficial is also related to the theme in the network and exchange-theoretic traditions that brokerage-i.e., being able to bridge between divergent constituencies-provides negotiating leverage (e.g., Burt 1980; 1982; 1992; Cook, Emerson, Gillmore, and Yamagishi 1983; Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). Robust Identities or Non-Entities? 2 or categories that guide valuation. Each of these theories implies that an actor who defies prevailing socio-cognitive frames risks sowing confusion among relevant audiences, thereby producing social penalties in the form of disattention or outright rejection (Zuckerman 1999; see also Polos, Hannan, and Carroll 2002). As a result, actors are pressured to conform in a way that may be purely symbolic (Meyer and Rowan 1977) but may include substantive change as well (e.g., Zuckerman 2000). By trying to broaden their identity to include multiple and diverse roles, actors thus risk being devalued and even rejected. As such, it may be preferable to assume a simple, generic