Individual‐level Foci of Identification at Work: A Systematic Review of the Literature

• Published date: 01 July 2017
• Author: Roxanne Kutzer,Doyin Atewologun,Elena Doldor,Deirdre Anderson,Ruth Sealy
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12148
• Date: 01 July 2017

International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 19, 273–295 (2017)

DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12148

Individual-level Foci of Identification

at Work: A Systematic Review of the

Literature

Doyin Atewologun, Roxanne Kutzer,1Elena Doldor,2Deirdre Anderson3

and Ruth Sealy4

School of Business and Management, Queen Mary, University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK, 1Cranfield School of

Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, MK43 0AL, UK, 2School of Business and Management, Queen Mary,

University of London, London, E1 4NS, UK, 3Lincoln International Business School, University of Lincoln, Brayford

Pool, Lincoln, LN6 7TS, UK, and 4University of Exeter Business School, Exeter EX4 4PU, UK

Email: a.o.atewologun@qmul.ac.uk

This paper presents a systematic literature review of individual-level targets (or foci)

of identification, that is, the bases by which one derives a sense of self as a unique

being in the context of work. We reviewed 253 articles from over 30 top management

journals between 2005 and 2016. In examining focitypes, definitions, underpinning the-

oretical and philosophical assumptions, we catalogue nine categoriesof individual-level

identification foci (manager, leader, follower, team, organization, occupation-specific,

professional, career and work), finding a dominance of functionalist meta-theoretical

orientations (comprising over half the sample, with interpretivist approachescompris-

ing about a third of studies). Further, we enhance construct clarity in the field; we

identify conceptual challenges with extant definitions of key foci, and offer integrative

definitions by specifying scope conditions for each identity focus and semantic relation-

ships between various identity foci. We contextualize our discussion of construct clarity

to different research orientations in the field and offer possibilities for theoretical de-

velopments therein. Third, we offer an integrative framework for positioning work in

the field by scope of interest (identity content or context) and identity construction

assumptions (stable or evolving), suggesting directionsfor future research.

Introduction

‘Identity’ is an individual’s self-definition (Ashforth

and Schinoff 2016) and answer to the question ‘who

am I?’ (Cerulo 1997). ‘Identification’ is commonly

used to denote the process through which individu-

als come to define who they are, through identifying

with a target. Bases for identification include occupa-

tion (Ashforth et al. 2013), profession (Bolton et al.

The authors are grateful to the editorial team of this special

issue (Sandra Corlett, Christine Coupland,Peter McInnes and

Matthew Sheep) for their guidance and support throughout

the review process. The authors also thank the anonymous

reviewers for their constructive feedback on earlier versions

of this manuscript.

2011), career (McArdle et al. 2007), and leadership

role (Petriglieri and Stein 2012). Identification can

also mean the state of being identified; it is thus con-

ceived as both a verband a noun (Ashfor th et al. 2008;

Ashforth and Schinoff 2016). Thus, one develops a

sense of oneself as a professional (i.e. professional

identity) as one progressively identifies with the pro-

fession (i.e. identification with the profession). In

both cases, ‘profession’ is the identity target.

Studies of individual-levelidentities and identifica-

tion in organizations utilize a multitude of constructs

that are variably defined and implemented (Alvesson

et al. 2008; Brown 2015). While concept prolifer-

ation adds rich empirical insights to the field, this

can lead to missed opportunities to identify how

C2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Publishedby John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Garsington

Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

274 D. Atewologun et al.

different foci conceptually relate to each other. For

example, Ladge et al. (2012) apply the term ‘pro-

fessional identity’ to the work-related identities of

an entrepreneur, a manager and a consultant with-

out explaining how these three different roles can be

categorized together under this term. Arguably, lack

of construct clarity hinders theory development and

precludes dialogue across different meta-theoretical

perspectives and research streams (Alvesson et al.

2008). Different research designs and theoretical per-

spectives can lead to richer and deeper understand-

ing in the field, but only if there is shared meaning,

which results from clear concept definitions (Suddaby

2010).

To advance construct clarity within the field, this

paper provides a systematic literature review(SLR) of

the management literature on work-related individual

identity targets. Specifically, we examine individual-

level foci of identification; that is, the bases by which

one derives a sense of self as a unique being in the

work context.

We categorizethe labels and ter ms used to explore

the myriad targets – referred to as ‘individual-level

foci of identification’ and ‘individual-level identity

foci’ (dependent on term used) – by which individuals

conceive of themselves at work. This includes rela-

tional and collective identity targets (e.g. follower and

team) where researchers position these as bases for

constructing an individual’s sense of self at work. The

following questions informed our SLR: (1) Which

individual-level identity foci related to work are in-

vestigated in management and organization studies

and how are these defined? (2) What are the under-

pinning meta-theoretical, theoretical and philosophi-

cal assumptions of studies examining individual-level

identity foci? (3) Which methodologies are used to

research these identity foci?

Our contribution is three-fold. First, we categorize

extant research into nine individual-level identifica-

tion foci within the work context. In cataloguing def-

initions and underpinning theoretical/philosophical

assumptions, we update work by Alvesson et al.

(2008) and Brown (2015). Second, we discuss con-

struct clarity in relation to various meta-theoretical

traditions in identity studies and offer integrative def-

initions, by drawing on Suddaby’s (2010) criteria for

construct clarity: clear and parsimonious definitions,

scope conditions (when and where does an identity

focus apply?), and semantic relationships with other

related constructs (how does the focus relate logi-

cally to other foci?). Third, we offer an integrative

framework to map the field through overt attention

to the scope of interest and underlying assumptions.

This framework informs future research agendas by

enabling researchers to conceptually and empirically

position work in the field with greater precision and

by identifying prospective theoretical or methodolog-

ical challenges therein.

This paper’s structure is as follows. We present the

SLR methodology, before examining the individual-

level identity foci in the context of work,from nar row

scope (e.g. leader) to broad (e.g. career); and then

identifying approaches to studying the foci in terms

of meta-theoretical perspectives suggested by our re-

view. Our discussion offers integrative definitions to

enhance concept clarity for key identity foci. Finally,

we propose an integrative framework for positioning

and informing future research agendas on focal iden-

tities before concluding the paper with limitations and

directions for further study.

Methodology

A systematic review enables us to locate, select, eval-

uate and synthesize extant studies in a rigorous and

replicable manner, leading to clear conclusions about

what is known and not known in the field (Denyer

and Tranfield 2009). This methodical and transparent

process is ideally suited for analysing and cataloguing

the vast and heterogeneous organizational literature

on identity. The process is outlined in Figure 1.

Conceptual boundaries and data collection

As recommended by McWilliams et al. (2005) our

search strategy focused on peer-reviewedpapers iden-

tified through electronic searches in major academic

databases, specifically, ABI, Ebsco and PsycINFO,

organizational/general psychology and management

databases. To set review boundaries on a vast and

quickly expanding literature (Denyer and Tranfield

2009), we limited our search to peer-reviewed arti-

cles published over the last 12 years (January 2005–

December 2016). This captures the time following a

period of growing popularity of research on individ-

ual identities at work (Kirpal 2004). We limited our

search to studies in peer-reviewed journals ranked 3

or 4 in the ABS 2015 journals list as focusing on

top-tier journals remains a frequently used method

for capturing research trends and scholarly debates

in a field while conducting literature reviews (e.g.

Radaelli and Sitton-Kent 2016). To locate terms used

by researchers to describe how individuals identify

C2017 British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.