1.how does organizational identification

Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.

How Does Organizational Identification Form? A Consumer Behavior PerspectiveAuthor(s): Melea Press and Eric J. ArnouldReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 38, No. 4 (December 2011), pp. 650-666Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660699 .Accessed: 30/01/2012 15:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research.

http://www.jstor.org

650

2011 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. Vol. 38 December 2011All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2011/3804-0005$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/660699

How Does Organizational IdentificationForm? A Consumer Behavior Perspective

MELEA PRESSERIC J. ARNOULD

This article takes a consumer behavior perspective to investigate how constituentscome to identify with organizations. Using longitudinal and cross-sectional interviewdata collected in two contexts (one consumer and one employee), the data illustratethat constituents engage with two conduits, one formal and one informal. Theseconduits provide opportunities for sensegiving, which features normative elementsparticular to an organization, and sensemaking, an integrative process in whichproductive consumption plays a key role. Three paths (epiphany, emulation, andexploration) leading from these conduits to identification are defined and explored.Second, this article reveals dynamic consequences of identification for both cus-tomer and employee constituents, including changes in their consumer values andbehaviors extending beyond organizational concerns. Finally, this article defendsthe merit of softening hard conceptual distinctions drawn between consumers andemployees, as the findings show that identification forms in parallel fashion withsimilar outcomes across a consumer-to-firm and an employee-to-firm context.

Denvers iconic Tattered Cover bookstore scheduled amove to a new location over a weekend. Almost 300loyal customers arrived unbidden at the old store on a Sat-urday afternoon to help pack and move the books. The movetook 30 hours and was completed in time for the new storeto open promptly on the following Monday morning. Thefree labor and consumer goodwill that benefited Tattered Cov-er is now flaunted on their Web site (http://www.tatteredcover.com/). This example illustrates the benefits beyond sales oremployee productivity that organizations can reap whenconsumers develop a deep connection to them (Handelman

Melea Press ([email protected]) is assistant professor of marketingand sustainable business practices, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY82071; Eric J. Arnould ([email protected]) is distinguished professorof sustainable business practices, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY82071, and adjunct visiting professor, Southern Denmark University, 55Campusvej, 5230 Odense C, Denmark. Correspondence: Melea Press. Thisarticle is based on the first authors dissertation research conducted atPennsylvania State University. The first author would like to thank WilliamT. Ross Jr. for his support. The authors would also like to thank FleuraBardhi, David Crockett, Jenny Mish, and Markus Giesler for feedback onearlier drafts and Risto Moisio for stimulating ideas about productive con-sumption. In addition, the authors would like thank the reviewers andeditors for their many helpful suggestions.

John Deighton served as editor and Soren Askegaard served as associateeditor for this article.Electronically published May 11, 2011

2006; Riketta 2005). In consumer research, this connectionhas been termed identification. But, how does identificationdevelop, and what are the consequences for organizationalconstituents? These are the initial questions that animate ourresearch and lead us to an investigation of the process oforganizational identification in two contexts.

LITERATURE REVIEWReflecting on the vast literature on organizational identifi-cation, Pratt (1998, 172) wrote that of all of the centralquestions of organizational identification, the one that hasprobably received the least attention by organizational schol-ars has been, How does organizational identification oc-cur? Ten years later, reflecting on an even larger literature,Ashforth, Harrison, and Corley (2008, 346) contend thatresearch on the process of identification is a low-hangingfruit for future research. In this article, we begin to unpackthis identification process.

Defining Organizational IdentificationEarly psychological research conceptualized identifica-

tion as a process in which an individual tries to emulateanother, becomes part of a group, or takes on a specificcause (Kagan 1958; Kelman 1958) and by which personalityis changed (Sanford 1955). More recently, organizationalidentification has been discussed primarily as a cognitiveconstructfocusing on the perception of unity between the

HOW ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION FORMS 651

self and the organization, a sense that one belongs in anorganization (Ashforth and Mael 1989)and as congruencebetween personal and organizational attributes (Dutton,Dukerich, and Harquail 1994). Identification has largelybeen studied as a state of being, which has led researchersto assess [it] as existing solely in individuals at particularpoints in time. . . . [This] offer[s] little opportunity forunderstanding the dynamics of the individual-organizationrelationship (Cheney 1983, 345). A few exceptions to thisstatic approach exist in the conceptual literature (e.g., Bhat-tacharya and Sen 2003; Dutton et al. 1994; Pratt 2000), butoverwhelmingly, identification is measured as an outcomevariable employing the Mael and Ashforth (1992; Riketta2005) scale. This measurement approach does not bring tolight how identification forms. While some scholars rec-ognize that identification is both a process and a state, fewgo beyond proposing that identification is a state that iscontinually . . . created and recreated (Ashforth and Mael1989, 20; Burke 1973). Some scholars suggest that iden-tification is the process of emerging identity. Identification,especially as expressed in symbolic terms, represents theforging, maintenance, and alteration of linkages betweenpersons and groups (Larson and Pepper 2003, 530). Thus,identification as a process is acknowledged, but how iden-tification actually occurs is not elaborated, and in practiceit is measured statically. As a consequence, the process ofidentification formation and the constituent perspective inthis process have been largely ignored. This article helps torectify these omissions.

Consumer IdentificationPrior research has acknowledged that consumers may

identify with organizations. In consumer culture theory,most research takes consumer identification as a startingpoint for the exploration of other issues (e.g., Muniz andSchau 2005; Schau, Muniz, and Arnould 2009; Schoutenand McAlexander 1995; Thompson and Coskuner-Balli2007); some reduces discussion of the processes that leadto identification to a dispassionate information quest (Ba-gozzi and Dholakia 2006). Prior brand community researchrecognizes that further work is needed to discover why andhow identification forms, including the facilitating conduitsto identification once interest is sparked (see Schau, Muniz,and Arnould 2009). This article aims to identify such con-duits.

Other research highlights a specific service encounter orpivotal experience that sparks greater participation or orga-nizational engagement (e.g., Kozinets 2002; McAlexander,Schouten, and Koenig 2002), but there has been no discus-sion of how these transformative events lead to identificationas defined above. We hope to show that personal transfor-mations in consumer values and behaviors occur throughidentification and, in addition, can occur in mundane set-tings.

In managerially oriented consumer research, identificationis treated as antecedent to outcomes of value to organizations(e.g., Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn 1995; Dutton et al.

1994; Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, and Maxham 2010; Maeland Ashforth 1992). Here, we examine the process of iden-tification formation in terms of behavioral and material di-mensions, while bringing constituent-focused outcomes inorganizational and nonorganizational roles into view.

Several conceptual papers have speculated that constit-uents evaluate various aspects of an organization on the basisof the perceived similarity between constituents and theorganizations identities (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003) andthat constituents recognize and evaluate traits they desire tohave in the organization (Dutton et al. 1994). We agree thatattraction to an organization can be based on recognizedsimilarities or aspirational traits, but we hope to show em-pirically that constituents recognition of organizational iden-tity is not necessarily antecedent to attraction but developsover time through the narrative processes of sensegivingand sensemaking (Ashforth et al. 2008; Gioia and Chitti-peddi 1991; Weick 1995). And we suggest that productiveconsumption may be useful in understanding how organi-zational identification unfolds.

The Organizational Identification ProcessManagement contributes the bulk of literature on identi-

fication and offers us tools to address questions of organi-zational identification in consumer as well as employee con-texts. At a general level, scholars point out that organizationalidentification may affect constituents in both their role-di-rected behaviors and their extrarole behaviors (Ahearne,Bhattacharya, and Gruen 2005), presumably then includingtheir consumer roles. At the same time, driven by motivesof self fulfillment . . . market-oriented organizational re-forms often serve to turn employees into each others cus-tomers . . . to take on the role of both customer and serverin the workplace (du Gay 1996, 13940). That is, somepapers suggest that some managerial practices erode thedistinction between contemporary consumer and employeeroles. Thus, we may expect both that organizational iden-tification may affect some consumer behaviors and that someconsumption processes may contribute to organizationalidentification, whether in consumer-to-organization or em-ployee-to-organization contexts.

Sensegiving and Sensemaking. Management scholarsrecognize that communication between organizations andconstituents should be key to identification (e.g., Ashforthet al. 2008; Weick 1995). The concepts of sensegiving andsensemaking they use have not been explicitly employed inconsumer research (Weick 1995), but these terms encompassorganizational constituents interpretive activities. Sensegiv-ing refers to the communicative process of influencing themeaning construction of constituents about a preferred or-ganizational reality (Gioia and Chittipeddi 1991, 442). Sense-giving provides constituents material to recognize how tobehave in the organization (Ashforth et al. 2008). In a con-ceptual piece, Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) speculate thatconsumers identify with an organization through company-related rites, rituals, and routines (82) communicated through

652 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

sensegiving devices that originate inside (e.g., annual reports,company meetings) versus outside (media reports, customerreports) the firm. Sensemaking is about meaning construc-tion among constituents as they attempt to develop a frame-work for understanding their organizational environmentthrough informal channels. The sensemaking construct par-allels the interpretive work consumers undertake to makesense of brands, marketing communications, service per-sonnel, and firms (Fournier 1998). With regard to identifi-cation, sensemaking can be observed through dress, officedecor, performances, and behaviors that conform to normsof identity and organizational citizenship (Ashforth et al.2008). In sum, sensegiving flows primarily from the orga-nization to constituents, while sensemaking is a communi-cative interplay between an organization and its constituents,among constituents, and even within individual constituents.It may affect identification formation in different ways thansensegiving (DiSanza and Bullis 1999; Gioia and Chitti-peddi 1991). In the management literature, both sensegivingand sensemaking have been conceived in primarily narrativerather than behavioral and material terms. We will suggestthat sensegiving and sensemaking provide facilitating be-havioral conduits through which organizational identifica-tion can occur.

Productive Consumption. The concept of constituentsproductive consumption lends insight into the behavioraland material dimensions of identification. The contributionof organizations and customers to producing shared valuethrough commercial exchange is increasingly recognized.Customers bring their own purpose and projects to an or-ganizations product offerings, which is what makes theproduct and the organization useful and meaningful to them(Franke and Schreier 2006; Schau, Muniz, and Arnould2009). The foundational idea of productive consumption orig-inates with Mill (1884), who argued that productive con-sumption goes to maintain and increase the productive pow-ers of the community; either those residing in its soil, in itsmaterials, in the number and efficiency of its instruments ofproduction or in its people (61; emphasis added). Consistentwith Mills formulation that recognizes a role for enjoy-ment, productive consumption refers to sense and value mak-ing that blurs the boundaries between work and leisure (Schau,Gilly, and Wolfinbarger 2009). Productive consumption issimilar to Stebbinss (1982) concept of serious leisure, whichalso recognizes the blurring of work and leisure that emergesin relation to consumer identity and lifestyle-related goals.The merging of production and consumption behaviors hasbeen documented in some elderly consumers identity renais-sances (Schau, Gilly, and Wolfinbarger 2009). Similarly, rec-ognition that informants leisure production has identity out-comes is also acknowledged by Holt (1998) and Kozinets(2002). Thus, the idea of productive consumption lurks acrossa number of recent studies that generally posit a relationshipbetween production and consumer identity work. Finally,Ritzer (2010) argues that worker-producers are also consum-ers; that is, in the process of production they consume tech-nology in both practical purposes and experiences. In addition,

employees both produce and consume their own worker iden-tities while on the job (see also du Gay 1996; du Gay andSalaman 1992). Thus, it follows that productive consumptionbehaviors that simultaneously enhance organizational pro-ductivity and constituent experience could lead to identifi-cation as individuals revise their identities.

Intended ContributionThis article makes a threefold contribution to research on

organizational identification. First, we unpack dynamic el-ements of the identification formation process from the per-spective of constituents whose personal, economic, and so-cial lives are affected by that organization (Handelman 2006,108). Specifically, we show that constituents use two dif-ferent facilitating conduits for sensegiving and sensemaking(Weick 1995), which lead to identification. We discover thatindividuals follow three different paths to identification. Sec-ond, this research reveals dynamic consequences of identi-fication for constituents, rather than organizations, includingchanges in consumer values and behaviors that extend be-yond organizational boundaries. Third, we show that iden-tification formation operates similarly across consumer-to-firm and employee-to-firm contexts, a process in whichproductive consumption plays a role. Making these contri-butions, we reveal a process of how identification forms,thus moving beyond the state-based model of identificationemployed in consumer research.

METHODOLOGYWe began by collecting data in a consumer-organizationcontext. From inductive analysis of longitudinal interviewdata collected in this context, we examined consequencesof identification similar to those recognized in the manage-ment literature but also developed a processual perspectiveon facilitating conduits and paths to identification. Reviewerconcerns about sample size and context specificity led us tobroaden our inquiry. Since our first study led to the prop-osition that identification formation might occur similarlyacross contexts, we collected a second data set in an em-ployee-employer context.

Triangulation with cross-sectional data obtained in theemployee-employer context provides credibility to our ac-count of identification formation. The second data set alsosuggests some linkages between paths and life stages andoffers some negative case examples not immediately ap-parent in our first data set. It also foregrounds the importanceof productive consumption in constituent sensemaking andsheds light on why different people may follow differentpaths to identification. In general, the second context allowsus to make a more parsimonious argument across contexts.Together, the two data sets increase trustworthiness, lead usto generate new theoretical insights, and help us generalizeour model of identification formation (Price, Arnould, andMoisio 2006; Wallendorf and Belk 1989).

A community supported agriculture program (CSA) pro-vides the consumer-organization context for data collection.


TABLE 1

COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE (CSA) INFORMANT PROFILES

Name AgeRelationship

statusChildrenat home Education Profession

Household income(in thousands) Primary reason for joining CSA

Emily 29 Married 0 MA Librarian 64 Wanted to support her communityMary 42 Married 2 kids MD, MBA, PhD Medical administrator Over 200 Wanted to support local farmersMitch 50 Married 2 teens PhD Professor 120 Wanted to support sustainable

agricultureSandra 36 Married 0 BS Freelance writer/editor 30 Wanted fresh vegetablesSarah 42 Single 2 kids BA Manager in human

services25 Concerned about having vegeta-

bles aroundTony 39 Single 0 BA Engineer 6090 Concerned about peak oil prices

Here, the first author collected longitudinal data from whichwe developed a dynamic model of identification formation.Next, in a high-tech advertising agency we call BLAM, thefirst author collected cross-sectional data from employeesof varying tenures. In both contexts, depth interviews pro-vide data because identification [is] revealed through lan-guage, [and] interviews . . . have been successfully usedto gather insights into the process of identification (Larsonand Pepper 2003, 537; see also Cheney and Tompkins 1987;DiSanza and Bullis 1999).

Context 1: Community Supported AgricultureLongitudinal data come from members of one CSA, a

decentralized, share-based marketing system through whichparticipating consumers obtain allocations of farm-grownproduce; for a history, see Thompson and Coskuner-Balli(2007). This CSA is typical in that consumers join as mem-bers and prepay for their season of produce, which, in thiscase, is $600 for 30 weeks of produce, or $20 per week.CSA members drive to the farm weekly to pick up theirproduce, or their share.

Each informant was interviewed three times: early in theCSA season, late in the season, and once after the CSAsgrowing season was over, for a total of 18 interviews. Thefirst interview asked questions about reasons for joining theCSA and asked for descriptions of initial experiences, in-cluding likes, dislikes, and expectations. The second inter-view focused on evolving relations and thoughts about theCSA and its fit with their lives. The third interview assessedthe impact of participation on the customers relationshipswith the CSA, as well as lasting effects of participation onconsumption. In the Findings section below, the timingof the interviews is indicated next to the informants pseu-donym; for example, a quotation from a second interviewwith Sandra is labeled (Sandra, time 2).

Because we were interested in unveiling the process ofidentification formation (Saldana 2003), the longitudinaldata collected in the CSA were essential to building an initialmodel (Otnes et al. 2006). We sampled people who werefirst-time members and, thus, relatively unfamiliar with theCSA phenomenon. We also wanted to capture unanticipateddimensions of variation, given the paucity of dynamic per-spectives on behaviors associated with identification.

The six first-time CSA members varied on demographiccriteria, including age, income, education, and employment(see table 1). Because the purpose of this study is to com-prehend a phenomenon, variation among informants use-fully foregrounds unanticipated factors that affect the focalconstructs under investigation.

Interviews were treated as individual cases and analyzedin two ways. Initially, all the interviews from a specific timewere analyzed for themes related to key constructs at thispoint in time. In the second pass, all three interviews foreach individual were analyzed for themes that changed overtime (Eisenhardt 1989). Two-step analysis shed light oncommon themes at each time period as identification de-veloped for the group and allowed the researchers to isolatechanges reported by each informant.

Context 2: The Advertising AgencyWe collected data at a full-service high-tech advertising

agency that is also an entrepreneurial start-up, which wecall BLAM. This site was purposively sampled for threereasons. First, like the CSA, the company forwards a strongvalue statement and overtly uses company values to drivethe culture (Cedant 2009). Second, high-tech organizationsare considered good sites for studying identification becauseof common attributes of the employees who work there,including high levels of education, job mobility, profes-sional affiliation and the flattening of organizational hier-archies. The . . . workers employed in such high-tech or-ganizations have proven to be particularly susceptible toideological and value-based systems of control that producehigh levels of commitment (Larson and Pepper 2003, 534).

BLAM employees seem to fit this description. BLAM iswell respected by others in the field and considered a pres-tigious place to work. The organization encourages and re-wards employee initiative and creativity. This organizationexhibits apparent similarities to other organizations in whichculture is central to the organizational mission (e.g., Zappos[Jacobs 2009] and IDEO [Kelley and Littman 2001]). Fi-nally, researchers employing qualitative data are exhortedto triangulate across contexts to increase the theoretical gen-erativity of their work (Price et al. 2006; Wallendorf andBelk 1989). Thus, we sampled BLAM because we wantedto examine a context in which, like in other culture-driven


TABLE 2

BLAM INFORMANT PROFILES

NameTenure at organization

(years) Age range, if known NameTenure at organization

(years) Age range, if knownEthan 2 30 Zach 2 30Logan 2 20 Owen 2 UnassignedEvan 2 Unassigned Nate 1 UnassignedIsabella 2 Unassigned Mia 3 UnassignedOlivia 1 Unassigned Brooke 2 30Kate 2 40 Molly 3 30Sara 6 Unassigned Nancy 1 30Sophia 2 30 Bryce 2 UnassignedLeah 2 Unassigned Paige 10 40Tyler 10 50 Brady 2 30Alexa 1 30 Jeremy 1 UnassignedHenry 2 30 Dominic 2 30Charlie 10 40 Zoe 6 40Becca 9 Unassigned Jason 3 30Natalie 3 30 Liz 1 30Joy 3 Unassigned Bailey 3 UnassignedEli 2 30 John 3 40Sean 2 30 Joe 4 40Claire 2 Unassigned Ian 9 40Jack 3 30 Jordan 10 40Isaac 3 Unassigned

organizations (e.g., Harley-Davidson), we speculated thatemployees might form strong organizational attachments.

BLAM employs about 150 staff. We conducted 1-hourinterviews with 41 employees (30% of employees; seetable 2) of varying tenure with the organization. Tenuredifferences were important to allow room for all paths toidentification to manifest, if indeed they were present. BLAMdata were analyzed using thematic categories developedfrom the CSA data as a guide to categorization and constructdevelopment.

Trustworthiness of data analysis from the CSA contextwas assessed through member checks with all six infor-mants. In the agency, credibility and verisimilitude of thedata were checked through discussion of a summary reportwith the chief of staff and the CEO of the organization.Results were also presented at a company meeting. Infor-mants did not dispute the descriptive veracity of our findings.

FINDINGSIn this section, we report results of our analysis of the twoorganizational contexts. First, we discuss the facilitatingconduits through which identification forms. Second, weshow evidence of identification. Then, we discuss the threepaths to identification that we uncovered. Finally, we high-light effects of identification on constituents as evidencedby changes in their consumer values and behaviors.

Formal and Informal Facilitating ConduitsIn the following section, we develop elements of a pro-

cessual view of identification and its consequences. In bothcontexts, formal and informal facilitating conduits provide

the means through which identification becomes possible(see fig. 1).

Two facilitating conduits emerged in our data. Each hasa site of origin, a specific purpose, and various instantiations.The site of origin for formal conduits is management. Thepurpose of formal conduits is to carry sensegiving infor-mation about preferred organizational realities from man-agement to constituents. Sensegiving provides organiza-tionally sanctioned answers to questions of how to behaveand appropriate goals and values (Ashforth et al. 2008; Pratt2000). At the CSA, instantiations of formal conduits includethe newsletter, produce pickup, and workdays. At BLAM,instantiations of formal conduits include employee training,the company Web site, and company and small group meet-ings.

Informal facilitating conduits complement formal con-duits. The site of origin for informal conduits is outsidemanagement but in dialogue with it. Informal conduits canbe found among constituents, between constituents and non-constituents, and in individual constituent actions. Informalconduits provide opportunities for constituents to interpretinformation they receive through formal conduits, receivefeedback on behaviors, and develop a meaningful frame-work to understand the nature of the organization and theirrole in it. Informal conduits span a continuum from hybridsensegiving and sensemaking efforts to pure sensemaking.Instantiations of informal conduits in the CSA include casualcommunication with other CSA constituents at pickup, andproductive consumption such as experimenting with producein the kitchen, and additional information searches to learnhow to use unfamiliar vegetables or access other local foodsources. In the agency context, informal conduits includecasual contact with coworkers and clients, continuous learn-


FIGURE 1

FACILITATING CONDUITS FOR IDENTIFICATION FORMATION

ing, and personal exploration and innovation in consumerbehaviors inside and outside of work. Some of these areactivities that traditionally fall into the domain of nonwork,or leisure, consumption but that are incorporated into agencywork routines and structure participation within the agency.

Sensegiving through the informal conduit happens throughfeedback about promoted values and behaviors. Instantia-tions of sensegiving through informal conduits could includesharing a recipe in the CSA or positive feedback on an actionor project from coworkers at BLAM or even positive feed-back about BLAM that may come from friends outside theorganization. Sensemaking is observed primarily throughactions (Ashforth et al. 2008), specifically, through narrativeexpressions and productive consumption, but could also in-clude other activities that are idealized in the organizationalculture. Thus, the informal conduits are filled with impro-vised exchanges, plans, actions, and conversations about theorganization that may engage nonconstituents as well.

Conduits in ActionCSA. We now look at the formal and informal conduits

in action, exploring how they work in the two contexts. Inthe CSA, for example, Web sites and newsletters are ex-amples of formal conduits through which CSA values andbehavioral norms are expressed: We, your farm and farm-ers, are dedicated to working with nature and our communityin the creation of delicious and meaningful food. We practicefarming with quality, quantity and health in mind. We area certified organic farm working to reduce the dependency

on global food systems by collaborating with other localfood producers to bring you the best this region has to offer(excerpt from CSA Web site). Okay, okayso it seemseveryone has had enough parsnips. How about asparagus?Im sure this will make everyone excited about cookingdinner tonight! Asparagus is a picking commitment, everymorning and every evening. Walking beside the beds, wecheck each and every spear for the perfect time to be har-vested (excerpt from CSA Web site). CSA promotes workon the land (see asparagus picking above) in order to pro-duce meaningful organic food in harmony with naturalcycles and natural balances. CSA promotes the values ofstewardship, community building, collaborating, and in-tergenerational equity as against values associated with theglobal food system (see also Thompson and Coskuner-Balli 2007).

In time 1 interviews, discussions of pickup days showinformants engaging with the formal conduits. Many infor-mants refer to their unfamiliarity with the produce and speakfavorably of the informational benefits the CSA providesthrough pickup, the shop, and the newsletter. But their en-gagement is relatively noncommittal: the last people to go,its nice, only child whos tried anything, almost gotout there, didnt really intend to . . . buy.

By the second interview, things changed. For example,Mitch had engaged with his weekly CSA newsletter, a for-mal conduit archived on the CSAs Web site: The news-letter that [the farmers] do for [the CSA] has a lot of thought-ful kinds of discussions in there. . . . [The] piece about thefall coming and life changes from the summer to the fall,


I was reading again last night. Its quite beautiful. I guessI just think that its bringing people together, helping toprepare the food that they are all eating together (time 2).Mitch takes sensegiving representations provided throughformal conduits and personalizes them as he works to as-similate them. In making sense of the newsletter, Mitch firstconnects local farmers to CSA, as formal agents who dofor CSA members. From his comment, we also learn thathe believes the newsletter suggests how constituents mightwant to think about the changing of the seasons, as well ashow the CSA is bringing people together, as excerpts fromthe Web sites above also suggest. Mitch indirectly refers torecipes in the newsletter as helping to prepare the food thatCSA members eat together, figuratively speaking. Thus,he highlights his understanding of the communitarian goalsof CSA, feelings of connection to the farm, and others (seePratt 2000 for a parallel).

Mitch tells us that he rereads the newsletter, an indicatorof sensemaking. The CSA does not organize this activity.Through the informal conduit of reading again, Mitchconnects the formally sanctioned information with his world,highlighting elements salient to him: the fall coming, lifechanges, togetherness; elements Mitch characterizes asbeautiful. The story Mitch tells the interviewer is, as pre-vious research contends (Burke 1973; Gioia and Chittipeddi1991; Larson and Pepper 2003), also a story he tells himselfin building a relationship with CSA. Mitch states, Weveactually done more . . . looking at cookbooks during thesummer than we would have otherwise, quite a bit actuallyand then experimenting in cooking (time 3). Participationin these informal conduits produces value for the CSA butalso increases the value of the CSA for Mitch, raising itsstatus from a way to procure food to an opportunity toreexamine his life (i.e., engage in sensemaking): I thinkthe CSA . . . has been an important milepost for me to takea little bit more time . . . to go to the Unitarian Church andthink about why you do the things that you do . . . take alittle bit more time to play music (time 3).

Sensemaking generally does not originate through formalconduits but through informal conduits. Because CSA con-stituents demonstrate the most nuanced use of these conduitsin their third interviews, we present data from those inter-views. Tony points to a variety of informal conduits andtheir role in fostering identification. He recalls seeking in-formation from his mother about preparing unfamiliar pro-duce: I actually did call my mom and say, What do youdo with a rutabaga? or something like that. I would saymy relationship [with my mother] has always been strong,but now I realize shes a treasure trove of vegetable knowl-edge. So thats good, and I get advice from her on what dowith certain things (Tony, time 3).

Tony uses available resources to make sense of CSA pro-duce, which brings the CSA deeper into his life. That is,Tony enlists informal conduits that affirm his status as aCSA member, and by tapping into his mothers knowledge,he strengthens their relationship. Tonys mothers vegetableknowledge is revalorized as a salient cultural resource. Ex-

plicitly here, Tony consumes cultural resources to engagein new sensemaking (and meal making) and thus expandsthe reach of the CSA into other areas of his life. The thirdinterviews show that over time, formal and informal con-duits provide CSA members like Mitch and Tony with thecontact and context necessary to build greater continuitybetween their ideas about CSA and how CSA fits into theirlives.

BLAM. As in the CSA, BLAM communicates organi-zational values through formal conduits (e.g., the Web site,the tenth anniversary book [Cedent 2009], training, and eval-uations). For example, a query about company values onits Web site yields the following response: Integrity, quality,innovation, courage, passion, kindness, collaboration, per-spective, trust, balance, discipline results and responsibility.[BLAM] does not value politics, greed, unhealthy clients,cynicism, burnout individual agendas/ego, jealousy, whin-ing. Top management enunciates the same values in em-ployee orientation. This sensegiving effort offers constitu-ents a detailed description of the preferred organizationalreality, and a prescriptive model for behavior:

I do the history and values orientation [and share this story].. . . I had conflict with [a] client that became a problem.. . . I was upset, and [the CEO] pulled me aside one dayand he said, I really dont know whats happening on theaccount, but I think you have not lived up to one of thevalues that we wrote. . . . It was a way for him to say tome, You helped write these, you aspire to them, and I cansee from where I am, its not happening. . . . This is oneexample, and every new employee hears that example, thatspecific one. We kept it in there, because its true. It was thefirst test I had. It was the first time someone used [the Listof Values] to help me [COO and founder]. (Tyler)

Significantly, these values are also enunciated by employ-ees, showing the transfer of information from sensegiving tosensemaking efforts. This illustrates that constituents under-stand the values, take on the preferred organizational reality,and engage in interpersonal sensemaking efforts (includingretelling of the trainers story during our interview), suchas, My favorite part of the values is basically to treat otherslike you would want to be treated, and that we dont valuepolitics, we value honesty; we value our list of values. . . .We really try, and if youre catching anybody being reallycynical, you just call them out on it saying, You know,thats not part of BLAM values, and theres a way to phrasethat so youre not sounding like, Youre not being BLAMvalues (Becca). Not only does Becca know what BLAMvalues are, she states that one can in fact be BLAM values;she has incorporated the values into her aspirations. Beccauses narrative to show us she understands that the valuesare alive and available to be used as a friendly guide forbehavior toward organizational coworkers. Significantly, sheembellishes the narrative, identifying her favorite part of thevalues and including an example of how to use the valuesin daily interactions. BLAM did not mandate her to thinkabout how to use the values or to be prepared to use them


to monitor behavior. Rather, informal conduits (e.g., howothers use the values in daily interactions and feedback onher own use of the values) provided her with a model ofpreferred behavior (Ashforth et al. 2008; Burke 1973; Weick1995), which she now performs. As this excerpt suggests,constituents at BLAM (like those in the CSA) also appro-priate information they gather through formal conduits, per-sonalize it, use it as a guide for behavior, and through sense-making connect more deeply with the organization.

Just as Mitch and Tonys sensemaking blurs the bound-aries between the sphere of CSA and home, BLAM em-ployees blur work and nonwork boundaries in their sense-making efforts: I tell my girlfriends about what my day islike at [BLAM], and they are so jealous, because I havedogs running around, because you can bring your dog towork and that we have beer in the refrigerator upstairs, andwe can have a beer with a coworker after work, and allthese things (Molly). People are getting a lot of work done,but its like fun completely mixed in there all of the time,and I love that. I have a very hard time separating out, Nowits professional time, and now, its fun time. Its veryintegrated, and it means the personality of BLAM altogether.I would like to be friends with BLAM, if BLAM was aperson (Olivia). These quotations highlight leisurelike con-sumption experiences: have a beer, fun time, and theblurring of boundaries between work life and social life andwork identity and nonwork identity (du Gay and Salaman1992). As Mill (1884) suggested, consumption produces theculture of the firm, which then produces value for the clients,in addition to informing constituents identity projects.

Participants claim it is their distinctive way of workingand their particular form of creativity that enables them tocoproduce value for their clients. Molly engages in severalorganizational identification behaviors (DiSanza and Bullis1999), including bragging and using the pronoun we. Oli-via also speaks to the blurring of boundaries between pro-fessional time and fun time, and yet, she makes the pointthat people produce high-quality work. Olivia may be usinginformal conduits to clarify the confusion she feels aboutthis lack of separation, and yet, she personifies and claimsgenuinely to like the organization. Thus, these efforts are ablend between sensegiving and sensemaking. Constituentslearn appropriate behaviors from other constituents and re-hearse these among nonconstituent friends and in their in-terviews with the researchers (Ashforth et al. 2008; du Gayand Salaman 1992). Both the actions constituents engage inand their retelling help frame their understanding of theorganization (Burke 1973).

While the specific opportunities for engagement differacross contexts, the facilitating conduits provide structurefor information transfer in each organization. Through thesensegiving efforts of the organization, individuals learn or-ganizational values, receive suggestions about how to per-form them, and develop organizationally sanctioned skills.Through the informal conduits, individuals receive feedbackand develop an ability to assess and interpret available cul-tural resources; they rehearse and perform the preferred or-

ganizational reality and find ways to develop meaningfulrelationships with the organization that stretch into otherareas of their personal lives.

In the next sections, we discuss identification in moredetail. First, we provide additional evidence that identifi-cation between constituents and organizations develops.Then, we present three distinct paths of identification for-mation: epiphany, emulation, and exploration. Next, we dis-cuss effects of organizational identification on constituentsreported consumer values and behaviors. As above, we dis-cuss findings based on longitudinal data collected from theCSA and strengthen these findings with cross-sectional datacollected at BLAM.

IdentificationCSA. As shown above, over time informants became

more involved with the CSA. During the first interview,informants talked mostly about the logistics of CSA in-volvement and did not necessarily display indicators of iden-tification. However, by the third interview, they talked aboutthe CSA with conviction and a sense of ownership. Forexample, Sandra claims her behavior and sense of selfchanged as a result of her relationship with the CSA: [Ifeel part of the farm] because I eat the food from there andits in my life and because of the time I spent doing pro-ductive things there. It started with a CSA membership. Our[living] Christmas tree came from the farm. . . . This isfinally [the] year we didnt just cut the tree down. I boughtone thats a huge ball, and now its like stored, and hopefullyit will make it through the winter, and well get it in theground. Why do I feel a part of it? Because its now in mylife (time 3; emphasis added). Sandra uses a narrative ofproductive consumption to show the evolution of her rela-tionship with the CSA. Her narrative reflects the stewardshiptoward nature expressed in the Web site and reflects a life-style in touch with the productive rhythms of the farm.She indicates that the CSA assumed a larger role in her life;by purchasing a living Christmas tree from the farm, sheshows how CSA entered her familys ritual calendar. Shehighlights the importance of productive consumption in hersensemaking efforts. The time she spent at the CSA con-tributed not only to the production of produce and her laterconsumption of that produce but also to her understandingof the CSA and CSA values in her life. Now, Sandra claimssome ownership over the organization and its place in herlife.

Similarly in another example, Emily shows an evolutionin her thinking about the CSA: I think the different wayof interacting with the people who are supplying the thingsthat you need rather than you hand somebody the cash andyou get something . . . Like if we get weird weather Imgoing, What is that going to do to the crops? . . . I feela lot more invested (time 3). In her sensemaking narrative,Emily notes that the CSA opens new possibilities for com-mercial relationships in her life. She worries about the ef-fects of bad weather and rehearses the core CSA value ofcaring for community. During Emilys tenure as a CSA


FIGURE 2

THREE PATHS TO IDENTIFICATION FORMATION

member, she has become more concerned about the orga-nization and increased her indirect engagement to includevalues promoted by CSA, such as buying locally produceditems and shopping at locally owned shops.

BLAM. Taking the model from the CSA data, we seesimilar evidence for identification with BLAM, as employ-ees talk about the organization as part of themselves andeven part of their family. For example, Like, when theyre[laying off so many people], you start to think that no oneis safe, per se. And, I definitely feel like, Oh, I would notwant to leave BLAM. It would be so much more than justlosing a job. It would be like losing my identity and myfamily, and it would be just horrible (Sara). The fear oflosing her job is not constructed in terms of formal conduits;that is, Sara does not mention work duties or salary. Rather,her focus is on the relationships she has developed withcoworkers and the identity she has built within the orga-nization. This quotation illustrates how constituents use nar-rative to explore the emotional connection with the orga-nization, how sensemaking escalates as they identify withit (Dutton et al. 1994, 254), and how engaging with theorganization affects personal identity projects.

Paths to Identification FormationAn intriguing emergent finding is evidence of three dis-

tinct paths to identification. We identified these paths in thelongitudinal data from the CSA and subsequently foundthem in the agency data. That these paths were discoveredin both contexts emboldens us to assert that the process ofidentification formation can happen similarly across con-sumer and employee contexts. As illustrated in figure 2, wefound that identification developed along three differentpathways: as epiphany, as emulation, and as exploration.

Epiphany. Epiphany happens instantly. Some constitu-ents feel a connection with the organization the first time[they] walked in or during their early days with the or-

ganization. As Ashforth (2001), Ashforth et al. (2008), andPratt (1998) suggest, this instantaneous recognition couldoccur because individuals already identified similarities be-tween themselves and the organization that were confirmedupon contact. After the epiphany moment, constituents seemto easily adapt to the organizations cultural norms, adoptingorganizational values as their own. Behavior change quicklyfollows as constituents are exposed to idealized organiza-tional values through formal conduits and engage sense-making efforts through informal conduits to match lifestyleswith the values the organization espouses. In the epiphanypath to identification, enacting organizational behaviors andvalues elicits feedback from the organization (or additionalsensegiving efforts), which further shape subsequent be-havior (Ashforth et al. 2008). CSA constituent Tony illus-trated this path when explaining during our first meetingthat his worldview had changed: I also feel good aboutcontributing to the local economy. Like sometimes I lookat the price of the block of cheese Im buying in the [farm]store and Im like, man, this is five bucks. But, you know,its going to some [local] lady . . . and not to like, ADM.So its kind of worth it to me because, um, if Im helpingmy community, Im helping myself. . . . So it did start outas a concern with oil depletion, but now its sort of become,I think, a quality of life issue (time 1).

Thus, in his consumer behavior, Tony moved quickly fromfocusing on the money he was spending to focusing on valuefor the community, relating that directly to his quality oflife. He also reported, I had snap peas this morning insteadof a Hershey bar out of the vending machine, and so, yeah,my eating habits have changed (time 1): bringing (ratherthan buying) his lunch and seeking out opportunities to pur-chase local foods within the first 3 weeks of the CSA. Thesechanges reported in the first interview were stable across allthree interviews.

Informants in BLAM also revealed epiphanies. Severalsay that from their employment interview forward they feltlike part of the team and the BLAM family. For example,


I walked in the door; I felt at home; I fit the culture, thatlaid-back atmospherethe bar was an awesome thing forme to seejust the free spirit of the company, getting totalk with the CEO, just asking general questions, doing cof-fee with them, talking, and from that, I felt a part of theteam immediately. . . . From day one, I just felt like thiswas home for me. If I had my way, I would never want toleave. I enjoy it here; I want to make a career out of beinghere; I care that much about the company. That truly is myhome (Zach). Zach reports that when he first walked intothe office, which is a breathtaking space, he felt at home.It could be that his expectations were confirmed when hesaw physical expression of the congruence he already feltwith the organization. As his employment evolved, his con-nection to the organization deepened, but the memory ofhis epiphany remains a salient base for further reinforcementof identification.

BLAM employees consistently point to productive con-sumption as a key part of their sensemaking efforts. Thisincludes informal meetings and places to celebrate, the avail-ability of the executive team for informal communication,and company consumption rituals, all of which produce theculture of the organization and bring meaning into the em-ployees lives. For instance, a freshly graduated mastersstudent who joined BLAM remarked: I felt like part of[this organization] immediately. My first week, they put abunch of Jagermeister shots on my desk, and its like thisteasing thing and said, Come on. And, I was like proud,Ill do it. Ill do it. So, I had a whole bunch of Jager shotsmy first week, like one oclock, during the day (Liz). Thecool, edgy material experience of the office space and theblurring of work and consumption, coupled with the laid-back atmosphere, seem to play a key role in the epiphanyexperience, much like being in the natural space of thefarm in the CSA context.

Emulation. The emulation (Pratt 1998) path to identifi-cation is different. This path refers to a gradual process thatmay involve multiple iterations between formal and informalconduits, with ample opportunity to receive added sense-giving information and to engage in a variety of sensemak-ing efforts (Ashforth et al. 2008). In this path, individualsgradually adopt organizational values. For example, throughwhat she learned via formal and informal conduits (e.g., theCSA newsletters, farmers, and other members), Sandrachanged her thinking about food in general (The food onour shelves that looked so wholesome to me 68 monthsago doesnt [now]; time 3). She started to question whyshe was not able to eat more local produce (Why does foodhave to come from California? . . . Its stupid when [it]could come from my back yard or . . . from the farmer;time 3) and in her third interview revealed a commitmentto try to make 90% of her diet locally grown.

People in the agency recounted emulating the values ofthe organization and organizational mentors and, over time,began to identify with them. That is, they used the infor-mation they received through sensegiving efforts to helpformulate a vision of the organization that they molded

themselves to. For example, The most interesting cultureat [the agency], is that work hard, play hard. I think peopletake it to such extremes, and I think [the CEO] takes it tothe ultimate extreme, where its justIve never seen any-body work harder or play harderand its fun, in a lot ofsenses, and I have worked harder at this job than any otherjob that Ive ever had. . . . Ive been inspired to have morefun in this job than any job that Ive ever had (Alexa).Alexa shows how she started to try on the values of theorganization as she worked there, illustrating how her sense-making efforts exhibit themselves through her behavior atwork. She takes inspiration from the CEOs behavior towork hard and to have more fun at work.

Exploration. Identification through exploration also formsover time. But unlike emulation, in this path individuals weighthe sensegiving and sensemaking efforts they experiencethrough the conduits against their current life positions.Through this intellectual and emotional exercise, compari-sons are made between an ideal represented by the orga-nization and the constituents life as a whole. In addition,constituents use the organizational model and relationshipsas a lens through which to search for deeper life meaningand identity as previously suggested (Ibarra 1999; Pratt 2000;Pratt, Rockmann, and Kaufmann 2006).

In the CSA, Mitch actively engaged in sensemaking ef-forts, recognizing the importance of the feelings of com-munity, relaxation, working together, and being social heexperienced while engaging in on-farm workdays, a formalconduit activity. These experiences were deepened by ef-fortful sensemaking in the form of impromptu conversationswhen he picked up his produce, conversations at home withhis family, and reflections on how he would prefer to live.As recounted in the third interview, he gradually began touse narrative sensemaking to benchmark the rest of his life:

The CSA has been one of those things out there that hasreminded me personally there is a lot more to life than racingthrough this and being [at work] most of the time. And again,being [at work] most of the time, sometimes looking backon it, not thinking Im spending my time on what is reallythat important in the big picture . . . Im a pretty intenseworkaholic type, and Im going to ease up on that just a little,and Im going to be intense still, but let me be intense onthe right things. And the CSA has helped to keep that infront of me a little bit in an interesting way. (Mitch, time 3)

By the third interview, Mitchs sensemaking extends be-yond the organizational structure of the CSA, which, let usrecall, is at the core just an alternate channel for obtainingproduce. Specifically, Mitch contrasts his workaholic ten-dencies with the relaxed support, camaraderie, and awe ofnature he experienced through formal conduits (e.g., work-days, the newsletter, pickup days). This sensemakingre-minded me, looking back, keep that in front of meleads Mitch to reflect on how he might incorporate thosefeelings he experiences with the CSA into other areas of hislife, for example, with his family when he takes time toprepare CSA food. As he retells how he brought these ex-


periences into his life, he attributes new mindfulness andnew actions (e.g., cutting back on work obligations, spend-ing more time in community activities) to CSA involvement.Exploration leads Mitch both to identification with the CSAand to significant behavior changes beyond CSA boundaries.

As in the CSA, some employees at the advertising agencyused the values of and examples in the organization to re-make their work and nonwork identities. For example, [Afew months after I started working here] I ended up comingout to my mom and sister, and I think its because the culturehere . . . was so like, Hey, welcome; youre fun; wereglad youre here. . . . It was kind of like a breath of freshair, no preconceived notions, people didnt think one way,or I had to explain that I was another, or anything like that.. . . Its funny to say, but working here played a significantrole. It really did (Brady). Bradys narrative is that BLAMsopennessa breath of fresh airleads to a major lifechange, coming out. Brady talks as if it were an inevitableconsequence of being an employee. Through formal andinformal conduits, Brady took on organizational values (herethe salient values are individuality, openness, respect forself and others). He used values expressed through formalconduits plus experiences of informal conduits (e.g., howcoworkers approached one another and him) to build hisnew behavioral model. Resolving identity conflicts, like theone Brady experienced, is reinforced through formal andinformal conduits (Ibarra 1999; Pratt et al. 2006). Later inhis interview, Brady reiterated the deep connection he de-veloped with BLAM.

None of these paths to identification should be seen asexclusive. It is possible that a constituent could experienceone or multiple paths but that key experiences of one par-ticular path remain most salient in constituents narratives.Over the course of her 3-year tenure with the agency, Nataliereports both emulation and exploration. In addition, shestates that a certain level of value congruence existed evenbefore she was hired: Ive gotten to take those skills andvalues that I had coming in, and just like take it to theextreme in a good way. . . . Other goals, would be like notsettlingoutside of this officethat has also transferredinto my personal life; not settling on a particular partnerthat may not be the best match for me . . . and paying offdebt; that was a huge one coming here [with] a lot of debt.I have worked with Paige one on one [to pay off my debt](Natalie).

Natalie uses her role model Paige to work through long-standing personal issues. Paige was BLAMs very first em-ployee; many employees point to her as the CultureKeeper and name Paige as a role model for how to expressBLAM values. Paige is a crossover figure between formaland informal conduits. Paige is a prominent figure in theorganization, facilitating company meetings but also walk-ing desk to desk for informal check-ins. Here, Natalie de-scribes how she has used the organizations formally statedvalues with Paiges support to help her develop appropriategoals both inside and outside the office (see also Pratt 2000).She has used BLAMs behavioral ideals to reform both her

relationship choices and a related problem of accumulatingsignificant consumer debt. Conflict with ideals she experi-enced at work led Natalie to make specific changes in herconsumption choices.

The CSA does not directly encourage Mitchs improvedwork/life balance, nor does BLAM directly encourage Bradysrecognition of his sexual identity or Natalies improvedcredit performance or personal choices in partners, but mem-bership status, plus the sensegiving and sensemaking effortsthey engage with through formal and informal conduits, hasled each to explore such choices. Thus, in the explorationpath of identification, the values and behaviors experiencedat the organization become a benchmark for changes inextraorganizational values and behavior constituents see asconflicting with organizational ideals.

Changes in Consumer Behavior and ValuesData from these two contexts allowed us to develop a

dynamic understanding of identification formation. How-ever, this model is not deterministic. That is, the specificoutcomes in terms of values, behaviors, and beliefs are notpredicated on the fact that there are changes. Value changewas not like a simple dependent variable but part of theiterative process of identification formation. Aside from theexamples discussed above, we can report further evidencethat identification between an individual and an organizationresulted in individuals consumer values and behaviorsaligning with those of the organization (Ashforth and Mael1989; Bhattacharya et al. 1995; Dutton et al. 1994). Lon-gitudinal data from the CSA allowed us to track reportedbehaviors over time. As mentioned above, during our firstmeeting, Tony claimed instantaneous change in consumerbehavior through engagement with the CSA (Its funny,Ive seen like my worldview change. Im willing to spendthe little extra money for the increase in quality; time 1).In later interviews, Tonys focus broadened from productquality to include concern for its provenance and the healthand community benefits of purchasing meat directly from afarmer. He also elaborated how his CSA involvement em-powered him to make changes in consumer behaviors thathe believed could have long-lasting health effects (Mymom had colon cancer, and it sort of made me think, well,if I eat healthier food I can reduce the likelihood or reducethe severity when or if that times comes; time 2). In histhird interview responses, Tony evoked certain values of theCSA and even took a pedagogical tone with the interviewer.Intangible attributes of the CSA assume precedence over anassessment of intrinsic product attributes: There is anotherfarmer that comes by [the farm] and she sells . . . beef andpork, and I like buying stuff from her. I dont mind payinga little more for her stuff because its not factory farmed.. . . I think it may be more expensive than what we see ina supermarket, but its better quality stuff. Its not injectedfull of antibiotics (time 3). Tony has built CSA values intohis meal choices (including snacks and lunch) and into hisnegative assessment of products at the supermarket (wherehe used to purchase everything), opting for more local al-


ternatives. Tony has integrated the CSA into his self-con-cept.

For her part, Emilys interview narrative reveals changesto her household shopping and cooking habits. During thetime 2 interview, Emily went into detail, highlighting thatfood in her household was not an activity she engaged inwith her husband: Weve gotten very compartmentalized.We use different sides of the refrigerator. . . . The peoplein the grocery store think were insane. We come in as acouple, and we shop together, and then we have two separategrocery orders. Theyre like, Its not together? No. It hasbeen together a lot more lately, which is kind of fun (time2). During the third interview, Emily is dismissive of theseparate shopping and eating habits, indicating they are athing of the past. She tries to make sense of why thingshave changed over the year of her involvement with theCSA: Its completely together now. We like to go buy thegroceries together. . . . Before we joined the CSA, he hadgone on this really drastic diet and wouldnt eat new things.. . . I think hes kind of opened up his diet a little bit more.He will try more things that Im having . . . because of theCSA . . . and like a whole new range of things to cook(Emily, time 3). At the time 3 interview, Emily indicatesthat we joined the CSA, a change from the time 2 inter-view when the CSA was considered her food and herhusband avoided eating it. The progression in the interviewsshows how food from the CSA changed household ritualsand hints that both Emily and her husband engaged in ef-fortful sensemaking surrounding food.

Finally, through formal and informal conduits, Maryfound ways to store local foods for later productive con-sumption (You can have all the little tidbit apples, youknow the uglies, . . . so we took a bunch of them and . . .made . . . apple butter; time 3), salvaged less desirablevegetables for productive consumption (They had these oldtomatoes that werent very pretty, and we froze those andmade salsa out of them; time 3), and changed how shethought about convenience ([Compared to the Wal-MartSupercenter], I dont think [the CSA] is the most convenientthing, but [we made] a lifestyle change and [got] somethinggood out of it; time 3). Ultimately, through sensegivingand sensemaking efforts, constituent consumers valuesevolved to display greater congruence with those of theCSA, and their behaviors changed to reflect those valuesgenerally. Mitch cut his job responsibilities so he couldspend more time with his family, Emily became a moreadventurous cook and looked for new opportunities to buylocally made products, and Tony stopped eating conve-nience food and started paying more for higher-qualityproducts. Members used the values of the CSA to reflecton their own lives, choices, and activities as they movedtoward identification. In other words, between sensegivingand sensemaking, constituents began to internalize organi-zational values that affected their consumer behaviors (Bhat-tacharya et al. 1995; Dutton et al. 1994).

Because we did not collect longitudinal data in the agencycontext, we assessed value and behavior change indirectly.

As in the CSA, in the agency context, informants demon-strated internalizing organizational values: for example, Oh,Ive gotten much better at my job since I started. Theyvetrained me to do all kinds of different methods, all kinds ofdifferent ways of thinking. . . . [The agencys] brand is. . . not that were crazy scientists on a lot of this, but weresupposed to look different . . . not supposed to be buttonedup. Were supposed to look stylish but casual (Liz). Thisinformant highlights sensegiving activities (e.g., training andsocialization, consumer and other behaviors) in which weare supposed to engage. She highlights how she has beentrained to think about things and how she observes andlearns to express her organizationally sanctioned individuality.In addition, conforming to organizational dress codes is arecognized way constituents express identification (DiSanzaand Bullis 1999).

Another informant talked about the evolution in her out-look and behaviors over her 2 years of employment, as shebought in: Ive never been a get pumped kind of person.. . . But now Im a little bit more bought into that becauseit makes such a difference in like how you feel about yourwork. . . . It has a profound effect on the clients that youwork with if you feel jazzed about what you are doing, andI am jazzed about what I am doing. Its not disingenuousfor me to be excited about giving a presentation about whatI do and what I found and what I think you should do. Ilike telling people what I think they should do. . . . Imbought in, and I am totally like drinking the Kool-Aid(Kate). Kate gives an account of the evolution in her ap-proach to client meetings that occurred through iterationsof sensegiving and sensemaking. She observed how her co-workers acted with clients, and at first that felt disingenuousand inauthentic. However, she also saw that clients re-sponded to her coworkers excitement, and she spent timeconsidering how she really felt about her work. Finally,sensemaking (e.g., watching clients and coworkers, assess-ing how she felt, trying out excitement, getting positivefeedback, reassessing how she felt) led her to the conclusionthat it was alright for her to express excitement too. Ulti-mately, she refers to herself as drinking the Kool-Aid, atelling consumption metaphor that several employees usedto describe their internalization of organizational values.

In accounting for these changes, constituents tend to em-phasize informal conduits, especially productive consump-tion, over formal conduits. For example, BLAM informantsmention the English muffins and orange juice available inthe kitchen, beer in the refrigerator, the bar, having dogspresent, and work/life balance, rather than formal sensegiv-ing such as meetings, training sessions, and official e-mails.Food, drink, and pets seem to provide material for sense-making. The informal conduits help create a fun envi-ronment where award-winning work is produced and whereproductive consumption increases not only company valuebut also the value of individual employees.


DISCUSSIONWe do not wish to present identification as a celebratoryconstruct, but our informants use the metaphor of havingdrunk the Kool-Aid; we think that in some cases they have.We know that the process of identification is conductedprimarily with language, and the product of identificationis expressed primarily with language (Cheney and Tomp-kins 1987, 11; see also Burke 1973). Thus, their celebratoryspeech may be an example of the continuous building andrebuilding of the relationship between the constituent andthe organization. As Ashforth et al. (2008) suggest, con-stituents reinforce their own identification through sense-making narratives of organizational experience.

Our research addressed three primary questions. First, weasked how organizational identification develops. That is,what is the process that previous research has neglected butscholars have flagged as the least understood of all thecentral questions of organizational identification (Pratt1998, 200)? In answering this question, we revive the pro-cess view of identification, that is, the view that identifi-cation develops and that it leads to individual transformation(Kagan 1958; Kelman 1958; Sanford 1955). Unlike mostresearch that measures the identification construct (e.g.,Bhattacharya et al. 1995; Mael and Ashforth 1992; Riketta2005), we unpack significant dimensions of identificationformation, the facilitating conduits, productive consumptionbehaviors, and the three paths that the static construct ig-nores.

As shown in figure 1, we found that across organizationalcontexts, formal (sensegiving) and informal (sensemaking)conduits facilitate individuals understanding of organiza-tions, including how to enact preferred organizational valuesand behaviors. We show that in the CSA these conduitsbreak down internal/external organizational boundaries, andmembers tout the benefits of their consumption, both forcognitive consonance (further developing identification) andfor the CSA. At BLAM, the conduits break down work/leisure boundaries, and we see evidence of work (internal)and nonwork (external) identities becoming blurred (du Gayand Salaman 1992) as opportunities to engage and createnew spaces for engagement are created by employees intheir roles as sovereign consumers of the organization(Burke 1973; du Gay and Salaman 1992). In both cases,identification develops from meanings channeled throughformal and informal conduits.

Longitudinal CSA data capture the temporally evolvingaspects of th[e] value system (Thompson and Troester2002, 569) associated with CSA. Data from the CSA al-lowed us to develop the dynamic understanding of the iden-tification process shown in figure 1. That is, we identifiedtwo facilitating conduits differentiated in form, content, andexamples and observed temporally unfolding paths that leadto and reinforce identification. Data from BLAM allowedus to look closely at the interplay of formal and informalconduits. In the agency context, constituents informalsensemaking in response to managerial sensegiving led themto form organizationally sanctioned but informal socializing

projects, to engage productive consumption at the companybar as well as work at their desks, and to perform the ethos(work hard, play [i.e., consume] hard) modeled by Paigeand the CEO.

We show that sensegiving and sensemaking play com-plementary roles in the identification process, helping con-stituents internalize the consumer values and behaviors thatform and reinforce organizational culture. Prior research onsensemaking has emphasized the narrative, cognitive aspectsof identification and paid less attention to its behavioralmanifestations. We offer evidence that behavioral processesengage material resources in productive consumption thatinfluences constituent outcomes. We suggest that productiveconsumption constitutes behaviors that produce value forboth constituents and organizations and that it entails per-formances congruent with preferred organizational valuesand behaviors. We found ample examples of such behaviorsacross contexts. For example, a mother and daughter, choos-ing old tomatoes that werent very pretty and . . . madesalsa out of them, were enacting the valuing of natural,local produce. Or a very recent employee accepting a bunchof Jagermeister shots on [her] desk, and its like this teasingthing, thus, performs the work hard, play hard, nonserious,serious fun ethos BLAM espouses. In this way, we showhow a focus on productive consumption processes may helpclarify the relationships between contemporary workplaceand consumer identities (du Gay 1996; du Gay and Salaman1992; Tian and Belk 2005). In addition, we provide evidencefor the blurring of hard distinctions between employeeand consumer and, thus, use an alternative construct, or-ganizational constituent.

One of our contributions to organizational identificationformation is the emergent result that three paths to identi-fication can be identified empirically. We show that they aredistinct from on another, and we suggest that they are notmutually exclusive. That is, constituents may go down theexploration path and then encounter a turning point (Ash-forth 2001) that instantly changes their relationship with theorganization (see Denzin 2001 on epiphany). In another sce-nario, one may experience the epiphany path to identificationand then begin to emulate the organizations values or per-haps engage in exploration activities. However, when re-calling their early contact with the organization, the epiph-any experience may remain most salient.

Epiphany may be the weakest path to identification, or itcould be a first step toward deep identification. It could bethat when an individual who already feels an affinity for theorganization (Pratt 1998) or was already partially identifiedwith the organization (Mael and Ashforth 1992) first comesinto direct contact with it as a constituent, profound expec-tation confirmation sparks epiphany. It could also be thatthe critical incidents that constituents experience (see alsoMcAlexander et al. 2002) are interpreted in new ways asthe individual becomes more familiar with the organization.If the salient attributes of the organization that led to iden-tification in the first place are reinforced, then epiphany maylead to emulation. However, if they are not reinforced, the


individual may disidentify and ultimately break contact withthe organization (Ashforth 1998).

The larger agency data set allowed us to look into whethereach path developed under particular circumstances. It ap-pears that this is the case with epiphany and exploration.Epiphanies are reported by people who are in transitionalmoments (Pratt 2000), or actively seeking change, and oftenoccur early in ones engagement (Ashforth 2001). For ex-ample, before joining the CSA, Tony wanted to improve hishealth and eat more vegetables but had previously takenlittle action. Likewise, at BLAM, Zach was recently married,and Liz recently finished graduate school; both were tran-sitioning into a new phase of life. Thus, across contexts, theepiphany path to identification seemed to occur in individ-uals in transition. It may occur because they are looking foran identity anchor during this transition or searching for avalue system that fits their desired life position.

Exploration seems to occur when someone is activelywrestling with an existential problem. Mitch experiencedlittle work/life balance and used the serenity he felt at theCSA to help him work through that issue. In the agencysetting, Natalie was trying to resolve ongoing issues of fi-nancial irresponsibility and poor relationship choices. Like-wise, Brady was grappling with his closeted sexuality. Con-stituents used the values of the organization to help nameand resolve tensions in their lives. The cultural resourcesavailable to them through formal and informal conduitsclearly stated values, individual role models, and reinforce-ment for enacting those valueshelped facilitate constitu-ents personal growth (Pratt 2000).

Emulation did not seem to be associated with any par-ticular event or life stage. It could be that constituents whoexperienced the emulation path to identification are morecautious or deliberate in forming opinions or building re-lationships in general, but we do not have evidence thatclearly sets them apart. We have illustrated that the threepaths to organizational identification (epiphany, exploration,and emulation) are represented in similar ways in two dif-ferent organizational contexts. Figures 1 and 2 provide agenerative framework that can be used in both organizationaland consumer research to understand different ways thatindividuals may progress toward organizational identifica-tion.

In addition, in contrast to most prior consumer behaviorliterature, we have shown that identification forms throughrelatively mundane processes, as participating in CSA work-days, cooking odd CSA veggies, or going for coffee withBLAM management illustrates. Of course we do not denythat spectacular experiences also inspire organizational iden-tification.

A second question we posed was what the consequencesof identification are, and we found that constituent valuesand behaviors evolved through sensegiving and sensemak-ing. Through formal and informal conduits, contact with theCSA and BLAM resulted in our informants values shiftingtoward greater congruence with organizational values. Thiscongruence has been proposed in conceptual papers (e.g.,

Bhattacharya and Sen 2003; Dutton et al. 1994; Pratt 1998),documented as an outcome at the group level in the orga-nizational literature (e.g., Mael and Ashforth 1992; Pratt2000), and illustrated in brand communities (Borghini et al.2009; McAlexander et al. 2002). We have shown how thishappens and how value congruence can lead to a range ofconsumer outcomes at the individual level. Key consumeroutcomes for CSA constituents ranged from a deeper knowl-edge of the food system, to changes in relationships to thefood they eat, altered priorities in what they pay for whenthey buy produce, and new ideas about how to spend moneyto express emergent values. Thus, through iterative inter-actions with the organization, consumer-to-consumer inter-actions, and experiences with products, constituents changetheir consumer behavior to align with organizational valuesand behavioral norms. Our cross-sectional data from BLAMalso indicate that identification resulted in changes in in-dividuals values and behaviors becoming more congruentwith those management espoused. Key outcomes for BLAMconstituents included making friends, feeling empoweredand creative, continuous learning and intellectual stimula-tion, gaining confidence, and developing a greater sense ofpersonal authenticity.

In direct contrast to previous work, we found that con-stituents who identified with these organizations actuallysought out, rather than avoided, opportunities to frequentother similar organizations, particularly those that promotedsimilar values. In addition, in a contribution that extendsprevious work, we found that in both contexts, the individualvalue and behavior change extended beyond organizationalboundaries, touching fundamental aspects of individualsidentities such as striving for work/life balance, socializationof children, sexual identification, and preferences in intimatepartners.

Of course, it should be noted that outcomes of identifi-cation are not necessarily positive. Dark outcomes of iden-tification have been identified in the managerial literaturebut largely ignored in the marketing literature (Dukerich,Kramer, and Parks 1998). All the informants from the CSAand 40 out of the 41 informants from BLAM had identifiedwith the organization; thus, we are not well positioned todiscuss negative cases. Our data only hinted at dark out-comes, with some evidence of dissonance. Informants spendtime trying to figure out if CSA membership is worth itin financial terms, thus, suggesting some lingering doubtabout the organizations value proposition. One informantat BLAM expressed underidentification (Dukerich et al.1998). He spoke plainly about his relationship with BLAMextending only as far as his paycheck, complained about thepay and benefits, and made fun of the office antics, men-tioning that he did not have time to partake even if he wantedto. Interestingly, this employee was hired in a push to de-velop a very technical aspect of the business; the culturalfit may not have been as important.

We encountered one other dark-outcome example, whichcould be classed as schizoidentification (Dukerich et al.1998, 249) by an employee who left BLAM a few months


after the main interviews were completed. She told us shedrank the Kool-Aid; however, she felt she was being askedto do too much in too little time and was working too manyovertime hours. She ended up quitting her job and becamea self-employed consultant. Consistent with the schizoiden-tification concept, however, BLAM was one of her first cli-ents. The choice to leave could be seen as a continuationof her sensemaking efforts, indicating that the relationshipwas no longer supporting what originally attracted her to it.

The final question we asked was whether identificationformation happens in parallel fashion across contexts. In-deed, we found that identification does seem to form in thesame manner across consumer and employee contexts; how-ever, there are important differences in the contexts thatshould be noted. First, informal conduits are experienceddifferently in the two contexts. In the CSA, informal con-duits are primarily experienced by individuals outside theorganizational context. This may result in a more abstractunderstanding of CSA values, inducing members to buy localfoods or to spend more money on locally made productsgenerally. However, employees at BLAM have many oppor-tunities for sensemaking that involve other employees. Thiscould lead to a more organization-centric understanding ofBLAM values, where employees are more focused on or-ganizational outcomes. The CSA example shows that infor-mal conduits are mostly outside the CSA. More corporatelycontrolled consumer contexts, such as Jeepfest (McAlexanderet al. 2002), are more like an employment context, offeringextensive sensegiving and sensemaking opportunities. Sec-ond, in the employee context, individuals have regular con-tact with managerial role models, increasing the opportunityfor role slippage, out-of-role behavior, and good and badexperiences, which may affect identification formation (Ash-forth 2001). In contrast, CSA members do not have muchcontact with the farmers, and when they do, the farmers arein a performative space (at pickup days, at the farmersmarket). Third, governance has different implications in thetwo contexts. In the CSA context, there is no policing. Mem-bers of the CSA are welcome to use or waste their produceas they like. There are no organizationally instituted conse-quences for members. By contrast, there are many governancetools in the employment context; both self-monitoring andorganizational monitoring affect employee behavior. In ad-dition, employees will feel consequences (from reprimandsto firing) if they fail to meet behavioral expectations.

The transformational consequences of constituents in-volvement with values-driven organizations invite future re-search into why and how these transformations take place.Do these transformations of values and behaviors generallyoccur instantly as epiphanies, or do they generally comeslowly with cadence and care through emulation? What isthe role of individual difference variables in fostering em-ulation and exploration? Do organizational constituents ex-perience a desire for change that leads to emulation, or dothey find themselves in situations that somehow feel right,and change happens somewhat more passively as they ex-plore organizational values? Further, we might like to know

what organizational characteristics differentially favor eachpath to identification. Conversely, we might ask whetherthere are differential outcomes for firms from variation inindividuals paths to identification. Also, what happens ifthe salient attributes of the organization that led to identifi-cation are not reinforced? When and under what conditionsdo individuals disidentify and ultimately break contact withthe organization (Ashforth 1998)whether employer, mem-bership organization, or consumption or brand communityand when identification fails, which paths are most vul-nerable? On another tack, many cocreative activities iden-tified in previous consumer research may conform to ourdefinition of productive consumption, such as writing cus-tom computer code, making sacrificial art, and crafting fanfiction, and others may not (Kozinets 2002; Muniz andSchau 2005; Schau, Muniz, and Arnould 2009). Finally,further research might ask which kinds of productive con-sumption are most likely to be associated with particularpaths to identification or which kinds of production con-sumption are most likely to lead to identification.

REFERENCESAhearne, Michael, C. B. Bhattacharya, and Thomas W. Gruen

(2005), Antecedents and Consequences of Customer-Com-pany Identification: Expanding the Role of Relationship Mar-keting, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (3), 57485.

Ashforth, Blake E. (1998), Epilogue: What Have We Learned,and Where Do We Go from Here? in Identity in Organi-zations: Building Theory through Conversations, ed. DavidA. Whetten and Paul C. Godfrey, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,26872.

(2001), Role Transitions in Organizational Life: An Iden-tity-Based Perspective, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ashforth, Blake E., Spencer H. Harrison, and Kevin G. Corley(2008), Identification in Organizations: An Examination ofFour Fundamental Questions, Journal of Management, 34(June), 32574.

Ashforth, Blake E. and Fred Mael (1989), Social Identity Theoryand the Organization, Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 2039.

Bagozzi, Richard P. and Utpal M. Dholakia (2006), Antecedentsand Purchase Consequences of Customer Participation inSmall Group Brand Communities, International Journal ofResearch in Marketing, 23 (1), 4561.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Hayagreeva Rao, and Mary Ann Glynn(1995), Understanding the Bond of Identification: An In-vestigation of Its Correlates among Art Museum Members,Journal of Marketing, 59 (October), 4657.

Bhattacharya, C. B. and Sankar Sen (2003), Consumer-CompanyIdentification: A Framework for Understanding ConsumersRelationships with Companies, Journal of Marketing, 67(April), 7688.

Borghini, Stefania, Nina Diamond, Robert V. Kozinets, Mary AnnMcGrath, Albert M. Muniz, and John F. Sherry (2009), WhyAre Themed Brandstores So Powerful? Retail Brand Ideologyat American Girl Place, Journal of Retailing, 85 (September),36375.

Burke, Kenneth (1973), The Rhetorical Situation, in Commu-nication: Ethical and Moral Issues, ed. Lee Thayer, London:Gordon & Breach, 26375.


Cedant, L. Blue (2009), BLAM, New York: Valleytown.Cheney, George (1983), On the Various and Changing Means of

Organizational Membership: Field Study of OrganizationalIdentification, Communication Monographs, 50 (December),34362.

Cheney, George and Phillip K. Tompkins (1987), Coming toTerms with Organizational Identification and Commitment,Central States Speech Journal, 38 (Spring), 115.

Denzin, Norman K. (2001), Interpretive Interactionism, ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

DiSanza, James R. and Connie Bullis (1999), Everybody Iden-tifies with Smokey the Bear: Employee Responses to News-letter Identification Inducements at the U.S. Forest Service,Management Communication Quarterly, 12 (3), 34799.

du Gay, Paul (1996), Consumption and Identity at Work, London:Sage.

du Gay, Paul and Graeme Salaman (1992), The Cult(ure) of theConsumer, Journal of Management Studies, 29 (September),61533.

Dukerich, Janet M., Roderick Kramer, and Judi M. Parks (1998),The Dark Side of Organizational Identification, in Identityin Organizations: Building Theory through Conversations, ed.David A. Whetten and Paul C. Godfrey, Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage, 24556.

Dutton, Jane E., Janet M. Dukerich, and Celia V. Harquail (1994),Organizational Images and Member Identification, Admin-istrative Science Quarterly, 39 (June), 23963.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989), Building Theories from CaseStudy Research, Academy of Management Review, 14 (Oc-tober), 53250.

Fournier, Susan (1998), Consumers and Their Brands: DevelopingRelationship Theory in Consumer Research, Journal of Con-sumer Research, 24 (March), 34373.

Franke, Nikolaus and Martin Schreier (2006), I Made It Myself!Exploring Process Utility in Mass Customization, 2006 AMAEducators Proceedings, 17 (Summer), http://www.marketingpower.com/Community/ARC/Gated/Documents/Connections/ARC_AMA_SUMMER2006.pdf.

Gioia, Dennis A. and Kumar Chittipeddi (1991), Sensemakingand Sensegiving in Strategic Change Initiation, StrategicManagement Journal, 12 (September), 43348.

Handelman, Jay M. (2006), Corporate Identity and the SocietalConstituent, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,34 (Spring), 10714.

Holt, Douglas B. (1998), Does Cultural Capital Structure Amer-ican Consumption? Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (June),125.

Ibarra, Herminia (1999), Provisional Selves: Experimenting withImage and Identity in Professional Adaptation, Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 44 (December), 76491.

Jacobs, Alexandra (2009), Happy Feet: Inside the Online ShoeUtopia, New Yorker (September 14), 6680.

Kagan, Jerome (1958), The Concept of Identification, Psycho-logical Review, 65 (September), 296305.

Kelley, Tom and Jonathan Littman (2001), The Art of Innovation:Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, Americas Leading DesignFirm, New York: Random House.

Kelman, Herbert C. (1958), Compliance, Identification, and In-ternalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change, Journalof Conflict Resolution, 2 (1), 5160.

Kozinets, Rob