the good, the bad, and the ambivalent

8/13/2019 The Good, The Bad, And the Ambivalent

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ambivalent 1/39

The Good, the Bad, and the Ambivalent: Managing Identification among Amway DistributorsAuthor(s): Michael G. PrattSource: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), pp. 456-493Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the Johnson Graduate School of Management,Cornell UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2667106 .

Accessed: 02/01/2014 21:40

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 of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Sage Publications, Inc. and Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University are collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Administrative Science Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 201.221.122.55 on Thu, 2 Jan 2014 21:40:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjohn


http://www.jstor.org/stable/2667106?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/2667106?origin=JSTOR-pdf



http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage



The Good, the Bad, andthe Ambivalent:ManagingIdentificationamong AmwayDistributors

Michael G. PrattUniversity of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign

? 2000 by CornellUniversity.0001-8392/00/4503-0456/$3.00.

0

I thank Lorna Doucet, Janet Dukerich,Jane Dutton, Martha Feldman, TrudyGood, Greg Oldham, Kevin Rock, LanceSandelands, Jim Wade, and Mary Wallerfor their helpful comments on earlierdrafts of this paper. I thank the Interdisci-plinary Committee on Organizational Stud-ies at the University of Michigan for itsintellectual and financial support, and Ithank individuals at Northwestern andCarnegie Mellon universities, as well as

participants at the Second Annual Whar-ton OB-Mini Conference and the first andsecond Identity conferences for theircomments and encouragement in devel-oping the ideas set forth in this manu-script. Finally,I thank Rod Kramer and thethree anonymous ASQ reviewers for theirpatience, guidance, and insight in helpingme to craft the final version of this manu-script.

IMy initial contact with Amway occurredwhen a family member became anAmway distributor. Iwas intrigued byhow uncharacteristically enthusiastic this

family member was toward the organiza-tion (see Pratt, 2000a, for details abouthow this family member became mysponsor). Moreover, upon doing a little ini-tial research, Iwas struck by the fact thatindividuals tended to have either strongpositive or strong negative reactions tothis organization.

An ethnographic study of distributors for Amway, a net-work marketing organization, examines the practices andprocesses involved in managing members' organizationalidentification. It shows that this organization managesidentification by using two types of practices: sensebreak-ing practices that break down meaning and sensegivingpractices that provide meaning. When both sensebreak-

ing and sensegiving practices are successful, memberspositively identify with the organization. When eithersensebreaking or sensegiving practices fail, membersdeidentify, disidentify, or experience ambivalent identifi-cation with the organization. A general model of identifi-cation management is posited, and implications for boththeory and practice are offered.*

People say thatwe brainwashpeople. That's rue.We are talkingabout brainwashing-to help make you all more positivepeople

-A speakerat a meeting of Amwaydistributors

Although it is common for researchers to praise organizationsthat promote strong attachments in their members, organiza-tions that are too successful in this regard seem to inspire amixture of both fascination and fear. In recent years, not-for-profit groups such as the Promise Keepers, Branch Davidi-ans, and the Heaven's Gate cult have captured the public'sattention, raising questions about the benefits and costs ofgroups that can evoke such strong bonds with their mem-bers. Infor-profitbusiness organizations, such as the oneexamined here, companies with "strong cultures" (O'Reilly,1989) have been both praised (Deal and Kennedy, 1982) andcriticized (Hochschild, 1983; Kunda, 1992) for their ability to

win the minds and hearts of their employees. Despite ourmixed feelings toward these organizations, practitioners andresearchers cite the necessity for strong cultures and ideolo-gies in modern business organizations (Triceand Beyer,1993). Some writers in the popular business press, for exam-ple, believe that strong values are needed as social controlmechanisms as organizations flatten hierarchies and increasespans of control (e.g., Stewart, 1996). Lipnackand Stamps(1997) have argued that strong mission statements are need-ed to manage work groups that are not co-located (e.g., virtu-al teams). Strong cultures may also bolster members' loyalty

and commitment in an era in which job security no longerserves as the cornerstone of psychological contracts in theworkplace (Kanter,1989). Thus, as organizations change,there seems to be a need to inculcate individuals with organi-zational values so that they continue to act as organizationalmembers. For the Amway distributors I studied, for example,there is no central business location, and work occurs out-side of a traditionalorganizational context. Amway and similarorganizations need a means of managing their workforcewithout the benefit of daily supervision and traditional defer-ence cues like cubicles and uniforms.

I was initiallydrawn to study Amway because peopleseemed either to love or hate it: it seemed both wildly suc-cessful and unsuccessful in managing the minds and heartsof its dispersed workforce.1 As the epigraph suggests, and Ilater discovered, Amway distributors manage their membersby changing how these members think and feel about them-

456/AdministrativeScience Quarterly,45 (2000):456-493







2Although work based on Van Maanen andSchein's (1979) socialization theory doessuggest that different socialization prac-tices can lead to either role innovation orrole custodianship (e.g., Jones, 1986;Allen and Meyer, 1990; Ashforth andSaks, 1996), the differentiation is not onthe positive or negative quality of theattachment but, rather,on how individualswho are positively predisposed to theirorganization adapt to roles. Moreover,although religious conversion theoristssometimes differentiate between verbalconverts, who are converts in name only,and total converts, whose words arebacked with deeds, this distinction refersto differences in the degrees of positiveattachment (Loflandand Stark, 1965).

Managing Identification

selves in relation to their organization. The purpose of thisresearch, therefore, was to illuminate the practices andprocesses that are involved in aligning individual and organi-zational values. To do this, Idrew on a broad body of knowl-edge on organizational socialization, social influence/conver-sion, person-organization fit, and commitment. But Idrew

most heavily on theory in the area of organizational identifica-tion (e.g., Cheney, 1983; Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Dutton,Dukerich, and Harquail,1994) because this organizationattempts to manage fit by managing members' self-con-cepts. Identification differs from similar constructs, such ascommitment and person-organization fit, because of itsemphasis on the self-concept and is thus defined here asoccurring when "an individual'sbeliefs about his or her orga-nization become self-referential or self-defining" (Pratt, 1998:172). The focus of this paper, therefore, is on identificationand how organizations attempt to manage the identification

process. Its purpose is not to identify how factors such aspersonality or other individualdifferences affect the bondbetween the individualand the organization. Rather, it is onhow organizations attempt, succeed, and fail to change howmembers view themselves in relation to the organization.

This research departs from most of the extant work on orga-nizational identification in at least three major respects. First,most research focuses on how organizations successfullyengender strong ties with members (e.g., Lofland and Stark,1965; Kanter,1968; Van Maanen and Schein, 1979; Cheney,1983), but an emphasis on practices that lead to positive

attachments may be misleading. In their review of identity-transforming organizations, whose goals are the conversionof members' self-concepts, Greil and Rudy (1984) suggestedthat attempts to transform the identity of members mostoften fail and that the majorityof such attempts result inthose members leaving the organization within four monthsto two years after they enter (see also Zimbardo and Ander-sen, 1993). Their review of identity-transforming organiza-tions, unfortunately, does not delve into why these organiza-tions fail in their missions. Thus, it is not clear whether thefailure to manage members' identification simply involves theabsence of those factors that cause identification or whether

there are different dynamics involved. This research, there-fore, examines in more detail both the successful and unsuc-cessful outcomes of these identification-management prac-tices.

Second, Iexamine how successes and failures in differentidentification management practices lead to different types ofidentification, not just positive identification. Although othertypes of identification than a positive one are possible (e.g.,Ashforth, 1998; Dukerich, Kramer,and Parks, 1998; Elsbach,1999), emphasis in the literatures on commitment, socializa-tion, and conversion of identities focus on identifying tacticsthat lead to positive attachments (e.g., Lofland and Stark,1965; Van Maanen and Schein, 1979).2 Here, however, I lookat organizational conditions that lead to positive, negative,ambivalent, and broken identifications.

Third,much extant research has focused only on specific

types of practices-be they influence (Cialdini, 993;Zimbar-

457/ASQ,September 2000







3

My own experience as a distributor con-firmed that many different types of peo-ple joined Amway. When attendingAmway functions, I noticed considerablevariance in race, religion, gender, andcareer backgrounds, the latter suggestingdifferences in education and social eco-nomic status.

do and Andersen, 1993), rhetorical (Cheney, 1983), commit-ment-inducing (Kanter, 1968), or more general socialization(Van Maanen and Schein, 1979) practices-that engender astrong bond between individuals and organization, rather thanexamining how these practices might work together to influ-ence this bond. Thus, despite a considerable body ofresearch on the organizational antecedents of fit (see Kristoff,

1996, for a review), there has been little research on theprocesses that underlie these tactics (Pratt, 1998). Conse-quently, many researchers view identification "in fairlystaticterms as the congruence between fixed attributes and needsof a person and those of an organization" rather than indynamic, process-oriented terms (Ashforth, 1998: 213). Thisresearch, by contrast, goes beyond simply identifying prac-tices that lead to identification and examines the process ofhow identification occurs. The purpose of this paper, there-fore, is to build theory by illustratingthe practices andprocesses involved in identification management and by

showing how the successes and failures of these practicesare associated with a variety of identification types.

DISTRIBUTORS IN A NETWORKMARKETINGORGAN IZATION

To obtain a deep understanding of the dynamics of identifica-tion, I sought information about both the context that Iwasstudying and the perspectives of multiple constituents withinthis context. The context for this study comprises individualswho distribute products and services for the Amway Corpora-tion. Amway distributors have been found to exhibit both

strong positive and negative relationships with their organiza-tion (Butterfield, 1985; Biggart, 1989), and they provided anideal extreme case from which to build theory about identifi-cation management (Eisenhardt, 1989; Pettigrew, 1990).Extreme cases facilitate theory building because the dynam-ics being examined tend to be more visible than they mightbe in other contexts.

The Amway Corporation, founded by Richard DeVos and JayVanAndel in 1959, currently earns an estimated $7 billion inretail sales a year and operates in all 50 states and in approxi-

mately 70 other countries and territories around the world.Currently,there are approximately 3 millionAmway distribu-tors worldwide. Although the company does not publishdemographic statistics, it boasts of having a highly heteroge-neous company. The cornerstone of Amway's philosophy isthat "anyone can do it" (be a successful Amway distributor).3As Dexter Yager (1993: 15-16), the most financially success-ful Amway distributor in the business today, describes it inthe opening chapter of his book:

TheAmwaySales and MarketingPlan .. providesequal opportuni-ty to allpeople-regardless of background,nationality r otherdif-ferences-to further heir own achievementthroughpersonaleffortand initiative. t is an opportunitynot limited o those who have spe-cialskills, education,or largeamountsof capital o invest. Successin networkmarketings possible wherever there are people in freesocieties who are willing o commit themselves to conscientiouslybuild heir businesses.

458/ASQ, September 2000







4Amway manufacturesmanyof theseproductsandservices, such as its tradi-tional inesof soap anddetergents, cos-metics, andvitamins.When the AmwayCorporationoes not carry line of prod-ucts or services, it sometimes acquiresthem from other companies.In otal,dis-tributors ave access to over2,000 manu-facturesand 6,500 productsandservices,includinghose providedby such Fortune500 companies as Sony, Panasonic,Ford,Chrysler,GeneralMotors,and MCI.


The Amway Corporation and its distributors constitute a largenetwork marketing organization (NMO), also known as a net-work direct-selling or multilevel marketing organization. AnNMO is a social structure through which a sponsoring organi-zation (e.g., Amway) uses individualmembers, or "distribu-tors," to sell its products and services face to face, outside

of a central business location.4 NMOs involve the sponsor-ship of new members, and distributors are encouraged tosponsor family members, friends, and others as "prospects"or potential recruits (see Biggart, 1989, for a review ofNMOs). Distributors who are connected by common spon-sorship ties are referred to as a "family tree." Individualsbelow a distributor,such as the people whom distributorssponsor, comprise a distributor's "downline." People above adistributor, such as a sponsor and a sponsor's sponsors, arepart of that distributor's "upline."

NMOs also have predetermined recognition levels (Biggart,

1989). These indicate the volume of sales that a person hasattained and serve as a measure of achievement. Direct dis-tributors-those whose sales volumes are high enough thatthey order products and services from Amway directly, ratherthan via another distributor-are differentiated based on theirsales volume by "gem levels," such as Pearl, Ruby, Emerald,and various Diamond levels. These levels do not indicate adistributor's level of formal authority, but high-achieving indi-viduals are often asked to instruct those of lesser achieve-ment. The more successful members spend considerableamounts of time personally teaching new members how to

"build the business," that is, how to sell products and spon-sor others. This personal training is augmented by the distrib-utors' "system," which consists of distributor-sanctionedbooks, tapes, and functions, such as meetings, rallies, andseminars. Taken together, the Amway structure provides astrong financial and social hierarchy without the conventionalformal lines of authority found in most organizations of itssize.

NMOs are a rapidly growing organizational form. Estimates oftotal worldwide involvement in network marketing organiza-tions range from over 7 million to over 25 million people.

When compared with this population of organizations,Amway's structure and way of operating is similar to otherNMOs, such as Mary Kay, Shaklee, and Longaberger (seeBiggart, 1989; Pratt and Rosa, 2000). Moreover, as one of thefirst and most financially successful of the NMOs, Amway isoften used as a standard for these types of organizations.

As an NMO, Amway differs from traditionalorganizations insome respects, including the fact that members (1) are oftennot co-located, except during Amway functions; (2) often ini-tially pursue a career in Amway on a part-time basis; (3) arerequired to pay a membership fee of around $100 and often

pay for training materials (e.g., books and tapes); and (4) arenot legally employees but act as independent franchises thatmust follow legal and ethical guidelines set forth by the par-ent organization (e.g., Pilzer, 1990; Free, 1992; Gage, 1993).As such, distributors are somewhat akin to contingent, con-tract, and other nontraditional workers who are forgingunique relationships with their organizations in terms of








5

While it is possible that acknowledgingmy role as a researcher may have influ-enced the behavior of distributors, several

factors attenuated this effect. First, giventhe large number of distributors at meet-ings and rallies, it is unlikely that my pres-ence had much effect on their behaviors.Second, given that I was a distributorfornearly two years, it seems improbablethat distributors would systematicallyalter their behaviors during each of ourinteractions over that time. Third, therewas a general belief among distributorsthat anyone who really understoodAmway could not help but be impressedby it, and members' confidence in themerits of distributing allowed them to beopen with me. Someone in my familytree even told me that "God meant more

for you than academics." This memberfelt that once I understood what Amwaycould provide, Iwould realize that Icoulddo more good in the world as a distributorthan as an instructor. Fourth, peopleabove me in Amway tended to beextremely ends-oriented. They did notcare what I did in my spare time, even ifit was interviewing Amway members, aslong as I was selling products and tryingto sponsor people (i.e., buildingthe busi-ness).

6Since the first six months of socializationare critical in determining the nature and

extent to which members learn key ele-ments of the organization's culture (But-terfield, 1985; Van Maanen, 1975), Iensured that my participationwould lastat least a half a year. After this initialsixmonths, my time in the field was deter-mined by theoretical saturation andresource constraints.

where, when, and how often they work (see Pfeffer andBaron, 1988; Belous, 1989; Pearce, 1998). Distributors do,however, share many of the same duties performed by oth-ers in sales organizations, vying with one another to sellproducts and services and recruit new salespeople. More-over, distributors who successfully recruit others must trainthem in much the same way that many sales managers in

traditional organizations do, and they must maintain a balancebetween active sales accounts and supervising others. Final-ly, as a sales organization, Amway and other NMOs aresometimes viewed negatively. As Amway co-founder DeVos(1975: 100) noted, "My own particular 'thing' has alwaysbeen salesmanship. I have been involved in sales all my life,and I am always amazed to see how many people look downtheir noses at salesmanship as a worthy occupation. So fewpeople have respect for salesmen...." Distributors arewarned that non-members may have negative preconcep-tions about Amway and about sales/distributing. Thus, distrib-

utors are similar to others who are engaged in work that isoften deemed unpopular by non-members (e.g., Ashforth andKreiner, 1999).

METHODS

Data Collection

I used three main data collection strategies: semiovert partici-pant observation, open-ended interviews, and archival datagathering. Multiple techniques allowed me to triangulate find-ings from different sources to build stronger assertions aboutinterpretations (Jick, 1979; Yin, 1984; Eisenhardt, 1989).

Semiovert participant observation. One of the primarysources of data for this analysis was participant observation.Being a participant observer allowed me the opportunity notonly to observe distributors but also to actively engage in dis-tributing. Such participationwas necessary given that I wasstudying complex and potentially morally charged processessuch as how organizations win (and lose) members' mindsand hearts. As Douglas (1976: 28) suggested, "The less con-crete the phenomena being studied, the more problematicthey are for members of society, and the more they are sub-ject to moral or material interest conflicts, the more the

researcher must use natural participation in the group as thebasic method to get at the phenomena." Semiovert participa-tion entails joining the organization but letting coworkersknow of your dual role as an employee and researcher, and itoffers advantages beyond other forms of participantobserva-tion (Whyte, 1984). First, working alongside informants as afellow employee helps gain the trust of coworkers. Second,semiovert observation allows a researcher the opportunity toask questions that might otherwise seem unusual comingfrom a typical coworker.5

I systematically collected data in this fashion for almost two

years, but the most intense period of participantobservationoccurred over a nine-month period.6 During this time, I lis-tened to Amway tapes, read their books, sold their products,and did product ordering and bookkeeping tasks. I alsoattended various formal functions, such as weekend semi-nars and daylong workshops, and informal functions, such as









casual meetings with upline members. I logged observationsin a research journaland checked the validityof the observa-tions with other data sources, such as interviewsand archivaldata.

Open-ended interviews. I used open-ended interviews with

informants o gain insights into how individuals iewed theirorganizational xperiences. FollowingSpradley 1979), 1began each interviewwith broadquestions, such as "Canyou tell me about what you do as a distributor?"As eachinterview progressed, Iasked for clarification n certainpointsor terms (e.g., "Couldyou tell me what you mean bythe word 'dream'?").Once themes began to emerge acrossinterviews, I validated hese themes in subsequent inter-views.

Because of my initial nterest inwhy Amway eitherwon overoralienated people, the logic of theoreticalsampling suggest-

ed that I interviewcurrentdistributors, s well as people whohad resisted Amway's practices (Eisenhardt,1989). Thus, Iconducted interviews and engaged in informal onversationswith both distributors nd non-distributors. nterviews ypical-ly lasted from one to two hours. Interviewswith distributorsinvolveddiscussions with two types of distributors: ctiveand inactive. Distributors iewed members as being activewhen they consistently boughtand sold products, sponsoredothers, and regularly ttended Amwayfunctions. The tenureof active distributors interviewed ranged from seven and ahalf months to twenty-two years. Inactivedistributorswerethose who renewed their annualmembershipinAmway but

performed ew, if any, distributing ctivities.Their enure withAmway rangedfrom one and a half to seven years. Non-dis-tributors ncludedpeople who quit Amway (formerdistribu-tors)and people who were approachedand refused to join("losers").All former distributors interviewedleft within ayearof joining.AlthoughIdid not specificallyask fordemo-graphic nformation,most of my informantsappearedto bewhite, and 45 percentwere women. Initially,interviewedactive, inactive,and former distributorsn my sponsors' fami-ly tree, as well as their failed recruits(N = 15). Tosupple-ment these interviews andto help reach theoretical satura-

tion or information edundancy Glaserand Strauss, 1967;Eisenhardt,1989), Italkedwith other members and non-members. Iinterviewed a total of 17 currentdistributors nd16 non-distributors.

Archivaldata. Ianalyzedthree sources of archivaldatatogaina greater insightintoAmway's belief system (Hill,1993).These sources included,but were not limited o, 10 booksand booklets, 24 audiocassette tapes, and 137 success sto-ries published nthe monthlyAmagrammagazine duringmytenure as a distributor. also gained informationromAmway-relatedwebsites. Books and booklets provided nfor-

mationabout the historicaland ideologicalcontext of thecompany.Amway tapes generallyserve two purposes fordistributors:hey instructdistributors n distributingech-niques (e.g., how to contact people aboutAmway),andtheyprovideencouragementand motivation.Forthis analysis,they were integral ources of information bout the tech-niques used to indoctrinatemembers. The success stories








provided key information about both the company's and itsdistributors' aspirations or "dreams." Finally,websites provid-ed additional information on why individuals chose to join orto leave Amway.

Data Analysis

In analyzing data, I employed a theory-building approach thatinvolved moving from a highly personalized account that con-sisted primarilyof thick description to one that was moreabstract and analytical and was integrated into currentresearch (Van Maanen, 1979). Following the iterative processrecommended by Strauss and Corbin (1990) and Miles andHuberman (1984), Itraveled back and forth between the dataand an emerging structure of theoretical arguments. Initially,Iscanned the data (e.g., observations, interviews, tape tran-scripts, and success stories) for dominant themes. This pre-liminary form of data analysis occurred concurrently with datacollection. As themes-such as "the use of family lan-

guage," "the superiority of distributing relationships,""excitement for 'dreams"' -began to emerge in the data, Inoted them and used them to organize new, incoming data inan iterative fashion (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Becker, 1970).I then organized the emerging themes into a coherent frame-work. After developing, exploring, and evaluating the utilityofseveral alternative frameworks, Iarrived at the one that Ibelieved offered a strong contribution to theory without doingundue violence to my experience. It was important that myframework add to theories of organizational behavior, but Idid not want my framework to unduly distort the actual expe-riences of Amway distributors. To help ensure that I accom-plished the latter goal, I discussed and modified the frame-work based on conversations with key informants.

FINDINGS

Although Iwas initiallyattracted to Amway distributorsbecause people seemed either to love or to hate them, myexperiences with the organization ultimately led to a richerunderstanding of how members and non-members reactedto Amway and the causes of those reactions. I came to viewAmway as an organization that attempts to manage mem-bers' identification by managing how they make sense ofthemselves (i.e., their identities), as well as their relationshipswith people within and outside of distributing.

Three key findings helped me to model the identificationprocesses among distributors. First, I noticed that simplyseparating informants into two groups-lovers and haters-failed to capture their full range of reactions toward the orga-nization. In addition to these groups were those who wereambivalent toward Amway and those who did not seem tohave any strong connection (positive or negative) to it. More-over, these reactions seemed to be explained in terms ofidentification: those who emotionally evaluated the organiza-tion-positively, negatively, or both-defined themselves interms of the organization, while the others did not.

Second, the successes and failures in two organizationalpractices, "dream building" and "positive programming,"seemed to account for the different reactions to the organiza-








7I found three major practices in Amway:dream building, positive programming,and prospecting. Prospecting involvesrecruiting distributors. Given that all mem-bers were, by definition, successfullyrecruited, I did not find a relationshipbetween this practice and members'identification.

8This latter observation fits statistics pub-lished by the Amway Corporation. Forexample, the Amway Business Review(1992) noted that of the 46 percent of alldistributors on record who were found tobe active, only 1 percent made enough insales volume to qualify as a direct distrib-utor. Thus, 99 percent of active distribu-tors were not achieving a high sales vol-ume.

9Of course, individual differences cannotbe totally ruled out as an explanatory vari-able. For example, there may be somerelationship between identification andpersonality type. Because this study wasan ethnography, it did not lend itself tothe use of personality tests, nor woulddistributors be amenable to such tests,whose intent-to find profiles of success-ful and unsuccessful Amway distribu-tors-would go against distributors'shared belief that anyone can build anAmway distributorship.


tion.7 Dream building involves helping distributors to set per-sonal and sales goals, and positive programming involveshelping them to surround themselves with uplifting and orga-nizationally supportive people. When looking at informantswith different types of identification, a pattern emergedbased on whether the distributor had been successfully or

unsuccessfully socialized through these practices. The combi-nation of successful dream building and positive program-ming, for example, was associated with positive identifica-tion, whereas successful dream building and unsuccessfulpositive programming was associated with disidentification.The bulk of the reported findings discuss the relationshipamong these two socialization practices, the social-psycho-logical (i.e., sensemaking) processes they evoke, and thetypes of identification found among distributors.

Surprisingly, identification was not based on one's financialsuccess with the organization. I met distributors who hadbeen financially successful, even attaining a high gem-levelsales volume before they quit, and several active distributorswho loved Amway but who were not financially successfuldistributors.8 Distributors were also often unsure about howmuch money they were making as a distributor.When askeddirectly about profits, none of the current or former distribu-tors I interviewed could (or would) give me a clear-cutanswer about their net profits and losses. Distributors evendisagreed about how they would go about calculating creditsand debits. To illustrate, some informants felt that the differ-ence between the wholesale and retail price of products that

they bought for personal use should be counted as profit,while others did not think it should. Similarly,some felt thatthe cost of tapes, books, and functions should be considereda cost to be subtracted from their other profits, while othersdid not think so. It was surprising that in an organization thatvalued making a profit, it was difficult for distributors toanswer the question, "How much money are you making?"Finally,there was little evidence from the Amway Corpora-tion that distributors were making a lot of money. In fact, theAmway Corporation estimated the average monthly grossincome for an active distributor to be only $65 per month

(Amway Business Review, 1992). Ina different vein, visibledemographic variables did not seem to account for differ-ences in identification either. For example, women did notseem to be better represented in some groups of informants(e.g., negative toward Amway) than in others, and there werecollege-educated informants in each of the groups.9

Third, these socialization practices affected members' sense-making processes. Sensemaking is the attribution of meaningto some target (e.g., events or other social stimuli) via theplacement of this target into a mental framework (Starbuckand Milliken, 1988; Weick, 1995: 4-5). When dream-building

and positive-programming practices were successful, mem-bers were motivated to construe their own identities as"embodiments" of the organization (e.g., positively identify).When practices were unsuccessful, they (a) failed to moti-vate individuals to make sense of their identities in terms ofthe organization, (b) motivated members to make sense oftheir identities in opposition to the organization, or (c) moti-

463/ASQreptember 2000







vated members to make sense of their identities both in har-mony with and in opposition to the organization. Thesesensemaking outcomes were associated with nonexistentand negative and ambivalent identification, respectively. Alltogether, identification types were a product of motivatedsensemaking.

Creating the Need for Meaning via SensebreakingDream building and positive programming work together toproduce positive identification. The process begins by induc-ing a sense of seekership in the distributor. Inthe literatureon religious conversion, when an individual defines him- orherself as a religious seeker, he or she is "searching forsome satisfactory system of religious meaning to interpret orresolve his [or herndiscontent . . ." (Lofland and Stark, 1965:868). Though seekership is normally seen as a condition thatpredisposes one toward being successfully converted by areligious organization, I propose that Amway attempts to cre-

ate a type of nonreligious seekership among its distributors.In this context, seekership is defined as a desire to findmeaning that originates from a sense of discontentmentabout who one is.

Amway distributors create this sense of seekership in newmembers through a process of sensebreaking. Whereassensemaking involves the creation of meaning (Weick, 1995),sensebreaking involves the destruction or breaking down ofmeaning. Additionally, just as sensemaking is grounded inidentity construction, sensebreaking involves a fundamentalquestioning of who one is when one's sense of self is chal-

lenged. Sensebreaking is similar to but more specific thanother terms used in describing human change, such as disso-nance reduction (Festinger, 1957) or unfreezing (Lewin, 1958;Schein, 1987) in that the main purpose of sensebreaking is todisrupt an individual's sense of self to create a meaning voidthat must be filled. A primary sensebreaking practice inAmway is dream building. Dream building creates a meaningvoid by (1) linking one's sense of self to possessions, (2) cre-ating motivational drives by comparing current and ideal iden-tities, and (3) perpetuating these motivational drives.

Linking one's sense of self to possessions. Sensebreaking

via dream building occurs as one's current sense of selfbecomes devalued as one becomes impregnated with new,ideal selves. This process begins by linkinga distributor'ssense of self with his or her possessions. According toJames (1890), possessions may include anything that can beassociated with someone and can be represented physically,such as a flashy sports car, a beautiful daughter, or a publicservice award. These possessions can serve as extensions ofone's self-concept (Prelinger, 1959; McCarthy, 1984; Belk,1988). As Maccoby (1980: 252) noted, "the self can beextended beyond a notion of 'me' to include 'my': The self isnot just a physical entity bounded by skin, it is a psychologi-cal construct in which the concept of me and the concept ofmy are blended."

Within Amway, self and object are first linked in dream build-ing through a "needs analysis" in which distributors aretaught to identify their dreams. One's dream would be the









answer to the question, "What do you want so much thatyou would do almost anything to get it?" A distributor'sdreams are conscious representations of those things that heor she wants to achieve or to have in his or her life. They are"your vision of the future for yourself and those you love"(Yager, 1993: 448). The most common Amway dreams center

around lifestyle issues. One should attain enough money tobe financially independent (have financial "freedom"), toaccumulate possessions, to go on vacation, and so on.Lifestyle dreams appeared in 100 percent of the Amway suc-cess stories that I content analyzed. These dreams are cen-tral, because attaining financial freedom is key to achievingother dreams, such as being a good family member (found in86 percent of the success stories) and helping others (foundin 29 percent of the stories). Thus, physical possessions(e.g., wealth) were seen as a means of attaining nonmaterialdesires (e.g., helping others). Illustrations of each of these

major dream types can be found in table 1.

Learning how to identify one's dreams can occur in a varietyof ways but most often involves modeling the dreams of themost successful Amway distributors in one's family tree(e.g., upline Diamonds). Exposure to such dreams can be rel-atively passive, as members read and listen to stories ofdream achievement in Amway tapes, books, and magazinesand watch slide shows and videos at Amway functions thatvividly display indicators of their upline's wealth and achieve-

Table 1Dream Categories, Examples, and Illustrations from Data

Dream categories & types Illustrations from data

Lifestyle

Material wealth / "Iwould like to own my own home. [it should havel about 55 rooms and 100 acres,possessions and you know, some kind of stables." (Excerpt from dream building session)

Freedom "The best part, really, absolutely, without hesitation is doing what you want to do(No J.O.B.) every day. How many of you can get excited about that concept? [Crowd claps and

cheers.] Eat breakfast with your children. Have lunch when you're hungry. Take a napin the middle of the day. Do whatever you want to do. I go out on the swingset with

my little girl and we sing our favorite song, 'I love you, you love me'." (Excerpt fromtape, This Is Where YouDon't Need an Ad Pack)

Family

"Traditional"American family "My wife is pretty burned out in her job and yet she does not want to retire from herjob until Iam able to ... my daughter wants to have swimming lessons. She's2 1/2 years old and our life does not really afford the time to have swimming lessonswith both of us working. That's something we'll be much better able to do when wehave more time to share with our children and our children aren't in day care five daysa week." (Excerpt from an interview with a distributor)

Helping

Business opportunity "Michael, do you really want to help people? If so, you can help more people byshowing them this business than you can from teaching. God meant more for you

than academia." (Excerpt from my field journal: my upline distributor is instructing meon why Ishould be a distributor)

Altruism "I want to own my own foster home for women who have Alzheimer's disease anddo my research about the environment in that foster home so that this, our Amwaybusiness, would support that and if it [the home] didn't make money, it doesn't matterbecause it will just be an altruistic service to society." (Excerpt from an interview witha distributor)








10I refer to all informants by pseudonyms toprotect their identities. I use my ownname, however, when warranted.

ment. At some functions, dreams are represented moredirectly as successful distributors, wearing their finestclothes and jewelry, are on display in reserved seating infront of an audience of less successful distributors. Dreamscan also be learned more actively in intense dream-buildingsessions between upline and downline distributors. Thesesessions may involve talking about the dreams of successful

distributors who are similar in some way to the downline dis-tributor, such as those with a similar career background. Theymay also involve taking a downline distributor on a type ofshopping spree in which dreams are identified and shaped.The appendix describes such a session with my sponsor,Zack, and our upline Emerald distributor, Mark.10

This identifying and teaching of dreams is similar to a masscustomization process in which goods are produced on anassembly line but are made to fit an individual'sneeds. Forexample, a jeweler may have ten stone settings, ten differenttypes of gems, and ten styles of bands. With these thirty ele-

ments the jeweler can create 1,000 unique combinations ofrings that can be tailored to each customer. Similarly, uplinedistributors have a number of dream categories and types attheir disposal. As in mass customization, the set of cate-gories is finite. To illustrate, given that some people outsideof Amway are negative toward distributing, upline distributorsdo not support dreams of societal status, specifically thoseinvolving positive recognition by non-members. As an Emer-ald distributor noted to a group of my prospects during anAmway meeting and dream-building session, "I'm not realbig on status . . . there's a lot of people out there who look

good, smell good, and are broke. They have status but theyhave no money and they have no power but they like to actlike they do. I don't have any status." Moreover, family treesmay emphasize certain dreams over others (e.g., buying dia-mond jewelry). Despite these restrictions, distributors canpick and choose from a wide variety of acceptable dreams(see table 1). Once an upline member communicates therange of these dreams, the upline and downline distributorcan work together to craft a unique dream for each distribu-tor.

By mass customizing dreams, Amway creates three condi-

tions that have been found to be conducive to incorporatingobjects into the self: choice, familiarity,and emotion(Prelinger, 1959; McCarthy, 1984; Belk, 1988). By allowingmembers to pick dreams that are familiarto them, distribu-tors get very excited and enthusiastic about them. Theexcitement they feel toward their dreams has many names,including "the burn," "getting the fever," and "getting thebug." I noted in my research journal how easy it was to getcaught up in one's dreams:

The excitement of dreams is almost inescapable. I vividlyremember

getting caught upinthem even

thoughIalso

thoughtthat

theywere foolish or "toogood to be true."One of my "dreams"as adistributor egardedpersonalfreedom.... Thinking boutthis dreamreallygot me excited as Ithoughtaboutall of the myriadpossibili-ties that such a life could offer:to be able to work as muchor as lit-tle as Iwanted;to be able to dictate what courses Itaughtand tohave the funding o do whateverresearch Ifelt was important;o

466/ASQ, eptember2000







11

This motivational drive may also beexplained in terms of goal setting: one'sideal self may serve as a motivating goal.Work in goal-setting theory suggests thatindividuals work best when goals are spe-cific, difficult, and there is goal commit-ment (Locke and Latham, 1990; seeAmbrose and Kulik, 1999, for a review).Goal commitment is enhanced whengoals are self-set. Thus, Amway's dreambuilding is motivating from a goal-settingperspective as it provides specific, diffi-cult, and self-set goals. What Amwayadds to our understanding of thisprocess, however, is that goals linked toone's sense of self are highly motivating.If goals are linked to one's sense of self,then we can go beyond simply explainingwhich goals are motivating (e.g., difficultones) and explain why they are motivat-ing.


be able to do more communityvolunteerwork; o be able to travelat a moment's notice to see familyor to vacationanywhere in theworld;and to just be able take the day off when I felt like it, etc....The pullof these dreams is both simple and powerful:how couldyou not be enthusiasticaboutwhat you want most in life?

Creating motivational drives for meaning via identity

deficits. Once incorporated into a distributor's sense of self,possessions trigger a variety of dynamics within the distribu-tor. One such dynamic is a comparison between ideal andactual selves. Unlike most treatments of extended selvesthat are concerned with objects or relationships that a personcurrently possesses, dreams refer to possessions that onehas not yet attained. These hoped-for possessions serve aspositive possible or ideal selves, representing an individual'skey hopes or fantasies (Markus and Nurius, 1986). Problemscan arise when a person comes to compare his or her cur-rent self with his or her newly formed ideal self. By remind-

ing an individual of what one can have (e.g., a new car, a bet-ter family) and/or what one can become (e.g., wealthy), idealselves also remind one of what one currently does not haveand therefore what one is not. Incorporationof these idealpossessions into one's identity thus serves to challengeone's current sense of self. It creates a type of identity deficitor a misfit between who one is and who one wants tobecome. Such deficits are especially potent when people arein a state of crisis or are not happy with their current identi-ties.

Distinctions between current and ideal selves are further

strengthened when a distributor refers to his or her currentself as being in a "comfort zone" (a.k.a. "the rut"), or beingsatisfied with what he or she currently has in life. To be inone's comfort zone is to be a "loser" because it does notinvolve striving for dreams. Distributors are aware that get-ting out of one's comfort zone demands change. A commonsaying in Amway is "the definition of insanity is doing thesame things over and over and expecting something differentto happen." Thus, distributors are told that accepting whatthey currently have is not good enough. To be a winnermeans that one needs to change to achieve one's dreams.

In identity language, a negative valence is attached to one'scurrent self (i.e., one's comfort zone), and a positive valenceis attached to one's ideal self (i.e., one's dream). This deficitbetween current and ideal selves creates a motivationaldynamic: individuals are driven to lessen the differencebetween ideal and current conceptualizations of self (Markusand Nurius, 1986). The motivational aspects of identitydeficits have been implied at both the individual(PrattandDutton, 2000) and organizational (Reger et al., 1994) level.Prattand Dutton (2000) found that such a discrepancy wasintegral in determining the social issues with which organiza-tional members identified. Reger et al. (1994) similarly sug-gested that the incongruity between current and ideal organi-zational identity acts as a catalyst for motivatingorganizational change.11

This motivational drive may also be explained in terms ofsensemaking. When sensebreaking via dream building is suc-cessful, one's sense of self is challenged. The tension that

467/ASQ, eptember2000







comes from challenging one's current sense of self withone's ideal future self breaks apart the taken-for-grantednature of one's life (Berger and Luckmann, 1966). Because itchallenges the notion of who we are, we are driven to regainour self-esteem and to create a sense of consistency amongpast and present selves (Erez and Earley, 1993; Weick, 1995:23). This drive draws one's attention toward new cues about

the self that must be reconciled with one's past experiencesin order to fit these discrepant cues about the self into ameaningful framework (Louis, 1980; Starbuck and Milliken,1988; Weick, 1995).

Enacting and perpetuating the motivational drive formeaning. The management of identification is a cyclicalprocess. Thus, it does not end when an individual identifieswith the organization. Similarly,dream building does not endwith achieving dreams. Once distributors stop reaching fordreams, they become trapped in their comfort zones. As adistributor described it to me, "In life you are constantly in

motion. You can either be moving forwards or backwards.Being in your comfort zone is moving backwards. It is likeowning a house and not doing anything to it-in three years,your house will fall apart." As a result, distributors are alwaysencouraged to build new dreams once old ones have beenattained. As DeVos (1993: 191) tells distributors, "When adream comes true always replace it with a bigger dream.And those big dreams will keep you alive and excited for therest of your life." Similarly,a Diamond distributor said at arally, "Keep climbing, never reach your peak " Thus, onemust always avoid being a loser by continually adopting new

dreams.In my own experience, dreams of successful distributorsoften evolved over time from lifestyle and family-orienteddreams to dreams of helping others. As these dreamsevolved, they became more abstract, more difficult, and tooklonger to fulfill.They also involved helping larger and largernumbers of people, such as "saving" the United States andthe world through selling Amway. As one distributor noted,"As long as there is Amway, America is safe for generationsto come" (excerpt from tape, I Think Mark Twain Said ItBest). Ina talk he gave, an Emerald distributorexpressed a

similar sentiment:

I'vegot a very importantssue ... remember,guys, we ain'ttalkingaboutsoap. We ain'ttalkingaboutAmway.I'mtalkingabout hisfuture.I'mtalkingaboutthe future of America .. I'mtalkingaboutthe future of people. AndIdon't care how you cut it.... Take heguys inthe revolution.What didthey do? Littlegroupsof people sataroundand made plans. Theytalked about how it was going to be.They talkedabout how they were going to formthings inthe rightdirection.... We are likepeople inthe revolution.They're ightingagroupof people who's biggerthanthey are.They're ightinga peo-ple who are off base intheirmorality-in the way they view things.

Andthey're fighting ora purpose.And Isaid, "Whatare wedoing?"It ain'tcars. Itain'tgrins.Itain'thouses. Although t is. Butyou see, that is what it's all about. Andthat'swhere we sometimesgotta drawstrength.

The upshot of this continuous dream building cycle wastwofold. First, as distributors spent more and more time









achieving dreams, more of their lives (e.g., the social, busi-ness, and spiritual aspects) became intertwined with theiridentity as distributors (e.g., behavioral commitment-Kiesler,1971; Salancik, 1977). Second, constant dream buildingensured that members were constantly seeking self-valida-tion and thus were in a constant state of seekership.

Seekership in Distributors

Successful sensebreaking (dream-building) practices lead toseekership: a sense of identity-related discontentment thatresults in a drive to finding meaning. Thus, distributors whowere seeking used dreams to represent their ideal selvesand their current dissatisfactions, were motivated to changetheir current selves, and were always creating new idealselves or dreams to keep from settling for what they current-ly had. When sensebreaking worked, distributors highly iden-tified with their dreams. As the quotes provided in table 1

suggest, dreams were personalized. For each distributor,dreams were represented by their homes, their spouses andchildren, and their aspirations for helping others. As such,dreams reflected various aspects of these distributors' identi-ties (e.g., self as spouse and parent). These dreams also rep-resented members' current dissatisfactions with their ownlives, such as the distributor in table 1 who wanted swim-ming lessons for his daughter. Distributors engaged in seek-ing were not only dissatisfied, they were also motivated tochange who they were and to "break out of their comfortzones." As one highly successful distributor explained, "Togrow you have to be willing to get out of your comfort zoneand give more than the average person would. We decidedwe'd postpone TV and early bedtimes. I'm a fanatical basket-ball player, and Iwas invited to play in a league two nights aweek. But I postponed all that" (excerpt from a story in theAmagram, July 1993: 5). Finally, seekers used their dreamsor ideal selves as constant motivators. One can never be toosatisfied. Thus, Executive Diamond Bob Howard noted,"Night after night, I'm out by choice, showing the Plan andhelping downline distributors realize their potential(excerpt from the Amagram, April1993: 7). Even the highlysuccessful Dexter Yager "still builds the business today,

starting anew all the time" (excerpt from tape, PerfectingYourContacting).

Fulfilling the Need for Meaning via Sensegiving

Seekership leads to a search for meaning about one's self.Weick (1995) argued that this search involves looking forother people to help one make sense of one's self. Seeker-ship needs may be met by sensegiving, which involves"eattempting o influence the sensemaking process ...toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality (Gioiaand Chittipeddi, 1991: 442). Among distributors, sensegiving

practices take the form of positive programming, a processwhereby the distributor is taught to fill his or her mind withthings that are "upliftingand edifying." The logic behind posi-tive programming is that a mind exposed to positive peopleand materials will be more positive. A mind exposed to nega-tive influences will be more negative-as with computers,"garbage n, garbage out."Among distributors, reatingthis








"ppositiveprogram" occurs by establishing a set of relation-ships that are supportive and nourishing, while avoiding rela-tionships that can be harmful. Positive programming beginswith establishing a mentoring relationship with an upline dis-tributor. Inthis relationship, distributors learn which relation-ships are positive and should be sought out and which arenegative and should be avoided. Positive relationships then

become a source of meaning about who one is and who oneshould become. Sensegiving via positive programming thusinvolves three interrelated steps: (1) establishing a relation-ship with a mentor, (2) creating relationship barriers viarevaluing, and (3) enacting and perpetuating relationship barri-ers.

Establishing a relationship with a mentor. The first step inpositive programming is to find a mentor who will help onebecome more positive (DeVos, 1993). Amway distributors,especially those in one's upline, are held to be ideal mentors.Their unique qualifications to be mentors are implicit inDeVos's (1993) description of upline mentors:

Pictureyourself pregnantwith a dream. The mentor stands over youand helps you relaxand breathe during he painful ontractionswhile your dreamis in labor.The mentorassists the dream downthe birthcanal and out intothe lightof day.The mentorholdsyourdreamup by its heels andspanks it to life. Thenthe mentorplacesthat newborn dream into yourarms, smiles, and walks away toassist anotherdreamer n labor.

This excerpt from DeVos is filled with warm, personal, andpowerful imagery. Upline mentors are not like investors who

only help you gain monetary assets, rather, they are like mid-wives helping you give birthand life to your own dreams.Their work is familial and is done with love. Thus, throughoutAmway functions and tapes, advice about making money isinterwoven with expressions of care and concern. For exam-ple, at Amway functions, upline distributors almost alwaysend talks with words such as "we love you." Moreover,handshakes, hugs, and other gestures of affection are oftenevident during rallies and seminars, some of which arereferred to as "family reunions." These sentiments are alsoexpressed in Amway sayings. Distributors often note that

"epeopleget into Amway for the money and stay in it for thepeople" and if you "build a friendship, you build a direct-ship." Similarly,both the economic and loving aspects of thedistributing relationship are captured in the Amway phrase,"ayou o into business for yourself, not by yourself." As onedistributorquoted in a success story explained, "Yougo intobusiness for yourself, but not by yourself. There is a wholeline of sponsorship that gives you all of the support youneed.... Iwas having a difficult time going through adivorce, and I'd be a disaster now if it weren't for myupline.... Trygetting that kind of support in the dog-eat-dognews business [her former occupation]" (Amagram, June1993: 16).

Strong mentor-protege relationships develop when uplinemembers model the ideal Amway relationship and demon-strate both economic and emotional support (Bandura, 1962).Economic support comes with teaching downline distributors









the skills needed to build an Amway business (e.g., how tosponsor and sell products). New members are told to learnthese skills via "duplication": they are to "blindly obey" theadvice of upline members. To increase new members' com-mitment to their mentors' advice, however, they are giventhe choice whether to engage in such blind obedience. Emo-

tional support is shown as upline distributors engage in amultitude of acts that show downline distributors that theygenuinely care about them. For example, distributors' suc-cess stories, told at functions or in the Amagram, givenumerous accounts of upline distributors going above andbeyond being simply business partners. In one success story,a distributor talked at length about how his upline helped himto get off drugs and to "change his life." Similarly, marrieddistributors spoke tearfully at one function of how their spon-sors gave them a frozen turkey when they were in need offood. Even though their sponsors gave them the turkey

under the pretense that "itwouldn't fit into their freezer," thedistributors said, "they knew we really needed it."

When upline members enact the relationship standard, verystrong bonds form. As one upline distributor I intervieweddescribed the relationships with the downline members inhis Amway family tree, "One of the biggest things in thisbusiness is that I can count on probably about 100 people inmy group that would do just about anything for me. Not thatI abuse that. It's not like a Branch Davidiantype thing. Wehave a great relationship with those people, and you know,that's one of the intangibles." These upline-downline bondscan be so positive and attractive to downline distributors thatdownline members are often motivated to be successful inthe business so that they can "walk the beaches of theworld" or vacation with their upline friends. One distributorinterviewed talked about qualifying for Pearl so he could golfwith his upline: "Garyand Gloria and all of their Pearls, Emer-alds, and Diamonds were in Bermuda last week and the onlyway you can qualify for that trip is to be a Pearl. So, I'm madand they go on a golf trip every spring and I'm mad because Ilike to play golf and Iwant to be with them because I likethem, they have heart."

The importance of having a mentor is found in several theo-ries of individualchange (e.g., Schein, 1987). Sarbin and Adler(1970), for example, noted that the role of teacher was com-mon in all of the conversion systems they reviewed. Mentorsin Amway are key in educating and disseminating informa-tion. They help guide members in deciding which books toread, which tapes to buy, and how to use the Amway systemto learn the most about the business. They are even helpfulin providing advice in other areas, such as marriage, parent-ing, and religion (Pratt, 2000b). All these suggestions help

distributors understand "who they are" and "who theyshould be" in organizational terms (e.g., be a better distribu-tor to be a better spouse). Inaddition to providing informa-tion, however, upline mentors are also critical in helping toinsulate members from the negative opinions of non-mem-bers. They help members avoid the negative influences ofone's employerand non-supportive amily and friends by cre-








12Uplinedistributorslso note that startingyourown non-Amway usiness is not as

goodas Amwaybecause you haveto puta lot of money into it (e.g., buyingaMcDonald'sranchise), nd there is noone to help you or who is interested nyoursuccess (i.e.,providesyou withemotional upport).Thus, no other busi-ness arrangement rovideswhat one willfind in a distributingelationship.

ating relationship barriers between the distributorand thesenegative non-members.

Creating relationship barriers via revaluing. Positive pro-gramming creates relationship barriers by comparing idealAmway relationships with members' other current relation-ships. Given that both money and love characterize distribu-

tor relationships, all other relationships are compared withthat standard-and found wanting. For example, distributingrelationships are promoted as being better than relationshipswith people at work, especially those with one's boss. Ifyouwork for someone else, you have a job or a J.O.B., "a Jack-ass Of a Boss." Working for someone else in a corporation isalways seen as being bad because "when you work forsomeone else, you will never get paid what you're worth."The rationale is that corporations can never fully compensatetheir employees for what they are worth because they needto make a profit.12 By implication, people in most organiza-

tions do not have any genuine concern for you. This charac-terization of traditionalwork relationships as being withoutlove is common. The following excerpt from an interviewtypifies thinking about working for others:

Do most people who trainpeople teach them everything hey know,everytrickof the trade? No. IncorporateAmerica oday if someoneknows what you know,what's the possibility?What can they do?Theycan replaceyou, they can get ahead of you. Theycan get thepromotion,allright.... what Ifind is this, if personA is trainingper-son B andthey don'tteach them everything hatthey know. Thenperson B trainsperson C but he teaches him less. Why?Becausehe's protectinghimself. Now personCteaches person D. Poor per-son D can't even find hisway to work because he's not getting allthe information.

Because there is no love in corporate boss-subordinate rela-tionships, distributors should not look to their boss to helpfulfill their own dreams. The boss is only concerned that theyfulfill the needs of the organization. These relationships,therefore, should be minimized or avoided. Similarly,a distrib-utor should also avoid spending time with friends and familywho do not support the distributor in his or her business.

Friends who do not join or buy products from a distributorareseen as not being "true friends" because they are not sup-portive of his or her business. One distributor talked aboutnot being the best man in his friend's wedding because thefriend deliberately scheduled his wedding at the same timeas an Amway event. Distributors are also reminded that"although your parents or family may not like that you aredistributors, they are not the ones who are paying your bills."Family, in this case, refers to those outside of one's immedi-ate family, never one's wife or children. "Marriedsingles,"Amway distributors with non-supportive spouses, are taught

to keep trying to convince their spouses to join them in theirdistributorships. Because of the devastating effect thatfriends and family can have when they do not support adownline distributor, DeVos (1975: 32) cautions people to bewary of those who are trying to "steal your dreams" andleave you discouraged:








13This way of creating relationship barriersis akin to creating strong in-group/out-group dynamics (Kramer,1993), but unlikethe dynamics described in some theories,such as social identity theory, in-groupand out-group categories among distribu-tors need to remain more permeable tooutside members (cf. Tajfeland Turner,1979). Individuals in the out-group whoshow the slightest interest in distributingcan quickly be shifted to the in-group. Bycontrast, members who stray-perhapsstop selling or sponsoring others-are notimmediately relegated to out-group sta-tus. Rather, they may be retained as "in-group" members for a long time beforefinally being cast out. Finally,some indi-viduals, such as negative spouses, aretreated as somewhere in between the in-group and out-group. The in-group/out-group dynamics created via positive pro-gramming and relationship revaluing arethus slightly more fluid than those positedby other theories.


Whydo so many people let theirdreams die unlived?The biggestreason, I suppose, is the negative, cynicalattitudes of other people.Those other people are not enemies-they are friends, even familymembers. Ourenemies neverbotherus greatly.... But ourfriends-if they are naysayers, constantlypunchingholes in ourdreamswitha cynicalsmile here, a putdown there, a constantstream of negative vibrations-our friends can killus

Despite their potential or harm,distributors re still encour-aged to approach riends and family (and even strangers) oinvite them to join the Amway business. But such contactshouldbe minimized f these prospects are not supportiveofthe distributor's hoice to buildan Amway business-at leastuntil hey "wise up"and change their minds about Amwaydistributing 3

The relationshipbarriers reated throughpositive program-ming facilitatedmembers' encapsulation, ypicallydefined asthe process whereby group members are kept separate from

non-members(Greiland Rudy,1984; Lofland,1978; Pratt,2000b). According o Greiland Rudy(1984), encapsulationcan be physical,when the group physically eparates itsmembers from outsiders; social, whereby a member's life isstructured o that meeting outsiders is unlikely e.g., impos-ing high time demands) and/ora member's familyor friendsare brought nto the organization;r ideological,wherein anorganization's elief system buffersa memberfromexternalthreatsor attacks. Encapsulation f distributorswas primarilysocialand ideological.

Socialencapsulation ollows directly rom the creationof

strong in-groupbonds as members come to spend increasingamounts of time in the presence of like-minded thers (i.e.,otherdistributors) t functions or in meetings with uplinemembers. Socialencapsulationcan also occur by successful-ly sponsoring others. Converting amilyand friends to the val-ues of distributing elps to guaranteethatthe distributorwillreceive social support for building he business. Moreover,even if one sponsors strangers, spendingtime teachingnewmembers how to become distributorshelps ensure that asignificantportionof the sponsor'stime is being spent withindividualswho are friendly o Amway.Incontrast, ideological

encapsulationprovides protectionby bufferingmembersfrom individualswho do not joinor who otherwise attackthedistributorGreiland Rudy,1984). Rejectionby recruitscanbe explained by invoking he Amway relationship tandard:these people failto meet the standardbecause they do notlove you and/orwish to help you out economically.Thus,when a distributor'siblingtells him or her that he or she is"wastingtime" as a distributor,he distributor an lookto therelationshiptandardand ultimatelydismiss this opinionbecause its source-the sibling-does not provideeconomicsupportforthe distributor.Moreover,once a person is identi-fied as a non-supporter,deologicalencapsulationguides thedistributor o minimizecontactwith him or her,as well aswith other sources of "negativity."

Encapsulationacilitates member sensemaking by insulatingdistributorsrom potentiallynegativesources of information.As Weick (1995) noted, sensemaking is a social activity(seealso Louis, 1980). By creating strong mentor-protegebonds








14This practice can also be said to producehighly stable relationships, using Heider's(1958) balance theory. On the one hand, ifa prospect (a family member or friend)joins, then the "triad" of distributor,upline, and prospect are all positive. On

the other, if the prospect does not join,the relationship triad is still stable: therelationship between the new memberand upline is positive, but the other rela-tionships are negative. These stable rela-tionships may serve to strengthen thesensemaking context created by Amwaydistributors.

and negativelyrevaluingrelationshipswith non-members,positive programminghelps ensure that members will cometo resolve any identity-related iscontent(seekership)throughconversations with upline distributors.These uplinedistributors ct as sensegivers who ultimatelyhelp membersto view themselves inorganizationalerms (e.g., losers anddreamers),rather han in non-organizationalerms.

Enacting and perpetuating relationship barriers. As withdream building,distributorswere given the opportunity oenact positive programming.Thisoccurred, n part,throughthe act of distributing s the distributor uicklydiscoveredwhich relationshipswere "positive"and which were "nega-tive." Distributorswere often encouraged to tryto sponsorfamily members and friends firstbefore attemptingto spon-sor strangers. This allowed them to learnfirsthandwhetherfamilyand friendsreally oved them and wanted to supportthem economically.As one distributorold me ina conversa-

tion, approachingamilyand friends can lead to uncomfort-able realizations:"Thefirstfew months of this business arethe most difficultbecause familyand friends shit all overyou." But distributorswere not the only ones negativelyinflu-enced by these interactions.Familyand friends who areapproachedoften see the distributor s takingadvantageoftheirexisting relationshipsoreconomic gain.Severalnon-members talkedto me about avoidingdistributor riends andfamilyforthis reason.Thus,distributors ame to avoidnon-members, and non-members avoided distributors.

Inaddition o providing ncapsulation, he enactment ofthese relationshipbarriers ia positiveprogrammingnflu-enced sensemaking intwo otherways. First,enactment ofthe positiveprogrammingnvolvedchoice, and behaviorsfreely chosen are highlycommitting(Kiesler,1971; Salancik,1977). Commitment, nturn,can providea powerfulcontextfor sensemaking as "diversecognitions become organizedinto those that supportthe [committed]action,those thatoppose it, and those that are irrelevant o it" (Weick,1995:159). Inotherwords, the more Ibehave as a distributor,hemore Istart to thinkof myself as one. Second, promotingan

idealrelationship tandardcould lead to self-fulfilling rophe-cies. Ifmembers seek to sponsor familyor friends intoAmway, any action these non-members might take can serveto strengthenmembers' beliefs thatAmway relationshipsarebetterthan others. Iffamilyand friendsjoin,this actionpro-vides implicit upportfor distributing nd forthe uplinedis-tributorwho encouragedthe sponsoringof these individuals:"My uplinemust be rightbecause my familyand friendsagree with him/her." ffamilyor friends refuse to join,theuplinedistributors again rightbecause he or she could pre-dict that some familyandfriends would not fit the relation-

ship standard.Ineithercase, one's Amway relationshipscome to be viewed as positive,and non-members areviewed as negative.14When seen inconjunctionwith sense-breaking, he perpetuationof sensegiving helps ensure thatmembers seek validationof their identities fromAmwaydis-tributorsonly.








15Upline distributors, in turn, often framedtheir relationships with downline mem-bers as involving work with one's "chil-dren."


Encapsulated Sensemaking in Distributors

When positive programmingwas successful, membersengaged inencapsulated sensemaking in which they workedwith other members (e.g., their mentors) to construct theframeworksthat they used to understandparticular eople,events, or other social stimuli.When sensemaking was notencapsulated,members sought out non-membersto facili-tate theirmeaningconstruction.Among distributors, heprocess of encapsulated sensemaking involvedmembersformingvery strong bonds with their upline members,eschewing negative relationships,and seeing upline mem-bers as a key source of sensemaking.

Like hose in strongmentor-protegerelationships,peoplewho engaged in encapsulated sensemaking tended to havesecure relationshipswith theirupline (Kram, 983; HuntandMichael, 1983). According o many distributors, stablishing

this bond is key to staying active inthe business. As one dis-tributor interviewed noted, "The people that stay active arethe ones who can maintaina good personal relationshipwiththeirupline. Because this is a tough business, and ifyoudon'thave a good relationshipwith these people, you won'tmake it for the most part."Oftentimes, relationshipsbetween uplineand downline distributorswere so intensethat downline distributorswould describe theirrelationshipwith their uplinein parental erms (Huntand Michael, 1983).As one distributor ommented of her uplinedistributors,"Ithink, n a way, they [uplinedistributors] re likesurrogateparents succeeding where yourown parents have failed."15Similarly,BillBritt,a very successful Amway distributor,refers to his style of mentoringas "fatherpower" (DeVos,1993).

Unlikeotherdistributors, ncapsulateddistributorsalkedindetailabouttheirnegative reactionsto people such as boss-es or even friends who did not helpthem "fulfill"heirdreams. Ina conversationI recordedin my fieldnotes, a dis-tributor alked about how he now saw his boss as a J.O.B.:

At dinner,I had asked Kenhow his week was. He said "Itwasgreat I had a fightwith my boss this weekend " [Thisstatementsurprisedme.] He told everyoneat the table how his boss wantedto implementa planthat he disagreedwith andthat he took astrongstance inopposingher. He told herto herface, "Idon'tagree. Youmightwant to considerreplacingme with someone whodoes." He also said that he and his boss hadalways gotten alongwell. However,NOWhe realizedwhat they meant inAmwayabouthavinga "Jackass Of a Boss."

Otherencapsulateddistributors choed these negativeevalu-ations of theirbosses. Inaddition,negativesentiments werealso extended to one's (former)riends.One distributorinterviewedtalked about how the Amwaybusiness helped

her to see that her friends were not true friends becausethey could not supporther choice of makingmoney as a dis-tributor:"We've hadpeople aroundhere that know we aredistributorsnow andthey avoidus. We know that. It'sjustreal cold that people don't even care, people that we thoughtwere friendswon't even let us show them the plan.So it'squite a learningexperience about people."

475/ASQ,eptember 000







Finally,members who engaged in encapsulated sensemakingviewed their uplineas critical ources of meaning in theirlives. Among distributorswho engaged in this type of sense-making, nformation rom upline members-and othersources of Amway informatione.g., tapes, books, func-tions)-was highlyvalued.A distributor interviewednotedthe importanceof her uplineas a source of information fter

she failedto heed their advice about how to prospectone'sfriends:

[Being unrealistically ositive in a sales attempt]is the kindof thingyour uplinewarnsyou NOT o do, butyou do itanywaybecause[gettinglouder],THEYDON'TKNOWYOURFRIENDS. utthey DOknowyour friends [she laughsnervously].... They [uplineand peo-ple on tapes] say that you'regoing to want to get into the businessto hang around he people that are in the business and it's true.EVERYTHINGhey say is true. Itis reallydisgusting[smiling].

Creating Positive Identification

When both sensebreakingand sensegiving were successful,members exhibited positive identificationwith their organiza-tion. As a resultof successful sensebreaking, distributorswere dissatisfied with who they were. Because of successfulsensegiving, distributorsworked with uplinementors toresolve their discontent.The need for sensemaking, there-fore, was bothtriggeredand fulfilledby Amway.Not surpris-ingly, hese distributorsmade sense of theirindividual-organi-zationalrelationshipna way that favored the organization.Moreover, hey viewed themselves as embodiments of the

organization nd became "zealots"who enthusiasticallypros-elytizedthe Amway lifestyle (Butterfield,1985; Biggart,1989).

When distributorspositively dentifiedwith Amway, theywere more likely o continue to engage insensebreakingactivities,such as dreambuilding.The resultwas an identifi-cation that was continuouslyenacted and reenacted.Thus,even highlysuccessful distributorsnever "rested on theirlau-rels." In individual hange terms, members' sense of selfnever had the opportunity o adequately "refreeze"as newdreams continually hallengedthe self (Lewin, 1958; Schein,

1987). Such identification ook on a highlyenergetic quality,which is why members with positive identification,whichbest characterized ctive distributors,were described as"egettinghe fever" or as "having he burn."The qualityofthis type of identificationwith Amway is eloquentlydescribedin the followinginterviewexcerptwith an inactivedistributor:

It'skindof likethey [peoplewho totallybelieve inAmway]are madwith this bug inthem.... Ithink hat's what I see in theireyes, Itoldyou earlier hat people that have given it, they've given it [theirAmwaydreams]theirheart,theireyes are like[pause]there's thisintensitywhen you talkto them that there's just no questionat allthatthere's anotherway to live.

Figure1, which depicts a model of the identificationmanage-ment process of Amwaydistributors,hows how successfuland continuousreenactment of sensebreakingand sense-givingcan lead to positiveidentification.

4761ASQ,September 2000








Figure 1. Explaining different types of identification among Amway distributors via the success and failure of

sensebreaking and sensegiving practices.

Sensebreaking Yes * Sensegiving

Dream buildingYe

Seekership Positive Ye ncapsulate Positive

1. Linking one's programming Sensemaking Identificationsense of self to 1. Establishing apossessions relationship

2. Creating moti- with a mentorvational drives 2. Creating rela- Partiallyfor meaning via tionship barri- Yesidentity deficits No ers via revalu- No

3. Enacting and ingperpetuating 3. Enacting and Sensemakingthe motivation- perpetuating with Insiders andal drive for relationship Outsidersmeaning barriers

t

, _ _b~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yes

Failure to Identify or ensemakingwb AmbivalentiDeidentification non-members Identification

r--------------------------------_________ I Ys

Key:= Organizational practices Disidentification

= Social-psychological processes= Social-psychological outcomes

When Sensebreaking and/or Sensegiving Fail

Most identity ransforming rganizations ailintheir attemptsto managethe identifications f theirmembers (GreilandRudy,1984). If the practices I described always workedforAmwaydistributors,hey would not have a high turnoverrate. WhileAmway does not publish urnoverrates, esti-mates place it from 40 percentto almost 100 percentannual-ly (Biggart,1989). Finally,he explanationof identification othis pointdoes not explainwhy some distributors,particularlyinactivedistributors, tay withthe organization espite notwantingto sponsor others or to sell products. Figure1shows how failuresin eithersensebreakingor insensegivingmay account for the rangeof identifications oundamong

inactiveand former distributors.Nonexistent or broken identifications. Figure1 indicatesthatwhen sensebreakingfails,members are likely o breaktheir identification nd thus deidentify.Interviewswith non-members suggest that the primary eason fortheirlackofidentificationwas that they either never had(e.g., those whoneverjoined Amway)or hadstopped feeling "uncomfort-able" with their current ives and thus no longerwanted topursuetheir dreams. As one formerdistributor oted, "Iguess inthe beginningwe were excited forthe sense ofstartingyourown business, financial ndependence,those

types of things-and Iguess we kindof lost interest."As aresult,there was no need for members to "make sense" ofinadequatecurrentselves. These people were also not moti-vated to change themselves orto abandontheircurrent den-tities. As one distributorwho didnot renew explained,shedidnot want to change her life now that it was going well:"I'vejust gotten to the point in my current ob where Ican








work not too much overtime andget my stuff in. I likemyjob." As a result, she didn'twant to spend time going tomeetings, selling products, and so on. These distributorsper-ceived theirtime inAmwayas a periodof their lives whenthey "triedsomething new and didn't ikeit." As one formerdistributor oted, "It [beinga distributor]ust wasn't mything."

Not surprisingly,hese people were not motivatedto seekout uplinedistributors oradvice, nordidthey formanystrong bonds with the distributors.Some even hadslightlynegative views of their upline.As one distributorwho ulti-mately left Amway noted in an interview,he became increas-ingly distant with his uplinesponsors as he continued distrib-uting:"Idon't like the fact that the people inthe businessrevered whatever their Diamondsaid andtheir word was law.I wasn't comfortablewith the fact that everybodyaroundthem basicallywas worshipping hese people [successful

upline distributors],akingtheirwordat face value.Again,likeIsaid, Ijust didn'treallyagree withthat philosophy."Whilehis reaction o his upline was slightly negative, it does notconvey the deep sense of betrayaland angerthattypifiedindividualswho ultimatelydisidentifiedwithAmway.

Disidentification. As figure1 indicates,when sensegivingfailed,or when the bonds formed between uplineand down-line distributor id not lead to encapsulated sensemaking,individuals ither came to disidentifywith Amwayorremainedambivalently ttachedto it. Disidentification ccurswhen members "maintain sense of self-distinctivenessthroughperceptionsand feelings of disconnection"with anorganization Elsbachand Bhattacharya, 997:3). Unlikedeidentificationnwhich there is no connection with theorganization, isidentification ccurs when one identifies one-self in oppositionto the organization.Distributors ecome"anti-Amway"ather hansimply severing their connection.

As figure1 shows, members who disidentifiedwith the orga-nizationdid undergo the sensebreakingof dreambuilding.Asa result, they were excited by their dreams and knew thatthey hadto change themselves to achieve their dreams (i.e.,

they created an idealidentityand knew that they had tochange theircurrent dentities).One formerdistributor,whotalked to me about what initially ttractedhimto Amway,said, "Iwas very impressed with the guy's organization.Hehad a big beautifulhome. It had a basement and in his base-ment he had builtshelves, a whole wall of shelves and had afew desks there with a computer . . . but Ididn't have any ofthe things that he had so maybe that's what initially ttractedme to it." He also knew that achievingdreams was difficult.When talkingabouthis dreams of becominga lawyer,heused a logicsimilar o that used indreambuilding:he had a

dream andwas willing o work to achieve it, no matter whatobstacles he encountered: "It'smy dream[to practice law].I'm not gonna let them [critics]get to me, just because theywere unhappy hat day.... There's a priceto payforevery-thing,whether it's practicingaw or selling Amway-yougotta work hardat it."









Distributorswho disidentifiedwith Amway had, at best, dis-tant or infrequent nteractionswith their upline.At worst, dis-tributorsexpressed annoyanceor even deep-seated angertoward their upline. Mentoringrelationships an be volatilebecause they mix instrumental nd social relationships;hence negative relationshipsbetween mentors and proteges

are common (Kram, 983; Huntand Michael, 1983). Theaforementioneddistributor,orexample, blamed his uplinefor his disenchantmentwith Amway. Althoughhe had soldproducts successfully for other companies, he felt his uplinedidn'trecognizehis potential,and as he said, "they didn'tknow how, outside of just telling me to go to another meet-ing, to excite me." Anotherformer distributorwas more dis-approvingabout his relationshipwith his upline.Indescribingto me how his sponsor got him intoAmway,he recalled:

I was put in an awkward and painful] ituation.Theguy is giving mea sales rapandeveryone aroundare likesaying positive things and aslide show is going on-I'm obviouslybeingsold. I've been takenthere insomebody's carwho would prefer o take me home with abox of this stuff-there is immense social pressureon me. AndIam young and I'msquirmingand Ido have money ... and it wasonly $120, so it seemed likethe easiest way out of a difficult itua-tion.... Ifelt humiliated. It could almost be viewed as a torturesession.

Because Amway did succeed in its sensebreaking practices,seekershipwas triggeredas the formationof ideal identitiescaused distributors o reevaluatetheir lives. But becausesensegiving failed, they didnot attempt to findmeaningwith

otherdistributors; ather, hey sought out non-members.Inthe accounts Igathered,these distributors'"confidants"were decidedly negative towardAmway. Consequently,these formermembers tended to make sense of the organi-zationinan unfavorableight.Toillustrate,disidentifieddis-tributorsreinterpretedhe Amway relationship tandard hatgood relationshipsprovideboth emotional and economic sup-portto mean "uplinemembers are being nice to me so thatthey can make money for themselves." Thus,these formerdistributors ended to feel used and manipulated.Tokeep apositivesense of self, they often came to identify hem-

selves inoppositionto Amway.Some former distributorseven organized heir own website, the InternetSociety of Ex-Amway Distributorswith Web Pages, to display publicmes-sages such as the following:

Foryourown Family's ake, please take this to heart:IsAmwaytrulyrepresentativeof an authenticChristian wned and run Busi-ness? ... Is this the kindof companythatanyoneshouldfavorablypromote to others? ExtremeCaution s Advised:Thiskindof con-duct may obviouslyreflectverypoorlyon you PromotingAmwaymay quicklycome back to take a big bite out of your personalcredi-bility .. Be a "RealMan,"as is often stated inAmway Circles,

GETOUT-ANDSTAYAWAYrom

getting yourselfand

yourloved

ones sulliedby associationwith the likes of these folks.(http://www.getfacts.com/amway/stories/index.html)

Ambivalent identification. Forsome distributors,mostlyinactiveones, the qualityof their identificationwas ambiva-lent, tornby contradictoryhoughts, feelings, and behaviors(Freud,1950; Merton, 1976; Weigert and Franks,1989).








Members with ambivalentattachments alternativelymovetoward, away, or against theirorganizations Smelser, 1998;Prattand Doucet, 2000). Some ambivalentdistributorsrenewed their Amway membership(moved toward)but didnot sell products or sponsor others (moved away). One inac-tive distributor interviewed felt like he was struggling:

Yeah, he struggle Iguess is I always feel like Ineed to start thisthing and Idon't . . . and it's onlybecause of me. Imean there'snobody saying, oh you can't do it,you shouldn't,everybodysays itworks and I just don't quite understandyet 'cause I want to, thereare times when I want to. Thereare other times when I just flowwith things. That might be partof why I'm still in it. Yeah,yeah, it'sa good idea . . . [but sometimes] I get confused with all that so I justput itoff, Ijust don't deal with itfor a few months.

Such ambivalencecan be explainedby a successful sense-breakingbut only a partially uccessful sensegiving. To begin,as with those who either positivelyor negativelyidentified

with Amway,ambivalentdistributorswere attracted odreams and created images of their ideal selves. As oneambivalentdistributor oted, "My dreams are to feel goodyou know . . . Idefinitely want security. I don't want to haveto get screwed at work . . . you know what I mean. I don'twant to have to have a jobwhere people can control f I workor not." Moreover, hey developed strong bonds with theiruplinementors. As one inactivedistributor escribedto mehis relationshipwith his sponsor:

. .. he wants me to learn,he wants me to listen to tapes and readbooks andto ask questions andto go to functions.... the most

amazing hing aboutallthis is [that]Ihave not been the modelAmway person by any standard.I've blownoff a functiononce, Isaid I'dgo and Ididn't.Andyou know,Idon't come with my lists, Idon'tsponsor people, Idon'tuse consistently,andthe thingthat isreallyamazing s that there's this unconditionalupportyouknow.... It'skindof cool. I like him. He calls me cousin.

These relationships,however,were not enough to encapsu-late members totally.Ambivalentdistributorsdidnot cutthemselves off from their non-memberrelationships. nfact,to maintain hese relationships,distributors ometimes hidtheir involvement nAmway.Some were embarrassedby

Amway's negative reputation, ven when the basis for thereputationwas false, as in the following storya distributortold me:

Yeah,well, Igot a bunchof reallynice thingsfrom the Christmas at-alogso Ihad them delivered o work so I was showingoff the bigChristmaswreath cuz itwas really ool and someone said, "Wow,that'sreallynice,where didyou get that?"And Isaid, "InanAmwaycatalog."Andhe said, "Amway?They'reNazisright?" said, "Haha.[pause] What?"He said, "They'reNazis, t stands for the AmericanWaythatwas started,the headpeopleof thatare Nazis."Isaid, "Oh,okay.Ihave nothing o do withAmway,nope, nope."

Others hid their involvementso as not to alienatetheirfriendsandfamily.One distributor interviewedwho lost afriendafterrecruitinghimnoted, "Itseems to botherpeople... they like run from it. So Ifind that I get people that Idon'tcare too much if they run-you know but people that I like,but Idon't knowthem. They'renot partof my daily ife. So








16Ifound it difficult o maintainmy enthusi-asm aboutAmwaywhen Ihadto meetwith my more critical cademiccol-leagues. As a result,Ifound myself ignor-ing myacademiccolleagues duringhemost intense nine-monthperiodof datacollection.Thepullbetween my lifeas anacademicand a distributor as some-what painful see Pratt,2000a, fordetails).


like the people that I call are the people that I don't see a lotof. People Iknowthrough riends."Ambivalentdistributorsoften agonizedover the possibilityof damaging heir relation-ships with non-members by "using their friendships (orfami-ly relationships)n orderto make a profit."The net result wasthat ambivalentdistributorsdid form strong bonds with

uplinemembers, but they did not go the next step andeschew "negative relationships."As a result, they wereexposed to negative information bout Amway from signifi-cant, non-Amway,others.16

Insensemaking terms, ambivalentdistributors ngaged inseekership behaviors,but they went to both positive mem-bers and to negative non-members to obtainadvice andenlightenment.The net result was that they were pulled intwo differentdirections: heir need to achieve dreams andmaintain heir close bonds with uplinemembers helped tocreate a positive identificationwith the organization,but the

"anti-Amway" dvice of non-members created disidentifica-tionas well. As a result, these members were of "twominds" and expressed their ambivalence behaviorally:heyoften would sporadicallybecome active in theirdistributingandthen nearlystop altogetherfor an extended periodoftime.

A MODELOF MANAGING DENTIFICATION

Tothis point, I have attempted to explain he identification fcurrentand former Amway distributors s a productof moti-vated sensemaking. Sensemaking is motivated because in

each case inwhich an identificationwas formed (positive,disidentification, rambivalent),Amway used sensebreakingtactics to create a meaningvoidor seekershipwithindistribu-tors. As their sense of self was challengedby Amway,dis-tributorswere motivatedto redefine themselves and deter-mine whether their connection withAmwaywas good, bad,or ambivalent.

Amway manages the identification f its members by creat-ing seekership and encapsulated sensemaking in its mem-bers viadreambuildingand positive programming.Buildingfrom these insights, figure2 offers a preliminarymodel of

identificationmanagement by managingsensemaking.As figure2 suggests, if members are not seeking, then theywill either fail to identifyor will ultimatelydeidentifywith theorganization.But there may be other means than dreambuildingor inducingseekership in members. Tobegin, orga-nizationscan engage in a wide varietyof sensebreaking prac-tices. While not posited as sensebreaking practicesper se,practices identified ntheories of socialization VanMaanenand Schein, 1979), commitment(Kanter, 968), social influ-ence (Cialdini,993; Zimbardo ndAndersen, 1993), andidentityconversion(Greiland Rudy,1983) may be viewed as

contributingo sensebreakingbecause of their effects onmembers' self-evaluations.Forexample, divestituresocializa-tiontactics, identitymortification, azing,and publicconfes-sions of unworthiness involvethe invalidationf the self, typ-icallyby comparingone's currentself againsta valuedgroupidentity.InAmway,distributorsused theirown idealselvesas standardsof comparisons.These tactics begin to blur,








Figure 2. A model of managing identification by managing sensemaking.

SsLbe-knr Sensegiving S I* ream building Positive proh-

*Divestiture grammingMortification * Form strong

*Hazing _intraorganiza- ,*Public tional bondsconfessions Y > *Creyate positive-,

eeersh I y distinct YEs ncapsulate d Positive

_

Ax oeekership

groups _ SneaigIdentification

* ~~~~Form cohesive

Seeketion* Association/dis-

- Situations No association tac-

Traits ~~~~~~~~~~tics*Co-opt non-

members No

Failure o Identify or

Deidentification Ambivalent Identificationor Disidentification

Key:, = OrganizationalpracticesTOZ = Social-psychological processes

, Q1J = Social-psychologicaloutcomes

however, as sensegiving occurs, andthe standard or one'sidealself becomes increasinglynfluenced by other distribu-tors.

Inaddition,organizationsmayfoster seekership throughselection. Some individualsmay have predispositions owardseekership. Loflandand Stark(1965) suggested that religiousseekers are predisposedtowardfinding meaningin lifethrough religion.By extension, there may also be organiza-tionalseekers, predisposedto seek meaning throughtheorganizationshat employthem. Such a predispositionmayresult from dissatisfactionwith one's currentsituation,orthere may be some dispositional nfluence that makes a per-son more likely o be seeking, such as the strengthof one'sgrowthneeds. Ifso, then selection mayfacilitate he man-

agement of identificationwithinorganizations.But unlikerela-tivelystatic models of person-organizationit inwhich one ishiringbased on individual-organizationalue congruence, "fit-ting" inthis situationis an ongoingand dynamic process ofsensebreaking, meaning seeking, sensegiving, and sense-making.Thus, individualsmay "fit"at some points in timebut not at others (e.g., transition rompositive identificationto ambivalentand then backagain).

There are also a varietyof ways that organizations an pro-mote encapsulated sensemaking among members.Approachessimilar o "sensegiving,"shown infigure 2, have

been suggested inother literatures.Theoriesof identitycon-version (e.g., Loflandand Stark,1965; Lofland,1978; Greiland Rudy,1984), mentoring(e.g., Huntand Michael, 1983;Kram,1983),and organizationalommitment(e.g., Kanter,1968; Sheldon, 1971; Buchanan,1974) each note the impor-tance of managing ntragroup elationships ndeveloping

4821A5Q,September 2000








strong bonds between individuals nd organizations.Theoriesof social identity(e.g., TajfelandTurner, 979, 1985; Hogg,1996) and organizationaldentification e.g., AshforthandMael, 1989; Dutton,Dukerich, nd Harquail, 994) furthersuggest the need for establishing strong boundariesbetweenin-groupand out-group.Taken ogether, these literatures ug-

gest different means for developingrelationships hat facili-tate member sensemaking. Of course, this model may offerslightlydifferent nterpretations orwhy these practices areeffective infostering identification.For example, social identi-ty theorysuggests that organizations hat are attractiveorprestigiousare more likely o foster identification han thosethat are not because they enhance an individual's ense ofself-esteem. Butgiven the importanceof groupsin sense-making,such organizations lso have the advantage of broad-eningtheirboundariesby increasing he potentialnumberofpositivesensegivers to seeking members. InAmway, one

reasonwhy non-members are eschewed is because they arelikely o say negativethings aboutthe organization.Presti-gious organizations,however, may have "groupies,"non-members who feel positivelytoward the organization ndwish to emulate it (Pratt,1998). For hese organizations, heneed to create strong in-group/out-grouparriersmay be lesscriticalbecause non-members have been co-opted by theorganization nd serve sensegiving roles.

Figure2 suggests several propositions or research. Tobegin,it predictsthatorganizationshat successfully induce seeker-ship and encapsulatedsensemakingare likely o foster posi-

tive identifications.Moreover,once positively dentified,members are more likely o complywith organizationaldemands and be amenableto furthersensebreakingandsensegiving practices. Figure2 also proposes that this cycleof identification an be broken.Ifsensebreaking fails, identifi-cationswilldissolve. Ifsensegiving totallyor partiallyails,members' identificationwilltransform nto eitherdisidentifi-cationorambivalent dentification, espectively.Thus, manag-ing identification s an ongoingtask.

Theoretical Contributions

This research contributesto ourunderstanding f identifica-tion dynamicsinorganizationsnat least fourways. First, tmoves beyond simplypositingidentification racticestounderstandinghow these practicesmightworktogether ingeneratingprocesses that can lead to multiple orms of iden-tification.As shown infigure 2, dreambuildingand positiveprogramming-the practicesused inAmway-achieve similarend states as those posited by other theories. Buttheseother theories do not discuss how such practices mayworktogether to producemember identification.Thisresearch, bycontrast,suggests that to understandmanaging dentification

and its consequences, one must look at a combinationof tac-tics..Onthe one hand, organizations hatemphasize onlysensebreaking practicesmayalienateworkers.Here, identifi-cationmayfailas members seek meaningabout the organi-zationthroughnegative non-members. On the other, organi-zations that use only sensegiving practicesmay findthatmembers are not amenable to adoptingorganizational eliefs.








Here, identification ails because there is no motivation oidentify-one is satisfied with one's currentsense of self.

Second, and similarly,his research links identificationwithmotivationand sensemaking in new ways. Recent work hasbegun to linkmotivationand identification.Toillustrate, ocialidentity heorists have suggested that social identification s

motivated by self-esteem needs (see Deux et al. 1999, for areview and critique).Brewer(1991)has furtherarguedthatindividuals re motivatedto adopt social identities that helpthem achieve a balance between needs for inclusionand dif-ferentiation see also Brewer and Pickett, 1999). Recently,organizationalcholars have suggested that individualsmayidentifywith organizations o satisfy a wide range of needs,such as safety, belonging,or identificationneeds (Glynn,1998; Pratt,1998). Thisis similar o the approach aken byDeux et al. (1999), who offered seven distinct motivations oridentificatione.g., romantic nvolvement,self-understanding,collective self-esteem). Research presented here extends

this workby revealingan additionalmotivator or identifica-tion: a need to create meaningwhen one is confrontedwitha disparitybetween one's currentand ideal selves. As such,it seems consonant with Hogg and colleagues' general asser-tionthat social identificationmayfulfilla need for uncertaintyreduction Hogg and Abrams, 1993; Hogg and Mullin,1999).Moreover, his study illustrates he reciprocalnatureof identi-ty and motivation: he content of one's currentand ideal iden-tities providesthe motivationaldriveto change one's currentidentity(via identification).

There has also been some theoreticalworklinkingone'sidentity o sensemaking: one's identityhas been seen as thelens throughwhich one makes sense of the world(e.g.,Weick, 1995;Ashforthand Mael, 1996).Yetthe relationshipbetween identityand sensemaking may be more complex.The case of Amway distributors hows that identification,which involves identitychange, is itself a productof sense-making.Identificationmong distributorshas manyof theelements of Weick's(1995) depictionof sensemaking:it isgroundedin identityconstruction,enactive, social, ongoing,plausible,and retrospective.Identificationnvolvestalking oand actingwith other people (e.g., members or non-mem-

bers)to make sense of one's self in lightof one's organiza-tion. The end resultof identification, social identity,maythereforebe both a residue of and a lens for human sense-making.The connectionto sensemaking also reveals a recog-nizedbut often underexaminedaspect of identification:hedevelopmentof interpersonal elationships.Formingan iden-tificationwith an organizations about more thancreatingalinkwith an abstractorganization,t is also about makingsense of the self throughone's relationshipwith members,non-members,or both.

Third, his study is the first to show how organizational rac-

tices can leadto a wide rangeof identifications.Muchof theresearch on individual-organizationalttachment discussespositiveattachments.Thoughthis researchdoes not pre-sume that positiveattachments are always good forthe indi-vidualor organization e.g., Randall,1987; Ashforthand Mael,1989, 1996; Ibarra, 999), it still often equates the terms









"committed"and "identified"with people who feel excite-ment or enthusiasm toward theirworkplace. Research inidentificationhas recently suggested that members can haveother than positive identification tates. To illustrate,Elsbachand Bhattacharya's 1997) study of the NationalRifleAssocia-tion illustrates hat individualsmay actively disassociate withan organizationsee also Dukerich,Kramer,nd Parks, 1998;Elsbach, 1999). Similarly,heory has suggested that individ-ual-organizationalttachments can be conflicted (Dukerich,Kramer, nd Parks, 1998; Elsbach, 1999; Prattand Doucet,2000) and can be broken (Ashforth,1998) but has not sug-gested the practices and processes that might lead to thesevariousidentification tates.

Moreover,previous research suggests that one way to differ-entiate among different dentification tates is not just one'scognitive orientation oward an organizationbut also one's

emotional evaluationof it.Tajfel 1982: 24) referred o the"evalue nd emotional significance"of group membership asbeing centralto the formationof social identities,and Ash-forth and Mael(1989)defined identification s a feeling ofoneness with the organization.Despite this recognition, herehas been littletheoreticaland empiricalworkon examiningthe emotional qualityof organizationaldentificationHarquail,1998); rather, dentification ontinues to be conceptualizedasbeinga primarily ognitive construct (Dutton,Dukerich,andHarquail, 994). Inthe study presented here, emotional eval-uationsdistinguishamong identificationypes. Disidentifica-

tion,forexample, was associated with a negative emotionalevaluation,and ambivalent dentificationwith both positiveand negativeevaluations.Thus,while identificationhas cogni-tive aspects to it, this researchsuggests that identificationsare infused with emotions as well.

Fourth, his study implies that the process of identification sdynamic.Most treatments of identification re relatively tat-ic (Ashforth,1998) and focus on identification ather hanidentifying Pratt,1998). Thisstudy suggests that identifica-tion is not a one-time, all-or-nothing rocess whereby an indi-

vidualcomes to match his or hervalues with an organization.Rather, ndividuals an change identificationtates. While notdiscussed in detailhere, distributors ometimes changedhow they identifiedwith the organization:ome movingfromdeidentificationback to positive identification, ome movingfrompositiveidentification o ambivalent dentification, ndso on. Similarly, ositive identificationan varyin magnitude.Ihave suggested that dreams of distributors volve fromlifestyledreamsto ones that are more abstract and far-reach-ing and may includeelements of one's familyand spirituallives (Pratt,2000b). Drawingon the concept of multiplex

bonds from networktheory (Granovetter, 982; Brass, 1992),this suggests that as morefacets of one's identity(e.g., busi-ness, family,and religion)become boundup in an organiza-tion, one's identificationbecomes deeper. Thus, even posi-tive identifications an grow and change. Taken ogether,these findingsresonatewith Ashforth's 1998: 213) sugges-tion that "identity s a perpetualworkin progress."








Practical Contributions

Amway, with its network sales force of part-timeand full-time distributors,s not alone in its desire to manage mem-bers' identifications.Cheney (1991) noted that the manage-ment of members' identification s the criticalmanagementissue for the next century. In part,this is because the nature

of organizations s transforming.Traditionalrganizationalarrangements nwhich members spend most of their time intheir offices are changingwith such business trends astelecommutingandvirtualoffices. Spans of controlare alsobroadening,and thus there are decreasing amounts of man-agerialcontrolover each worker.Finally,he psychologicalcontract has changed as well. Members no longer feel thesame degree of loyalty o organizations hey once didbecause of the lack of job security.Taken ogether, thesetrends can be potentiallydisastrous for organizations: heyare losing supervisorycontrolat the same time that theirmembers are feeling less and less loyalty o the company.

Thus, we are seeing a resurgence inquestions about whatorganizations re and how we should relate to them. Fordis-tributors, he organizations a communityboundby a strongsystem of values and beliefs, and membershipinvolvestheincorporation f those values and beliefs into one's self. Tomanage members and membershipinthis type of organiza-tion, distributors reate a strong sensemaking context toreplace traditional ricksand mortar.

The identification-management racticesdescribedhere fur-ther practicalknowledge by givingus a new model to inter-pret existing organizational ractices, as well as suggesting

new avenues for managerialaction. First, his research maycause us to better understandwhy certaingroups,such asprofessionals, socialize members the way that they do. Themodel Ipropose may explainhow the harsh socializationofdoctors works to produce physicianswho strongly identifywith their profession (e.g., Marion,1991). In medicalschool,aspiringdoctorsare "beaten down" and are shown how littlethey know about medicinethrougha varietyof verydifficultexams and incessant questioningon hospitalrounds. Such aprocess continues in medical residency programsas newdoctors are made to realizethe limitsof theirphysicaland

mental resources. At the same time, ideal selves are offeredto them as physicalsymbols (e.g., being allowed to wearlongerwhite labcoats as one progresses through residency)or as aspirations e.g., helpingother people). Such practicesseem to be a form of sensebreaking.Thistrainingprocess isaccompanied by ever-increasingdemands on the physicians'time-be it for studyingin medical school ortakingcare ofpatients duringresidency. Surgeons, inparticular,ave beenknown to workup to 140 hours a week during heir intern-ship year. During his time, physiciansformclose bonds withsenior role models. Taken ogether,these practices helptoencapsulatemembers and contribute o professionalsense-

giving.Thiscycle of sensebreakingand sensegiving does notnecessarily stop here. Ifa physicianwants to work at an aca-demic institution, hen tenure hurdles act as periodicreminders hat one must continually ssess the value ofone's currentself. Moreover,committee andteaching obliga-tions serve to furtherencapsulatesuch professionals.Per-









haps lessons fromAmway distributors an shed new light onwhy this and other professionalsocializationpractices (e.g.,of lawyers andacademics) have the effects, intended or not,that they do.

Second, understanding eekership and encapsulated sense-

makingmay be integral o organizations hat are similar oAmway on some key dimension. Understanding he role ofseekership may be critical o organizations n which membersare part-timeor contingent workers by providingmemberswith some motivation o identifywith the organization.Simi-larly, eekership seems critical norganizationsnwhichmembershipis voluntary, uch as religious,self-help,orsocial-movementorganizations Kanter, 968; Greiland Rudy,1984). For hese organizations,whose mission is to providepurpose intheir members' lives, it may periodically e neces-sary to re-createwithin them the need for meaning. Seeker-ship may also be importantn professions and professional

organizations hat need to motivate members toward contin-uous improvementduring ong periods of socialization.Asnoted, physiciansduring heir residencies are often made tofeel inadequate,despite havingattainedmedicaldegrees, sothatthey willbe willing o undergo yet moretrainingand con-tinue to hone theirskills.

Ina similarvein, some organizationsor workgroups can ben-efit from a better understanding f encapsulatedsensemak-ing. Inorganizationswith geographicallydispersed work-forces (e.g., sales organizations, irtual eams), fosteringencapsulatedsensemakingvia practicessuch as positive pro-

grammingmay allow members to retaina sense of commonpurpose despite having nfrequent ace-to-facemeetings.Similarly, rganizations hat suffer from poor reputationsorgroups engaged in "dirtywork" (Hughes, 1951; AshforthandKreiner, 999), in which individualsmay come to feel stigma-tized due to physical, social, or moralaspects of theirjobs,mayalso seek to foster encapsulated sensemaking by pro-tecting organizationalmembers fromthe negativeevaluationof others. Ashforthand Kreiner's1999) insistence that dirty-workoccupationscreate strongcultures and use tactics thatredefine theirwork(e.g., selective social comparisons) its

the notion of sensegiving and encapsulated sensemaking asdescribed here.

Finally, rganizationsneed to weigh the costs and benefits ofmanaging dentificationn the mannerillustratedn this study.Althoughattaining trong, positiveidentificationsmayfacili-tate organizationalunctioning,one must be cautious aboutthe darkside of such identification,uch as a lack of organi-zational lexibility,ndividualulnerabilityespeciallyif theorganization's eputation ails),distrustand paranoia,overde-pendence on andoverconformityo organizational ictates,antisocial,unethical, mmoral,and even tyrannicalbehaviors

on behalfof both leaders andfollowers,decreased creativityand risktaking, burnout,and the loss of an independentsense of self (Ashforthand Mael, 1996; Dukerich,Kramer,and Parks, 1998; Dutton and Dukerich,1991; Schneider,Goldstein,and Smith,1995; Kramer ndWei, 1999). More-over, organizationsmay also incur abor-relatedosts, giventhe high turnover hese practices can induce. Thus, such








practices may be best utilizedwhen the organizationhas alarge laborpool.

For ndividuals, he concern is that such organizations akeadvantage of individualsby bending theirwills to that of theorganization.But not all individual utcomes of these prac-tices are negative. Manyactive distributors eemed genuine-

ly happywith their choice to become distributors.Forthem,Amway provideda strong sense of purpose and communityby unitingparts of their lives that had been segmented bymodern society (e.g., work, family,and religion).Thus, whatto an outsidermay seem like shameful manipulationeemedonly logicalto an insider.Why wouldn'tyou want to pursueyour dreams inthe companyof other, happy, ike-mindedpeople? Infact, manydistributorspitied (and even conde-scended to) non-distributors ho had not had the opportunityor the insight to take advantageof the Amway opportunity.

Some cautionmust be exercised in usinga highlycontext-

dependent ethnography o generalizeto otherorganizationsand social groups. First, he strengthof ethnographicwork isin providing pecific and detailed information,not generaliza-tions. Second, the context differs from other organizations:Amway distributors re a nontraditional, ispersed workforce. Third, thnographiesexamine extreme cases. As anNMO,Amwayconsists primarilyf ideologyand social rela-tionships. This simplicity n its structurehelped make theidentificationmanagement processes more observableandapparent.Identitymanagementin other organizations,how-ever, may be more subtle, more difficult o detect, or simplydifferent. By notingAmway's similarities o other NMOs (Big-

gart, 1989) and to emergingworkrelationshipswith contin-gent workers(e.g., Pfefferand Baron,1988; Pearce, 1998), 1have attemptedto linkAmway's practiceswith that of otherorganizations.Moreover,by linkingAmway's tactics to exist-ing theory in a model of identificationmanagement(see fig-ure2), Ihave tried to show how otherorganizations chievesimilarends (e.g., sensebreaking)throughdifferentmeans(e.g., public estimonials).

As organizations ontinue to change and scholarsand practi-tioners continue to advocateforstrongcultures to deal withthis change, it is perhapstime to revisitthe classic question

of how the self relates to the collectiveand whether andhow the collective should managethis relationship.Whetherthe reader'spurposeis to encourageor change organizationsthat tryto win the minds and hearts of theirmembers, per-haps it is best to understand irst the psychologicalprocessthat these organizations voke. Onlythen can we duplicate,or find substitutes for,what these organizationsprovide ortheir members.

REFERENCES

Allen, N., and J. P. Meyer

1990 "Organization socializationtactics: A longitudinal analysisof links to newcomers' com-mitment and role orienta-tion." Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 33: 847-858.

Ambrose, M., and C. T. Kulik

1999 "Old friends, new faces:Motivation research in the1990's." Journal of Manage-ment, 25: 231-292.

Ashforth, B. E.

1998 "Becoming: How does theprocess of identificationunfold?" In D. Whetten and RGodfrey (eds.), Identity inOrganizations: DevelopingTheory Through Conversa-tions: 213-222. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.









Ashforth, B. E., and G. Kreiner1999 "'How can you do it?': Dirty

work and the dilemma ofidentity." Academy of Man-agement Review, 24:413-434.

Ashforth, B. E., and F.A. Mael

1989 "Social identity theory andthe organization." Academyof Management Review, 14:20-39.

1996 "Organizational dentity andstrategy as a context for theindividual." In J. Baum and J.Dutton (eds.), Advances inStrategic Management, 13:17-62. Greenwich, CT:JAIPress.

Ashforth, B. E., and A. Saks1996 "Socialization tactics: Longitu-

dinal effects on newcomeradjustment." Academy ofManagement Journal, 39:149-1 78.

Bandura, A.1962 "Social learning through imita-

tion." In M. R. Jones (ed.),Nebraska Symposium onMotivation: 211-269. Lincoln,NB: University of NebraskaPress.

Becker, H. S.1970 Sociological Work: Method

and Substance. Chicago:Aldine.

Belk, R. W.1988 "Possessions and the extend-

ed self." Journal of Con-sumer Research, 15:139-168.

Belous, R.1989 The Contingent Economy:

The Growth of the Temporary,Part-time, and SubcontractedWorkforce. Washington, DC:National Planning Association.

Berger, R, and T. Luckmann1966 The Social Construction of

Reality. New York:AnchorBooks.

Biggart, N. W.1989 Charismatic Capitalism. Chica-

go: University of ChicagoPress.

Brass, D. J.1992 "Power in organizations: A

social network perspective."Research in Politics and Soci-ety, 4: 295-323.

Brewer, M. B.1991 "The social self: On being the

same and different at thesame time." Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin,17: 475-482.

Brewer, M. B., and C. L. Pickett1999 "Distinctiveness motives as a

source of the social self." InT. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer,and0. P. John (eds.), The Psy-chology of the Social Self:71-87. Mahwah, NJ: Erl-baum.

Buchanan, B.1974 "Building organizational com-

mitment: The socialization ofmanagers in work organiza-tions." Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 19: 533-546.

Butterfield, S.1985 Amway: The Cult of Free

Enterprise. Boston: SouthfieldPress.

Cheney, G.1983 "The rhetoric of identification

and the study of organization-al communication." QuarterlyJournal of Speech, 69:143-158.

1991 Rhetoric in an OrganizationalSociety: Managing MultipleIdentities. Columbia, SC: Uni-versity of South CarolinaPress.

Cialdini, R.1993 Influence: Science and Prac-

tice, 3rd ed. New York:HarperCollins.

Deal, T., and A. Kennedy1982 Corporate Cultures. Reading,

MA:Addison-Wesley.

Deux, K., A. Reid, K. Mizrahi, andD. Cotting1999 "Connecting the person to

the social: The functions ofsocial identification." In T. R.Tyler,R. M. Kramer,and 0. P.John (eds.), The Psychologyof the Social Self: 91-113.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

DeVos, R.

1975 Believe New York:BerkleyBooks.

1993 Compassionate Capitalism.New York:Dutton.

Douglas, J. D.1976 Investigative Social Research:

Individualand Team FieldResearch. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Dukerich, J., R. M. Kramer, andJ. M. Parks1998 "The dark side of organiza-

tional identification." In D.

Whetten and R Godfrey(eds.), Identity in Organiza-tions: Developing TheoryThrough Conversations:245-256. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Dutton, J. E., and J. M. Dukerich1991 "Keeping an eye on the mir-

ror: The role of image andidentity in organizational adap-tation." Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 34: 517-554.

Dutton, J. E., J. M. Dukerich, and

C. V. Harquail1994 "Organizational images and

member identification."Administrative Science Quar-terly, 39: 239-263.

Eisenhardt, K. M.1989 "Building theory from case

study research." Academy ofManagement Review, 14:532-550.

Elsbach, K. D.1999 "An expanded model of orga-

nizational identification." In

R. I. Sutton and B. M. Staw(eds.), Research in Organiza-tional Behavior, 21: 163-200.Stamford, CT:JAI Press.

Elsbach, K. D., and C. B. Bhat-tacharya1997 "Organizational disidentifica-

tion: A study of social identityand the National Rifle Associ-ation." Working paper, Schoolof Business, Emory Universi-ty.

Erez, M., and P C. Earley

1993 Culture, Self-identity, andWork. New York:Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Festinger, L.1957 A Theory of Cognitive Disso-

nance. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

Free, V.1992 "Magic marketing: Is network

selling about to revolutionizethe way we live and work?"Success, March 21: 33.

Freud, S.1950 Beyond the Pleasure Princi-ple. (First published in 1920.)London: W.W. Norton.

Gage, R.1993 "Networking: What ... why

... how." Money Maker'sMonthly, May: 22-23.

Gioia, D. A., and K. Chittipeddi1991 "Sensemaking and sensegiv-

ing in strategic change initia-tion." Strategic ManagementJournal, 12: 433-448.

Glaser, B. G., and A. L. Strauss1967 The Discovery of Grounded

Theory: Strategies for Qualita-tive Research. Chicago:Aldine.








Glynn, M. A.1998 "Individuals'need for organi-

zational identification (nOID):Speculations on individualdif-ferences in the propensity toidentify." In D. Whetten andP. Godfrey (eds.), Identity inOrganizations: DevelopingTheory Through Conversa-tions: 238-244. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Granovetter, M.1982 "The strength of weak ties: A

network theory revisited." InP. V. Marsden and N. Lin(eds.), Social Structure andNetwork Analysis: 105-130.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Greil, A. L., and D. R. Rudy1983 "Conversion to the world

view of Alcoholics Anony-mous: A refinement of con-version theory." QualitativeSociology, 6: 5-28.

1984 "Social cocoons: Encapsula-tion and identity transformingorganizations." SociologicalInquiry,54: 260-278.

Harquail, C. V.1998 "Organizational dentification

and the 'whole person': Inte-grating affect, behavior, andcognition." In D. Whetten,and P. Godfrey (eds.), Identityin Organizations: Developing

Theory Through Conversa-tions: 223- 231. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Heider, F.1958 The Psychology of Interper-

sonal Relations. New York:Wiley.

Hill, M. R.1993 Archival Strategies and Tech-

niques. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Hochschild, A. R.1983 The Managed Heart: Com-

mercialization of Human Feel-ing. Berkeley, CA: Universityof California Press.

Hogg, M.1996 "Social identity, self-catego-

rization, and the small group."InJ. Davis and E. Witte(eds.), Understanding GroupBehavior, 2: Small GroupProcesses and InterpersonalRelations: 227-254. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Hogg, M., and D. Abrams1993 "Towards a single-process

uncertainty-reduction modelof social motivation ingroups." In M. Hogg and D.Abrams (eds.), Group Motiva-tion: Social Psychological Per-spectives: 173-190. NewYork: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.

Hogg, M., and B.-A. Mullin1999 "Joining groups to reduce

uncertainty: Subjective uncer-tainty reduction and groupidentification." In D. Abramsand M. Hogg (eds.), SocialIdentity and Social Cognition:249-279. Oxford: Blackwell.

Hughes, E. C.1951 "Work and self." InJ. Rohrer

and M. Sherif (eds.), SocialPsychology at the Cross-roads: 313-323. New York:Harperand Brothers.

Hunt, D., and C. Michael1983 "Phases of the mentor rela-

tionship." Academy of Man-agement Journal, 26:608-625.

Ibarra, H.1999 "Provisional selves: Experi-

menting with image and iden-tity in professional adapta-tion." Administrative ScienceQuarterly,44: 764-791.

James, W.1890 Principles of Psychology, 2

vols. New York: Holt.

Jick, T. D.1979 "Mixing qualitative and quan-

titative methods: Triangulationin action." Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly,24: 602-661.

Jones, G. R.1986 "Socialization tactics, self-effi-

cacy, and newcomers' adjust-ments to organizations."Academy of Management

Journal, 29: 262-279.

Kanter, R. M.1968 "Commitment and social

organization: A study of com-mitment mechanisms inutopian communities." Ameri-can Sociological Review, 33:499-517.

1989 "The new managerial work."HarvardBusiness Review,December: 11-18.

Kiesler, C. A.1971 The Psychology of Commit-

ment. New York:AcademicPress.

Kram, K. E.1983 "Phases of the mentor rela-

tionship." Academy of Man-agement Journal, 26:608-625.

Kramer, R. M.1993 "Cooperation and organiza-

tional identification." In J. K.

Murnighan (ed.), Social Psy-chology in Organizations:Advances in Theory andResearch: 244-268. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kramer, R. M., and J. Wei1999 "Social uncertainty and the

problem of trust in socialgroups: The social self indoubt." In T. R. Tyler,R. M.Kramer,and 0. P.John (eds.),The Psychology of the SocialSelf: 145-168. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Kristoff, A. L.1996 "Person-organization fit: An

integrative review of its con-ceptualizations, measure-ment, and implications." Per-sonnel Psychology, 49: 1-49.

Kunda, G.1992 Engineering Culture: Control

and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. Philadel-phia: Temple University Press.

Lewin, K.

1958 "Group decision and socialchange." In T. M. Newcomband E. L. Hartley (eds.), Read-ings in Social Psychology:201-216. New York:Harper&Row.

Lipnack, J., and J. Stamps1997 VirtualTeams: Reaching

Across Space, Time, andOrganizations with Technolo-gy. New York:Wiley.

Locke, E., and G. R Latham1990 "Work motivation and satis-

faction: Light at the end ofthe tunnel." PsychologicalScience, 1: 240-246.

Lofland, J.1978 "'Becoming a world-saver'

revisited." In J. Richardson(ed.), Conversion Careers: Inand Out of New Religions:10-23. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Lofland, J., and R. Stark1965 "Becoming a world-saver: A

theory of conversion to a

deviant perspective." Ameri-can Sociological Review, 30:862-874.









Louis, M. R.1980 "Surprise and sensemaking:

What newcomers experiencein entering unfamiliar organi-zational settings." Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 25:226-251.

Maccoby, E. E.1980 Social Development: Psycho-

logical Growth and the Par-ent-Child Relationship. NewYork:Harcourt BraceJovanovich.

Marion, R.1991 Learning to Play God. Read-

ing, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Markus, H., and P. Nurius1986 "Possible selves." American

Psychologist, 41: 954-969.

McCarthy, E. D.1984 "Towards a sociology of thephysical world: George Her-bert Mead on physicalobjects." Studies in SymbolicInteraction, 5: 105-121.

Merton, R. K.1976 Sociological Ambivalence and

Other Essays. New York:FreePress.

Meyer, J. P., and N. Allen1997 Commitment in the Work-

place: Theory, Research and

Application. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman1984 Qualitative Data Analysis.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

O'Reilly, C. A.1989 "Corporations, culture, and

commitment: Motivation andsocial control in organiza-tions." CaliforniaManage-ment Review, 31 (Summer):9-25.

Pearce, J. L.

1998 "Job insecurity is important,but not for the reasons youmight think: The example ofcontingent workers." In C. L.Cooper and D. M. Rousseau(eds.), Trends in Organization-al Behavior, 5: 31-46. NewYork:Wiley.

Pettigrew, A.1990 "Longitudinalfield research

on change: Theory and prac-tice." Organization Science,1: 267-292.

Pfeffer, J., and J. N. Baron1988 "Taking he workers back out:

Recent trends in the structur-ing of employment." In B. M.Staw and L. L. Cummings(eds.), Research in Organiza-tional Behavior, 10: 257-303.Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

Pilzer, P. Z.1990 Unlimited Wealth: Theory and

Practice of Economic Alche-my. New York:Crown.

Pratt, M. G.1998 "Tobe or not to be: Central

questions in organizational

identification." In D. Whettenand P. Godfrey (eds.), Identityin Organizations: DevelopingTheory Through Conversa-*tions: 171-207. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

2000a 'Access as relating: On therelationship aspects of differ-ent types of access." In M.Feldman, J. Bell, and M.Berger (eds.), "Gainingaccess to people and organi-zations." Book manuscript,School of Public Policy, Uni-

versity of Michigan.2000b "Building an ideological

fortress: The role of spirituali-ty, encapsulation, and sense-making." Studies in Cultures,Organizations and Societies,6: 35-69.

Pratt, M. G., and C. K. Barnett1997 "Emotions and unlearning in

Amway recruiting techniques:Promoting change through'safe' ambivalence." Manage-ment Learning, 28: 65-88.

Pratt, M. G., and L. Doucet2000 'Ambivalent feelings in orga-

nizational relationships." In S.Fineman (ed.), Emotions inOrganizations, 2: 204-226.London: Sage.

Pratt, M. G., and J. E. Dutton2000 'Owning up or opting out:

The role of emotions andidentities in issue owner-ship." In N. Ashkanasy, C.Hartel, and W. Zerbe (eds.),Emotions in the Workplace:Research, Theory, and Prac-tice: 103-129. Westport, CT:Quorum Books.

Pratt, M. G., and J. A. Rosa2000 "Using work and nonwork

roles to motivate: Lessonsfrom network marketing orga-nizations." Working paper,Department of BusinessAdministration, University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Prelinger, E.1959 Extension and structure of

the self." Journal of Psychol-ogy, 47: 13-23.

Randall, D.1987 'Commitment and the organi-

zation: The organization manrevisited." Academy of Man-agement Review, 12:460-471.

Reger, R. K., L. T. Gustafson, S. M.Demarie, and J. V. Mullane1994 'Reframing the organization:

Why implementing total quali-ty is easier said than done."Academy of ManagementReview, 19: 565-584.

Salancik, G. R.1977 "Commitment and the control

of organizational behavior andbelief." In B. M. Staw andG. R. Salancik (eds.), NewDirections in OrganizationalBehavior: 1-54. Chicago: St.Clair.

Sarbin, T. R., and N. Adler1970 "Self-reconstitution process:

A preliminary report." Psycho-analytic Review, 57: 609-616.

Schein, E. H.

1987 Process Consulting, 2:Lessons for Managers andConsultants. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.

Schneider, B., H. W. Goldstein,and D. B. Smith1995 "The ASA framework: An

update." Personnel Psycholo-gy, 48: 747-773.

Sheldon, M. E.1971 "Investments and involve-

ments as mechanisms pro-ducing commitment to the

organization." AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 16:143-150.

Smelser, N. J.1998 'The rationaland the ambiva-

lent in the social sciences:1997 presidential address."American SociologicalReview, 63: 1-16.

Spradley, J. R1979 The Ethnographic Interview.

New York:Holt, Rinehart &Winston.

Starbuck, W. H., and F.J. Milliken1988 "Executives' perceptual fil-

ters: What they notice andhow they make sense." InD. C. Hambrick (ed.), TheExecutive Effect: Conceptsand Methods for StudyingTop Managers: 35-65. Green-wich, CT:JAI Press.

Stewart, T.1996 "Why value statements don't

work." Fortune, June 10:137-1 38.

Strauss, A., and J. M. Corbin1990 Basics of Qualitative

Research: Grounded TheoryProcedures and Techniques.Newbury Park,CA: Sage.








Tajfel, H.1982 "Social psychology of inter-

group relations." AnnualReview of Psychology, 33:1-39. Palo Alto, CA: AnnualReviews.

Tajfel, H., and J. C. Turner1979 "An integrative theory of

intergroup conflict." In W. G.Austin and S. Worchel (eds.),The Social Psychology ofGroup Relations: 33-47. Mon-terey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

1985 "The social identity theory ofintergroup behavior.' In S.Worchel and W. G. Austin(eds.), Psychology of Inter-group Behavior: 7-24. Chica-go: Nelson-Hall.

Trice, H., and J. M. Beyer1993 The Culture of Work Organi-

zations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Van Maanen, J.1975 Police socialization: A longi-

tudinal examination of job atti-tudes in a police depart-ment." AdministrativeScience Quarterly,20:207-226.

1979 The fact of fiction in organi-zational ethnography." Admin-istrative Science Quarterly,24: 539-550.

Van Maanen, J., and E. H. Schein1979 Towards a theory of organi-

zational socialization." InB. M. Staw (ed.), Research in

Organizational Behavior, 1:209-264. Greenwich, CT:JAIPress.

Weick, K. E.1995 Sensemaking in Organiza-

tions. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Weigert, A., and D. Franks1989 Ambivalence: A touchstone

of the modern temper." InD. D. Franks and E. D.McCarthy (eds.), The Sociolo-gy of Emotions: Original

Essays and Research Papers:205-227. Greenwich, CT:JAIPress.

Whyte, W. F.1984 Learning from the Field: A

Guide from Experience. Bev-erly Hills, CA:Sage.

Yager, D.1993 The Business Handbook: A

Guide to Building YourOwnSuccessful Amway Business.Charlotte, NC: InterNet Ser-vices Corporation.

Yin, R. K.1984 Case Study Research. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

Zimbardo, P, and S. Andersen1993 Understanding mind control:

Exotic and mundane mentalmanipulations." In M. Lan-gone (ed.), Recover fromCults: Help for Victims of Psy-chological and SpiritualAbuse: 104-125. New York:W.W. Norton.

APPENDIX: Dream Building with My Sponsor and Our Upline Emerald(Excerpt from field journal)

[After lunch in the city], we began "dream building." Dream building involveslooking for things (e.g., material things) that will motivate you. I told Markyesterday that I was interested in suits. So, we stopped by a clothing store.It was interesting to see Mark take control and get an employee to show mesome suits. He suggested colors of suits that he thought would look goodon me, such as olive and other green colors. After trying on a few suits, heencouraged me to try on what I liked." As I did so, he commented onthings he liked on me, as well as on what he was not as thrilled about (Ican't remember him being really negative about anything-he either saidsomething good or nothing). He suggested that I go into more clothingstores in the future to dream build.

We then got into the car and went into the mall. I suggested stopping atHerman's (sports store) as they were going out of business. Mark works outoften, as do 1.I looked around and finally found a few things to buy. I should

note that Iwanted to get a pairof athletic-style shorts. At the counter, wefound that they were $10 more than what we had thought. Mark said thatthey were much cheaper by his home and that he would pick me up a pair.

We then went into a leather goods store where Ifound an incredibly nicelooking leather jacket [it ended up being one of only things I liked all day]. Ishould note that Mark originally suggested that I look at the jacket, and healso expressed an interest in it. It was not on sale then, so Markasked asales clerk to call me when it was going to be on sale-so that I could callhim. He asked me if that was fine. I said it was. He was hoping that hecould send me the money when it went on sale so I could buy it for him. Ileft my phone number with the sales clerk....

We then went into another jewelry store. Mark had asked me in the car if Iwas interested in men's jewelry and I said "no." He said that everyone who

starts the business says the same thing, but that I might get to like them, ashe had. Inthe store, Mark had me look at diamond rings (single stones andmultiple stones). Mark looked at some also. Not much happened hereexcept that Markstumped the man behind the counter with 'expert ques-tions-such as the composition of the black molding on the ring. Markdemonstrated his knowledge of jewelry while at this and other stores (e.g.,asking questions about diamond fittings, asking to see a 'loop," telling us to









ask for .94 karat diamonds instead of a full karat because they are muchcheaper but are not smaller to the eye, etc.)....

After hitting a few more clothing stores with little success, we went to yetanother jewelry store. I acted quite a bit more confident at this store. (Markcommented that it was obvious that Zack and I knew nothing about jewelry,but that we should "fake it." Marklater said that Idid much better in this lat-est jewelry store because Iwalked right in and asked to see some diamond

rings. I did not, however, know specifically what I wanted and Mark said thatpeople who know what they want are treated well.)

We then went to a cookie store (Mark was getting hungry). He bought 2 andcould get the 3rd for free or cheaply, so he asked me if I wanted one. Afterbuying it he said jokingly, "here you go son." I responded lalso joking],"thanks, dad."

By this time, I was pretty wiped out and we decided to leave. We stoppedat a retail clothing store on the way back. I took charge and asked to seesome jackets. Mark and Zack also looked at suits this time. Once again,Mark commented on what he liked and asked the salesperson to show me adouble-breasted suit. While showing me the suits, Mark said something tothe effect that Iwould be rich soon otherwise he's wasting his time here.The salesperson seemed to get interested and jokingly said that Icould see

anything Iwanted. Marksaw some suits, too, but told the salesperson thathe would not be buying any as he had his own tailor. The salesperson wasgetting reeled in. Markthen began prospecting the salesperson....

We then headed back to my place. On the way, I asked Mark if he wantedto stop by the boot store. He said he would like that. Markhad said earlierhow much he liked cowboy boots and had asked me if there were any bootstores in the area. I stopped at a store on State Street. Mark knew that Iwas not interested in cowboy boots and he told me that Olivia (his wife) gotangry when he takes people dream-building and then goes looking for thingshe likes (in this case the boots). He said that it was important to do yourown dream building when you take folks around because it teaches them todream build. Most people don't know what they want, so you help teachthem by dream building yourself.

the good, the bad, and the ambivalent

Documents