Assignment 2: Critical Review (2400 Words, Excludes Referenc

2 Assignment 2 Critical Review 2400 Words Excluding Referencesfo

Paper For Above instruction

The proliferation of research in organizational behavior and management underscores the importance of understanding how individuals relate to and identify with their organizations. The two articles under review—Marya Besharov’s "The relational ecology of identification" and Jana Costas and Peter Fleming’s "Beyond dis-identification"—offer contrasting yet insightful perspectives on organizational identification and self-alienation. This critical comparison unpacks the theoretical frameworks, research methodologies, findings, and implications of these works, providing a nuanced understanding of the dynamics of self and organizational relationships.

Introduction

Organizational identification, the process by which individuals align their self-concept with their organization, influences employee behavior, sense of belonging, and organizational commitment. Besharov’s work conceptualizes this phenomenon through a relational ecology lens, emphasizing the diversity of individual values and how they collectively shape identification. Conversely, Costas and Fleming focus on the discursive construction of self, exploring how organizational narratives can engender dis-identification and self-alienation. Both articles contribute to debates about identity within organizations, yet they deploy distinct theoretical lenses—social ecology versus discursive construction—and employ different methodologies.

Theoretical Frameworks

Besharov’s "relational ecology of identification" draws upon ecological and relational theories, viewing organizational identification as an emergent property of interactions among diverse individual values. Her conceptualization underscores the heterogeneity of organizational members and how their relationships and divergent values impact collective identity formation (Besharov, 2014). The ecological perspective suggests that identification is not static but a dynamic process influenced by the environment and relationships.

In contrast, Costas and Fleming adopt a discursive approach rooted in social constructionism and narrative theories. Their focus is on how language and discourse shape individual identities in organizational contexts, emphasizing that self-alienation can result from discursive strategies employed by organizations. They argue that organizational narratives, far from merely reflecting reality, actively construct and influence employees' sense of self and their disconnection from organizational values (Costas & Fleming, 2014).

Methodology

Besharov’s article employs qualitative methods, including case studies and interviews, to explore how individuals’ values interact within organizational settings. The research emphasizes observational data to understand how divergent values lead to different forms of identification, ranging from attachment to detachment. Her approach allows for nuanced insights into relational dynamics.

Costas and Fleming’s work predominantly uses discourse analysis of organizational texts, statements, and narratives to examine how employees and managers discursively construct notions of self and dis-identification. Their qualitative analysis emphasizes language, rhetoric, and narrative patterns, enabling them to identify discursive strategies that foster or mitigate self-alienation.

Key Findings

Besharov finds that organizational identification is multifaceted and depends on the relational ecology—how individual values align or diverge within a network of relationships. Her research demonstrates that divergence in values can either fragment identification or be mediated through relational processes, leading to a nuanced understanding that identification is not simply present or absent but exists along a spectrum.

Costas and Fleming reveal that organizational narratives wield significant power in constructing employees’ identities. Dis-course strategies such as routines, rituals, and storytelling can reinforce identification or produce dis-identification. Their findings suggest that self-alienation can be a discursive product—an effect of organizational language and storytelling—rather than merely individual psychological states.

Implications for Theory and Practice

Besharov’s ecological perspective broadens the understanding of organizational identification by emphasizing diversity and relational processes. For practitioners, this implies fostering environments that respect individual differences and facilitate positive relational interactions can enhance collective identification and organizational loyalty.

Costas and Fleming highlight the importance of discourse management in organizations. Practitioners should be aware of how organizational narratives are constructed and used, as these narratives deeply affect employee identities. Discursive strategies can be intentionally employed to foster a sense of belonging and suppress self-alienation, promoting healthier organizational climates.

Critical Reflection

Both articles are valuable but through different lenses offer complementary insights. Besharov’s ecological approach advocates for understanding the diversity of values and relationships as core to identity formation, aligning with contemporary organizational complexity theories. Her methodology provides rich contextual insights but might overlook the power of language and discourse. Conversely, Costas and Fleming’s focus on discourse analysis underscores how language shapes self-perception, which is crucial given the semiotic nature of organizational communication.

However, each could benefit from integrating the other's perspective for a more holistic understanding. Combining relational ecology with discursive analysis could reveal how language mediates relational processes and value divergence. Such integration could enhance organizational strategies aimed at fostering identification and mitigating alienation.

Conclusion

The contrasting perspectives of Besharov and Costas & Fleming on organizational identification and dis-identification highlight the multifaceted nature of identity in organizational contexts. While the ecological approach emphasizes relational diversity and emergent processes, the discursive perspective underscores the power of language in shaping self-conception. Both frameworks are vital for a comprehensive understanding of employee engagement, organizational change, and culture. Future research can benefit from an integrated approach that examines relational and discursive dimensions collectively to develop more effective organizational interventions.

References

  • Besharov, Marya L. (2014). The relational ecology of identification: How organizational identification emerges when individuals hold divergent values. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1184–1208.
  • Costas, Jana, & Fleming, Peter. (2014). Beyond dis-identification: A discursive approach to self-alienation in contemporary organizations. Human Relations, 67(1), 1–25.
  • Ashcraft, K. L., & Mumby, D. K. (2004). Reworking gender: The discursive construction of gender in organizations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 138–154.
  • Brown, A. D., & Starkey, K. (2000). Organizational identity and the change process. Journal of Management Studies, 37(8), 1123–1147.
  • Serva, M. A., & Offerman, L. R. (2012). Organizational dissonance and employee outcomes: Disentangling the effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 408–425.
  • Sheridan, J. E. (1992). Organizational culture and employee resistance. Journal of Management, 18(4), 665–675.
  • Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. Sage Publications.
  • Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton & Company.
  • Gabriel, Y. (2004). Narrative, autobiography, and identity: Between close reading and cultural analysis. Organization, 11(3), 363–373.
  • Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013). A temporal view on organizational identity. Organization Science, 24(3), 790–806.

Related Assignments